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 Resources for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

51-75 of 10000 results

GRDNSHIP OF HILARIA AYALA

RE: PET’N FOR APPTMNT OF GRDN OF PERSON FILED ON 11/24/20 BY HILARI RASHEL AZANON AYALA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AMENDED PET’N FOR APPT OF C'TOR, PERS & EST

Proof of mailing to Veteran’s Administration, or confirmation that the proposed conservatee is not eligible for or receiving VA benefits 2. Proof of attendance at orientation class for unlicensed conservators 3. Proposed Order The Court is still waiting for: 3. Court Investigator’s Report 4. Report of attorney Samantha Sepehr (MNCD) Note: A. Letters of temporary conservatorship issued to petitioners expire 5/13/2021 B.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 2ND & FNL ACCT & RPT OF CTR & PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

FILED ON 10/16/20 BY C.C. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Proposed Order C.C. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPT COUNTY COUNSEL MAE SMITH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Verified declaration by petitioner to att...

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF CTR OF PERS/ESTATE

Further report of Atty Greenwood Notes: Proposed Conservatee objects Letters of Temporary Conservatorship of Person/Estate issued to petitioner expire 6-14-2021. C.C.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JOSEPH ZALENSKI VS FLYING DANS INC

On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 for: Fraud Negligent Misrepresentation Conversion Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Violation of Labor Code § 226 Violation of Labor Code § 1198.5 Violation of Family Code § 5235 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress On January 25, 2019, Flying Dan’s default was entered

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

N B, ET AL. VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The Motion for Summary Judgment will not be heard in Dept. 28.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

MARGUERITE GAMO VS LYNDA GEMBERLING

Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LUCA FOSCHINI VS SHALINI ANANDA

Nature of Proceedings: (4) Motions to Compel Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

START INC VS NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

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

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JENNY BELFORTE ET AL VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: (3) Motions for Good Faith Settlement Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JACK CHAVEZ VS ANACAPA CONCRETE INC

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Compel; Protective Order Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JACK CHAVEZ VS ANACAPA CONCRETE INC

The amended response at issue to all but RFP #9 is: “Objection, this request seeks disclosure of information which invades the rights of privacy of individuals not parties to this litigation in violation of Article One, Section One of the United States and California Constitutions.” (Article One, Section One of the United States Constitution vests legislative power in the Congress. It does not address privacy rights.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARGUERITE GAMO VS LYNDA GEMBERLING

In the Mandatory Cover Sheet and Supplemental Allegations-Unlawful Detainer (UD-101), plaintiff states that the action is not based, in whole or in part, on an alleged default payment of rent or other charges. [Item 2.b.] Plaintiff also states that the eviction is a just cause eviction and the tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause as defined in Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(1), which reason is in the notice of termination. [Item 10.a.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF IRVING FOGEL

Hearing: Petition For Orders Finding Financial Abuse of Elder and Directing Recovery of Property (Welfare and Institutions Code §15610.30; Probate Code §850) ******************** Financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BRUCE M. O'HOP

If the conservatorship is established and proof of service re Notice of Hearing (GC-020) is filed, the court intends to grant. Otherwise, petitioner will need to bring this petition outside of a conservatorship action. __________________ As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, we need to be even more vigilant. Please avoid coming into the courthouse in person for any reason for the foreseeable future. Presently, there is almost no situation that requires a personal appearance in court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF ANN FOGEL

Confirmation of Viewing Conservatorship Video (VN-182) not filed. Subject to the above, Grant. Appoint Chrystal O'Connor conservator of the estate of Ann Fogel with bond of $42,548.00. Set due date and hearing dates for I&A and first account. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, we need to be even more vigilant. Please avoid coming into the courthouse in person for any reason for the foreseeable future.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF ANN FOGEL

Confirmation of Viewing Conservatorship Video (VN-182) not filed. Subject to the above, Grant. Appoint Chrystal O'Connor conservator of the estate of Ann Fogel with bond of $42,548.00. Set due date and hearing dates for I&A and first account. __________________ As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, we need to be even more vigilant. Please avoid coming into the courthouse in person for any reason for the foreseeable future.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BRUCE M. O'HOP

Because the CourtCall and Zoom platforms are incompatible, the Court discourages use of CourtCall on Friday. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols. Face coverings (masks, etc.) are required at all times to enter the courthouse and Department J6, and appropriate social distancing in the courtroom and inside the courthouse shall be maintained at all times.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF IRVING FOGEL

Confirmation of Viewing Conservatorship Video (VN-182) not filed. Subject to above, Grant. Appoint Chrystal O'Connor conservator of the estate of Irving Fogel with bond of $687,536.00. Set due date and hearing dates for I&A and first account. Zoom appearance is authorized. __________________ As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, we need to be even more vigilant. Please avoid coming into the courthouse in person for any reason for the foreseeable future.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF JACK THOMAS FRYE

Appoint Kimberly Bennett conservator of the person and estate of Jack Thomas Frye with bond to be determined upon filing of I&A. Set due dates and hearing dates for care plan, I&A, and annual status report. Zoom appearance is authorized. __________________ As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, we need to be even more vigilant. Please avoid coming into the courthouse in person for any reason for the foreseeable future. Presently, there is almost no situation that requires a personal appearance in court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

MORRISON VS CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA

Absent waiver of notice and in the event an order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The following is a statement of the court's tentative ruling. The court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling following the scheduled hearing. This tentative ruling will have no legal effect unless adopted by the court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

MORRISON VS CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA

Absent waiver of notice and in the event an order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The following is a statement of the court's tentative ruling. The court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling following the scheduled hearing. This tentative ruling will have no legal effect unless adopted by the court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

MORRISON VS CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA

Absent waiver of notice and in the event an order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The following is a statement of the court's tentative ruling. The court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling following the scheduled hearing. This tentative ruling will have no legal effect unless adopted by the court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

CONS. OF VICTORIA RAJU

File a verified declaration to include current addresses of mother, father and siblings, and names and current addresses of maternal and paternal grandparents 3. Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court or file a verified declaration by petitioner showing diligent efforts made to identify, locate and serve each person. CRC 7.52 Notes: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DAVID ROSS, ET AL. VS JUSTIN MONEMPOUR, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE MARTEL TRUST,

Violation of the laws of FEHA Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ FEHA claim is barred by the statute of limitations and that their DFEH Complaints are improper on their face.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  « first    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.