(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55
Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two · Decided June 5, 1996
01. Facts
Employees who alleged age discrimination sued not only their employer, GM Hughes Electronics, but also individual supervisors and managers personally, seeking to hold them liable under the FEHA for the discriminatory personnel decisions (46 Cal.App.4th at p. 59). The individual defendants demurred, contending the FEHA does not impose personal liability on supervisors for discrimination arising out of personnel-management decisions (id. at p. 59). The trial court agreed and dismissed the individual defendants (id. at p. 62).
02. Procedural posture
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the individual defendants on the discrimination claims (46 Cal.App.4th at p. 80).
03. Issue
Whether the FEHA exposes individual supervisory employees to personal liability for discrimination whenever they participate in a personnel decision, or whether such liability is confined to the employer — and how discrimination differs from harassment for purposes of individual liability.
Holding
Individual supervisors are not personally liable under the FEHA for discrimination, which arises out of the necessary personnel-management functions of the employer; by contrast, harassment — conduct outside the scope of necessary job performance and presumably engaged in for personal gratification or bias — can give rise to individual liability. The distinction turns on the nature of the conduct: making personnel decisions (discrimination, employer liability only) versus harassing conduct (individual liability possible).
05. Reasoning
The court reasoned that the FEHA’s structure treats discrimination and harassment differently. Discrimination claims challenge the substance of personnel-management decisions (hiring, firing, promotion), which are inherently the employer’s acts; imposing personal liability on supervisors for making such decisions would deter ordinary supervision and was not intended. Harassment, however, consists of conduct not necessary to job performance and falls outside legitimate management, so the Legislature made it individually actionable.
Practice Pointer
Janken is the origin of California’s harassment/discrimination divide for individual liability, later adopted by the Supreme Court in Reno v. Baird (discrimination) and Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines (retaliation). Plaintiff’s counsel should name individuals only on harassment claims, and plead harassment with specificity (personal, abusive conduct distinct from personnel actions) where the facts support it.
06. Open questions
Janken drew the line between actionable harassment (individual liability) and discrimination (employer-only), but the boundary — when personnel actions also serve as evidence of harassment — was later nuanced by Roby v. McKesson, and close cases continue to test the divide.
Cite this entry
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55.
“We now confront [the] question [whether] the FEHA exposes individual supervisory employees to the risk of personal liability for discrimination whenever they make a personnel decision.” — 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 59
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].