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.
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.
Jul 02, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Ventura 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.
Jul 02, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Ventura County, CA
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.
Oct 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Oct 08, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AIDING AND ABETTING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND RETALIATION Because portions of the underlying FEHA causes of action survive, the derivative fifth cause of action for aiding and abetting illegal discrimination, harassment, and retaliation also survives, but only as to race and associational discrimination.
Nov 18, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 02, 2017
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
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.)
Jul 23, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy, (6) whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (7) violation of Labor Code section 98.6, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) breach
Jun 26, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Feb 10, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff also argues that CVCHS committed the required threats, intimidation, or coercion through the actions of the volleyball coach in aiding and abetting the rape. However, the required elements of aiding and abetting are absent here.
Dec 06, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374-375. 8th Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting a Violation of Gov. Code §12940(i): The 8th cause of action is not asserted against moving defendants.
Sep 13, 2018
Riverside County, CA
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
Feb 21, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Similar reasoning applies to aiding and abetting. Linguistically, it is questionable whether it can properly be said that an employee who exercises delegated personnel management authority is "aiding and abetting" his or her employer in managing personnel, and the stilted and unusual nature of such a usage alone casts doubt on plaintiffs' construction.
Jun 23, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 13, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Ventura County, CA
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.
Jan 13, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Ventura County, CA
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.
Feb 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325-1329 [Finding that the duty to prevent harassment is owed by the employer, not the supervisor, and that a supervisor’s inaction cannot be considered aiding and abetting harassment.].) Further, the FAC fails to allege any conduct on Defendant Silva’s part in substantially assisting or encouraging the conduct by Defendant Hilario. At best, the FAC alleges a failure to act.
Jul 02, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 13, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Ventura County, CA
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a sexual harassment claims against Chavez based on an aiding and abetting theory. First, it is clear from the allegations of the FAC that only Newell, and not Chavez, engaged in the primary acts of harassment. The only allegations against Chavez are that she (1) failed to act promptly to end the harassment and (2) reduced Plaintiff’s hours.
Mar 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
In Vergos, the court found that where the claims against a manager of aiding and abetting another employee's harassment consisted solely of handling the hearing proceedings, specifically, "hearing, processing, and deciding" the plaintiff employee's grievances, those claims were protected. However, it was limited to the claims solely against that manager and based solely on the fact that the manager had run the hearing proceedings.
Feb 13, 2020
Patrick M
Sonoma County, CA
The Court construed the language of the statute, as well as common law concepts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting to hold that the FEHA did not contemplate personal liability for managers and supervisors acting within the scope of their employment. As this case has not been brought under the FEHA and involves no allegations of conspiracy or aiding and abetting, Moving Defendants’ reliance on Janken misses the mark. The same is true of Moving Defendants’ citation to Fiol v.
Aug 06, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Alter Ego Allegations Defendants’ noticed issues each relate to the alter ego allegations against Pam and Lewis, or the aiding and abetting allegation against Pam for sexual harassment. Plaintiff's second through sixth causes of action name both Lewis and Pam as individual defendants based on the theory of alter ego. The Court will first address whether the alter ego theory is sufficient against the individual Defendants.
Feb 27, 2019
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
May 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
A supervisory employee is not personally liable under FEHA as an aider and abettor of the wrongdoer for failing to take action to prevent unlawful employment conduct. (Fiol, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1326.) Moreover, an aiding and abetting claim typically fails against individual managers alleged to have assisted corporate harassment in California, since a corporation can only act through its employees. (Janken, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 78.)
Sep 12, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
A supervisor’s mere knowledge that harassment is taking place and failure to prevent it is not “aiding and abetting.” (Id. at 1326.) A non-harassing supervisor who fails to take action to prevent harassment is not personally liable for harassment under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser, an aider and abettor of the employer, or an agent of the employer. (Id. at p. 1331.) P. Sieveke has set forth facts showing that P. Sieveke was not Plaintiff’s employer and that P.
Sep 28, 2020
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
