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)

201-225 of 4089 results

GURDIP KAUR V. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS

Explanation: In the case at bar, plaintiff alleges six causes of action: (1) discrimination on the basis of race/nationality and disability in violation of the FEHA; (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodations [FEHA]; (3) failure to engage in interactive process [FEHA]; (4) failure to take all reasonable measure to prevent discrimination [FEHA]; (5) retaliation for asserting FEHA rights; and (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

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 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

BERMUDEZ VS. BETHESDA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA INC

Defendant is thus exempt from FEHA, and the second and third causes of action, both of which are premised on violations of FEHA, fail. The first and seventh through ninth causes of action, however, are not premised on or are not solely premised on a violation of FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

JANICE PEARSON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

The SAC alleges the following 9 causes of action: (1) discrimination on the basis of race and/or color in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) discrimination on the basis of sex and/or gender in violation of the FEHA, (3) discrimination on the basis of physical disability in violation of the FEHA, (4) harassment on the basis of physical disability in violation of the FEHA, (5) discrimination based on age in violation of the FEHA, (6) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (7) “failure to

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SUZANNE RUELAS VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, ET AL.

of FEHA; (5) retaliation on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (6) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (7) harassment on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (9) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (10) harassment on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (11) retaliation on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (12) retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of FEHA; (13) intentional

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL

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 on the basis of disability in violation

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LORI OKJU KANG VS TERRY LAMONT HAYWARD ET AL

On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) FEHA hostile work environment, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (7) violation of the CFRA, (8) failure to pay compensation, (9) failure to provide meal periods, (10) failure to provide rest periods, (11) wage statement and record keeping violations

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

FRANCISCO IBARRA VS FIELD FRESH FOODS INCORPORATED INC ET AL

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges sixteen causes of action for: 1) Discrimination (FEHA); 2) Harassment (FEHA); 3) Retaliation (FEHA) 4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation (FEHA); 5) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (FEHA); 6) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process (FEHA); 7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 8) Declaratory Judgment; 9) Failure to Pay Wages; 10) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; 11) Failure to Provide

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

JENNIFER ADAMS VS WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., ET AL.

Background On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed her complaint against WDPR, DWWS, TWDC, and Rona Kay (“Kay”) alleging causes of action for violations (1) employment discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA failure to engage in timely and good faith interactive process, (4) FEHA harassment, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) failure to prevent/remedy discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (8) intentional infliction

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

COTA VS. SOUTH COAST OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER

It is also unlawful for an employer to “to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination… from occurring.” (Gov. Code § 12940(k).) However, a finding of actual discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under FEHA is required before a plaintiff may prevail on a claim for failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. (Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1314.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

ROBERTA GARCIA-GOOCH VS. SIERRA FOREVER FAMILIES INC

Venue under the FEHA Defendants argue, "the Complaint . . . establishes that the alleged discrimination occurred in [Nevada County,]" and "[n]one of the other bases for venue [under the FEHA] indicate this case should be filed in Sacramento." (SFF's Mot. 6:8-10.) Defendants state although SFF's principal place of business is in Sacramento County, Plaintiffs were employed at SFF's Grass Valley location, in Nevada County. Plaintiffs rejoin venue in Sacramento County is proper under the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JAMES CARTER III VS. DISCOUNT COURIER SERVICES INC

This court therefore holds that the special provisions of the FEHA venue statute control in cases involving FEHA claims joined with non-FEHA claims arising from the same facts ... Although the mixed action rule recognizes a preference for trial in the county of a defendant's residence, that preference is outweighed by the strong countervailing policy of the FEHA which favors a plaintiff's choice of venue".) Thus, venue is proper in San Diego County under the FEHA special venue rule.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DEBBY RENNER VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Plaintiff has filed claims for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") arising from her employment with the CDCR at the Calipatria State Prison in Imperial California. Venue for such an action is governed by special FEHA venue provisions set forth in Government Code 12965. Those provisions control over other venue provisions even where both FEHA and non-FEHA causes of action are pled in the same complaint. (Brown v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2013

