Thank you
Someone from our team will get in touch with you shortly
Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA in California
What Is Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA?
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it unlawful for an employer to harass an employee based on sex or gender. Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1).
To establish a prima facie case of sex/gender discrimination, an employee must show that
- she was a member of a protected class,
- she was qualified for the position sought or was performing competently in the position held,
- she suffered an adverse employment action, and
- some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.
Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 323.
An adverse employment action is an action that materially affects the terms and conditions of employment. Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1387. Materiality may encompass not only ultimate employment decisions but also the “entire spectrum of employment actions that are reasonably likely to adversely and materially affect an employee’s job performance or opportunity for advancement in his or her career.” Id.
Sex/Gender Harassment
Gender/sex harassment under the FEHA generally consists of bias that is expressed or communicated through interpersonal relationships in the workplace. Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706-707. “[H]arassment focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee.” Id. at 706.
To establish a prima facie case of harassment under the FEHA, the plaintiff must show that:
- he was a member of a protected class,
- he was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on the protected status, and
- the harassment unreasonably interfered with his work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 876.
With respect to the third element, “‘[h]arassment cannot be occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial; rather the plaintiff must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature.’” Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 131. The harassment must be “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive environment,” as judged by the reasonable person belonging to the plaintiff’s protected class. Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 877.
Retaliation for Opposing Discrimination and Harassment
FEHA makes it unlawful for the employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because she 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.” Gov. Code § 12940(h). In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA, a plaintiff must show:
- she engaged in a protected activity,
- the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and
- a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action.
Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042.
Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment
FEHA prohibits an employer from failing “to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Gov. Code § 12940(k). When an employee seeks to recover damages based on a claim of failure to prevent harassment, the employee must show three elements:
- the employee was subjected to harassment,
- the employer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, and
- this failure caused the employee to suffer injury, damage, loss, or harm.
Caldera v. Dept. of Corr. and Rehab. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 31, 43-44.
Supervisor vs. Non-supervisor
FEHA imposes two standards of employer liability for sexual harassment, depending on whether the person engaging in the harassment is the victim’s supervisor or a non-supervisory co-employee.
The employer is liable for harassment by a non-supervisory employee only if the employer:
- knew or should have known of the harassing conduct, and
- failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1). This is a negligence standard. State Dept. of Health Serv. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040-41.
Conversely, “an employer is strictly liable for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor.” State Dept. of Health Serv. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1042.
FEHA defines a “supervisor” as “any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.” Gov. Code § 12926(t).
Summary Judgment
When an employer seeks summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, the initial burden rests with the employer to show that no unlawful discrimination occurred. The employer can satisfy this initial burden by either
- undermining an element of plaintiff’s prima facie case, or
- providing a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 926.
“[A] plaintiff’s ‘suspicions of improper motives... primarily based on conjecture and speculation’ are not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.” Kerr v. Rose (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1551, 1564.
A legitimate non-discriminatory reason is one that is facially unrelated to prohibited bias and which, if true, would preclude a finding of discrimination. Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 358. Once a defendant employer articulates such a reason, the burden shifts to the plaintiff employee to establish that the defendant intentionally discriminated against her. Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 942. The plaintiff must offer substantial evidence that the employer’s stated non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination. Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005.
Avoidable Consequences Doctrine
Under the avoidable consequences doctrine, “a person injured by another’s wrongful conduct will not be compensated for damages that the injured person could have avoided by reasonable effort or expenditure.” State Dept. of Health Serv. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1043. The doctrine applies in FEHA actions against an employer for hostile environmental sexual harassment by a supervisor. State Dept. of Health Serv. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1044.
The doctrine consists of three elements:
- the employer took reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace sexual harassment;
- the employee unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that the employer provided; and
- reasonable use of the employer’s procedures would have prevented at least some of the harm that the employee suffered.
State Dept. of Health Serv. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1044.
Because this doctrine presents an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving its applicability. Id.
Note that “[t]his defense will allow the employer to escape liability for those damages, and only those damages, that the employee more likely than not could have prevented with reasonable effort and without undue risk, expense, or humiliation, by taking advantage of the employer’s internal complaint procedures appropriately designed to prevent and eliminate sexual harassment.” State Dept. of Health Serv. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1044. “An employer that has exercised reasonable care nonetheless remains strictly liable for harm a sexually harassed employee could not have avoided through reasonable care.” Id. at 1045; see also Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1421 (“Since an employee’s failure to avail herself of available protections does not provide the employer with a complete defense, the posture of this appeal from summary judgment does not require us to address the parties’ dispute about whether Trendwest adequately advised plaintiff of availability of a grievance procedure.”)
The doctrine “does not demand or expect that employees victimized by a supervisor’s sexual harassment must always report such conduct immediately to the employer through internal grievance mechanisms. The employer may lack an adequate antiharassment policy or adequate procedures to enforce it, the employer may not have communicated the policy or procedures to the victimized employee, or the employee may reasonably fear reprisal by the harassing supervisor or other employees. Moreover, in some cases an employee’s natural feelings of embarrassment, humiliation, and shame may provide a sufficient excuse for delay in reporting acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor. The employee’s conduct is judged against a standard of reasonableness, and this standard ‘is not as high as the standard required in other areas of law.’” State Dept. of Health Serv. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1045.
Administrative Requirements
Under FEHA, the employee must exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the statute by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and must obtain from DFEH a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil action in court based on violations of FEHA. Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, 49.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is “a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.” Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70.
The allegations in a judicial complaint filed pursuant to FEHA may encompass any kind of discrimination like or related to the allegations contained in the administrative charge and growing out of such allegations during the pendency of the case before the DFEH. See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 267 (discussing and applying analogous Title VII case law). What is submitted to the DFEH must be construed liberally in favor of plaintiff and construed in light of what might be uncovered by a reasonable investigation. Id.
