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)

176-200 of 4089 results

MARIO MORALES VS ANCON MARINE

On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability/medical condition discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in good faith interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA harassment, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, (6) FEHA retaliation, (7) wrongful termination, and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PSC 1505991

This action for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) constructive termination in violation of public policy, (4) sexual battery, (5) creation of hostile work environment in violation of FEHA and (6) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in violation of FEHA is brought by Plaintiff (“P”) Terri Webb a former employee of Defendant (“D”) Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc. based upon alleged verbal and physical harassment and retaliation

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2017

RODELA ET AL. V. HATAYAMA ET AL.

The complaint alleged seven causes of action for harassment in violation of FEHA (race, color, national origin, religious belief, sex and/or gender, sexual orientation); harassment in violation of FEHA (pregnancy); failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA; retaliation in violation of FEHA; retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 6310; defamation and failure to provide rest breaks (Labor Code § 226.7).

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MATTHEW ROBERSON VS COMMUNITY BANK

Plaintiff claims that Jones did not like that Plaintiff was “thriving” within CB and making more money than her and so, with the assistance of a departing colleague, concocted a scheme to terminate his employment based on false claims of sexual harassment. Plaintiff further claims that he was defamed, post-termination, when Jones and other CB managers allegedly informed other banks and Plaintiff’s customers that his employment had been terminated for sexual harassment.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RAM PYARE SINGH VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) associational discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA; and (4) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA. DISCUSSION “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (CCP § 1032(b).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SHENETTA D TONEY VS. LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The court has considered the evidentiary basis of the Third cause of action for Whistleblower Retaliation with that of the First cause of action under FEHA for complaining of Racial Discrimination and Harassment and the Second cause of action under FEHA for Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation based on Race.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

DIEGO GARCIA VS PLATINUM SECURITY INC

On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent retaliation, (5) violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5, (6) violation of Lab. Code § 6310, and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties. (See Frag Decl., Exhibit A.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HANTASH VS. INTERTEK USA INC

Eighth Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination under FEHA Defendants argue that Plaintiff was not disabled "within the meaning of FEHA" and that the allegations, at best, show a situational or temporary impairment which is not a disability within the meaning of FEHA. Plaintiff alleges a mental disability of depression (See FAC page 4, paragraph 13) and alleges that Defendants were aware of his actual or perceived disability.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MATTHEW CONDON VS DAW INDUSTRIES INC

On July 16, 2015, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 987, which protects against retaliation when an individual requests accommodation for a disability under the FEHA. (Assem. Bill No. 987 (2015–2016 Reg. Sess.) § 2.) The amendment took effect on January 1, 2016, and applies only prospectively. (Ibid.; see McClung v. Emp't Dev. Dep't (2004) 34 Cal.4th 467, 475–77 (concluding amendment to the FEHA regarding individual liability for harassment applied only prospectively).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NORMA ROJAS VS DIN TAI FUNG ET AL

In the TAC, Rojas asserts causes of action for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA, and unfair business practices. Defendant Din Tai Fung (Glendale) Restaurant, LLC[1] (“DTF”) now demurs to each and every cause of action. Rojas opposes. Request for Judicial Notice The Court grants DTF’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A and B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

R MARIA ARCURI VS CBRE INC

On September 27, 2017, Plaintiff R Maria Arcuri commenced this action against Defendant CBRE, Inc. for (1) employment discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a timely and good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent/remedy discrimination, harassment, and violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NASARITA RANGEL VS MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL GROUP

On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PETRA JACKSON VS PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ET AL

Defendant also argues that the Court should not strike the deposition costs because, at the time of the deposition, Plaintiff had asserted both FEHA and non-FEHA claims. First, the Court notes that the dispositive ruling sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend only referred to FEHA claims because only FEHA claims remained in the Second Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BEN CEVDET URUK V. PENSIONMARK RETIREMENT GROUP, LLC ET AL.

national origin harassment in violation of FEHA, (8) national origin harassment in violation of public policy, (9) retaliation because of complaints about discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA, (10) retaliation because of complaints about discrimination and harassment in violation of public policy, and (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2016

MARTHA QUIROZ VS I A T S E LOCAL 44 ET AL

The Complaint alleges the following six causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent FEHA violations; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Defendants now demur to each cause of action of the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BC672615

Fourth Cause of Action for “Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA” Defendants first argue that the fourth cause of action fails because there is no cognizable cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of FEHA, citing various subsections of Gov. Code § 12940 which provide for causes of action for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, but not wrongful termination.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2018

VALERIE DAVIS VS CUMMING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., A CORPORATION

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) failure to pay all wages owed; (8) failure to pay timely

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROBERT LEEBURG, ET AL. VS TEMIDAYO AKINYEMI, ET AL.

FEHA HOUSING DISCRIMINATION Defendants argue that no claim for FEHA housing discrimination can be stated for the following reasons: (1) Age is not a protected category under FEHA for housing discrimination purposes; (2) the Complaint does not state specifically what section of FEHA Defendants are accused of violating; and (3) to uphold the FEHA claim would conflict with the Ellis Act, which allows withdrawal of rental units under certain circumstances. (Demurrer at pp. 8­–9.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JASON WHITMER VS FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP INC ET AL

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to plead that he was engaged in a protected activity under FEHA and as such the demurrer is granted as to the FEHA causes of action including “Failure to Prevent” which requires Plaintiff to sufficient plead a case of action for discrimination, harassment or retaliation. (Trujillo v. North County Transit District (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EASTERBROOK V. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, ET AL.

Plaintiff is correct that he is “entitled to establish liability of individual non-employer Defendants under FEHA for harassing conduct of employees.” (Opp., p. 3, ll. 2-3, emphasis added.) However, Plaintiff’s third cause of action is not pled as a stand-alone cause of action for harassment; rather, it is stylized as “harassment, discrimination, and retaliation” in violation of the FEHA. (FAC, p. 12.) While Plaintiff is certainly entitled to proceed with his harassment claims against Mr. Zorn and Mr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2018

SARA ELIAS VS JOURNEY OF FAITH ET AL

Background On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) disability discrimination in violation of public policy, (3) pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) pregnancy discrimination in violation of public policy, (5) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of public policy, (7) pregnancy harassment

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SUNNY BATH VS COUNTY OF L A DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH

Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in this action on January 8, 2018, alleging five causes of action for (1) workplace color discrimination; (2) national origin discrimination; (3) hostile work environment; (4) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity; and (5) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation. Plaintiff filed a second employment action (BC 648696) on January 30, 2017, alleging ten causes of action under the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2018

ANGELIQUE PINKSTAFF VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) failure to prevent unlawful discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to accommodate disability in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”)

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOE J SERRANO VS STATER BROS MARKETS ET AL

In the operative Third1 Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Defendants for: (1) disability discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) discrimination based on religion under FEHA; (3) harassment based on medical condition under FEHA; (4) harassment based on religion under FEHA; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under FEHA; (7 but identified in the TAC as 8) declaratory judgment; and (8 but identified in

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 164     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.