What is Retaliation in Violation of FEHA?

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it an unlawful employment practice to terminate or otherwise discriminate against an employee because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person. Gov. Code, § 12940(a).

Section 12940(h) makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a person “because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.”

A prima facie case for retaliation requires a plaintiff to show that:

  1. she engaged in a protected activity,
  2. the employer subjected plaintiff to an adverse employment action, and
  3. the protected activity and the employer’s adverse action were causally connected

Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 380; Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042.

The activity “protected” by this statute is opposition to “practices forbidden” by FEHA or the filing of a complaint, testimony, or the provision of assistance in any FEHA proceeding. Gov. Code, § 12940(h).

Whether an employee has suffered an adverse employment action is a required element. Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1380 (“Critical to an inquiry regarding a retaliation claim arising under FEHA is whether the plaintiff suffered an ‘adverse employment action.’”)

“Minor or relatively trivial adverse actions or conduct by employers or fellow employees that, from an objective perspective, are reasonably likely to do no more than anger or upset an employee cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment and are not actionable, but adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to impair a reasonable employee's job performance or prospects for advancement or promotion falls within the reach of the antidiscrimination provisions of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a).” Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 373 (citations omitted.)

A causal link “may be established by an inference from circumstantial evidence, such as the employer’s knowledge that the employee engaged in protected activities and proximity in time between the protected action and allegedly retaliatory employment decision.” Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 69 (citations omitted).

Non-employer individuals are not personally liable for their role in retaliation. Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1173.

Useful Rulings on Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs contend they are subject to the following interim harm: (1) the requirement that by 10/10/16 they submit a time consuming and burdensome new application, which applications may be denied for any number of new and trivial reasons; (2) the risk of Notices of Violation ("NOV") that can also be used to revoke a STR permit for minor violations, all of which can be criminally prosecuted and punished; (3) the loss of goodwill and damage to relations with renters, fewer bookings, and the potential need to

  • Hearing

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence in opposition to that motion showing the existence of triable issues of fact as to the application of equitable estoppel, and have produced evidence sufficient to show triable issues of material fact as to equitable estoppel in opposition to the current motion as well. (Opp. SSUF ¶422.)

  • Hearing

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The peremptory writ further commands that Respondents shall reconsider the Permit in light of the decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. 3. Nothing in this judgment or the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in Respondents. 4. Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.

  • Hearing

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, contingent upon Plaintiff’s production of the original promissory note to the court for cancellation in compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1806 (i.e., “[i]n all cases in which judgment is rendered upon a written obligation to pay money, the clerk must, at the time of entry of judgment, unless otherwise ordered, note over the clerk’s official signature and across the face of the writing the fact of rendition of judgment

  • Hearing

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2). Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes_________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

N/A--UD Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant.

  • Hearing

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Plaintiff states, without more, only that “Defendants Xuefan Liu and Lina Zhang sought the assistance of Defendant Shi Qiang Zhang in the wiring of the funds, and Defendant Shi Qiang Zhang made the representations alleged.” (Case Summary, 2:12-14; see also Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶4.) S. Zhang is not alleged to have been a party to the underlying contract and there are no facts alleged as to S. Zhang’s involvement. Plaintiff does not provide the court with any documentary evidence in support of his claims.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Summary Judgment will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Upon review of the FACC, the Court could not find any language referencing the administrative fees, and even if those fees were requested as part of the actual damages, “in excess of” a specified dollar amount “and according to proof” limits the amount of the award in a default judgment to that dollar amount.

  • Hearing

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Additionally, the promissory note attached as Exhibit 1 to Hutzenbiler’s Declaration reflects that Andiamo agreed to pay the loan in 12 monthly installments, with the first payment due on or before July 31, 2017 in the amount of $5,932.95, and with each subsequent monthly payment due on or before the 31st of each month, in an amount of $5,932.95. The entire remaining outstanding balance of principal was to be due on June 29, 2018.

  • Hearing

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

No further hearings are in Dept. 28, Spring StreetAFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

If Plaintiffs’ case theory rests on the idea that Moving Defendants are liable because they aided and abetted the other defendants in this case, while not directly engaging in the tortious acts complained of, this tort needs to be pled as a separate cause of action specifically against these Moving Defendants, and not consolidated into the causes of action for conversion, fraud, etc. as against the other defendants not part of this motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RE: PET’N FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST INSTRUMENT & CONFIRMATION

Report of Atty. Constance Figuers (limited) CEDRIC SNOW JENNIFER L STENEBERG LELAND SNOW CONSTANCE H FIGUERS LESLIE A SNOW JENNIFER L STENEBERG PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Verified declaration in support of attorney’s fees paid as reported at paragraph 6. Statement showing services rendered, hours and rates charged so ct. can evaluate attorney fees reported. LR 7.450. 2. Proposed Order Note: Per 7-27-2020 minute order, Atty.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

Accounting does not include real property located in Lake County. 11. Summary of Account that complies with PrC § 1061(b). Accounting must begin with values as reported in Inventory & Appraisal. ¶7 indicates an Inventory & Appraisal will be filed; however, it is unclear whether this is a Corrected or Supplemental I&A. Accounting must not include transfers between accounts. A transfer from Chase savings accounts of $43,590.35 was reported on 7-10-19. 12.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF CHE ANDREA TRAVERS

RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE FILED BY CHE' TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Che Travers still must do the following: File a Proof of Publication of Order to Show Cause For Change of Name CHE ANDREA TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Meiasha Davis, mother, still must do the following: Have a copy of the Order to Show Cause personally served on each father and file a Proof of Service with the court or file a verified declaration

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE

Parental Notification of Indian Status Form ICWA-020 filed 5. Proposed Order The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Report of Atty. Summer Selleck 2. Report of Atty. Robert O. Morris Need: 1. UCCJEA Form FL-105 verified. Verification is not dated. 2. Court Investigator’s Report Note: Form ICWA-030 was filed 11-18-2020. Need proof of mailing by clerk.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FALISHA PORTER VS PHARMAVITE, LLC

Finally, the issue of whether every single page of her employment file should be open to discovery is also an issue. For instance, what if she had private conversations about health issues unrelated to the damages in this case. What if she was asked to be a witness in a claim against another co-employee? The court can envision many situations which are unrelated to issues of her damages in this case and her representations to this employer upon which it relied in hiring her.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HARRY TRAN VS ST GEORGE & ASSOCIATES

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Attorney Fees Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY INC ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

NEWPORT CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP II LLC VS SUSAN SCHWARTZ

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Vacate Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SATICOY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC ET AL VS SKYLAR L GAUSS ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: (3) Demurrers; Motion to Strike; Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.