Rulings for Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA in California
(AZHP), and DOES 1 to 100 (collectively, Defendants), alleging causes of action for: (1) Discrimination on the Basis of Race, Color, Ancestry, and/or National Origin in Violation of FEHA; (2) Harassment on the Basis of Race, Color, Ancestry, and/or National Origin in Violation of FEHA; (3) Discrimination on the Basis of Sex/Gender, including Pregnancy, in Violation of FEHA; (4) Harassment on the Basis of Sex/Gender, including Pregnancy, in Violation of FEHA; (5) Retaliation for Complaining of Discrimination
-
Name
EBONI GARDNER VS VALLEY CREEK HOSPICE, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
21STCV36267
-
Hearing
Dec 08, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
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 the FEHA 13. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress RULING: The demurrer is overruled as to the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th causes of action and sustained with 20 days leave to amend as to the 10th and 13th causes of action.
-
Name
RITA BOGHOS VS OLIVE VIEW - UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
-
Case No.
21CHCV00047
-
Hearing
Jun 07, 2021
-
Judge
Hon. Melvin D. Sandvig
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff Discrimination Based on Sex/Gender – Disparate Treatment, Harassment Based on Sex/Gender, Retaliation for Opposing Violation of FEHA, Whistleblower Retaliation, Association Discrimination, Failure to Prevent and Stop Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation, and Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policies.
-
Name
OLIVIA BARROWS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAMES IVEY,AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
-
Case No.
19CHCV00245
-
Hearing
Jan 11, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
Her complaint asserts the following eleven causes of action: (1) sex/gender discrimination in violation of Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (2) sex/gender harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) age discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (4) age harassment in violation of the FEHA; (5) hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment in violation of the
-
Name
CATHERINE SPARKMAN VS JASON J. EMER, MD, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
-
Case No.
23STCV01347
-
Hearing
May 01, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
; (10) failure to reasonably accommodate disabilities; (11) disability discrimination; (12) gender and pregnancy harassment; (13) harassment based on sex/gender; (14) harassment based on disability; (15) retaliation for opposing violations of FEHA; (16) failure to prevent and stop harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; and (17) whistleblower retaliation.
-
Name
JOCELYN MUNOZ VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV01303
-
Hearing
Jun 04, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
1.DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff alleges the following seven c/a: Sex, Gender and Gender Expression Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA – Govt. Code § 12940 et seq. Failure to Prevent Sex, Gender and Gender Expression Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA – Govt. Code § 12940 et seq.
-
Name
PODEROSO VS. NYX NIGHTLIFE GROUP, LLC
-
Case No.
30-2016-00848296-CU-JR-CJC
-
Hearing
Feb 03, 2017
-
Judge
Hon. James DI CESARE
-
County
Orange County, CA
On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC), alleging two additional causes of action: harassment on the basis of sex in violation of FEHA and discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of FEHA. On November 17, 2022, Defendant filed this demurrer as to Plaintiffs causes of action for discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of FEHA, whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and wrongful termination in violation of FEHA.
-
Name
SAMUEL TAPIA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY
-
Case No.
22STCV14854
-
Hearing
Apr 21, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Sex discrimination The demurrer is sustained. The problem with plaintiff’s cause of action appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by sex discrimination under FEHA. It has absolutely nothing to do with attitudes or comments about, discomfort with, or any other aspect of sexual acts or conduct. Rather, for purposes of a sex discrimination claim under FEHA, “sex” refers only to the gender. 2 CCR § 7290.7(a).
-
Name
GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ VS CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL ETC ET AL
-
Case No.
1413531
-
Hearing
Mar 26, 2013
-
Judge
Hon. Thomas Anderle
-
County
Santa Barbara County, CA
But the statute defining sex under FEHA states: Sex also includes, but is not limited to, a person's gender. Gender means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender expression. Gender expression means a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. (Gov. Code, § 12926.) It appears that the separate articulations of sex and gender do not imply that one is necessarily excluded from the other.
-
Name
AUTUMN OWEN VS SMART & FINAL STORES LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV11009
-
Hearing
Mar 13, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Plaintiff as sufficiently alleged discrimination based on sex. Accordingly, the demurrer as to the first cause of action is overruled.
-
Name
KEAN V. NEWPORT RESTAURANT VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
30-2019-01049923
-
Hearing
Jun 14, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Deborah C SERVINO
-
County
Orange County, CA
FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any person based on race, sex, age or other enumerated characteristics. (Gov. Code § 12940.) FEHA bars discrimination on the basis of sex, including on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)
-
Name
KRISTINE SALAZAR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
-
Case No.
19STCV45369
-
Hearing
Jun 30, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Patricia D. Nieto
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
First Cause of Action for Discrimination because of Sex and/or Gender: A claim for discrimination under FEHA requires: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred due to the plaintiff’s protected class. (Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 673.)
-
Name
SULLIVAN VS MODERN LEAF CULTURE, INC
-
Case No.
CVRI2400916
-
Hearing
Aug 18, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
First Cause of Action for Discrimination because of Sex and/or Gender: A claim for discrimination under FEHA requires: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred due to the plaintiff’s protected class. (Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 673.)
-
Name
SULLIVAN VS MODERN LEAF CULTURE, INC
-
Case No.
CVRI2400916
-
Hearing
Aug 19, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
First Cause of Action for Discrimination because of Sex and/or Gender: A claim for discrimination under FEHA requires: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred due to the plaintiff’s protected class. (Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 673.)
-
Name
SULLIVAN VS MODERN LEAF CULTURE, INC
-
Case No.
CVRI2400916
-
Hearing
Aug 17, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
Sex Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA Plaintiff offers insufficient evidence to show that he faced adverse employment actions or was terminated because of his sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression. The Court grants summary adjudication on the cause of action. 3.
-
Name
LAWRENCE VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
-
Case No.
