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

201-225 of 10000 results

COLT ROGERS VS. USA BMX

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. The Court intends to rule as follows; Cross-Defendant J.T. Rogers, Jr.'

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CONTINENTAL HERITAGE INS.

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 20, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

SANTILLAN VS. SANTILLAN

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 20, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CONTINENTAL HERITAGE INS.

COVID-19 NOTICE: Until further notice, all attorneys and self-represented parties in law and motion hearings must appear telephonically via Court Call; there shall be no personal appearances without the prior approval of Judge McKaig. You may contact Court Call as follows: www.courtcall.com or call 888-882-6878. Please check in by 8:20 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

THOM M ESCOBAR VS. B & B MOTORS INC

The allegations of corporate liability for punitive damages are insufficient as are the allegations in support of the fact that B&B Motors was aware of the defect. Plaintiffs have not established that punitive damages should be imposed against the lender. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

LOVEKIN VS. VENTU PARK LIQUOR

Plaintiff met her burden of showing that her health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. To be set for trial not more than 120 days from the date of this court's ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f)). Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

SRVUSD VS SRVEA

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of SAN RAMON VALLEY USD, FILED BY SAN RAMON VALLEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION * TENTATIVE RULING: * See Line 3.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

EDWARD DAVIESS VS. BRIDGESTONE

The agreement requires employees to participate in mediation before arbitration, and gives them 30 days after mediation is concluded to initiate arbitration. The Court concurs with defendants’ argument that the contractual limits do not in fact shorten the applicable statutes of limitation.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE VS BSH

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE PLTF'S COMPLAINT FILED BY BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued to 2/24/21 by stipulation of parties.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

SRVUSD VS SRVEA

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of SAN RAMON VALLEY USD, FILED BY CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, * TENTATIVE RULING: * See Line 3.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

SHAPELL VS REGREEN

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE 1ST AMND CROSS CMPLT OF REGREEN FILED BY SHAPELL NORCAL RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC, SHAPELL DEER * TENTATIVE RULING: * Dropped from calendar at request of moving party.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

EDWARD DAVIESS VS. BRIDGESTONE

* TENTATIVE RULING: * In light of the Court’s granting of defendants’ companion motion to compel arbitration, defendants’ motion for stay is also granted. This entire action is stayed as against all parties pending the outcome of arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

SRVUSD VS SRVEA

PERB Jurisdiction Where the claim made in the complaint is an Education Code violation, whether or not the alleged violation arises out of a collective bargaining agreement, the Court rather than PERB has jurisdiction over the action. (California Teachers Association v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

SOLANO AFFORDABLE HOUSING VS T

CCP § 404 provides in part: When civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, by the presiding judge of any such court, or by any party to one of the actions after obtaining permission from the presiding judge, or by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

TULLY VS CHOUINARD

As counsel explained, he was selected to represent Chouinard due to his technical savvy and his experience representing clients in anti-SLAPP cases. Here, defense counsel routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per day on the file, vaguely describing his work as “conduct research” and “review.” In the court’s experience, billing in excess of 7 to 8 hours per day on the same or similar tasks becomes increasingly unproductive and leads to inefficiencies.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

DEAN HABEGGER VS DR. HENRY KUN

The second error of plaintiffs’ counsel was in the failure of his office to attach a planned cause of action for negligence to the three-page Judicial Council form complaint that he filed with the court on September 27, 2018. He has accepted responsibility for that error in his declaration. Clearly, it was not an error committed by plaintiffs themselves. The question then is whether this is the type of error from which his clients can be granted relief under the attorney fault portion of CCP § 473.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

POHYAR VS. CITY OF CLAYTON

The Court “assume[s] the truth of the allegations in the complaint, but do[es] not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247.) “The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court.” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 477.) Factual Background In or about October 2017 Plaintiff purchased a property located at 8053 Kelok Way.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

LESTER VS FOCKLER, ET AL.

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTY FEES & COSTS FILED BY TOBIAS M. LESTER * TENTATIVE RULING: * The court continues the hearing to February 3, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

DORIS ANN WARNER VS LONG BEACH YELLOW CAB CORPORATION, INC., ET AL.

for 01/20/2021 are continued to 01/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS GNEL CHIBUKCHYAN, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows: Gnel Chibukchyan is not entitled to any policy benefits or coverage relating to or arising out of the alleged accident of June 17, 2019, the alleged resulting damages, injuries or the resulting medical bills.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GORDELIA CLARK VS OLYMPIA MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

It provides that a cause of action is comprised of a primary right of the plaintiff, a corresponding primary duty of the defendant, and a wrongful act by the defendant constituting a breach of that duty. The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible: the violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action. As far as its content is concerned, the primary right is simply the plaintiff's right to be free from the particular injury suffered. . . .

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GILLESPIE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

To render them discoverable, the plaintiffs must establish that the denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs in preparing their claim or will result in an injustice. The plaintiffs assert that they need discovery of the recordings in order to “respond to potentially important impeachment evidence.” (Decl. of Freedman, ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

WASSMER VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The statements which Plaintiff complains of were made within the course of personnel-related decisions on Plaintiff’s retirement and termination and do not necessarily amount to a conduct constituting harassment under FEHA. II.SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of FEHA. FEHA protects employees who make a charge, testify, assist or participate in any manner in proceedings or hearings under the statutes; or opposes acts made unlawful by the statutes. (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

A. VS AEROSPORTS TRAMPOLINE PARKS, LLC

This is a right of privacy concern. Defendants provided no particularized need or the direct relevance of Plaintiff’s school records. Defendants fail to show how any suspension or disciplinary records relate to the TBI, post-concussive syndrome, depression and anxiety he claims as a result of the injury. While Plaintiff may have pre-existing anger issues, Defendant has not shown or provided any argument as to how the pre-existing issues relate to any depression, anxiety, TBI or post concussive syndrome.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

HOPKINS VS CORONA POST ACUTE LLC

GRANT in part. DENY in part. Deny the Motion for Summary Judgment. Grant the Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 2nd and 4th causes of action (issues 1 and 2 in the separate statement). These causes of action are for elder abuse and professional negligence. Both require a breach of the applicable standard of care and causation. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15610.57(a); Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 405- 407; Flatt v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 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.