California employment case index

Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66 holds that administrative safety regulations — here FAA airline-safety rules — can supply the fundamental public policy supporting a Tameny wrongful-discharge claim, extending Gantt beyond constitutional and statutory sources.

A PAGA plaintiff proved Labor Code violations but recovered about one percent of the $56 million maximum he calculated, and his attorney fees were cut by a 0.70 negative multiplier. The Fourth District affirms: section 2699(e)(2) mandates no method for reducing penalties — per-employee is fine — and the trial court adequately justified the fee multiplier, leaving the “heightened scrutiny” question for the Supreme Court.

Studebaker made a new employee sign three onboarding arbitration documents; the trial court found their “conflicts” showed no valid agreement and denied arbitration. The Second District reverses and compels arbitration — ambiguities must be reconciled to give effect to the intent to arbitrate, the agreement was not unconscionable, and an inconsistent wholesale PAGA waiver should have been severed.

A nursing student said the faculty member running her hospital clinical rotation sexually harassed her and tanked her grade when she refused him. The Fourth District holds a student in a required clinical placement is an “unpaid intern” protected by FEHA, and reverses summary judgment on standing, Government-Claims-Act notice, and deliberate indifference.

A coworker’s off-site sexual advances were not work-related and not imputable to the employer — yet the Fifth District held the employee still stated a FEHA hostile-work-environment claim, because the employer’s refusal to act and its HR representative’s mocking response could independently alter the workplace in an objectively severe manner. A pleading-stage reversal that imports the Ninth Circuit’s totality-of-the-circumstances, employer-response framework (Fuller, Okonowsky) into California law.

An LAPD captain never witnessed officers passing around a fake nude photo of her and was never confronted to her face — yet the Second District affirmed a $4 million FEHA verdict, holding that her secondhand knowledge of the department-wide circulation, and the LAPD’s refusal to stop it, supplied substantial evidence of a severe or pervasive hostile work environment. A leading application of Government Code section 12923.

After Turrieta v. Lyft disapproved Moniz II by name, the objector in the long-running Adecco PAGA settlement tried a new key for the same lock: she was asserting her own personal interests — a penalty share, fees, a service award — not the state’s. Division Four dismissed her appeals. Every interest she claimed arises from PAGA itself and is derivative of the state’s; relabeling it personal is a semantic exercise that would leave Turrieta’s holding with no effect. The first published application of Turrieta makes overlapping-settlement fights a before-judgment affair: object in the approving court, police preclusion scope under LaCour — but intervention, vacatur, and appeal are closed.

Does every PAGA action contain an individual claim an employer can compel to arbitration? The split the California Supreme Court will resolve.

Reversing summary judgment for United Airlines, the Court of Appeal held that whether three male employees with comparable social-media accounts were "similarly situated" comparators was a question for the jury, applied the continuing violation doctrine and section 12923's low bar to the harassment claim, and found a two-week complaint-to-termination gap sufficient for retaliation causation.

Two Highland Hospital workers sued the public hospital authority running Alameda County’s medical facilities for meal-and-rest violations, unpaid wages, and PAGA penalties. A unanimous Supreme Court ended the case at the definitions: Labor Code section 18’s “person” — the term that controls who is an “employer” under the wage order and who can be penalized under PAGA — affirmatively excludes public entities. Absent express words bringing the government in, break rules and PAGA penalties stop at the public-sector line. The court disapproved Sargent’s contrary rule for statutes carrying their own penalties, declined to decide whether Government Code section 818 independently bars such penalties, and reserved the effect of the 2024 PAGA reform.

Three Lyft drivers filed overlapping PAGA actions; when one settled, the other two moved to intervene, objected, and moved to vacate the judgment — invoking their status as deputized proxies of the state. A divided Supreme Court held a PAGA plaintiff’s deputization confers no such rights: the statute delegates the power to commence and prosecute one’s own action, and it entrusts settlement oversight to the LWDA and the approving court. Moniz v. Adecco is disapproved. What remains for rival plaintiffs is coordination, informal input to the approving court, and advocacy to the LWDA — plus the open questions the court expressly reserved, including the state’s own rights and personal-interest intervention.