30-2016-00831062-CU-DF-CJC
-
Hearing
Jun 16, 2017
-
Judge
Hon. Martha K. GOODING
-
County
Orange County, CA
Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges sex and gender discrimination. Defendant argues that this conduct does not constitute a FEHA violation because her attractiveness and body type are not a protected category under FEHA. However, FEHA prohibits discrimination based on the way an employee/applicant expresses their gender. (Govt. Code § 12926(r)(2).)
-
Name
EVA MEJIA VS TOP SHELF CONCIERGE SERVICES, LLC A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV21843
-
Hearing
Feb 23, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint for (1) sex/gender/marital status discrimination, (2) hostile work environment harassment because of sex/gender, (3) quid pro quo sex/gender harassment, (4) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA and requesting accommodation, (5) sexual assault and battery, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy contained in FEHA, (7) disability discrimination, (8) interference with CFRA rights and retaliation for taking CFRA leave in
-
Name
KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY
-
Case No.
YC073179
-
Hearing
Mar 15, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Deirdre Hill
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Gov. § 12940 et seq., (6) Race/National Original Harassment, Violation of the FEHA, (7) Race/National Original Discrimination, Violation of FEHA, (8) Race/National Original Retaliation, Violation of FEHA, (9) Sex/Gender Harassment, Violation of FEHA, (10) Sex/Gender Discrimination, Violation of FEHA, (11) Sex/Gender Retaliation, Violation of FEHA, (12) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 510 and IWC Wage Order No. 4, (13) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
-
Name
GRISELDA BONILLA, ET AL. VS ONE STOP INTERNET, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
19STCV10703
-
Hearing
Aug 16, 2022
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
It drops Samsung and the IIED claim, and alleges six counts against OPA and Ha: (1) FEHA gender discrimination; (2) FEHA age discrimination; (3) FEHA age and gender harassment; (4) FEHA retaliation; (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and (6) wrongful termination.* Defendants now demur to the FAC, attacking all six counts. ROA 27. Plaintiff filed opposition. ROA 53. Defendants filed reply. ROA 54. The court has reviewed the papers.
-
Name
CHOI VS ORIENT PRECISION AMERICA INC
-
Case No.
37-2018-00011318-CU-OE-CTL
-
Hearing
Nov 09, 2018
-
Judge
Hon. Timothy Taylor
-
County
San Diego County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Code § 1045(b) and (c), information in the personnel file of Greg Smorodinsky and other records that include all complaints and disciplinary documents from 2015 to present relating to complaints against Smorodinsky regarding sex/gender harassment, sexual assault, gender discrimination, and retaliation; and all documents relating to investigations and findings relating to complaints against Smorodinsky regarding sex/gender harassment, sexual assault, gender discrimination, and retaliation.
-
Name
AMANDA SIEGEL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
-
Case No.
20CV00954
-
Hearing
Feb 05, 2021
-
Judge
Hon. Judge Donna Geck
-
County
Santa Barbara County, CA
The operative first amended complaint, filed on October 18, 2024 alleges causes of action for: (1) discrimination on the basis of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) quid pro quo sex/gender harassment in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation for complaining of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) negligent hiring, supervision and retention
-
Name
JASMINE BRAY VS KRISTIE LEE MORRIS, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV25656
-
Hearing
Nov 04, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
(Medi Enterprises), Southbaytv.com, Shahab Sean Medi (Medi) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1-100, alleging causes of action for (1) race/national origin harassment in violation of FEHA, (2) race/national origin discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) race/national origin retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) sex/gender harassment in violation of FEHA, (5) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) sex/gender retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) marital status harassment in violation of FEHA,
-
Name
NONA MELKONIAN VS MEDI ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV00302
-
Hearing
Dec 02, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the demurrer to the first cause of action for discrimination based on Plaintiffs disability is OVERRULED. b. Sex/Gender Discrimination Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts that identify any mistreatment or discrimination on the basis of her sex or gender. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that FEHA includes harassment based on pregnancy, citing Gov. Code § 12940(j)(4)(C).
-
Name
TAYLOR SIMONE WATERS VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV22118
-
Hearing
Jun 10, 2025
-
Judge
Echo Dawn Ryan
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, a FEHA claim premised on a wage disparity is legally permissible. 2nd COA: AGE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION To the extent this cause of action alleges gender discrimination, it is duplicative of the first cause of action such that summary adjudication is proper. In addition, it is undisputed that Plaintiff cannot satisfy her prima facie case of age discrimination because she was not replaced by a materially younger person. Stuart McKissock is 53 years old, only two years younger than Plaintiff.
-
Name
FLANAGIN V GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS INC
-
Case No.
37-2016-00002379-CU-OE-CTL
-
Hearing
Jun 06, 2018
-
Judge
Hon. Joel R. Wohlfeil
-
County
San Diego County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
To the extent Plaintiff has a claim for gender discrimination it would likely have been uncovered as part of an investigation into her closely related claims of sex harassment and age discrimination. Therefore, the Court cannot sustain the demurrer on the basis that Plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim in this case was not covered as part of her DFEH complaint. The cses cited by the Defendant - Yurick v.
-
Name
CARCELEN VS JOHN MUIR HEALTH
-
Case No.
MSC19-02286
-
Hearing
Mar 09, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Burch
-
County
Contra Costa County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Harassment based on Sex/Gender/Pregnancy/Associational Disability (FEHA): With certain exceptions, FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer or any other person, “because of 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, reproductive health decision making, or veteran or military status
-
Name
LARRY COREA VS ANGEL NUNEZ ET AL
-
Case No.
CVRI2500949
-
Hearing
Aug 07, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
But Defendant clarifies that these requests are irrelevant and overbroad because they are not limited to complaints against the employees about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on sex or gender and disability , as Plaintiff alleges in this action. Even so, the citizen and non-citizen complaints could help Plaintiff prove that Defendant engaged in a practice of condoning the employees FEHA violations against people other than Plaintiff.
