Total Articles: 21
Court Rejects FEHA Claim Brought by Employee Fired for Allegedly Filing False Harassment Complaint
Earlier this week, a state appellate court held that an employee failed to introduce substantial evidence under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) that his employer’s decision to terminate his employment was motivated by retaliatory animus. According to the California Court of Appeal, the employee, who was fired for allegedly making false statements related to his sexual harassment complaint against his supervisor, could not show that his employer’s stated reason for firing him was pretextual. Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, No. B226685, California Court of Appeal (January 23, 2012).
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING’S NEW PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing has just issued its first set of procedural regulations, available at http://tinyurl.com/DFEH-Regulations, and codified at 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 10000 et seq. The new rules will govern how the agency accepts and processes complaints of unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act, Ralph Act and the Disabled Persons Act.
California DFEH's New Procedural Regulations Will Facilitate the Claims Process for Employees
In early 2010, California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) proposed a series of new procedural regulations to govern the receipt, investigation, and conciliation of administrative complaints received by the department. Following a series of public hearings and a public comment period, the final regulations now have been approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State. They will go into effect on October 17, 2011, and are codified at Title 2, California Code of Regulations, sections 10000 through 10066.
California Court Allows "Me Too" Evidence to Show Employer Bias
In a potentially dangerous precedent for employers, a California appeals court has ruled that an employee claiming employer sexual or racial harassment can prove the employer's discriminatory intent by showing the employer harassed other workers, even though such harassment occurred outside the complaining employee's presence. Pantoja v. Thomas J. Anton, et al., No. F058414 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2011). The Court found the lower court improperly excluded evidence of the employer's alleged gender bias in the form of harassing activity against women employees other than the plaintiff. Although the excluded “me too” evidence related to harassing activity that occurred outside the plaintiff's presence — and even at times when she was not an employee — it should have been admitted as evidence of a discriminatory or biased intent or motive under California Evidence Code § 1101(b), the Court of Appeal concluded. The lower court's exclusion of the evidence on the grounds it was propensity or character evidence under Evidence Code § 1101(a) therefore was prejudicial.
California Supreme Court Holds That Stray Remarks Made by Non-Decision Makers Can Be Considered in Age Bias Case.
On August 5, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Reid v. Google, Inc., an age discrimination case that was dismissed at the trial court level on summary judgment. The trial judge dismissed the case after finding that stray remarks by individuals who had no involvement with the decision to terminate the plaintiffs employment were insufficient evidence of discrimination to send the case to trial. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judges order granting the employer summary judgment and held that the stray remarks by the non-decision makers was admissible to prove his claim of discrimination. The California Supreme Court agreed and rejected the strict application of the stray remarks doctrine in California discrimination cases.
MIXED MOTIVES IN FEHA CASES.
The plaintiff in an employment discrimination case must establish a link between the plaintiff's protected classification (e.g., race, sex, etc.) and adverse action (e.g., discharge, demotion, etc.). The opinions construing the Fair Employment and Housing Act say the plaintiff merely must show that unlawful discrimination was "a motivating factor" behind the allegedly discriminatory decision. The burden is not onerous. "A motivating factor" means illegal discrimination was just one reason behind the decision, even if other motivating reasons were perfectly legal.
ME TOO EVIDENCE IN DISCRIMINATION CASES.
The California Court of Appeals recent decision in Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Childrens Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties may change the way courts rule on evidence in discrimination cases. The court found admissible as proof of discrimination other employees testimony about discrimination against them. Such me too evidence therefore may be admissible to bootstrap the plaintiffs own claim.
Labor Law Review: With Wage Garnishments On The Rise, Employers Must Avoid Retaliatory Discharges.
During these tough economic times, as employees fall into debt, employers may see an increase in wage garnishments. Can an employer terminate an employee if the wage garnishments become a nuisance? The answer is: "It depends." Read this article for details.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FEHA CLAIMS ON THE VERGE OF EXTINCTION.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requires an employee to file an administrative complaint of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation within one year of the alleged unlawful employment practice. This statute of limitations provides employees with time to assert their claims. It also protects employers from stale claims, faded memories, and unavailable witnesses, and makes it easier for the administrative agency involved (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)) to investigate, obtain documents, find witnesses, etc.
SEVERAL NEW RETALIATION DECISIONS.
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.
Cal Supreme Court: Supervisors Not Personally Liable for Retaliation Under FEHA.
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.
No Individual Liability for Retaliation under the FEHA.
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 Californias 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 employers 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.
California Supreme Court Finds that Individuals Cannot Be Held Liable for Retaliation.
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.
Individuals Cannot be Held Liable for Retaliation Claims.
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.
Fire Departments Refusal To Assign Disabled Captain To His Desired Job Assignment Was Not An Adverse Employment Action.
In Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dept, 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.
Summary Judgment On Retaliation Claim Proper Where Terminated Employee Fails to Submit Evidence of Pretext (scroll down).
In Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Intl, 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 employers reason for terminating her was a pretext for retaliation.
California Supreme Court Broadens Retaliation Protections (pdf).
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 employees protected activity is subtle and the employers 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.
Student Athlete on Scholarship Is Not an Employee for FEHA Claims.
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.
Supervisor May Be Liable for Retaliation [PDF File].
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.
Circumstantial Evidence Might Be Sufficient To Support A Claim of Retaliation.
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.
Employee May Sue Religious Employer For Discrimination In Violation Of State Constitution And Federal Law.
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.