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JEANETTE LOEFFLER VS. SAGARIA LAW P C A CORPORATION

The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint alleges that unlawful employment practices occurred in Sacramento and Plaintiff's action meets the venue requirements under FEHA. As the Brown court stated, "Section 12965, subdivision (b) affords a wide choice of venue to persons who brings actions under the FEHA. This choice maximizes the ability of persons aggrieved by employment discrimination to seek relief from the courts, and it facilitates the enforcement of the FEHA." (Brown, supra, 37 Cal.3d at 486.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

STEPHANIE NAJAR VS THE GUIDANCE CHARTER SCHOOL

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, (3) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and (5) FHEA retaliation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SONIA HOLGUIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

. … [¶] … [¶] … [C]ommonly necessary personnel management actions … do not come within the meaning of harassment. … These actions may retrospectively be found discriminatory if based on improper motives, but in that event the remedies provided by the FEHA are those for discrimination, not harassment. … This significant distinction underlies the differential treatment of harassment and discrimination in the FEHA.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Roby v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2018

DANIEL MARSHALL VS FILMON.TV NETWORKS INC ET AL

Plaintiff alleges thirteen causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (5) retaliation in violation of public policy, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (7) intention infliction of emotional distress, (8) failure to pay minimum wages

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TOMMY GAY VS DIAMOND MATTRESS COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Discrimination in violation of FEHA, Retaliation in violation of FEHA, Hostile Work Environment in violation of FEHA, Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in violation of FEHA, Failure to Pay Wages, Wrongful Termination/Adverse Employment Action in violation of Public Policy, Negligent Hiring and Retention, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Violation of Business and Profession Code § 17200, et seq., Retaliation

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SARA ELIAS VS JOURNEY OF FAITH ET AL

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 in violation

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARCELO CHAN VS BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

First Cause of Action (Age DiscriminationFEHA); Second Cause of Action (Disability/Perceived Disability DiscriminationFEHA); Third Cause of Action (Retaliation—FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Failure To Accommodate—FEHA); Fifth Cause of Action (Failure To Engage In Interactive Process—FEHA); Sixth Cause of Actin (Failure To Prevent/Investigate—FEHA); Seventh Cause of Action (Violation of California Family Rights Act); Eighth Cause of Action (Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5); Ninth Cause of Action (Wrongful

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SHWON SASANI VS SO CAL PLUMBING HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC., ET AL.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 16th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or remedy discrimination/retaliation in violation of FEHA Defendants argue that there is no claim for failure to prevent because the underlying claims for discrimination and retaliation have not been pled sufficiently. As stated above, the court finds that the allegations are insufficient to state the underlying claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BETTY HEWITT VS EDGE ROOFING, INC., ET AL.

BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Betty Hewitt commenced this action against Defendants Edge Roofing, Inc. and Garlan Powell for (1) age discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by the FEHA; (4) hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to do everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation from occurring in violation of the FEHA; (6) wrongful termination

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STEVEN DOUGLAS CANNISTRACI VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

These actions may retrospectively be found discriminatory if based on improper motives, but in that event the remedies provided by the FEHA are those for discrimination, not harassment. Harassment, by contrast, consists of actions outside the scope of job duties which are not of a type necessary to business and personnel management. This significant distinction underlies the differential treatment of harassment and discrimination in the FEHA. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 646–47.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2019

DAVID NORTON V. SAGE NETWORK, INC.

(Sage), for age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), harassment/hostile work environment (FEHA), failure to investigate or prevent harassment (FEHA), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and declaratory judgment. Norton alleges: He was Sage’s employee working in Camarillo in Ventura County and Santa Barbara in this Santa Barbara County. His employment was terminated on February 25, 2019, after a complaint of sexual harassment by another employee.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

JEANETTE LOEFFLER VS. SAGARIA LAW P C A CORPORATION

The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint alleges that unlawful employment practices occurred in Sacramento and Plaintiff's action meets the venue requirements under FEHA. As the Brown court stated, "Section 12965, subdivision (b) affords a wide choice of venue to persons who brings actions under the FEHA. This choice maximizes the ability of persons aggrieved by employment discrimination to seek relief from the courts, and it facilitates the enforcement of the FEHA." (Brown, supra, 37 Cal.3d at 486.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2018

  • 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.