-
Name
DARYN GLENN VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY
-
Case No.
22STCV29401
-
Hearing
Mar 13, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
("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.
-
Name
WEI VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
-
Case No.
56-2019-00536547-CU-OE-VTA
-
Hearing
Nov 10, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Mark Borrell
-
County
Ventura County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
(Medi Enterprises), Southbaytv.com, Shahab Sean Medi (Medi) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1-100, alleging causes of action for (1) race/national origin harassment in violation of FEHA, (2) race/national origin discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) race/national origin retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) sex/gender harassment in violation of FEHA, (5) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) sex/gender retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) marital status harassment in violation of FEHA,
-
Name
NONA MELKONIAN VS MEDI ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV00302
-
Hearing
Apr 09, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs first cause of action alleges discrimination based on sex, gender, disability and/or medical condition. (Comp., ¶ 41.) The second cause of action alleges harassment because of plaintiffs gender, sex, disability, and/or medical condition. (Comp., ¶ 52.) Both causes of action thus include three different protected classes. FEHA defines each differently. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subds. (i) [medical condition], (m) [physical disability], & (r) [sex and gender].)
-
Name
ELIZABETH SEPULVEDA VS WELLS FARGO NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A SOUTH DAKOTA CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
22STCV09591
-
Hearing
Jul 21, 2022
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA Employment Discrimination (Gov. Code §12940(a)); 2. FEHA Harassment (Gov. Code §12940(j)); 3. FEHA Retaliation (Gov. Code §12940(h)); 4. FEHA Failure to Accommodate (Gov. Code §12940(m)); 5. FEHA Failure to Engage in Timely & Good-Faith Interactive Process (Gov. Code §12940(n)); 6. FEHA Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination, Harassment or Retaliation (Gov. Code §12940(k)); 7. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; and 8.
-
Name
ASIF AHMED VS PEPSICO, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV33878
-
Hearing
Mar 10, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the first cause of action for sex/gender-based discrimination is insufficiently pled; hence, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED.
-
Name
ERIN HOWARD VS SPECTRUM LABORATORY PRODUCTS, INC.
-
Case No.
25TRCV04206
-
Hearing
Apr 16, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Actual/Perceived Disability Or Medical Condition Discrimination In Violation Of Govt. Code Sections 12940, Et Seq. [Feha]; 2. Actual/Perceived Disability Or Medical Condiction Harassment In Violation Of Govt. Code Sections 12940, Et Seq. [Feha]; 3. Failure To Accommodate In Violation Of Feha; 4. Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process In Violation Of Feha; 5. Retaliation In Violation Of Govt. Code Sections 12940, Et Seq.; 6. Sexual Harassment (Harassment Based On Sex In Violation Of Govt.
-
Name
ANDREW SILVER VS MARTIN CASTRO, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV06255
-
Hearing
Oct 02, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages and remedies afforded to them by law for alleged violations of FEHA, including race-based discrimination and harassment, gender-based discrimination and harassment, age-based discrimination and harassment, and disability-based discrimination and harassment. (Complaint, ¶ 1.)
-
Name
MARGARET VIGIL, ET AL. VS GUARANTY COLLECTION COMPANY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV14429
-
Hearing
Oct 14, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Michael P. Linfield
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
Since plaintiff has not alleged that she suffered an adverse employment action such as firing, demotion, or loss of benefits, defendant concludes that she has not stated a claim for sex or gender discrimination.
-
Name
TERESA COSIO VS. BORDER TRANSFER, INC.
-
Case No.
25CECG03333
-
Hearing
Dec 18, 2025
-
County
Fresno County, CA
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) provides freedom from job discrimination, harassment and retaliation on specified grounds and declares such conduct an unlawful employment practice. (Gov. Code § 12940; Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 880, 891.) FEHA applies to discrimination and harassment based on gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. (Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (2017) 12 Cal. App. 5th 1168, 1180.)
-
Name
LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
-
Case No.
RIC1904220
-
Hearing
Jun 16, 2022
-
County
Riverside County, CA
The Court overrules the demurrer. 8th Cause of Action - Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA: The FEHA prohibits retaliation for opposing discrimination or harassment “because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status.” (Gov. Code, § 12940(a).)
-
Name
RAMIREZ VS GOLDEN FELICITY, INC.
-
Case No.
CVRI2307023
-
Hearing
Dec 04, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
FEHA Gender Discrimination 2. FEHA Harassment 3. FEHA Retaliation 4. Failure to Prevent FEHA Violations 5. Lab. Code § 1102.5 Retaliation 6. Wrongful Termination 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training Defendants Smart & Final, Mireya Flores, and Noella Valle filed the present motion to compel arbitration on May 22, 2025. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 21, 2025.
-
Name
BRITTNEY BARBER VS CHARLES R. DREW UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE & SCIENCE, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV07834
-
Hearing
Dec 08, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action – Harassment and Failure to Prevent FEHA prohibits harassment based on “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.” (Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1).)
-
Name
SALCEDO VS ZIXTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
-
Case No.
CVPS2304717
-
Hearing
Feb 12, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action – Harassment and Failure to Prevent FEHA prohibits harassment based on “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.” (Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1).)
-
Name
SALCEDO VS ZIXTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
-
Case No.
CVPS2304717
-
Hearing
Feb 13, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action – Harassment and Failure to Prevent FEHA prohibits harassment based on “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.” (Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1).)
-
Name
SALCEDO VS ZIXTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
-
Case No.
CVPS2304717
-
Hearing
Feb 10, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action – Harassment and Failure to Prevent FEHA prohibits harassment based on “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.” (Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1).)
-
Name
SALCEDO VS ZIXTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
-
Case No.
