Retaliation in Violation of FEHA in California

As noted above, although she asserted four retaliation claims, each of the non-FEHA 21 retaliation claims was premised on alleged facts different from those that underlie her FEHA 22 retaliation case. This complicates the analysis of which parts of the case were intertwined 23 between her FEHA retaliation claim and her non-FEHA retaliation claims. The alleged protected 24 activities surely differed.

Consequently, [u]nless the FEHA claim was frivolous, only those costs [that can be] properly allocated to non-FEHA claims may be recovered by the prevailing defendant. ( Id. at p. 1062.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs non-FEHA claim for retaliation under the Labor Code is intertwined and inseparable from his FEHA claim for retaliation such that apportionment is impractical.

Davis for (1) violation of the FEHA – gender discrimination; (2) violation of the FEHA – gender harassment; (3) violation of the FEHA – retaliation; (4) violation of the FEHA – failure to accommodate; (5) violation of the FEHA – failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) violation of the FEHA – failure to investigate/prevent/correct FEHA violations; (7) wrongful retaliation in violation of public policy; (8) false promise/intentional misrepresentation; (9) violation of California Wage and Hour Law and

The court has considered the evidentiary basis of the Third cause of action for Whistleblower Retaliation with that of the First cause of action under FEHA for complaining of Racial Discrimination and Harassment and the Second cause of action under FEHA for Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation based on Race.

On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for (1) FEHA race discrimination, (2) FEHA religious discrimination, (3) FEHA disability discrimination, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, (6) FEHA harassment, (7) FEHA retaliation, (8) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (9) wrongful termination, and (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 2, 2019 alleging six causes of action including: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) wrongful constructive termination in violation of FEHA; and (6) declaratory judgment.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 2, 2018, and filed the FAC on December 18, 2018, alleging 17 causes of action: FEHA Age Harassment FEHA Age Discrimination FEHA Age Retaliation FEHA National Origin Harassment FEHA National Origin Discrimination FEHA National Origin Retaliation FEHA Race Harassment FEHA Race Discrimination FEHA Race Retaliation FEHA Sex Harassment FEHA Sex Discrimination FEHA Sex Retaliation FEHA Religious Harassment FEHA Religious Discrimination FEHA

Ruffin asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA race discrimination, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) FEHA failure to accommodate, (7) FEHA failure to prevent, (8) whistleblower retaliation, and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff moves to consolidate this action with Elizabeth Handy v.

Moore’s holding, by its plain language, was limited to the FEHA version of retaliation. This conclusion is further supported by its reasoning’s closely tracking the FEHA retaliation language: “discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any 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.” Govt. Code § 12940(h).

Defendant contends that the flaw in the cause of action is that the conduct underlying her complaints was not conduct which was prohibited by FEHA. Since FEHA only forbids retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA, she cannot establish a claim for retaliation in violation of FEHA. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy The allegations do not identify any specific public policy.

Here, Defendant demurs to the Ninth Cause of Action for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA and the Eleventh Cause of Action for Retaliation Under Cal. Labor Code § 1012.5 1. Ninth Cause of Action Retaliation Under FEHA Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for Retaliation Under FEHA. (Motion at p. 3.)

Background On July 1, 2018, Plaintiff Arnette West sued the County of Los Angeles pursuant to a Complaint alleging six causes of action for Fair and Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) violations: (1) FEHA Discrimination (Age & Disability); (2) FEHA Harassment (Age & Disability); (3) FEHA Failure to Take All Steps Reasonably Necessary to Stop Discrimination and Harassment; (4) FEHA Retaliation; (5) FEHA Failure to Accommodate; and (6) FEHA Failure to Enter into the Interactive Process.

On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff Daniel La Mar filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Food LA, LLC and Judith Ornstein for (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest periods, (3) violations of the UCL, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA preemtive retaliation, and (6) failure to prevent retaliation, harassment, and discrimination.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 31, 2018, asserting ten causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment in violation of the FEHA; (6) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (7) hostile work environment; (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; (9)

On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria Larson filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC for (1) FEHA harassment, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, (5) adverse action in violation of public policy, and (6) whistleblower retaliation. Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC demurs to all causes of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

Discrimination under FEHA 2. Retaliation under FEHA 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation under FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under FEHA 5. Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process 6. Retaliation under Government Code section 12945.2 7. Declaratory Judgment 8.

