Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Harassment in California

In Smith, the appellate court determined that the defendants were liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting defendant employer’s alleged harassment and discrimination only if “(1) [defendant employer] subjected [plaintiff] to discrimination and harassment, (2) [the defendants] knew that [defendant employer’s] conduct violated FEHA, and (3) [the defendants] gave [defendant employer] ‘substantial assistance or encouragement’ to violate FEHA.” (Id., 146.)

and abetting (Complaint ¶7.)

For that reason, individuals and entities who are not the plaintiffs employer may be liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting the plaintiff's employers violation of FEHA. Therefore, the demurrer to the sixth cause of action for aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of FEHA is overruled.

(emphasis added)) At no point did the Archuleta court conclude supervisors could be held individually liable for aiding and abetting a FEHA violation. Similarly, in Gibson-Jones , the district court recognized that “there are circumstances in which an agent cannot be liable for aiding and abetting an employer on the theory that the employer and the agent constitute a single legal entity-a single actor.” ( Gibson-Jones, supra, 2008 WL 782568 at *4.)

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].)

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 6. AIDING AND ABETTING 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H) 8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 also filed an arbitration demand against Marciano and Guess on June 15, 2021, which likewise asserted claims arising out of the same sexual harassment alleged in this action. (Wright Decl. ¶ 3.) To establish their Aiding and Abetting claim, Plaintiffs must show that Marciano subjected them to discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA. ( Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 138, 146.) The Court in 21STCV02126 has ordered arbitration of this controversy.

To plead aiding and abetting, ultimate facts are required, not detailed facts. Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp . (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 86, 95. See also Heckmann v. Ahmanson (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 119, 127 (one aiding and abetting is jointly liable, even without participating in the wrongs). Modernly, in pleading FEHA actions, plaintiffs are only required to set forth the essential facts sufficiently to acquaint defendants with the cause of action. Alch v. Sup.

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 6. AIDING AND ABETTING 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H) 8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

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.

With regard to the 11th Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment pursuant to FEHA, the pleading lacks specific factual allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment by the employer arising from Plaintiff’s inclusion in a protected class or engagement in protected activity.

Finally, the plaintiff claims Johnson can be liable, not as his employer, but for his alleged role in aiding and abetting the other defendants in their harassment of the plaintiff, citing Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 138, 145 ("Smith"). In Smith, the court confirmed "FEHA prohibits 'any person' from aiding or abetting workplace discrimination." (Id. at pp. 145-146, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (i).)

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 6. AIDING AND ABETTING 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H) 8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 6. AIDING AND ABETTING 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H) 8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

Sex Discrimination In Violation Of FEHA; 2. National Origin Discrimination In Violation Of FEHA; 3, Sexual Harassment/Hostile Work Environment; 4. Retaliation/Protected Activity; 5. Failure To Prevent Discrimination And Harassment; 6. Aiding And Abetting; 7. Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Cal, Gov. Code § 12940(H); and 8. Violation Of Unfair Competition Law, Bus, & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The Court granted a Motion to Compel Arbitration, as to all three plaintiffs in this case.

Aiding and Abetting Plaintiffs ninth cause of action is for aiding and abetting a violation of FEHA. Government Code section 12940(i) makes it unlawful [f]or 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. This does not apply to government entities because FEHAs definition of person does not include government entities. (See Gov. Code, § 12925(d).)

With regard to the 11th Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment pursuant to FEHA, the pleading lacks specific factual allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment by the employer arising from Plaintiff’s inclusion in a protected class or engagement in protected activity.

 Aiding and Abetting “FEHA does not provide a definition of ‘aiding and abetting,’ ” [Citation.], but it has been interpreted as “closely allied” with conspiracy. [Citation.] “The common basis for liability for both conspiracy and aiding and abetting ... is concerted wrongful action.” [Citation.] Aiding and abetting thus ‘involves two separate persons, one helping the other.’ [Citation.]

