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 Resources for Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Harassment (FEHA)

Rulings on Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Harassment (FEHA)

3951-3975 of 4089 results

JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, ET AL. VS PARK WELLINGTON OWNERS' ASSOCIATION

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Government Code section 12989.1 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing a civil action for housing discrimination. In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff initially failed to identify which section of the California FEHA that was claimed to have been violated by Defendant. Now that Plaintiffs have identified the claim as one for violation the fair housing sections, Defendant withdraws its demurrer as to the third cause of action.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

JAMES CARTER III VS. DISCOUNT COURIER SERVICES INC

Code-FEHA and Business and Professions Code section 17200 claims. The FAC also alleges that defendants improperly misclassified plaintiffs and other driver employees as independent contractors and not employees, and retaliated against plaintiffs after they complained about the misclassification. FAC, e.g., paragraphs 136, 158. As such, the FAC pleads statutory violation claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JAMES CARTER III VS. DISCOUNT COURIER SERVICES INC

Code-FEHA and Business and Professions Code section 17200 claims. The FAC also alleges that defendants improperly misclassified plaintiffs and other driver employees as independent contractors and not employees, and retaliated against plaintiffs after they complained about the misclassification. FAC, e.g., paragraphs 136, 158. As such, the FAC pleads statutory violation claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STACIE HERNANDEZ VS CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON -- LOS ANGELES COUNTY, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.

In this action, Plaintiff has asserted a cause of action for gender and disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARK BRUESEHOFF VS KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

Included within the scope of this Agreement are all disputes, whether based on tort, contract, statute (including, but not limited to, any claims of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, whether they be based on the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, . . . or any other state or federal law or regulation), equitable law, or otherwise. . . .

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOANNA TARNAVA, AN IND. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; ET AL

Such a resolution may not have directly benefitted Tarnava, unlike the voluntary grievance in McDonald, where an employee grieved about race discrimination when her public employer allegedly refused to interview her for a better position and could have achieved an interview or other result if the grievance was upheld. 45 Cal.4th at 97. Nonetheless, nothing in McDonald requires that the grievant obtain a personal benefit.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

ALLIANCE FOR COLLEGE-READY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INC., VS UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES

Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 78 [upholding plaintiff’s right to bring wrongful termination claim without exhausting administrative remedies for statutory FEHA claim].) Alliance argues that because the common law tort for malicious prosecution pre-dated the availability of administrative remedies under PERB, any availability of fees for bad faith or malicious conduct within that administrative context is cumulative to the existing common law right, not exclusive to it. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

JACQUELINE BARNETT ET AL VS AVALON VILLA HEALTH CARE INC

In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs allege seven causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) employment discrimination (disparate treatment) on the basis of race; (3) employment discrimination (disparate impact) on the basis of race; (4) harassment on the basis of race; (5) harassment on the basis of age; (6) employment discrimination (disparate treatment) on the basis of age and (7) violation of Labor Code, section 1102.5, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MUHAMMAD FAISAL ADNAN VS PARSONS CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Misrepresentation in Violation of Labor Code § 970; Fraud and Deceit; Discrimination (National Origin); Discrimination (Religion); Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA; Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On March 6, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SAN FRANCISCO SPINE SURGEONS, PC V. BRIAN BLATZ, ET AL.

Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1483 [“The primary right protected by the state civil service system is the right to continued employment, while the primary right protected by FEHA is the right to be free from invidious discrimination and from retaliation for opposing discrimination.”].) In the Court’s view, these are different primary rights than the right adjudicated in the arbitration. Blatz does not persuade the Court to the contrary with reasoned analysis.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

VERNON CRESWELL VS CITY OF MONTEBELLO

BACKGROUND In this employment action, Plaintiff Vernon Creswell (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he has been subjected to retaliation for filing a prior lawsuit for racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against Defendant City of Montebello (“Defendant”) On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a government claim with Defendant and identified Chief Fernando Pelaez (“Chief Pelaez”) as a witness to his claims. (Van Ligten Decl. Ex.

