Total Articles: 7
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.