First Cause of Action (Failure To Provide A Reasonable Accommodation In Violation of FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process In Violation of FEHA); Third Cause of Action (Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Hostile Work Environment In Violation of FEHA); Fifth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Harassment or Retaliation In Violation of FEHA).

The declaration further provides that the only area of disagreement is whether the cause of action for retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 should be dismissed as either being preempted by the FEHA or as being redundant of Plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claim. Determination of this issue is moot in that the parties have agreed that plaintiff’s claim for retaliation will be reflected in two separate causes of action.

[FEHA]; 2) FOR HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVER}IMENT CODE 1294s.2 ET SEQ.

FEHA; (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (8) failure to engage in the interactive process; (9) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of FEHA; (10) retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (11) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (13) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate

On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

Retaliation (3rd C/A) The third cause of action is titled "Retaliation in Violation of FEHA" and alleges in the substantive allegations violations under FEHA. (Compl. ¶ 69.)

(Defendant), alleging nine causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (7) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 6310 and 6311; and (9) retaliation

Therefore, the retaliation claim is insufficient. Additionally, a failure to prevent claim cannot stand without allegations of actionable retaliation, harassment, or discrimination under FEHA. (Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289.) Plaintiff’s claims are solely based upon the alleged breach of a settlement agreement between the parties. Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiencies in his FEHA causes of action as the court pointed out in the prior demurrer.

The jury was instructed that the plaintiff could establish retaliation under FEHA if he “[refused] to participate in activities that would violate state, federal, or local statutes, rules, or regulations,” or that would violate FEHA. (Id. at 723.) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that FEHA retaliation can only be established where the protected activity concerns conduct prohibited under FEHA. (Id. at 723; See also McKinney v. American Airlines, Inc. (C.D.

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(h), FOR TESTIFYING IN COWORKER S FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(a)(h)(i), RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION; 2. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §§12920, 12921, 12940(a), 12945.2(1), EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(h), 12945.2, ET SEQ. FOR EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 4.

Stratton reflects that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied as required by CCP § 430.41 Analysis 1, First Cause of Action (Discrimination In Violation of FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Discrimination In Violation of FEHA); Third Cause of Action (Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fifth Cause of Action (Harassment In Violation of FEHA); Sixth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Harassment In Violation of

D iscrimination in Violation of the FEHA 2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA 3. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 5. Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5) On March 12, 2022, Defendant Los Angeles Community College District (District or Defendant) filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike Plaintiffs SAC.

The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) FEHA disability discrimination, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) violation of wage and hour laws—unpaid overtime wages, (9) violation of wage and hour laws—waiting time penalties, (10) failure to provide accurate wage statements

Based on Gender and Race in Violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (5) Misclassification as an Independent Contractor, (6) Violation of Labor Code § 6310, (7) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5, (8) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6, (9) Failure to Pay Earned Wages in Violation of Labor Code § 204, (10) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 203, and (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation

(CCP §438(c)(1)(B)(ii).) 1ST – 3RD, 5TH, 7TH, AND 8TH CAUSES OF ACTION BASED ON THE FEHA Here, Defendant, Pfitzer, argues that because he was not Plaintiff’s employer, he is not a proper party to the FEHA claims (1st – 3rd, 5th, 7th - 8th c/ac), except as to FEHA harassment (4th c/ac.) Under FEHA, non-employer individuals are not personally liable for their role in retaliation or discrimination. (see Jones v.

The operative First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA sexual harassment, (2) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent retaliation, (5) CFRA retaliation, (6) negligent hiring & supervision, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and (9) defamation.

Reasonably construed, this prohibition of retaliation against “any person,” includes former employees allegedly subjected to retaliation. To the knowledge of the court, no published California decision has considered whether this subdivision applies to retaliation against a former employee. “California courts often look to Title VII in interpreting the FEHA.” State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040.

Reasonably construed, this prohibition of retaliation against “any person,” includes former employees allegedly subjected to retaliation. To the knowledge of the court, no published California decision has considered whether this subdivision applies to retaliation against a former employee. “California courts often look to Title VII in interpreting the FEHA.” State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040.

Reasonably construed, this prohibition of retaliation against “any person,” includes former employees allegedly subjected to retaliation. To the knowledge of the court, no published California decision has considered whether this subdivision applies to retaliation against a former employee. “California courts often look to Title VII in interpreting the FEHA.” State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040.

