Short answer. The Labor Code bars an employer from discharging or discriminating in any manner against an employee who filed a complaint. Non-renewal timed to punish you for complaining fits within that broad "any manner" language, even though the article does not use the word "renewal" itself.
What the law says
It shall be unlawful for an employer to refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits, discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee who has filed any complaint or instituted any proceeding under this Title or has testified or is about to testify in such proceedings.
Labor Code, Article 118 — Retaliation Prohibited. Read the full provision →
The article's language is not limited to a single act
Article 118 lists refusing to pay or reducing wages and benefits, discharge, and then adds a broader closing category: or in any manner discriminate against any employee who filed a complaint, instituted a proceeding, or testified or is about to testify. That closing phrase, "in any manner," is deliberately broad. It is not confined to the specific acts named earlier in the sentence; it reaches conduct beyond them, provided it amounts to discrimination against the employee for the protected act. That closing phrase also has a boundary of its own: Article 118 sits in the Labor Code's Title on Wages, so the complaint or proceeding it protects is one brought under that title — a wage claim, for instance — rather than every grievance an employee might ever raise at work.
Why non-renewal is not named, but may still fit
The article does not specifically mention refusing to renew a contract. What it does is prohibit discrimination in any manner against a complaining employee — language broad enough to potentially cover an employer's decision not to renew, where that decision is a reaction to the complaint rather than an ordinary business judgment. Whether a particular non-renewal counts as discrimination "in any manner" is the interpretive question this general language leaves for the facts of the case.
What separates retaliatory non-renewal from an ordinary one
Article 118 targets action taken because the employee filed a complaint, instituted a proceeding, or testified. A contract simply reaching its natural end, unconnected to any complaint, is not what this article addresses. The article's concern is the motive and timing behind the employer's decision — whether the non-renewal is genuinely tied to your having complained, rather than to unrelated business reasons.
What to keep a record of
Since the article's broad language depends on showing a connection between your complaint and the employer's decision, keep the dates of your complaint, any communications about your contract's renewal, and the timing of the non-renewal decision itself. That sequence is what would show the non-renewal falls within the discrimination Article 118 forbids, rather than being an unrelated business decision. Dates matter more than impressions here: when you complained, to whom, and how soon afterwards the non-renewal was communicated to you.