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:
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.
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.)
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
and abetting (Complaint ¶7.)
Riverside County, CA
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].)
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
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.
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
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.
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Other
Intellectual Property
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Orange County, CA
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.
Orange County, CA
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.
Orange County, CA
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.
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Contra Costa County, CA
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
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Contra Costa County, CA
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).)
Fresno County, CA
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.
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
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.
Employment
Other Employment
Ventura County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