 Aiding and Abetting “FEHA does not provide a definition of ‘aiding and abetting,’ ” [Citation.], but it has been interpreted as “closely allied” with conspiracy. [Citation.] “The common basis for liability for both conspiracy and aiding and abetting ... is concerted wrongful action.” [Citation.] Aiding and abetting thus ‘involves two separate persons, one helping the other.’ [Citation.]

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.)

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING Defendants demurrer to the Eleventh COA for aiding and abetting tort is unfounded. The complaint did not identify defendant as a party to this COA. The demurrer is OVERRULED. K.

RP Positions Opposing party advocates overruling, for reasons including the following: · As alleged in Plaintiffs complaint, Defendant Tront authorized or ratified Defendant Montezs behavior thereby aiding and abetting in the alleged harassment. · Defendant Tront did more than just inaction, but was at all times involved in and ratified Defendant Montezs harassment. Tentative Ruling The demurrer is overruled. Twenty days to answer.

It is appropriate, therefore, to consider the common law definition of aiding and abetting. Ibid.

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.

(2004) 122 Cal.App.4 th 339, 390 (claim for aiding and abetting FEHA age discrimination was stated against third party agencies who knew of employers systemic discrimination on basis of age and agencies substantially encouraged and assisted discrimination by their own referral practices, screening out older writers in favor of younger ones). IV.

Under a FEHA retaliation claim, a "protected activity" is either (1) opposition to any practices forbidden by FEHA, or (2) filing a complaint, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding relating to a FEHA complaint. (Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(h).) The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege that Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity. Therefore, judgment on the pleadings is granted on this claim. Aiding and Abetting Discrimination This claim is derivative of Plaintiff's other discrimination claims.

Generally speaking, [a] defendant is liable for aiding and abetting another in the commission of an intentional tort & if the defendant knows the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act. [Citation.] ( Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 328, 343.) The FEHA does not provide a definition of aiding and abetting. It is appropriate, therefore, to consider the common law definition of aiding and abetting.

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.

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.

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).

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.

On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint on May 8, 2023 against Defendants alleging (1) sexual battery; (2) sexual assault; (3) false imprisonment; (4) gender violence; (5) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) discrimination based on sex and gender in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (9) constructive discharge in violation of public policy; (10) harassment and aiding and abetting

A contractor may be liable for aiding and abetting an employers violation: 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).)

Aiding and Abetting Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants aided and abetted the discrimination and retaliation. It is a violation of FEHA for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under [FEHA], or to attempt to do so. (Gov. Code, § 12940(i).) Liability for aiding and abetting may be established where an entity knew the employer's conduct violated FEHA and gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the employer to so act. ( Alch v.

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.

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

As such, the Court grants summary adjudication as to the 3rd cause of action. 4th c/a for Aiding and Abetting: 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.” (Alch v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 339, 389.) Because FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, the common law definition is used. (Fiol v.

Plaintiff Has Not Plead Sufficient Facts to Support the Aiding and Abetting Claim Against the Moving Defendant Next, Defendant contends Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts against him to support her Eighth Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment. Under the FEHA, [a]iding and abetting occurs when one helps another commit a prohibited act. [Citation.] The concept of aiding and abetting involves two separate persons, one helping the other. (Vernon v.

Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action in her complaint: (1) FEHA Discrimination based on sex discrimination; (2) FEHA violations based on pregnancy discrimination; (3) FEHA violations based upon disability discrimination; (4) FEHA violations based upon retaliation; (5) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5(c); (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code ¶ 17200 et. seq.; (7) Failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq.; (8) Failure to

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Thus, Keenan is liable under FEHA for aiding and abetting District's alleged harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff only if (1) District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, (2) Keenan knew that District's conduct violated FEHA and (3) Keenan gave District “substantial assistance or encouragement” to violate FEHA.

Plaintiff asserts that IYNAUS is liable for aiding and abetting NETT’s unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. As FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, courts consider the common law definition. (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325.)

