California employment case index

Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203 holds that FEHA discrimination must be a “substantial motivating factor,” and that an employer’s same-decision showing bars damages, backpay, and reinstatement but not declaratory/injunctive relief or attorney’s fees.

Comparator evidence is admissible in a FEHA case where the plaintiff and the comparator are similarly situated in all relevant respects — similar jobs and similar conduct. Affirming a plaintiff's verdict against San Francisco State University, the First District clarified how Reeves v. MV Transportation governs the admissibility, not merely the weight, of evidence that others outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

The Fourth District reversed summary judgment for the County, holding that a deputy district attorney's internal warnings that a murder prosecution lacked probable cause were protected disclosures under Labor Code section 1102.5 — no express citation of law required, job duties notwithstanding — and that months of testing for a suspected neurological disease raised a triable issue of FEHA disability.

An employer's stereotyping of a long-tenured Filipino nurse over her accent and English skills was not a neutral performance concern but evidence of national-origin discrimination. The Third District reversed summary judgment for Dameron Hospital, holding that a jury could find the hospital's stated reasons pretextual and that accent-based bias falls squarely within FEHA's protection of national origin.

A tenured professor sued CSU for retaliation and defamation after the university launched investigations and made statements about him. CSU moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court of Appeal held the retaliation claim did not “arise from” protected speech merely because protected activity sat in the background, and applied Baral v. Schnitt to parse the pleading into its component claims — striking only the discrete defamation allegations that were themselves based on protected statements.

The Court of Appeal reinstated Ada Abed’s FEHA pregnancy claim, holding that a job application is not an element of a failure-to-hire claim. An employer who falsely tells a pregnant woman no position is open — and thereby stops her from applying — can be liable for pregnancy discrimination, even though she never applied.

In Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248, a celebrated sports columnist won a jury verdict on FEHA age and disability discrimination and constructive discharge, recovering more than $7 million. The trial court let the discrimination liability stand but granted JNOV on the constructive-discharge claim and ordered a new trial limited to damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed all of the orders. Even where age or disability is a substantial motivating reason for a demotion, an employee who resigns in response to standard disciplinary procedures has not suffered a constructive discharge absent “unusually aggravated” conditions or a “continuous pattern of mistreatment.” And because the noneconomic award could not be apportioned between the surviving discrimination theory and the vacated constructive-discharge theory, a new trial limited to damages — not liability — was the proper remedy.

In Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 352, a county social worker was placed on administrative leave days after telling the juvenile court that her superiors had directed her to submit misleading evidence; the County’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike her whistleblower suit was denied. Affirming, the Court of Appeal held the leave — unrequested, investigative, paired with a decision to terminate her, and removing her from her assigned case — was an adverse employment action under Yanowitz’s contextual materiality standard, so the claim was not a meritless SLAPP.

A FEHA disparate-treatment verdict collapsed where the only proof of racial animus was the race of the officers’ shooting victim — not the officers themselves — and the City’s risk-management rationale stood unrebutted. The Court of Appeal reversed with directions to enter judgment for the City.

An employee’s refusal to participate in conduct she reasonably believes is unlawful under the FEHA — including refusing to go along with retaliation against a coworker — can constitute protected activity, and threats or intimidation may qualify as a materially adverse employment action supporting a retaliation claim;…

A gay executive's evidence that his sexual orientation was a substantial motivating factor in his termination was enough to revive his FEHA discrimination claim, even though his parallel retaliation theory failed. The Second District applied Harris v. City of Santa Monica's causation and same-decision framework (CACI Nos. 2500, 2505, 2512) to a sexual-orientation disparate-treatment case.

In Bareno v. San Diego Community College District (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 546, the Fourth District reversed summary judgment for the employer on a CFRA retaliation claim, holding that the 30-day advance-notice rule does not apply when the need for medical leave is unforeseeable — notice need only be given “as soon as practicable” — and that whether an employee sufficiently requested leave and supplied adequate certification is a question of fact. The employer’s decision to treat the employee’s medical absences as a “voluntary resignation,” coming virtually immediately after she sought leave, raised triable issues of retaliatory causation.

When a recreation-program manager was laid off after publicly opposing the City's cuts to disabled-community services, he sued for FEHA retaliation. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the City, holding that generalized advocacy for the disabled public is not “protected activity” under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h): the opposition clause reaches only opposition to conduct an employee reasonably believes is unlawful employment discrimination against an employee or applicant, not opposition to policy choices affecting the public at large.

A truck driver fired for refusing a shift that would have stopped him from administering his disabled son’s dialysis raised triable issues of associational disability discrimination and retaliation under FEHA — because association with a disabled person is itself a protected disability.

