What is Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Harassment?

Aiding and abetting is a form of derivative liability. Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 566.

A defendant is liable for aiding and abetting if the person:

  1. knows the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act, or
  2. gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the person’s own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person

Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144; see also Gov’t Code, § 12940(i).

Aiding and abetting cannot be imposed on a party who is the alleged discriminator, retaliator, etc. Navarrete v. Mayer (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276 (aider and abettor liability imposes liability on a person who did not personally cause the harm to plaintiff).

Mere knowledge and the failure to prevent it do not constitute aiding and abetting. Austin B. v. Escondido Union School District (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 879. Failing to act is insufficient for aiding and abetting under FEHA:

“A failure to act is a far cry from providing substantial assistance and conflates an ‘aiding and abetting’ claim with a claim brought under Cal. Gov.Code § 12940(k), which makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Ortiz v. Georgia Pacific (E.D. Cal. 2013) 973 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1184.

It requires the defendant “to reach a conscious decision to participate in tortious activity for the purpose of assisting another in performing a wrongful act.” Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 823 n.10.

It applies to joint tortfeasors. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 823 n.10.

Note, individuals who are not themselves employers cannot be sued under FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts, nor for claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664.

And “liability cannot be imposed upon the State under the aiding and abetting provisions of FEHA...” Vernon v. State (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 132.

Useful Rulings on Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Harassment (FEHA)

Rulings on Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Harassment (FEHA)

1-25 of 3959 results

JANE DOE VS DALE POE REAL ESTATE, INC., ET AL.

Although supervisory employees are personally liable for sexual harassment and for aiding and abetting the harasser if they participate in or substantially assist or encourage continued harassment, under the FEHA, mere inaction does not constitute aiding and abetting. (1326.) However, a supervisor who personally engages in sexually harassing conduct is personally liable under the FEHA. (Id. at 1327.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARTINEZ VS THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES

and abetting (Complaint ¶7.)

  • Hearing

CAMILLE MEGGS VS NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA LLC ET AL

She alleges that Adzhemyan, through his actions toward Plaintiff, compelled, coerced, aided, and abetted the discrimination, which is prohibited under Government Code, §12940(i). (Id., ¶¶109, 119; see Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1331 [stating that an supervisor/employee may be personally liable for harassment by personally engaging in harassment or aiding and abetting such conduct].)

  • Hearing

ZUCKOWICH VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

A supervisor who, without more, fails to take action to prevent sexual harassment of an employee is not personally liable as an aider and abettor of the harasser, an aider and abettor of the employer or an agent of the employer." Id., at 1331. Here, there is no other employee that Defendant Fielder allegedly aided or abetted. The aiding and abetting subsection of FEHA has no application to this action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ZUCKOWICH VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

A supervisor who, without more, fails to take action to prevent sexual harassment of an employee is not personally liable as an aider and abettor of the harasser, an aider and abettor of the employer or an agent of the employer." Id., at 1331. Here, there is no other employee that Defendant Fielder allegedly aided or abetted. The aiding and abetting subsection of FEHA has no application to this action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CANDY LOPEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC ET AL

Aiding and Abetting The UPS Parties argue that there is no civil cause of action for aiding and abetting conspiracy and attempted extortion under California law.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

STEWART VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

Seventh Cause of Action (Aiding-and-Abetting) A supervisor may be personally liable for aiding-and-abetting another’s violation of Section 12940: “If the supervisor participates in the sexual harassment or substantially assists or encourages continued harassment, the supervisor is personally liable under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser.” (Fiol v. Doellsted (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318,1327.)

  • Hearing

DEBORAH PETERSON VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Plaintiff's allegation that she complained about "discrimination, harassment, and retaliation" is insufficient to allege facts that she engaged in a protected activity. Indeed, there are no facts as to what Plaintiff specifically complained about. On this basis alone, CDCR's demurrer is sustained. The Court need not reach CDCR's remaining arguments. Seventh Cause of Action (Aiding and Abetting-Gov't Code § 12940(i)) CDCR's demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AASIR AZZARMI VS DELTA AIR LINES, INC, ET AL.

and abetting charges under Penal Code §31, (34) involuntary servitude, (35) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (36) discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and/or color in violation of FEHA, (37) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA, (38) quid pro quo sexual harassment, and (39) wrongful termination in violation of filing a workers compensation claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRIS GALLIVAN VS LEXIE SHINE ET AL

FEHA Housing Retaliation and Aiding & Abetting (Gov’t Code § 12955(f) and (g)) CareForward argues that Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support a housing retaliation or aiding and abetting liability (Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1153).

  • Hearing

LARA VS. MITSUBISHI RAYON CARBON FIBER AND COMPOSITES, INC.

Issue No. 8: Eighth Cause of Action for Failure to Maintain Free of Discrimination/ Harassment fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action at a matter of law: Issue No. 9: Ninth Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting Discrimination fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action at a matter of law. Issue No. 10: Tenth Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action at a matter of law.