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PAULA THOMAS ET AL VS THOMAS WYLDE LLC ET AL

On October 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a complaint and on January 29, 2016, the operative first amended complaint for (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) unpaid wages, (4) sexual harassment, (5) disability discrimination, (6) failure to engage in the interactive process, (7) failure to accommodate, (8) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, (9) wrongful termination in violation of the FEHA, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (11)

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2016

CASSANDRA LOWE VS GREAT AMERICAN CHICKEN CORP INC

In the Complaint, Plaintiff allege eleven causes of action for: (1) assault; 2) Battery; 3) sexual discrimination; 4) racial discrimination; 5) sexual harassment (including paramour sexual harassment); 6) racial harassment; 7) failure to take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment; 8) retaliation for opposing sexual and racial harassment; 9) failure to take steps necessary to prevent relaxation; 10) negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention; and 11) wrongful & tortious discharge in violation of public

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GERARDO TORRES VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

In addition, because of the availability of attorney fees under the FEHA, the attorneys had reason to assume that the amount of Weeks's recovery would not limit the amount of fees they ultimately received.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARJAN RABBI VS ALEX WEINGARTEN, ET AL.

DISCUSSION Factual and procedural background On 8/1/19 Plaintiff Marjan Rabbi commenced this seven cause of action employment discrimination complaint against Venable LLP, and two of its partners, Alex Weingarten and Daniel Silverman, for various FEHA and other claims arising out of her employment as a legal secretary at Venable. On 9/18/19, Defendants filed their petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiff opposes the petition. This is the second hearing on this petition.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KASARDA VS FCA US LLC

In addition, because of the availability of attorney fees under the FEHA, the attorneys had reason to assume that the amount of Weeks's recovery would not limit the amount of fees they ultimately received.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RHINES VS. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff has not filed a motion seeking leave to amend her pleading. 3rd COA: FEHA Retaliatory Harassment Paragraph 41 of the FAC alleges that defendant Austin "was verbally harassing and bullying employees at the Perry Elementary School on a continual basis at the workplace." Plaintiff transferred to a different school as a result of this harassment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LUCIANNA BORREGO VS. RALEYS FAMILY OF FINE STORES

Background In this putative class action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's Return to Work Policy violated FEHA in that until 2015 it provided transitional duty assignments to employees with on-the-job injuries, but not to pregnant employees with similar medical restrictions.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KASARDA VS FCA US LLC

In addition, because of the availability of attorney fees under the FEHA, the attorneys had reason to assume that the amount of Weeks's recovery would not limit the amount of fees they ultimately received.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LAURA GONZALEZ VS ENERGY ENTERPRISES USA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant argues that there was a lack of notice or prior knowledge of the harassment because the first time they received notice was after Plaintiff’s termination and/or when they received the FEHA administrative charge. (DSSF 31-41, 81.) However, this argument is grounded on narrow reading of the evidence and Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Plaintiff testifies to orally complaining about Mr. Fogelson’s inappropriate touching on seven occasions prior to her November 30, 2018 discharge.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WASHINGTON PINCAY VS G2 SECURE STAFF LLC ET AL

Here, plaintiff sues both G2 and Reed for identical employment claims arising from identical facts, particularly, the sixth cause of action for harassment. Complaint ¶ 67. Additionally, plaintiff sues Reed as G2’s agent. Complaint ¶ 7. The agreement explicitly covers G2’s “officers, directors, employees, representatives, successors, assigns or agents in their capacity as such ….”

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALEXANDRA MORRIS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS RANCHO SAN JOSE DE BUENOS AYRES LTD., A CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Sexual Harassment (Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.); Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment (Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.); Failure to Prevent Harassment (Govt. Code § 12940(k)); Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.); Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5); Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GREGORY ROUTT VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging race discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA. B. Hayes’ Pitchess Motion[1] 1. Moving Papers On December 26, 2019, Hayes filed a Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) for an order to compel the following records from the City: · Moreno Trial Exhibit 38: [Renato Moreno, et. al. v. City of Beverly Hills (BC687003)].

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSEPH F. BOHRER VS AMMIGEE1, LLC, ET AL.

For the alleged ADA, Unruh, and FEHA violations, punitive damages are sought “against LLC Defendants” and for IIED claim punitive damages are sought “against all defendants”. (Id.) Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs requests for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RHINES VS. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff has not filed a motion seeking leave to amend her pleading. 3rd COA: FEHA Retaliatory Harassment Paragraph 41 of the FAC alleges that defendant Austin "was verbally harassing and bullying employees at the Perry Elementary School on a continual basis at the workplace." Plaintiff transferred to a different school as a result of this harassment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « first    1 ... 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.