Plaintiff asserts that IYNAUS is liable for aiding and abetting NETT’s unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. As FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, courts consider the common law definition. (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325.)

Plaintiff asserts that IYNAUS is liable for aiding and abetting NETT’s unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. As FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, courts consider the common law definition. (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325.)

Plaintiff asserts that IYNAUS is liable for aiding and abetting NETT’s unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. As FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, courts consider the common law definition. (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325.)

Plaintiff asserts that IYNAUS is liable for aiding and abetting NETT’s unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. As FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, courts consider the common law definition. (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325.)

Plaintiff asserts that IYNAUS is liable for aiding and abetting NETT’s unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. As FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, courts consider the common law definition. (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325.)

Plaintiff asserts that IYNAUS is liable for aiding and abetting NETT’s unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. As FEHA does not define aiding and abetting, courts consider the common law definition. (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325.)

Defendants' separate statement only address the sexual harassment allegation. See UMFs 61-67. Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to summary adjudication of the 12th cause of action. 13th Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting The 13th cause of action alleges certain defendants are liable for aiding and abetting NIED, invasion of privacy, and negligent supervision. SAC, ¶ 262. Defendants argue that there is no aiding and abetting absent an underlying tort. Nasrawi v.

[C]oncerted activity between the defendant and the violator to commit FEHA violations& is the crux of an aiding abetting claim under FEHA. ( Ibid. ) Courts have applied the same standard to aiding and abetting intentional torts. ( Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325 ( Fiol ).) Plaintiff alleges no concerted activity between defendants Thomas or Lewis and non-party Curtis. [M]ere inaction by a non-harassing supervisor does not constitute aiding and abetting.

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

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.

(Reliant) for 1) disability discrimination; 2) failure to reasonably accommodate; 3) failure to engage in the interactive process; 4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; 5) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation; 6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 7) aiding and abetting in violation of FEHA; 8) unlawful medical inquiry in violation of FEHA; 9) violation of Labor Code section 432.6; 10) violation of constitutional right to privacy; and 11) failure to rehire

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).)

Mere failure to take action does not constitute aiding and abetting. Also, if harassment is insufficiently alleged as the court has concluded, a cause of action for aiding and abetting the same is insufficiently alleged. The court has not decided yet whether to sustain the demurrer with or without leave to amend.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the Fourth Amended Complaint’s allegations regarding Providence Defendants “aiding and abetting” in Saint John’s alleged violations of FEHA are sufficient to sustain the eighth cause of action. (Opposition, 14-18.) Plaintiff contends that aiding and abetting in a violation of FEHA is independently wrongful pursuant to statute and controlling case law. (Opposition, 16-18.)

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).

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

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.

The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for: 1) Gender Discrimination in violation of FEHA (against Netflix, Inc.); 2) Race Discrimination in violation of FEHA (against Netflix, Inc.); 3) Harassment in violation of FEHA (against all Defendants); 4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940(k) (against Netflix, Inc.); 5) Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940(h) (against Netflix, Inc.);

§§ 17200-17208, (7) conspiring with and soliciting another to commit civil extortion, (8) aiding and abetting conspiracy and attempted extortion, (9) failure to prevent racial harassment under Government Code § 12940(k), (10) statutory indemnity Labor Code § 2802 , and (11) aiding and abetting conversion.

Code section 12940, subdivision(a); (2) associational employment discrimination under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a); (3) retaliation under Government Code section 12940, subdivision(h); (4) aiding and abetting employment discrimination under Government Code section 12940, subdivision(i); (5) harassment and failure to prevent harassment under Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (j-k); (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress

Seventh Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting FEHA Violations Generally speaking, [a] defendant is liable for aiding and abetting another in the commission of an intentional tort & if the defendant knows the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act. [Citation.] ( Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 328, 343.) The FEHA does not provide a definition of aiding and abetting.