Reasonably construed, this prohibition of retaliation against “any person,” includes former employees allegedly subjected to retaliation. To the knowledge of the court, no published California decision has considered whether this subdivision applies to retaliation against a former employee. “California courts often look to Title VII in interpreting the FEHA.” State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040.

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

December 1, 2022 On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff Lucas Tapia filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles, alleging (1) discrimination (disparate treatment) in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) discrimination (disparate impact) in violation of FEHA; (3) harassment (sexual favoritism) in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; and (6) retaliation in violation of the Labor Code

On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent retaliation, (5) violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5, (6) violation of Lab. Code § 6310, and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties. (See Frag Decl., Exhibit A.)

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation

violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against all Defendants) Retaliation for complaining and/or harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Retaliation for taking CFRA leave

("CFRA"); 5) perceived and/or sex/gender harassment in violation FEHA; 6) perceived and/or sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; 7) perceived and/or sex/gender retaliation in violation of FEHA; 8) retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of FEHA; and 9) declaratory relief. The District demurs to each of the first eight causes of action.

(FEHA); (5) Actual/Perceived Disability Retaliation, Violation of the FEHA; (6) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, Government Code 12940(n); (7) Failure to Accommodate, Government Code 12940(m); (8) Violation of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code 12945.2; (9) Sex/Gender Harassment, Violation of the FEHA; (10) Sex/Gender Discrimination, Violation of the FEHA; (11) Sex/Gender Retaliation, Violation of the FEHA; (12) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination or Retaliation, Violation

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

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

The FAC filed a few months later alleged (1) Discrimination (FEHA); (2) Harassment (FEHA); (3) Retaliation (FEHA); (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (FEHA); (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment (FEHA); (7) Negligent Hiring; (8) Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (9) IIED; (10) Violation of CFRA; (11) Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, in which Garcia complained of retaliation for his whistleblower activities of reporting problems

(See, e.g., Reply, 4:24-5:8 [arguing FEHA Discrimination and Retaliation have same underpinnings and thus implying no further need for discovery as to the Retaliation claims advanced in the proposed amendments].) The Motion is DENIED.

Defendant argues it is unclear whether plaintiff alleges: (1) discrimination and harassment; (2) discrimination and retaliation; or (3) discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The complaints first cause of action is for sex discrimination in violation of FEHA. The second cause of action is for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA. Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action for retaliation under FEHA. The complaint is clear enough.

Third Cause of Action: FEHA Retaliation The retaliation provision of FEHA forbids an employer “to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under” FEHA. Gov’t Code, § 12940(h).

On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff Francisco Gallegos filed the operative Complaint against Defendant University of La Verne for (1) interference with CFRA leave, (2) retaliation for taking CFRA leave, (3) FEHA retaliation for taking medical leave, (4) FEHA disability discrimination, (5) FEHA failure to accommodate, (6) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (7) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (8) wrongful termination.

As discussed below, plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claim is defective without possibility of cure by amendment. Therefore, plaintiff has no possibility of pleading an underlying FEHA violation, and his derivative failure to prevent claim is fatally defective. Third COA: Retaliation (FEHA): The motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for the sole purpose of pleading the CFRA as the basis for the alleged retaliation instead of the other law cited.

On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria Larson filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC for (1) FEHA harassment, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, (5) adverse action in violation of public policy, and (6) whistleblower retaliation. Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC seeks to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to its requests for production, set one, nos. 5-6.

Defendant further argues that a general FEHA claim is improper, as FEHA encompasses several different causes of action, including discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation, all with different elements. (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.)

On 5/11/2020, Plaintiff Claudia Iwamasa (Plaintiff) filed suit against Optumcare Management, LLC (Defendant), alleging: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to prevent; (6) retaliation in violation of the CFRA; (8) violation of California Labor Code section 98.6 and 1102.5, et seq. ; and (9) wrongful termination.

· The new FEHA violations revive the 1 st cause of action for race and age discrimination in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge; 3 rd cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge based on retaliation stemming from filing this action; and 6 th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or correct in violation of FEHA, including allowing the constructive discharge.

· The new FEHA violations revive the 1 st cause of action for race and age discrimination in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge; 3 rd cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge based on retaliation stemming from filing this action; and 6 th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or correct in violation of FEHA, including allowing the constructive discharge.

In it, Plaintiff alleged failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), retaliation in Violation of FEHA, whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and wrongful termination in violation of FEHA.