A long-serving employee laid off after her supervisor allegedly called her a “liability to the department” in light of her heart condition sued for perceived-disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, CFRA violations, and FEHA retaliation. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment on the disability-related claims — the supervisor's remark plus the employer's departure from its own seniority and recall policies raised triable issues of pretext — but affirmed on retaliation, holding that a pre-2016 accommodation request was not, by itself, “protected activity.”

In Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1302, the Court of Appeal held that the mixed-motive, same-decision framework adopted in Harris v. City of Santa Monica for FEHA disparate-treatment claims applies equally to a common law wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim grounded in the policy against age discrimination — even though the plaintiff pleaded no FEHA claim. Because the jury found age was a substantial motivating reason but that Farmers would have fired Davis anyway, the same-decision finding left no damages, no equitable relief, and no fees; the court nonetheless reversed a directed verdict on his wage claim, holding the employer bears the burden of proving paycheck deductions lawful.

A Black firefighter's discrimination verdict collapsed because he could not show the City's reasons were pretextual or marshal the statistical proof a disparate-impact theory requires, and the continuing-violation doctrine could not rescue time-barred claims. The Second District reversed with directions to enter judgment for the City, illustrating the demanding pretext and impact standards behind CACI Nos. 2502, 2505, and 2508.

Government Code section 12965(b) governs both fee and cost awards in FEHA actions and makes them discretionary under the asymmetric Christiansburg standard: a prevailing plaintiff ordinarily recovers fees and costs, but a prevailing defendant may recover them only if the action was objectively frivolous, unreasonable,…

UPS accommodated drivers hurt on the job, drivers with ADA disabilities, and drivers who lost their DOT certifications — but told pregnant driver Peggy Young she could not work under a 20-pound lifting restriction. The Supreme Court vacated summary judgment and built the governing framework for PDA accommodation claims: show the employer accommodated others similar in ability to work, and a jury may infer discrimination if the policies significantly burden pregnant workers and the employer’s reasons are not strong enough to justify it. In California, where the PDLL and FEHA impose affirmative accommodation duties, Young is the federal floor — essential in pure Title VII postures, rarely the lead theory at home.

Satyadi v. West Contra Costa Healthcare DistrictAn employee need not exhaust the Labor Commissioner’s administrative remedy before bringing a civil whistleblower-retaliation action; the 2013 enactment of Labor Code sections 244 and 98.7, subdivision (g), merely clarified existing law.Satyadi v. West Contra Costa Healthcare District (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1022Parallel citation: 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 21. Court of Appeal […]

In Cheal v. El Camino Hospital (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 736, the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for the hospital in a FEHA age-discrimination suit, holding triable issues existed on whether the 61-year-old dietary technician performed satisfactorily and on discriminatory animus. Although “satisfactory performance” is ordinarily within the employer’s sole discretion, an employer cannot conclusively establish the governing standard merely by asserting the plaintiff fell short; the hospital’s own written policies anticipated and tolerated the errors charged, and the supervisor’s recorded admission that she favored younger workers was admissible against interest.

A school-district maintenance supervisor, fired after a sustained pattern of insubordination, computer misuse, and retaliation against co-workers, claimed his discharge was really payback for whistleblowing about District construction projects. The Third District affirmed the denial of his mandamus petition, applying the Supreme Court's then-new decision in Harris v. City of Santa Monica to hold that an employer may invoke the same-decision showing without conceding mixed motives, and that untainted misconduct alone justified termination — making the protected-activity question unnecessary to decide.

In Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, the Second District held that FEHA forbids firing a nondisabled employee because of his association with a disabled relative, sustaining an expense-theory associational claim where the employer allegedly fired the plaintiff to avoid paying for organ-donation leave for his disabled sister. The court affirmed dismissal of the retaliation, Labor Code, PAGA, and direct-disability counts while reinstating the associational, failure-to-prevent, and public-policy claims.

Applying Harris v. City of Santa Monica to a pregnancy-leave retaliation verdict, the Court of Appeal held the old “a motivating reason” instructions were prejudicial error — and that an employer who never pleads the same-decision defense forfeits it. The judgment and fee award were reversed.

After a vessel-planner trainee complained, a confidential settlement was leaked and coworker hostility followed; the jury found retaliation, but the trial court entered JNOV. The Court of Appeal reversed the JNOV, holding that actions for retaliation are “inherently fact-driven” and that the jury, not the court, decides whether the conduct materially altered the plaintiff's employment — while affirming the alternative new-trial order on grounds of attorney misconduct, surprise, and excessive damages.

A Recology supervisor who reported CRV weight-tag fraud to police and the company's board survived summary judgment: the Court of Appeal held Labor Code section 1102.5 protects reports of illegal conduct by fellow employees and third parties — not just the employer's own violations — and revived his False Claims Act and Tameny claims.