CVPS2304717
-
Hearing
Feb 11, 2024
-
County
Riverside County, CA
Pursuant to Government Code Section 12926(r)(2), Sex also includes, but is not limited to, a persons gender. Gender means sex, and includes a persons gender identity and gender expression. Gender expression means a persons gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the persons assigned sex at birth. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 12926(r)(2).) The Complaint states sufficient facts to support the first cause of action.
-
Name
ADELAIDA VASQUEZ GONZALEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV00382
-
Hearing
Jul 16, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The FEHA prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because of her sex or gender, or age. (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)
-
Name
COTA VS. SOUTH COAST OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER
-
Case No.
30-2018-00988156
-
Hearing
Sep 10, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Richard LEE
-
County
Orange County, CA
However, the Court will grant Plaintiff 20 days leave to amend to allege more specifically the date or dates for the alleged instances of FEHA violations. Exhausting Administrative Remedies – FEHA Complaint A much greater problem faced by the Plaintiff’s Complaint is that it is based on alleged discrimination regarding her disability or her sex, while her administrative charges of discrimination were not made on those grounds.
-
Name
BETTY LU VS CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, ET AL
-
Case No.
EC068865
-
Hearing
Jul 26, 2019
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; 2. Sex/Gender Harassment in Violation of FEHA; 3. Race Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; 4. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; 5. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 6. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and, 7. Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code section 1102.5) RULING : Granted. Requests for Judicial Notice: Granted.
-
Name
CHLOE MILLS VS SOHO WEST HOLLYWOOD, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV01157
-
Hearing
Oct 08, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint against MCU for (1) sex/gender/marital status discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) hostile work environment harassment because of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (3) quid pro quo sex/gender harassment in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA and requesting accommodation in violation of FEHA; (5) sexual assault and battery in violation of Civil Code § 1708.5; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public
-
Name
KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY
-
Case No.
YC073179
-
Hearing
Dec 04, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Deirdre Hill
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
The FEHA prohibits harassment based on "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." Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1). The FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
-
Name
BOYLE VS JOHNSON CONTROLS INC
-
Case No.
37-2018-00014168-CU-OE-CTL
-
Hearing
Jul 26, 2018
-
Judge
Hon. Timothy Taylor
-
County
San Diego County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
The fourth cause of action for failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation alleges, "During her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to sex and gender discrimination, harassment based on sex and gender, and retaliation for opposing and reporting Defendant De La Cruz's unlawful discriminatory and harassing conduct...Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation committed against Plaintiff."
-
Name
OHUMUKINI VS 24 HOUR FITNESS USA LLC
-
Case No.
37-2023-00006424-CU-OE-CTL
-
Hearing
Jun 30, 2023
-
County
San Diego County, CA
FEHA bars discrimination on the basis of sex, including on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)
-
Name
JENNIFER GARCIA VS WEST COAST DENTAL SERVICES
-
Case No.
22SMCV00228
-
Hearing
Aug 02, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs civil suit alleges: (1) Unlawful Gender, Sex, and/or Sexual Orientation Discrimination and/or Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq .); (2) Unlawful Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination and/or Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq .); (3) Failure to Prevent Unlawful Discrimination and/or Harassment Based on Gender, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Race, Color, and/or National Origin (Cal. Gov.
-
Name
ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV09073
-
Hearing
Jun 14, 2022
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs civil suit alleges: (1) Unlawful Gender, Sex, and/or Sexual Orientation Discrimination and/or Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq .); (2) Unlawful Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination and/or Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq .); (3) Failure to Prevent Unlawful Discrimination and/or Harassment Based on Gender, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Race, Color, and/or National Origin (Cal. Gov.
-
Name
ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV09073
-
Hearing
Jun 07, 2022
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The Lakewood Defendants assert that Plaintiffs sixth cause of action for gender and sex discrimination fails for the same reason that the sexual harassment cause of action fails.
-
Name
JANE DOE VS RAMY ELIAS, M.D., ET AL.
-
Case No.
21STCV46946
-
Hearing
May 31, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA, sexual harassment can occur between members of the same gender as long as the plaintiff can establish the harassment amounted to discrimination because of sex,” which may be shown if (1) there are “sexual advances, conduct, or comments” and “genuine sexual interest” or (2) there is disparate treatment of employees based on gender. [2] (Lewis, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th 1524; Kelley v. The Conco Cos. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191, 20, 205; Singleton v.
-
Name
LUIS COCKRELL VS ELVIN GALINDO, ET AL.
-
Case No.
18STCV07458
-
Hearing
Jul 10, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Elaine Lu
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
There was no specific category for gender during this time period, the closest was sex. FEHA was later amended to include gender as a protected category. It was also amended in a way that draws a distinction between sexual harassment and gender harassment. (See Government Code § 12940(j)(4)(c).) It now states that harassment because of sex “includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” (See Government Code § 12940(j)(4)(c).)
-
Name
SONIA ARELLANO VS CARVANA LOGISTICS LLC ET AL
-
Case No.
CVRI2501212
-
Hearing
May 20, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
Maria Recinos was denied a work environment free of discrimination and harassment on the basis of her sex-gender. Ms. Recinos was also subjected to a hostile work environment and assault and battery.
-
Name
MARTA CLAROS, ET AL VS. SOMERS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC., ET AL
-
Case No.
16-CIV-02828
-
Hearing
Sep 19, 2021
-
County
San Mateo County, CA
On February 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed the proposed Second Amended Complaint, listing Causes of Action for: (1) SEXUAL HARASSMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940); (2) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, OR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (3) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (4) HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (5) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (6) NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION; (7) WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION
-
Name
KATHLEEN YOUNG VS DSB PROPERTIES INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV31977
-
Hearing
Mar 09, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action: Discrimination by Association Defendant demurs on grounds that Plaintiff does not allege he was subject to discrimination because of his wife’s pregnancy, or that he was discriminated against because of his gender. The California FEHA prohibits discrimination in employment based on, among other things, an employee’s sex, physical disability, mental disability or medical condition. (Gov. Code, § 12940(a).)
