|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link SEVERAL NEW “RETALIATION” DECISIONS.Shaw Valenza LLP - July 07, 2008 The courts have issued a significant number of retaliation decisions in the past several weeks. The U.S. Supreme Court held in two cases that employees are protected from adverse employment actions for complaining about civil rights violations, even when the underlying statutes did not contain anti-retaliation provisions. Two panels of the California Court of Appeal went in different directions regarding what constitutes “retaliation.” Report Link Cal Supreme Court: Supervisors Not Personally Liable for Retaliation Under FEHA.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - April 17, 2008 The California Supreme Court handed a major victory to employers on March 3rd in a case titled Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines. The decision related to liability under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). The California law prohibits discrimination in the workplace, and also prohibits retaliation against an employee who protests illegal discrimination, files a complaint, or testifies in a legal proceeding.
Report Link California Supreme Court Rejects Personal Liability for Supervisors in FEHA Retaliation Cases.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 04, 2008 Individual supervisors cannot be held liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, according to a long-awaited decision issued by the California Supreme Court in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership. No. S151022 (2008). The Court found that the statutory language was ambiguous on the issue, and that the legislative history of FEHA did not support such an extension of liability for retaliation to individual supervisors. Report Link Recent Employment-Related Holdings in the California and United States Supreme Courts—Both Focused on the Roles of Supervisors in Litigation.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - April 04, 2008 A recent ruling by the California Supreme Court in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership et al (March 3, 2008) resolved an important question regarding the role of a supervisor in an employee’s retaliation claim under California’s principal equal employment opportunity law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Concluding that the only proper defendant in a FEHA retaliation claim is the employer, the California Supreme Court held that supervisors are not individually liable for such claims. Report Link No Individual Liability for Retaliation under the FEHA.Shaw Valenza LLP - March 12, 2008 The California Supreme Court continued a trend on Monday, March 3, 2008, when it held in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines that supervisors cannot be held individually liable for retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Court has consistently shielded individual supervisors from various other forms of employment related claims. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. Bement, a 2005 decision, that individual corporate agents, including officers, directors, and shareholders, could not be personally liable for an employer’s failure to pay wages to its employees. Similarly, in 2000, the Court held in Carrisales v. Department of Corrections that individual, non-supervisory employees could not be held liable for harassment. Report Link The California Supreme Court Narrowly Rules That Individuals Are Not Liable for Retaliation in Some Circumstances.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 07, 2008 In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court in Jones v. The Lodge at Torry Pines Partnership, et al. found that nonemployer individuals (e.g., supervisors) are not personally liable for claims of retaliation brought under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), at least when the retaliation is not in response to a complaint of sex harassment. The case resolves an unsettled question brought to prominence by the 1998 California Supreme Court opinion in Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640. In Baird, the court held that nonemployer individuals cannot be held personally liable for discrimination under the FEHA because discrimination arises "out of the performance of necessary personnel management duties" that are "an inherent and unavoidable part of the supervisory function." By contrast, nonemployer individuals can be held personally liable for harassment, which "consists of a type of conduct not necessary for performance of a supervisory job" and is "presumably engaged in for personal gratification" or due to meanness, bigotry, or for other personal motives." Report Link California Supreme Court Finds that Individuals Cannot Be Held Liable for Retaliation.Ford & Harrison LLP - March 05, 2008 The California Supreme Court recently held that individuals who are not employers cannot be held liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Gov. Code § 12940(j)). See Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (3/3/08).