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(h), FOR TESTIFYING IN COWORKER S FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(a)(h)(i), RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION; 2. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §§12920, 12921, 12940(a), 12945.2(1), EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(h), 12945.2, ET SEQ. FOR EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 4.

Retaliation (2 nd COA) As discussed above, the 2 nd cause of action is uncertain given Plaintiffs failure to allege the statutory basis for retaliation. However, Plaintiffs opposition suggests the cause of action is based on Defendants violation of the FEHA given Plaintiffs DFEH Complaint is based on Healthworks being an employer subject to the FEHA.

It appears that Plaintiff alleges FEHA discrimination and retaliation associated with reporting work place conditions and treatment of special needs students, not based upon actions giving rise to a cause of action under FEHA. As to the second cause of action for harassment in violation of the FEHA, the demurrer is sustained for failure to plead sufficient facts. The complaint alleges that Defendants harassed Plaintiff because she reported her workplace injuries and her safety concerns.

Plaintiff has also pleaded sufficient facts to support her third cause of action for retaliation in violation of the FEHA. Employees may establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under the FEHA by showing that (1) they engaged in activities protected by the FEHA, (2) their employers subsequently took adverse employment action against them, and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. (Miller v.

and Associational Disability in Violation of FEHA against all Defendants; Retaliation for Complaining of Discrimination and/or Harassment on the Basis of Disability and Associations Disability in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Retaliation for Taking CFRA Leave in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Engage in Interactive Process

Disability discrimination under FEHA 2. Violation of CFRA 3. Harassment based upon disability under FEHA 4. Failure to accommodate a disability under FEHA 5. Failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA 6. Failure to prevent discrimination and harassment under FEHA 7. Retaliation under FEHA 8.

The only references to retaliation are in paragraph 24, a background paragraph providing the scope of FEHA, paragraph 32 which refers to wrongful termination “in retaliation for Plaintiff’s whistleblowing” and paragraph 83, alleging “pretext for the retaliation in terminating Plaintiff,” which is in the Fifth Cause of Action for Violation of Whistleblower Statute.”

CODE §12945(a)); (5) RETALIATION FOR TAKING CFRA LEAVE; (6) INTERFERENCE WITH CFRA LEAVE; (7) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV. CODE §§12940(a), (i), (m), (n), 12945(a)); (8) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV. CODE §§ 12940(a), (i), (m), (n), 12945(a)); (9) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND/OR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV.

Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.) 5. Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.) 6. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.) 7. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 8. Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) 9. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

Discrimination under FEHA 2. Retaliation under FEHA 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation under FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under FEHA 5. Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process 6. Retaliation under Government Code section 12945.2 7. Declaratory Judgment 8.

On 11/21/16, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint which asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA race discrimination, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA race harassment, and (6) FEHA failure to prevent harassment. Status conference, mediation setting conference, and OSC re: dismissal of unnamed and unserved defendants for 2/22/17.

Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 and FEHA Defendant asserts Plaintiffs claims for retaliation fail because Defendant did not subject Plaintiff to an adverse employment action.

Discussion Factual and procedural background On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff Fred Dailey filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), alleging the following causes of action: C/A 1: for Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq) C/A 2: for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq) C/A 3: for Failure to Prevent Discrimination/Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(k)) C/A 4: for Retaliation in Violation of CFRA

The So-Called "New" FEHA Claims CDCR argues leave to amend should be denied because Laidley is attempting to "sneak" new time-barred FEHA claims into the SAC. CDCR's argument regarding the timeliness of the FEHA claims is not entirely clear. The FAC contains three FEHA claims (for retaliation, . discrimination, and failure to engage in the interactive process), and the SAC seeks to add only one additional FEHA claim for failure to accommodate.

Plaintiff asks for leave to add a seventh cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5, an eighth cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, additional paragraphs under the existing FEHA retaliation, and a prayer for injunctive relief preventing Defendant from engaging in discriminatory or retaliatory conduct.

Third Cause of Action for FEHA Retaliation Defendant demurs to the third cause of action for retaliation on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege a protected activity. FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to retaliate against persons who participate in FEHA proceedings or oppose conduct that FEHA proscribes. (Gov. Code § 12940.)

to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of Cal.

ISSUE NO. 7: Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation under FEHA fails as a matter of law because the undisputed material facts show that Plaintiffs underlying FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims or not cognizable.