-
Name
ARTHUR SALAZAR VS CIRCLE WOOD SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
-
Case No.
20STCV24471
-
Hearing
Feb 05, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
The Complaint sets forth sixteen causes of action for (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA , (2) Disability Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (3) Disability Harassment in Violation of FEHA , (4) Failure to Engage in the Mandatory Good-Faith Interactive Process, (5) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations, (6) Sex/Gender Harassment in Violation of FEHA- Widespread Sexual Favoritism, (7) Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (8) Sex/Gender Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (9) Failure
-
Name
LEOLA JOHNSON VS FIRST TO SERVE, INC.;, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV27961
-
Hearing
Dec 09, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action: Discrimination under FEHA The court notes that Plaintiff pleads two separate bases for Discrimination: (1) sex/gender discrimination and (2) disability discrimination. Sex/Gender Discrimination Defendant Lyneer contends that the sex/gender discrimination claim fails because Plaintiff does not allege that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her sex or gender.
-
Name
MARLENE ALFARO VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV19394
-
Hearing
Sep 24, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Elaine Lu
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
In this cause of action, the FAC states that harassment is prohibited based on a physical disability&sex, gender. (FAC ¶ 170.) However, is this cause of action both physical disability and sex and gender discrimination? Solely disability? Thus, the Court is unsure if this is solely a disability harassment claim or another gender harassment claim.
-
Name
TORRES MARIE AUGUSTINA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
-
Case No.
22STCV36194
-
Hearing
May 23, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Discrimination Based upon Sex/Gender (Government Code § 12940, et seq.) and Third Cause of Action for Discrimination Based upon Disability (Government Code § 12940, et seq.)
-
Name
ANGELA JERNIGAN VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GR
-
Case No.
BC703698
-
Hearing
Nov 14, 2019
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
WILLIAMS repeatedly and consistently made pointed, disparaging, and highly offensive references to Plaintiffs sex, gender, and purported lack of masculinity to the effect of comments, such as, . . . a real man would do this. (Compl., ¶ 23.) It was obvious to Plaintiff that WILLIAMS was attempting to strategically belittle him in a way that was related to his sex, his gender, and his purported lack of masculinity.
-
Name
ANDREW LUBER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS QUIXOTE STUDIOS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV08721
-
Hearing
Sep 04, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Paul Getty Trust (Defendant) alleging three causes of action for (1) discrimination on the basis of race, color, and sex/gender in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code sections 12900, et seq.; (2) harassment on the basis of race, color and sex/gender in violation of FEHA; and (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA.
-
Name
FELECIA BRYANT VS J. PAUL GETTY TRUST
-
Case No.
24SMCV04154
-
Hearing
Jun 02, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Fifth Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it unlawful for an employer to harass an employee because of the employees sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, . . . [or] sexual orientation. ( Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1235-36 (quoting Govt. Code, § 12940(j)(1)).)
-
Name
SHIANNE HOLLANDER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MCGRIFF INSURANCE SERVICES, A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV10579
-
Hearing
Jan 20, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
While FEHA does not protect against gender neutral child rearing-related discrimination, it does protect against discrimination based on gender, which would include gender stereotyping. Here, Defendant contends that the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Causes of Action fail because they are based upon Plaintiff’s child rearing, which is not a protected activity under FEHA.
-
Name
MAHLER VS BELSHIRE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-
Case No.
30-2019-01085336
-
Hearing
Feb 20, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Layne H. MELZER
-
County
Orange County, CA
Issue 2: Sex/Gender Harassment under the FEHA (Sixth Cause of Action) Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is for gender/sex harassment under the FEHA, which generally consists of bias that is expressed or communicated through interpersonal relationships in the workplace. (See Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706-707.)
-
Name
MELISSA HILGERMAN-WEST VS WAL-MART ASSOCIATES INC ET AL
-
Case No.
BC599669
-
Hearing
Mar 22, 2017
-
Judge
Hon. Marc Marmaro
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
BACKGROUND: On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Roxana Garcia commenced this action against Gramercy Bakery, LLC, PriorityWorkforce, Inc., and Juventino Sanchez for (1) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) sex/gender retaliation n in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to investigate and prevent in violation of the FEHA; (5) sexual assault, battery, and ratification; and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
-
Name
ROXANA GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL, VS JUVENTINO SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
-
Case No.
19STCV03696
-
Hearing
Oct 31, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Michael P. Linfield
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
(i) For any person or other organization or entity whose business involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, source of income, familial status, disability, or genetic information.” (Emphasis added).
-
Name
ESPERANZA D. BAGWELL VS 725 LEMON AVE LLC
-
Case No.
EC067179
-
Hearing
Aug 16, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Curtis A. Kin
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status . . . . (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).)
-
Name
WILSON EDWIN PAXTOR CHAVEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HARRY CHEUNG KIM, AN INDIVIDUAL
-
Case No.
24STCV04894
-
Hearing
Dec 11, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action for Unlawful Employment Action Based on Sex in Violation of FEHA Defendants demur to the first cause of action on the ground that it is uncertain and was added to the SAC without leave. Defendants assert Plaintiff did not allege sex discrimination or harassment previously. The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this basis. The previous iterations of the complaint did mention discrimination and harassment based on sex.
-
Name
SOCORRO JACOBO SANDOVAL VS ATLANTIC SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
-
Case No.
22STCV17034
-
Hearing
Jan 22, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Under FEHA, sex includes but is not limited to a persons gender. Gender means sex, and includes a persons gender identity and gender expression. Gender expression means a persons gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the persons assigned sex at birth. (Govt Code §12926(r)(2).) FEHA forbids discrimination by an employer against an employee on the basis of sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, and other identities.
