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)

26-50 of 4123 results

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

    Jul 02, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CAMILLE MEGGS VS NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA LLC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

KATY M SETOODEH VS SAINT JOHNS MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DBA DOCTORS OF ST JOHNS MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TRACEY SINGLETON ET AL VS SOUND ART ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2016

JUNG VS. CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCES

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KATY M SETOODEH VS SAINT JOHNS MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DBA DOCTORS OF ST JOHNS MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON HUTCHINSON VS GOOGLE, INC., ET AL.

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

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KATY M SETOODEH VS SAINT JOHNS MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DBA DOCTORS OF ST JOHNS MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

M.F. VS. CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

GREENE VS JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF PALM SPRINGS

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

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

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HIRAISHI V OXNARD UNION HIGH

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HIRAISHI V OXNARD UNION HIGH

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JENNIFER GROS VS VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP I

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS EMPLOYERS HR, LLC, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HIRAISHI V OXNARD UNION HIGH

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KEITH MOORE VS DIAMOND BEAUTY SUPPLY INC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2017

MUSGROVE V. THE SONOMA COUNTY LIBRARY

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Patrick M

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

CORY LA FERLA VS VAILLANT CONSTRUCTION ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARISOL RIVERA VS WILLIAM WATSON MANAGEMENT ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JENNIFER GROS VS VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP I

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.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2018

HESPER NATALE, ET AL V. SKY RIVER, INC., ET AL

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.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

ARIETTA VS. ROCK N ROBLES

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 165     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.