On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff Tu Ly filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendant City of Los Angeles for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accomodate, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA retaliation, and (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. Defendant City of Los Angeles moves for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of all causes of action.

against the City; 9) constructive discharge in violation of public policy under FEHA against the City; 10) retaliation for complaining about discrimination and/or harassment against the City; and 11) failure to prevent harassment, retaliation, and discrimination against the City.

His First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges: (1) Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; (2) Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in the interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (7) Defamation; (8) Breach of Express Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) FEHA failure to prevent, (5) FEHA retaliation, whistleblower retaliation pursuant to (6) Labor Code § 1102.5 and (7) Labor Code § 98.6, (8) inaccurate wage statements, and (9) failure to pay wages. Trial is set for 11/27/17; FSC for 11/16/17; all-purpose status conference and OSC re: dismissal of unnamed and unserved defendants for 3/6/17.

On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff Brenda Baca commenced this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles for (1) sex/gender harassment – hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA. On July 31, 2020, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant demurrer to the retaliation claim on the grounds that it fails to set forth facts to constitute a cause of action.

BACKGROUND On August 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Alvaro Arevalo, Javier Arevalo and Elzy Erazo filed the operative first amended complaint against U Work Personnel, Inc. and Arms Trans, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (5) failure to permit inspection of personnel and

Accordingly, Moving Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as to the FEHA causes of actions. Fifth Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy Moving Defendant contends that the common law claim for Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy does not state a cause of action as there is no common law cause of action for retaliation. The Court agrees.

This is insufficient to state any of the asserted FEHA claims. Thus, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the FEHA claims for discrimination, retaliation, harassment, failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation/harassment, failure to accommodate disability, and failure to engage in the interactive process.

Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; 2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; 3. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA; 5. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 7. CFRA Leave Retaliation; 8.

Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; 2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; 3. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA; 5. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 7. CFRA Leave Retaliation; 8.

Although nonrenewal of an employment contract can form the basis for a FEHA retaliation claim, Defendant argues that the retaliation causes of action must fail because Abrams has failed to allege that she engaged in any protected activity. However, Abrams alleges that she “complained about the aforementioned discrimination, and harassment.” (FAC, ¶¶ 8d, 22e.) Protected activity under FEHA includes “oppos[ing] any practices forbidden under [FEHA].” (Gov. Code, § 12940(h).)

violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against all Defendants) Retaliation for complaining and/or harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Retaliation for taking CFRA leave

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claim and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim were sufficiently related that the inclusion of the latter claim did not increase Defendant’s basic costs of litigation. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s memorandum of costs is stricken in its entirety.

(“Metrolab”), Teresa Izaguirre (“Izaguirre”), and Behrouz Tavakoli (“Tavakoli”) (collectively “Defendants”) demur to the 1st (disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA), 2nd (disability harassment in violation of the FEHA), 3rd (retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 4th (failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 5th (failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA), 6th (failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation

Fourth Cause of Action: Retaliation To make a case for FEHA retaliation, Plaintiff must allege facts to show that (1) he engaged in activity protected by FEHA, (2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (3) there is some other circumstance which suggests a causal link between the two. Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4 th 52, 69-70.

On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff Durant McLeod filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against Defendants California Physicians Service, Arshad Haqib, and Sandra Griffin for (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (5) whistleblower retaliation, (6) wrongful termination, and (7) whistleblower retaliation.

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Durant McLeod filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants California Physicians Service, Arshad Haqib, and Sandra Griffin for (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (5) whistleblower retaliation, (6) wrongful termination, and (7) whistleblower retaliation.

) (1) FEHA Foley’s first cause of action is for violation of FEHA’s prohibition against retaliation.

Retaliation FEHA requires an employer to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee. (Gov. Code, § 12940(m)(1).) Additionally, FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate or retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation. ( Id. , subd. (m)(2).) Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated for requesting leave to care for her daughter. (Compl. ¶ 13.)

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

As to defendant's workers exclusivity argument, unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA falls outside the compensation bargain and therefore claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on such discrimination and retaliation are not subject to workers' compensation exclusivity. Light v. California Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 101. The Court denies plaintiff's invitation for the Court to impose sanctions sua sponte under CCP 128.7.

Consequently, the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff’s claim under Labor Code section 1102.5 alleged retaliation, based on Plaintiff having complained of related FEHA violations.