  • Hearing

MOLENKAMP VS. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.

Third Cause of Action – for Aiding and Abetting Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s aiding and abetting claim fails because Plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting her “aiding and abetting” theory or identify any of the 11 individuals she now contends are “aides and abettors” in her administrative complaint and she is therefore barred from pursuing that claim now for failure to exhaust her administrative remedy. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

MOLENKAMP VS. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.

Third Cause of Action – for Aiding and Abetting Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s aiding and abetting claim fails because Plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting her “aiding and abetting” theory or identify any of the 11 individuals she now contends are “aides and abettors” in her administrative complaint and she is therefore barred from pursuing that claim now for failure to exhaust her administrative remedy. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

VALINE SARMAS VS FRANK G. SILVERIA, III, AN INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS AS THE SILVERIA TEAM ET AL.

The demurrer of Defendants, Kris Thompson and Suzanne Candini, to the 5th cause of action for sexual harassment (aiding and abetting) is sustained, without leave to amend. Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 C.A.4th 1318, 1325-1326. The demurrer of Defendants, CVRV-Stockton and CVRV-Modesto, to the 5th cause of action for sexual harassment (aiding and abetting) is sustained, with leave to amend. The SAC alleges that the other defendants aided and abetted the sexual harassment perpetrated upon Plaintiff by Mr.

  • Hearing

AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

and abetting charges under Penal Code §31, (34) involuntary servitude, (35) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (36) discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and/or color in violation of FEHA, (37) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA, (38) quid pro quo sexual harassment, and (39) wrongful termination in violation of filing a workers compensation claim.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEWART VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 713.) 7th C/A (Aiding and Abetting). Plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating that anyone other than defendant Reich harassed plaintiff, and as the authorities cited in the reply memorandum state, an individual employee cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting the corporate employer in acts of discrimination and retaliation.

  • Hearing

DANA CISNEROS VS WESTERN TRUCK INSURANCE FINANCE CORP ET AL

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 12/07/17 against defendants for: (1) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) race/color/national origin/ ancestry discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to accommodate/engage in an interactive process in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation for requesting accommodation in violation of FEHA; (6) hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CANDY LOPEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC ET AL

and abetting extortion, the seventeenth cause of action for racial discrimination, the eighteenth cause of action for gender discrimination, the nineteenth cause of action for harassment based on race, the twentieth cause of action for harassment based on gender, the twenty-first cause of action for unfair business practices, and the twenty-fourth cause of action for violation of the Unruh Act (Civil Code sections 51 and 52).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ZULEMA LOPEZ VILLEGAS VS MARIA INES CARMONA-FLORES

procedural history Fujimori filed the Complaint on May 15, 2019, alleging eighteen causes of action: FEHA Sex/Gender Discrimination FEHA Sex/Gender Harassment FEHA Disability Discrimination FEHA Failure to Accommodate Disability FEHA Failure to Engage in Good Faith Process FEHA Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Harassment FEHA Retaliation FEHA Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Unruh Civil Rights Discrimination Aiding and Inciting Discrimination Interference with Exercise of Civil

  • Hearing

AASIR AZZARMI VS DELTA AIR LINES, INC, ET AL.

and abetting charges under Penal Code §31, (34) involuntary servitude, (35) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (36) discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and/or color in violation of FEHA, (37) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA, (38) quid pro quo sexual harassment, and (39) wrongful termination in violation of filing a workers compensation claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RICHARD PARKER JR VS D&A ENDEAVORS INC ET AL

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) race/color/national origin/ancestry discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to accommodate/engage in an interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation for requesting accommodations/opposing practices forbidden by FEHA; (5) hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to do everthing reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NGUYEN VS. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UN

Cause of Action 2 (FEHA Harassment) Plaintiff sued several of the individual defendants for harassment in cause of action 2. An individual defendant can be liable for harassment under FEHA either directly or by aiding and abetting the unlawful conduct. (Matthews v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 598, 605.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ROBILLARD V. FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

As the writers point out, their aiding and abetting claims are based upon allegations that each agency assisted each employer in carrying out a systemic policy of age discrimination in hiring against older writers as a class. FEHA makes it an unlawful practice for “any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this part, or to attempt to do so.” (Gov.Code, § 12940, subd. (i).)

  • Hearing

MICHELE A BROWN VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the seventh cause of action for IIED, eighth cause of action for negligence, ninth cause of action for NIED, fifteenth cause of action for civil conspiracy, eighteenth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and twenty-first cause of action for aiding and abetting.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HIRAISHI V OXNARD UNION HIGH

The Court sustains Defendant DeLeon's demurrer to cause of action 3 – Unlawful aiding and abetting. The mere failure to take action does not constitute aiding and abetting. It is also not possible to aid and abet a non act (P has not pled sexual harassment). The Court overrules the demurrer by Defendant OUHSD to cause of action 4– Failure to prevent retaliation and harassment, since the allegations are sufficient regarding retaliation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 159     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.