-
Name
LUKAS DYLAN MCINTIRE VS SECOND STREET CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV07775
-
Hearing
Mar 14, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, he has effectively conceded that he was not treated differently because of his sex/gender, since the entire work crew was male. Without a difference in treatment based upon gender, there is no prohibited gender discrimination. A cause of action for hostile environment sexual harassment, on the other hand, does not require the existence of an adverse employment action (Gov.C. § 12940(j)(1)), requiring that it be separately analyzed.
-
Name
GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ VS CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL ETC ET AL
-
Case No.
1413531
-
Hearing
Dec 04, 2012
-
Judge
Hon. Thomas Anderle
-
County
Santa Barbara County, CA
To establish discrimination based on sex, “[a] FEHA plaintiff must show ‘that gender is a substantial factor in the discrimination, and that if the plaintiff ‘had been a man she would not have been treated in the same manner.’ [Citations.] Accordingly, it is the disparate treatment of an employee on the basis of sex ... that is the essence of a sexual harassment claim.’ [Citation.]
-
Name
BERBER VS RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
-
Case No.
CVRI2103233
-
Hearing
Oct 17, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
(“See’s”) and Debbie Rivest (“Rivest”) (together “Defendants”) for: (1) disability discrimination; (2) disability harassment—hostile work environment; (3) sex/gender discrimination; (4) sexual harassment—hostile work environment; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (7) whistleblower retaliation; (8) retaliation based on discussion of terms and conditions of employment; (9) retaliation based on complaints of unsafe working conditions; (10) failure
-
Name
DONATO VS SEE'S CANDY SHOPS, INC.
-
Case No.
CVPS2300315
-
Hearing
Apr 16, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
On 1/30/20, after a stipulated order, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint asserting causes of action for discrimination based upon gender, sex, and physical disability (FEHA), harassment based upon physical disability, sex, and gender (FEHA), retaliation (FEHA), failure to provide a good faith reasonable accommodation (FEHA), failure to engage in a good faith and timely interactive process (FEHA), failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation (FEHA), and retaliation in
-
Name
FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
-
Case No.
BC683375
-
Hearing
Sep 02, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Rafael A. Ongkeko
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Saadeh filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, Marriott International, Inc., Victor Lozano and Robyn Pabon, asserting causes of action for (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; (5) whistleblower retaliation; (6) wrongful termination; (7) failure to pay wages; (8) failure to provide rest periods; and (9) failure to
-
Name
MEALAD K. SAADEH, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV21329
-
Hearing
Feb 07, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff further alleges defendant chose plaintiff as a scapegoat after an investigation by the District revealed that a highly sensational sex scandal arose in her school. As a result, Plaintiff alleges she was eventually demoted. On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) Employment Discrimination: Gender - Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (2) Harassment: Gender- Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (3) Employment Discrimination: Age - Cal. Gov.
-
Name
ABBE IRSHAY VS LAS VIRGENES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
-
Case No.
19VECV01475
-
Hearing
Jun 24, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1) Sexual Battery (Hansen); 2) Battery (Hansen); 3) Assault (Hansen); 4) Harassment on the Basis of Sex/Gender/FEHA; 5) Discrimination on the Basis of Sex/Gender/FEHA; 6) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability and/or Medical Condition/FEHA; 7) Harassment on the Basis of Disability and/or Medical Condition/FEHA; 8) Failure to Accommodate/FEHA; 9) Failure to Engage
-
Name
JANETTE BECKMAN, ET AL. VS SIGSBEE NELSON, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV25029
-
Hearing
Aug 30, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
First Cause of Action for Sex/Gender Harassment in Violation of FEHA The FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, “‘because of the ... sex ... of any person, ... to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’ [Citation.] ‘Likewise, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, because of ... sex, ... to harass an employee.’ [Citation.]
-
Name
ROSA CRESPIN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV38519
-
Hearing
Apr 19, 2021
-
Judge
Hon. Lauren B. Zorfas
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
FEHA prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status . . . . (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).)
-
Name
FEDERICO CARLO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY
-
Case No.
24STCV04898
-
Hearing
Aug 12, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint for (1) sex/gender/marital status discrimination, (2) hostile work environment harassment because of sex/gender, (3) quid pro quo sex/gender harassment, (4) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA and requesting accommodation, (5) sexual assault and battery, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy contained in FEHA, (7) disability discrimination, (8) interference with CFRA rights and retaliation for taking CFRA leave in
-
Name
KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY
-
Case No.
YC073179
-
Hearing
Mar 13, 2020
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”): (1) discrimination on the basis of sex and/or gender; (2) harassment, (3) failure to prevent discrimination/harassment, (4) retaliation and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
-
Name
SOSE FRANKYAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
-
Case No.
BC688507
-
Hearing
Nov 08, 2018
-
Judge
Hon. David S. Cunningham
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
The SAC alleges the following 9 causes of action: (1) discrimination on the basis of race and/or color in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) discrimination on the basis of sex and/or gender in violation of the FEHA, (3) discrimination on the basis of physical disability in violation of the FEHA, (4) harassment on the basis of physical disability in violation of the FEHA, (5) discrimination based on age in violation of the FEHA, (6) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (7) “failure to
-
Name
JANICE PEARSON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT
-
Case No.
BC711032
-
Hearing
Aug 25, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Richard J. Burdge
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Discrimination Based on Sex (Third Cause of Action) The plaintiff alleges in paragraph 40 of the second amended complaint that he was harassed on the basis of his sex/gender.
-
Name
FORDE V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
-
Case No.
30-2018-01040553
-
Hearing
Jul 29, 2021
-
Judge
Hon. Glenn R. SALTER
-
County
Orange County, CA
Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Discrimination: FEHA prohibits an employer from taking any adverse action against a protected individual based on his or her race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age (if 40 or over), or pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions of any female employee.
-
Name
GLENN DEBELLO VS VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC.
-
Case No.
VC066883
-
Hearing
Jun 11, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Lori Ann Fournier
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
In the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC,”), filed on May 1, 2018, Melchionne alleges that Farmers demoted him from one position and failed to hire him for another due to his age, race, and/or gender. Melchionne asserts causes of action for discrimination under FEHA, retaliation under FEHA, failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA, and discrimination against public policy.
-
Name
ANTHONY MELCHIONNE VS FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP INC ET AL
-
Case No.
BC683538
-
Hearing
Aug 27, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: Disability and Gender Discrimination; Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment FEHA and Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.; Hostile Work Environment; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); Declaratory Relief. On August 5, 2020, Defendants filed this opposed a demurrer.
-
Name
RUBI CASTRO VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV23741
-
Hearing
Sep 08, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. David Sotelo
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Under this standard, Plaintiff’s allegations of ongoing harassment and discriminatory treatment based on her sex, pregnancy, and related medical needs are sufficient to state a claim for sexual harassment under FEHA. The distinction Defendants appear to be making in their motion – between “sexual harassment” and “gender harassment/discrimination” – is a distinction without difference under California law.
-
Name
PLASCENCIA, ELINA VS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
-
Case No.
CV-25-001111
-
Hearing
Aug 20, 2025
-
County
Stanislaus County, CA
Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state claims for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent the same under the FEHA. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for discrimination, retaliation, or failure to prevent the same based on sex or gender.
-
Name
NATHAN A. HARRIS VS RSG GROUP NORTH AMERICA, L.P., ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV36685
-
Hearing
Jul 08, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, ancestry, color, and/or national origin; (2) hostile work environment harassment on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, ancestry, color, and/or national origin; (3) retaliation for engaging in protected activity; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation; (5) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; (6) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public
-
Name
JAIME LIZARRAGA, JR VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ET AL
-
Case No.
CVRI2505757
-
Hearing
Mar 10, 2026
-
County
Riverside County, CA
Thus, the demurrer to the 2nd cause of action is overruled as Plaintiff is no longer alleging claims based on race or age. 2nd cause of action for Discrimination based on disability/perceived disability (against City) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender
-
Name
BETTY LU VS CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, ET AL
-
Case No.
EC068865
-
Hearing
Nov 15, 2019
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
Defendants Akinyemi and Title Recovery Services (hereafter Defendants) argue that the FAC should be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) the alter ego allegations against Akinyemi are not adequately pleaded; (2) Plaintiffs have failed to plead a prima facie case for FEHA disparate impact discrimination; and (3) Defendants have a legitimate justification for the business practice alleged. FEHA HOUSING DISCRIMINATION TRG argues that FEHA does not forbid housing discrimination on the basis of age.
-
Name
ROBERT LEEBURG, ET AL. VS TEMIDAYO AKINYEMI, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV00633
-
Hearing
Oct 26, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Gregory Keosian
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Discrimination/Harass
Plaintiff sufficiently described her gender and sex as female within the Complaint. According to Pantoja, sexual harassment could be tied to gender discrimination and they considered it admissible evidence. Defendant also argues that this cause of action is duplicative and intended to increase litigation costs and potential damages. He refers to the seventh cause of action as being too similar to the sixth cause of action.
-
Name
BRANCATO VS OLMOS
-
Case No.
CIVDS2228299
-
Hearing
Aug 31, 2023
-
County
San Bernardino County, CA
Plaintiff incorporates the facts at paragraphs 1 through 17 into each of the five causes of action she attempts to allege: (1) Harassment/creation of a hostile work place in violation of FEHA, based on plaintiff’s sex or gender (¶22 – 23); (2) Retaliation in violation of FEHA (because plaintiff submitted complaints of harassment based on her sex or gender (¶31); (3) Failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) Whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5. (5) Wrongful
-
Name
MIRANDA LUTZOW VS CITY OF MANTECA
-
Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006054
-
Hearing
Oct 18, 2021
-
County
San Joaquin County, CA
SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 2ND Cause of Action - FEHA/Harassment Pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to harass an employee because of 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. (Cal. Govt.
-
Name
GOROSAVE-TORRES VS CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
-
Case No.
CVPS2406366
-
Hearing
Apr 18, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
Case Number: 21STCV28183 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: 55 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS : Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Examination Background Plaintiff Scarlet Sheppard (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Gen Z Studios, LLC, and Joseph Lackey, (Defendants), alleging claims for (1) discrimination on the basis of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment on the basis of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis
-
Name
SCARLET SHEPPARD VS GEN Z STUDIOS, LLC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
21STCV28183
-
Hearing
Aug 20, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
While the complaint alleges that various acts of harassment were motivated by Plaintiff’s sex, specifically a supervisor’s alleged interest in dating Plaintiff, fact establishing a causal connection must be alleged to establish a causal connection between official acts by the corporate employer and Plaintiff’s sex or gender. The Demurrer (and joinder thereto) to the Third Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
-
Name
EDWIN TRONCOSO VS VICKY DOE, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24CV-01427
-
Hearing
May 06, 2025
-
County
Merced County, CA
The Complaint alleges six causes of action for: (1) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
-
Name
ALEXANDER GORNAKOV VS JAMES RAFFINI, ET AL.
-
Case No.
26STCV04100
-
Hearing
Jun 16, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Based on the above, none of the Old Town Café's grounds for demurring to Plaintiff's sex/gender discrimination claim appear to have merit, and the demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. 3.
-
Name
MARIAH BRADFIELD VS. OLD TOWN CAFE BY BELLA CAPRI INC
-
Case No.
56-2013-00436973-CU-WT-VTA
-
Hearing
Oct 15, 2013
-
Judge
Hon. Tari Cody
-
County
Ventura County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
