Civil Code § 3294
Punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice
Punitive damages are available in tort where the plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.
Read the official text at California Legislative Information →
Overview
Civil Code section 3294 authorizes punitive damages in non-contract actions where the plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. In employment litigation it is the gateway to exemplary damages on tort theories such as wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and FEHA violations — but not on a breach-of-contract claim.
Two features make the statute demanding: the heightened clear-and-convincing burden, and, for corporate employers, the requirement that the wrongful conduct be tied to a managing agent.
The requirements
Punitive damages are available only where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice — terms the statute defines and the cases construe to require despicable conduct, intent to harm, or a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.
The predicate conduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence — a standard higher than the preponderance standard governing liability and compensatory damages.
For a corporate employer, an officer, director, or managing agent must have committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. Misconduct by a low-level employee, without managing-agent involvement, does not expose the corporation to punitive damages.
Application in employment cases
Section 3294 supports punitive damages on a Tameny public-policy claim and on FEHA claims under Government Code section 12940, provided the predicates and managing-agent requirement are met. It does not apply to a claim sounding only in contract. (See Tameny; Gov. Code § 12940.)
Practice notes
Plead the section 3294 predicates specifically, and develop evidence tying the misconduct to a managing agent — the most common failure point on a punitive-damages claim against a corporate employer. Be prepared to meet the clear-and-convincing standard at trial.
Related on this site
Practitioner analysis, current as of June 2026 — not the statute itself. Statutes are amended and decisional law evolves; confirm the operative language and current authority at the official source before relying.