A manager fired after an internal investigation into a subordinate's harassment complaint sued for discrimination and retaliation. Affirming summary judgment for the employer, the Court of Appeal held that Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h) does not shield an employee from termination or discipline for lying or withholding information during the employer's internal investigation — such dishonesty and non-cooperation are unprotected and supply a legitimate, nondiscriminatory ground to terminate an at-will employee.

Reversing a $113,830 pregnancy-discrimination verdict against Lucasfilm, the First District held that a FEHA defendant is entitled, on request, to a “business judgment” jury instruction — the rule that an employer may act on a wrong, unwise, or mistaken but nondiscriminatory reason — and that an abstractly correct “no fetal-hazard defense” instruction untethered to any defense actually in the case was misleading error. The cumulative instructional errors required a retrial.

A physician-partner alleged she was stripped of her regional directorship after reporting that CEP officers had sexually harassed the partnership's employees. The trial court dismissed her claim because, as a partner, she was not an “employee.” The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that FEHA's retaliation provision protects “any person” who opposes forbidden practices — so a partner who opposes her partnership-employer's harassment of its employees is protected from retaliation, notwithstanding Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines.

An LAPD officer who was disciplined after the Department concluded he had fabricated a sexual-harassment complaint won a jury verdict for retaliation. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that an employer does not retaliate under FEHA when it disciplines an employee based on a genuine, good-faith determination that the harassment complaint was false — and that an independent, de novo adjudication of the charges insulates the resulting discipline from claims that animus tainted the underlying investigation.

The First District reversed a defense verdict for instructional error, holding a whistleblower's motive irrelevant and reasonable-belief reports of unlawful policies protected even where debatable — but its further rule that reporting “publicly known” information is not a disclosure was later rejected by the Supreme Court in Kolla's, and the article maps what survives.

Jaramillo v. County of Orange A peace officer’s warnings to his own boss about the boss’s illegal conduct are protected whistleblowing under Labor Code section 1102.5; blanket POBRA waivers are invalid; and after-acquired evidence of unrelated crimes does not retroactively defeat a wrongful-discharge backpay award. Jaramillo v. County of Orange (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 811 Parallel […]

Nielsen fired Christine Earl, 59, for recording the wrong house address on a recruitment form, citing her history of policy violations. The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on her FEHA age discrimination and wrongful termination claims: recruiters aged

The Court of Appeal reversed a $356,000 CFRA judgment, holding that the right to reinstatement to the same or a comparable position expires at the end of the 12-week protected leave — so an employee who returned after 19 weeks had no interference claim — and that her retaliation claim failed for lack of evidence rebutting the County’s reorganization rationale.

An ironworker apprentice subjected to graphic same-sex verbal abuse complained, then faced a campaign of coworker hostility and lost work opportunities. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment on the sexual-harassment claim (the conduct was not shown to be “because of sex”) but revived the retaliation claim, holding that an employer may be liable under FEHA when it knows or should know that coworkers are punishing an employee for protected complaints and fails to take reasonable steps to stop them.

The Supreme Court’s foundational “cat’s paw” decision: an employer is liable when a biased supervisor performs an act intended to cause an adverse employment action that is a proximate cause of the ultimate decision — even if the formal decisionmaker had no discriminatory animus. A decisionmaker’s “independent investigation” does not automatically break the causal chain, especially when it credits the biased actor’s report without independently confirming the action was justified.

The Third District affirmed summary adjudication against a pregnant executive assistant whose two-month tenure ended in resignation after a pointed email exchange about her maternity-leave dates, holding the conduct neither severe nor pervasive enough to be FEHA harassment and not an adverse employment action under Yanowitz. In a holding of lasting evidentiary importance, the court also held that emails Holmes sent her attorney on the company computer — after being warned it was monitored and not private — were not confidential under Evidence Code section 952 and so were not privileged.

A salesman who suffered a stroke and was fired raised triable issues of age and disability discrimination, even though the same people who hired him made the decision. The Fourth District reversed summary judgment, holding that cane use met the disability threshold, that unexplained employer actions can supply the prima facie inference, and that a strong same-actor inference is still only an inference for the jury (CACI Nos. 2500, 2540, 2570).

Evidentiary objections made in writing before the summary-judgment hearing are preserved for appeal even if the trial court does not expressly rule on them. And California does not adopt a rigid stray-remarks doctrine: discriminatory remarks are not categorically irrelevant but must be considered, with all the…

A plaintiff who relies on his superior qualifications to prove discrimination must show a substantial disparity — a juror who finds the comparison merely 'close' will not ordinarily infer bias. Affirming summary judgment, the First District surveyed the federal relative-qualifications cases and held that the gap between the rejected applicant and the person hired was not wide enough to raise a triable issue.