Merits of proposed amendments Plaintiff is seeking to add a new cause of action for harassment under FEHA along with a new cause of action for aiding and abetting harassment. As a consequence of these two new causes of action, the proposed pleading will reinstate Kiersten Patsch as a defendant with two new defendants affiliated with CSU, Don Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) and Sean Anderson (“Anderson”).

In considering the second tier supervisors liability the court looked at the standard for aiding and abetting under the common law. (Id. at p. 1325.) A party is liable for aiding and abetting in the commission of an intentional tort where they know the conduct is a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act. . . (Ibid.)

("FEHA") (3rd C/A), for failing to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA (4th C/A), for aiding and abetting harassment, discrimination and retaliation (5th C/A), wrongful discharge (6th C/A), intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") (7th C/A), and violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (8th C/A).

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the SAC’s allegations regarding Providence Defendants “aiding and abetting” in Saint John’s alleged violations of FEHA are sufficient to sustain the eighth cause of action. (Opposition, 14-15.) Plaintiff contends that aiding and abetting in a violation of FEHA is independently wrongful pursuant to statute and controlling case law. (Id.)

Plaintiffs opposition argues this cause of action constitutes aiding and abetting. (Opp., p. 6, citing CACI No. 3610 [Aiding and Abetting Tort].) But, like conspiracy, aiding and abetting does not stand on its own. It refers to subjecting a defendant to liability for aiding and abetting a tort. ( American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1475.) For example, one can be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. ( Id.

Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 389 [ holding that talent agencies can be liable for aiding and abetting employer’s violation of FEHA if agencies knew of employer’s unlawful practice and gave substantial assistance.]) Here, the SAC alleges at paragraph 91 that the Providence Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct by “aiding and abetting Defendant Saint John’s discrimination against Plaintiff based on her disability.” (SAC, ¶ 91.)

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.

Finally, in denying Adzhemyan’s motion for summary adjudication, the Court denied the motion largely based on the allegations and Labor Code references to “aiding and abetting” an employer in discrimination and retaliation. The Court’s order did not reflect any finding that Adzhemyan filed his motion in bad faith or that he brought it for an improper purpose.

Finally, the July 26, 2023 Request for Dismissal dismisses Cyrus Nownejad’s causes of action for Discrimination Harassment and Retaliation.

Code § 510; (4) Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5; (5) adverse action in violation of public policy; (6) California Family Rights Act; (7) discrimination; (8) retaliation; (9) failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (10) Labor Code § 6310; and (11) FEHA aiding and abetting. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh against Dignity. Plaintiff also dismissed the action as to Defendant Bernal.

Rucciones FACC alleges (1) sexual harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of FEHA; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) sexual battery; (4) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) breach of contract; and (10) fraud.

On November 8, 2022, Ruccione filed a second amended cross-complaint (SACC), alleging (1) sexual harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of FEHA; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) sexual battery; (4) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) breach of contract; and (10) fraud.

Nonetheless, Gibson attempts to hold Harris liable for Quid Pro Quo Harassment and Retaliation in violation of the FEHA pursuant to an aiding and abetting theory. The FEHA prohibits any person from aiding or abetting workplace discrimination. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (i).) In order to be liable for aiding and abetting, an agent must provide substantial assistance or encouragement to the employer to violate FEHA. ( Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 138, 146; accord, Alch v.

Here, there are no facts showing that Choy gave substantial assistance or encouragement to McLean in his alleged harassment of Plaintiff. Mere knowledge that a tort is being committed and the failure to prevent it does not constitute aiding and abetting. As a general rule, one owes no duty to control the conduct of another&. (Citations.) ( Fiol , supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 1326.)

§ 12940(j), (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, (7) conspiring with and soliciting another to commit civil extortion, (8) aiding and abetting conspiracy and attempted extortion, (9) failure to prevent racial harassment under Government Code § 12940(k), (10) statutory indemnity Labor Code § 2802 , and (11) aiding and abetting conversion.

of action for aiding and abetting acts in violation of FEHA were dismissed by Plaintiff on 3/10/22.