In this case, Jones complained that his supervisor, Weiss, and another manager created a hostile work environment and discriminated against him by telling sexual jokes and making sexually charged comments. After Jones complained, Weiss threatened to fire him, gave him a negative performance review, excluded him from weekly management meetings and issued him four performance warnings. Jones later attempted to resign, but was told his services were no longer needed. Report Link Individuals Cannot be Held Liable for Retaliation Claims.Ogletree Deakins - March 04, 2008 In Reno v. Baird, the California Supreme Court held in 1998 that individuals are not personally liable for discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Similarly, today the Court ruled in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership that while employers may be held liable, individuals may not be held financially responsible for retaliation claims in the discrimination context. Report Link Fire Department’s Refusal To Assign Disabled Captain To His Desired Job Assignment Was Not An “Adverse Employment Action.”Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dep’t, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Los Angeles Fire Department on claims for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and adverse employment action in violation of public policy. The court held that the Department did not subject plaintiff Gregory Malais to an adverse employment action as a matter of law. Report Link Summary Judgment On Retaliation Claim Proper Where Terminated Employee Fails to Submit Evidence of Pretext (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int’l, the California Court of Appeal held that summary judgment was properly granted on the retaliation claim of plaintiff Diane Loggins because she failed to offer substantial evidence that her employer’s reason for terminating her was a pretext for retaliation. Report Link California Supreme Court Broadens Retaliation Protections (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - August 24, 2005 In a 4-2 decision, the California Supreme Court held on Thursday that an employee can maintain
a retaliation action against an employer even where the employee’s protected activity is “subtle” and the employer’s actions are negligible. This ruling reminds California employers to be extremely careful when taking adverse action against any employee who engages in activity that may be considered protected. Report Link Whistleblower Protection Without Blowing the Whistle? The California Supreme Court Says That Employees Can Silently Oppose Discrimination and Still Sue for Retaliation.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 15, 2005 California employers will need to be on their increased guard to protect themselves against retaliation claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) following a California Supreme Court decision that significantly expands employee rights to sue for retaliation. In order to establish a claim for retaliation, an employee must establish that he or she engaged in “protected activity” (i.e., opposed unlawful conduct); that he or she was subjected to an “adverse employment action” because of that activity; and that he or she suffered damages. In Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the standard for opposing unlawful conduct, and resolved a conflict among the lower courts about how to define an adverse employment action. The decision will make it easier for employees to bring claims of retaliation, and will make it correspondingly more difficult for employers to get retaliation cases dismissed prior to trial. Report Link California Court Permits Retaliation Claim by Employee Who Refused to Fire a "Not Hot" Subordinate.Kauff, McClain & McGuire LLP - March 12, 2003 In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal allowed a former cosmetics company sales manager to proceed with a claim that her employer retaliated against her for refusing to fire a subordinate whom her boss deemed unattractive. Report Link Student Athlete on Scholarship Is Not an Employee for FEHA Claims.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - December 01, 2002 The California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for a university holding a Labor Code provision excluding student athletes from the definition of "employee" barred a student's suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for discriminatory termination of her scholarship. Report Link Supervisor May Be Liable for Retaliation [PDF File].Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2002 A California appeals court has ruled that a supervisor may be individually liable for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Walrath v. Sprinkel. Report Link Personal Liability for Retaliation Under FEHA [PDF File].Bingham McCutchen LLP - August 01, 2002 On July 2, 2002, a California Court of Appeal held that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Cal Gov’t Code §§ 12900 et seq., authorizes individual liability of supervisors who retaliate against employees
in violation of the FEHA. Walrath v. Sprinkel, 2002 DJDAR 7561. Report Link Circumstantial Evidence Might Be Sufficient To Support A Claim of Retaliation.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - May 14, 2002 A California appellate court reinstated a discrimination case based on circumstantial evidence that the employee's supervisor said she was "going to get revenge" against anyone who cooperated in the investigation against her. Report Link Employee May Sue Religious Employer For Discrimination In Violation Of State Constitution And Federal Law.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - March 18, 2002 Discusses Phillips v. St. Mary Regional Medical Center 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1831 (Cal.App.4th Dist., Div. 2, 2/19/02), in which the court held that FEHA, Title VII and the California constitution were sufficient authority to overcome the religious-entity exemption under the pre-amended version of FEHA. Report Link The “Continuing Violation” Doctrine Revisited [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - October 01, 2001 Discusses Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. No. S087484 (Cal. August 23, 2001), in which the court held that, under certain circumstances, employers can be held liable for unlawful harassing or discriminatory actions under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) occurring outside the applicable one-year statute of limitations.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 19SUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
Managing Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?
Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire WoodsThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActStamford
2008-9-10 Jackson Lewis LLPHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSan Francisco
September 11, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds