Menu

Showing 8 posts in Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Employment Discrimination Plaintiff Cannot Change Legal Theories at Trial

In Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., the Second Appellate District held that a plaintiff whose pleadings alleged intentional employment discrimination could not assert a disparate impact theory for the first time at trial.

The case highlights the distinction between “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” theories under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination against an individual on prohibited grounds, such as race, sex or another protected category. More ›

Same Sex Harassment is Actionable, California Court of Appeal Affirms

In Lewis v. City of Benicia, the First Appellate District affirmed once again that in California, same-sex harassment is actionable.

Brian Lewis, a volunteer and later paid intern at the City of Benecia’s water treatment plan, claimed he was sexually harassed by two male supervisors (Hickman and Lantrip) in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), that he was subject to retaliation when he complained of the harassment, and that the City was liable for failing to prevent sexual harassment. More ›

California Restaurant Managers get Second Chance at Class Action

In Horne v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Counsel, 16, Plaintiff Raymond Horne, an African American male, applied for organizer positions within the union of which he was a member on two occasions.  Defendant union hired white males in each case, and Horne sued the union, alleging that he had not been hired due to racial discrimination, in violation of Government Code section 12940, subd. (a) of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). More ›

“Familial Status” (Whatever That Means) may Become FEHA’s Newest Protected Category Under SB 404

California employers are well aware that legislators and regulators, both on the state and federal level, have been burning the candle at both ends to generate laws, regulations, and administrative actions designed to hedge in and restrict their ability to chose and terminate their employees.

Correspondingly, it comes as no surprise to learn that the list of protective classes under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) — which prohibits employment discrimination — is about to expand once again. More ›

No Anti-SLAPP Protection for Statements to Coworkers

In Cho v. Chang, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an employee’s statements to coworkers about alleged discrimination were not protected activities triggering special protection under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

The court further held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be granted as to protected activities and denied as to unprotected activities combined within the same cause of action. More ›

Arbitrator’s Award Given Preclusive Effect in Racial Discrimination Case

In Wade v. Ports America Management Corp., the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an arbitration award, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, had res judicata effect on a plaintiff’s subsequent common law racial discrimination claim.

Wade, an African-American longshoreman, was laid off in September of 2008, even though he had more seniority than other employees who were retained. The effective collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required union members to submit any grievances related to their employment to binding arbitration. More ›

Exhaustion of Leave Under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law does not Prevent an Employee from Making a Claim Under the FEHA, Court of Appeal Rules

In Sanchez v. Swissport, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, determined that an employee who has exhausted all permissible leave available under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL), Gov. Code 12945, can also state a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code 12900 et seq. More ›

California Supreme Court Splits the Baby in Mixed-Motive Employment Discrimination Case

In Wynona Harris v. City of Santa Monica, decided on February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court addressed the following question:

In an employment discrimination case where an employer terminates an employee both for discriminatory and legitimate reasons, what showing is required for liability to attach to the employer, and what remedies are available?

In Wynona, a terminated bus driver sued the City, her employer, alleging that her termination was motivated by her pregnancy. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). More ›