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

151-175 of 10000 results

CONS. OF DEANDRE MARQUIES ALEWINE

Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice 2. Original financial account statement(s) as required by PrC § 2620(c) (2), (3). Decl. of Co-Guardians filed 1-12-2021 is missing exhibits. 3. Declaration of Attorney Leighton Burrey in support of fees requested. 4. Proposed Order DOMINIC M DE SMEDT JENNIFER DE SMEDT BURREY ESTATE AND TAX ATTORNEY JENNIFER DE SMEDT LEIGHTON A. BURREY PHILIPPE DE SMEDT LEIGHTON A.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MELLANIE REEVE, ET AL. VS CHARLES DUNN REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC

Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $7,885. However, the notice of motion does not specify whom the sanction is requested against. “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (CCP § 2023.040.) Accordingly, sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In those cases, the defendant held plaintiff’s money for plaintiff’s benefit—to be returned at a later date. In Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co. (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 908 (1974), plaintiff engaged defendant, a common carrier, to transport her goods in interstate commerce in plaintiff’s van. The defendant in Schroeder, therefore, was holding and transporting, as bailee, plaintiff’s goods for plaintiff’s benefit. In Varela v. Wells Fargo Bank (1971) 15 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

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

    Jan 27, 2021

RICARDO A. CERVANTES VS OSCAR I QUISPE

Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $445.50 for each motion. Defense counsel bills at $143.75 per hour. The request is reasonable and wholly supported by Defendant’s counsel’s declaration. (Mot. Webb ¿ 6.) Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record. Defendant does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Plaintiff personally. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s attorney of record.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

TARAS SHELESTYUK VS BANNER PROMOTIONS, INC., ET AL.

This constitutes extrinsic mistake for purposes of granting relief. Finally, defendant has shown diligence in seeking to have the judgment set aside, beginning efforts to obtain a stipulation in June after discovering the default in May. Finally, there is no evidence of substantial prejudice to plaintiff if the motion is granted. GRANTED. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VENICCI INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. VS LORD HOUSING, LLC, ET AL.

ANALYSIS: The request is Entry of Default Judgement is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOSEPH LULLO, ET AL. VS 939 S. GRAMERCY PL. LLC.,

Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against all defendants: (1) negligence; (2) breach of warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) nuisance; (5) breach of contract; (6) constructive eviction; (7) fraud; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (9) unfair business practice in violation of Business and Profession Code sections 1572, 17200 and Civil Code section 1942.4. Defendants Prana Holding Company, LLC., 939 S. Gramercy Pl.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

IEMAN SHAHI VS FATBURGER NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

However, as the Court ruled on Defendants’ prior demurrer, a fraud in the inducement claim does not function as Plaintiff posits and Plaintiff would have to allege rescission of the Contact to escape its obligations. (See 1/6/20 Ruling re Demurrer to Complaint.) Plaintiff has not pled rescission of the Contract in the FAC and does not mention it in opposition. Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

6319 COLFAX, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS THE TITAN NEXUS, ET AL.

Given the existence of such affirmative defense, the Court finds that it is not necessarily likely that Plaintiff will succeed on its ejectment claim as to Fit. Also, neither the complaint nor the declaration in support of the Motion alleges that Fit owes a legal duty to Plaintiff. The Motion is therefore DENIED in its entirety. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CESARE VIETINA VS SECURITY PACIFIC ASSOCIATES INC ET AL

The statute defines “fair value” as the “liquidation value as of the valuation date but taking into account the possibility, if any, of sale of the entire business as a going concern in a liquidation.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

MAIRA E. DUARTE JUAREZ VS DAVID S. WARD

and for costs of $60.00 incurred in bringing the Production Motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

MELINA CAMERON, ET AL. VS US BANCORP, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; (3) violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act; (4) discrimination in business dealings; and (5) violation of Ralph Act. Moving Defendant filed a demurrer to the FAC; however, the notice of motion does not specifically set forth the causes of action to which the demurrer is applicable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RITA HOLLYWOOD SKYLINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS EMC PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CIM/11600 WISHIRE (LOS ANGELES), LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS BAC TO HEALTH, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, ET AL.

Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) ¿When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.¿ (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power¿(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.)¿ In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿ (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $361.65. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

KIRK KNOSTMAN VS CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALI, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.; (2) harassment in violation of Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Gov. Code § 12940(k); (5) retaliation in violation of Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JEREMY BAKER VS OUT THE BLUE RECORDS, LLC, ET AL.

“A member’s duty of care to a limited liability company and the other members in the conduct and winding up of the activities of the limited liability company is limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. MICHAEL N. FEUER, AS CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES VS JAMES SMITH, ET AL.

Violation of LAMC §12.21.A.1(a) On April 15, 2019, the People filed the FAC, alleging five causes of action: Engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in violation of LAMC § 104.15 Engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in violation of B&P §§ 17200 et seq. Selling cannabis containing paclobutrazol in violation of B&P §§17200 et seq. Violation of Health & Safety Code §§11570 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ALVARO GARCIA VS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP, ET AL.

A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LILLIAN PIEDRA VS INTERSTATE VAPE INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Here, only general allegations are required in order to overcome a demurrer. The law is clear: “A manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.” (Soule v. GM Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298].

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

VANESSA MARIE SORENSEN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The case defendant cites for this proposition, however, does not explicitly state punitive damages are never recoverable for violation of traffic laws, and later cases have held that, depending on the circumstances, reckless driving performed with “conscious disregard of safety” can be sufficient to support punitive damages. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App.3d 82, 88.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

JACKIE KRIETZMAN ET AL VS MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL

Under the Hill test, the party asserting a privacy right must establish: (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, (3) and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id. at pp. 35–37.) However, [i]nvasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a competing interest. (Id. at p. 38.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANTONIO RAMOS, ET AL VS. HOME CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS CORP.

TENTATIVE RULING 1/27/2021 LC107846 RAMOS V HOME CONSTRUCTION MOTION FOR DISCHARGE AND ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY CROSS-COMPLAINANT AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMINITY IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT BANKRUPTCY FILING RESULTING IN AN AUTOMATIC STAY AS TO PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT HOME CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS CORP, THE COURT IS INCLINED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE MOTION.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PNRW, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, VS TROON, INC, ET AL.

Accredited be awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the sum of $2,500 as allowance for its expenses incurred in this proceeding by the filing of its Cross-Complaint in Interpleader and in preserving the penalty of said bond for all claimants on an equal basis.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  « 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.