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.
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.
Mar 18, 2020
Fresno County, CA
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.)
Sep 21, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Feb 24, 2017
Orange County, CA
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
Aug 25, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Nov 05, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Sep 11, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Feb 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Sep 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Nov 03, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Sep 24, 2018
Employment
Wrongful Term
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Aug 31, 2017
Employment
Wrongful Term
San Diego County, CA
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.
Sep 27, 2013
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
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.)
Mar 10, 2018
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Dec 14, 2017
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
. … [¶] … [¶] … [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.
Aug 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Feb 13, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Sep 26, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Jun 29, 2017
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action (Age Discrimination—FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Disability/Perceived Disability Discrimination—FEHA); 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
Jan 10, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 27, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Sep 08, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Aug 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
Jul 30, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
Mar 10, 2018
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
