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

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

    Sep 29, 2030

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

    Apr 25, 2026

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

    Apr 25, 2026

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

    Jun 20, 2021

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

    Jun 20, 2021

LONG-HIM TANG, ET AL. VS PATRICIA PONCE DE LEON

The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just. (Ibid.) On Forms CIV-100 and JUD0-100 filed July 20, 2020, Plaintiff Long-Him Tang (“Tang”) requests $500,768 consisting of $768 in special damages and $500,000 in general damages. Tang states that he received urgent care the same day of the dog attack from Kaiser Permanente. (Tang Decl., ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TRANSPORT FUNDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ERK LOGISTICS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(“Assignor”), wherein Assignor agreed to sell a 2014 Peterbilt 579 Tractor, VIN 1XPBDP9X6ED226872 to ERK in exchange for ERK’s 47 monthly payments of $1,485.85, commencing on October 15, 2017 until paid in full. On or about May 15, 2020, ERK defaulted in making payments.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

I.L.W.U. CREDIT UNION VS JOHN SUA, ET AL.

Per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, Defendants borrowed $39,898.63. Defendants agreed to repay the monies in 311 weekly installments of $204.90, beginning on December 8, 2011, and a final payment in the sum of $204.27, on or before November 23, 2017. Defendants defaulted in making payments. Plaintiff thereafter took possession of the subject vehicle and sold it at auction. Plaintiff seeks the balance owed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

in the abandoned mobilehome.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2021

STEPHANIE GREENE VS LINDA PENA ET AL

Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the amount of $70,000 against Michael R. Pena and the Estate of Linda Pena. The application is deficient in several ways. First, there is no Judicial Council Form CIV-100 requesting a default judgment. Second, Sassan Mackay, Plaintiff’s counsel of record, submits a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s default application summarizing the procedural history of the case and allegations in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) N/A Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1); N/A for UDs) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) See above 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

    Feb 16, 2021

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

The supplemental declaration of counsel John Byrne filed November 24, 2020 is insufficient in this regard. A further declaration from Eric Guefen or other manager of the subject property is requested, specifically identifying for the court where the $16,103.00 monthly rent figure is referenced and/or how this figure was calculated. Plaintiff does not address the disposition of any security deposit. The supplemental declaration of counsel John Byrne filed November 24, 2020 is insufficient in this regard.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

EARL BULL ET AL VS SUPERIOR MOBILITY INC ET AL

s Special Interrogatories, (Set 3) scheduled for 02/11/2021 are continued to 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) N/A Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1); N/A for UDs) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) See above 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

    Feb 06, 2021

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE VS YOUNG ACTORS CAMP, 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).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.2; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes___________ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable W. FAHEY Judge presiding in Department 69 for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

Hearing on the Motion for Order Allowing Deposition of Prisoner and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DIEGO GARCIA, ET AL. VS U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable John Doyle, Judge presiding in Department 58 for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DIEGO GARCIA, ET AL. VS U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

Hearing on Demurrer set for 02/01/2021 and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SUNPOWER CAPITAL, LLC VS BEN HE, 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

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS FRANCISCO PRECIADO PEREZ, ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the West District, Santa Monica, the Honorable Craig Karlan, Judge presiding in Department N for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

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

    Feb 01, 2021

CYNTHIA ECCLES VS THE ESTATE OF MARK ROBINSON, ET AL.

Hearing on Motions to Quash set for 01/28/2021 and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAI THANH LUU VS GEORGE KONGAIKA

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.) See above_____ 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

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LIMITED CONS. OF BRIAN APORILLO

RE: CTREV SET BY COMPLIANCE RE FILING ACCOUNTING PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of filing first accounting Note: Letters of Temporary Conservatorship of Estate issued to sister-in-law Jeanette Johnson 6-21-19. Bond is fixed at $87,000.00, per Order filed 6-15-2020. BRIAN APORILLO BRENDON D WOODS JEANETTE JOHNSON Need: 1. Appearances to report status 2. Report of Atty. Joseph M.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa 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.