Labor Code 970 Claims

California Labor Code 970 Claims: False Job Promises and Relocation

Accepting a new job often requires much more than changing employers. An employee may resign from a secure position, move to another city or state, incur substantial relocation expenses, and disrupt the life of an entire family.

California Labor Code section 970 protects employees when an employer knowingly uses false representations about a job to persuade them to relocate. Depending on the circumstances, an employee who proves a violation may recover double the damages caused by the employer’s misrepresentations.

If you moved for a job and soon discovered that the position, compensation, responsibilities, or employment opportunity was materially different from what you were promised, the timing and surrounding evidence should be carefully evaluated.

Contact our office to request a consultation concerning a potential Labor Code section 970 claim. We represent employees in Sacramento and throughout California.

What Does California Labor Code Section 970 Prohibit?

California Labor Code section 970 prohibits an employer or its representatives from persuading a person to change their residence for work through knowingly false representations concerning:

• The kind, character, or existence of the work;
• How long the work will last;
• The compensation for the work;
• Housing or sanitary conditions connected with the work; or
• The existence of a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute affecting the work.

The law can apply when an employee moves from another state into California, moves from one location to another within California, or moves from California to another state. The move does not necessarily have to be permanent. California courts have recognized that even a temporary change of residence may qualify. However, merely accepting a job at a different worksite, without changing one’s residence, generally is not enough.

Common Examples of Potential Labor Code 970 Violations

A potential claim may arise when an employee relocates based on a specific representation such as:

• “You will be leading a new department,” when the employer has no genuine plan to create that department;
• “This position has already been funded for the next two years,” when management knows that funding is about to end;
• “Your compensation will include a particular salary, commission structure, or guaranteed bonus,” when the company does not intend to provide it;
• “You will report directly to the CEO and have authority to hire your own team,” when the employer intends to place the employee in a materially inferior role;
• “The job is located in Sacramento,” when the employer already plans to transfer the position elsewhere;
• “The company is expanding this division,” when management has already decided to eliminate or outsource it; or
• “The necessary product, customer base, or operational infrastructure is already in place,” when the employer knows it does not exist.

A disappointing job, an unexpected termination, or an employer’s later change of plans does not automatically violate section 970. The employee ordinarily must show that the representation was false and that the employer knew it was false at the time it was made.

What Must an Employee Prove?

Under California’s civil jury instructions, an employee generally must prove:

1. The employer made a representation about the work, its duration, compensation, or another subject covered by section 970;
2. The representation was not true;
3. The employer knew the representation was not true when it was made;
4. The employer intended the employee to rely upon it;
5. The employee reasonably relied on the representation and changed residences for the purpose of taking the job;
6. The employee suffered harm; and
7. The employee’s reliance was a substantial factor in causing that harm.

The most difficult issue is often proving the employer’s knowledge at the time of recruitment. A promise that later proves inaccurate is not necessarily a knowing misrepresentation.

How Can an Employee Prove the Employer Knew the Promise Was False?

Employers rarely admit that they misled a candidate. Knowledge therefore often must be established through circumstantial evidence.

Potentially important evidence includes:

• Emails, text messages, LinkedIn messages, and recruiter communications;
• The job posting and written job description;
• Offer letters, compensation plans, and relocation agreements;
• Notes made during interviews or recruiting calls;
• Organizational charts and proposed reporting structures;
• Internal budgets, restructuring plans, or outsourcing discussions;
• Evidence showing that the promised position never actually existed;
• Evidence that the company was already planning layoffs or elimination of the position;
• Testimony from recruiters, managers, coworkers, or other candidates;
• The short period between the employee’s relocation and the employer’s contrary action; and
• Differences between what several company representatives said before and after the employee accepted the job.

Timing can be particularly significant. For example, if an employer eliminates a supposedly long-term position shortly after the employee arrives, that fact alone may not prove fraud. But it may become powerful evidence when combined with internal plans showing that management was already considering the elimination during recruitment.

Employees should preserve relevant evidence before access to company accounts, devices, or messaging platforms is terminated. This does not mean taking privileged communications, trade secrets, or documents the employee has no right to possess.

Can an At-Will Employee Bring a Labor Code 970 Claim?

At-will employment does not automatically defeat every section 970 claim. An enforceable at-will provision may prevent an employee from reasonably relying on a promise that employment will last for a specific period. But it does not necessarily defeat reliance on misrepresentations about the position itself.

In White v. Smule, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that an employee’s at-will agreement prevented reliance on representations about how long the employment would last. Nevertheless, the employee could continue pursuing allegations that the employer misrepresented the role he would actually perform. Thus, even an at-will employee may have a viable claim based on false representations about matters such as:

• Job duties and responsibilities;
• Title and seniority;
• Reporting structure;
• Authority to manage or hire employees;
• Compensation;
• Working hours;
• Benefits; or
• Whether the promised position genuinely existed.

The language of the offer letter and at-will agreement must be analyzed together with the particular representations made during recruitment.

Do Oral Promises Count?

Yes. Section 970 expressly applies to knowingly false representations made orally, in writing, or through printed advertising. The absence of a written promise can make the claim more difficult to prove, but it does not automatically eliminate the claim. An employee’s testimony may be supported by contemporaneous notes, messages to family members, recruiter communications, calendar entries, or evidence showing that the employee asked detailed questions about the representation before deciding to move.

Specific statements are generally more useful than vague recruiting enthusiasm. A statement that “you will supervise a team of 12 engineers” is more concrete than a statement that “you will have a great future here.”

What Damages Are Available?

Under Labor Code section 972, a person who violates section 970 may be liable for double the damages resulting from the misrepresentations.

Depending on the facts and the legal claims asserted, recoverable losses may include:

• Moving and relocation expenses;
• Lost income from the employee’s former job;
• Lost employment opportunities;
• Housing-related losses;
• Compensation the employee lost because the promised terms were not provided;
• Expenses incurred in reliance on the job offer; and
• Other economic losses caused by the relocation and misrepresentation.

Related claims—such as fraudulent inducement, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or promissory estoppel—may also be available. The recoverable damages and applicable deadlines depend upon the particular claims and facts.

What Should You Do If You Were Recruited Under False Pretenses?

If you believe you were misled into relocating for employment:

1. Preserve the job posting, offer letter, employment agreement, and relocation documents.
2. Save relevant emails, texts, recruiter messages, and voicemail messages.
3. Write a detailed chronology of what was promised, who made each statement, and when it was made.
4. Document when and how you learned that the statements were false.
5. Keep records of moving costs, housing expenses, lost income, and other financial losses.
6. Identify witnesses who participated in recruitment or knew about the employer’s actual plans.
7. Avoid signing a severance agreement or release before evaluating how it may affect your claims.
8. Consult an employment attorney promptly because legal deadlines may apply.

Discuss a Potential Labor Code 970 Claim

Labor Code section 970 cases are highly dependent on the particular representations made, the employer’s knowledge during recruitment, the employee’s reliance, and the resulting damages. If you moved for a position that turned out to be materially different from what you were promised, submit your information through our contact page. We will respond within one business day.