The California Supreme Court holds that a coworker's single use of the N-word can be actionable harassment under the FEHA if sufficiently severe under the totality of the circumstances, and that withdrawing an employee's means of reporting harassment can be an adverse action for retaliation; summary judgment reversed.

The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the Bureau of Prisons, holding that a corrections lieutenant’s off-duty Instagram page targeting a prison psychologist — followed by more than a hundred coworkers — is part of the totality of the circumstances in a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim. There is no rule that only conduct inside the physical workplace counts, ‘especially in light of the ubiquity of social media,’ and the employer’s dismissive, ineffectual response can independently create a hostile environment.

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582 holds that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim as unmanageable, even if it is complex or time-intensive. Manageability is a class-action requirement that does not apply to PAGA; complexity must be handled through ordinary case-management tools, not dismissal.

Marshalls bought a sweeping PAGA release in a federal settlement whose plaintiff had noticed only one theory to the LWDA — off-the-clock time in end-of-shift bag checks. When Robert LaCour later sued over expense reimbursement and other never-noticed violations, the trial court struck his claims as precluded. Division Four reversed: a PAGA judgment’s preclusive reach is measured by the claims the settling plaintiff pleaded or was authorized by her LWDA notice to plead, not by the words of her release, and an unauthorized proxy is in privity with no one. The court also upheld pandemic Emergency Rule 9, and it reserved issue preclusion while barring any double recovery.

Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 holds that a PAGA plaintiff whose individual claims are compelled to arbitration retains standing as an “aggrieved employee” to litigate the non-individual representative claims in court — California’s answer to the standing question left open by Viking River.

Eight warehouse workers alleged their employer let staff blast “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music for nearly two years over almost daily complaints. The Ninth Circuit vacated a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that pervasive sexist content can create a Title VII hostile work environment even if it targets no one and offends both sexes — and that an employer’s “equal opportunity harasser” status “provides no escape hatch for liability.”

A Rite Aid district manager sent a staff pharmacist lewd photos in a late-night, off-site text exchange that grew out of a friendship predating her employment. The Fifth District affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that FEHA strict liability for supervisor harassment attaches only when the supervisor acts “in the capacity of supervisor,” not where the conduct arises from a completely private relationship — and that the plaintiff, invited back after the harasser was fired, was not constructively discharged.

The FAA preempts Iskanian to the extent it bars division of a PAGA action and prevents arbitration of an employee’s individual PAGA claim; an employer may compel the individual PAGA claim to arbitration. (The Supreme Court further opined that, under its reading of California law, the plaintiff would then lack standing…

The California Supreme Court holds that Labor Code §1102.6 — not McDonnell Douglas — governs §1102.5 whistleblower-retaliation claims: the employee need only show protected activity was a contributing factor, shifting to the employer the clear-and-convincing burden of proving it would have acted the same anyway.

Settling and dismissing individual Labor Code claims does not strip an employee of standing to pursue a PAGA claim. PAGA standing depends on being an “aggrieved employee” — someone employed by the alleged violator against whom one or more Labor Code violations were committed — not on maintaining an unredressed…

The unpaid-wages component of section 558 is not a civil penalty recoverable through PAGA; only the fixed civil penalties ($50/$100 per employee per pay period) are PAGA penalties. Because the unpaid wages are not part of the PAGA claim, the trial court could not compel that portion to arbitration as if it were.

In Ortiz v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 568, the Third District reversed summary judgment for a hospital, holding a jury could find a national-origin and age hostile work environment where a supervisor repeatedly mocked older Filipino nurses’ accents, transferred the plaintiff to a unit she was untrained for, and falsely accused her of sleeping on the job. The supervisor’s animus was attributable to the employer under Government Code section 12926, subdivision (d).

In Caldera v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 31, a correctional officer who stutters proved that a supervisor mocked his speech impediment in front of others at least a dozen times over roughly two years, and a jury awarded $500,000 for FEHA disability harassment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the liability finding, reaffirming that harassment need only be severe OR pervasive — not both — and that because the conduct occurred on “more than one isolated occasion,” the plaintiff was not required to prove a physical assault or threat. On the employer's cross-appeal, the court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial on damages, because the court failed to file the statement of reasons within the ten days Code of Civil Procedure section 657 requires, rendering the order a nullity.

In Meeks v. AutoZone, the Fourth District reversed defense verdicts in a FEHA sexual harassment case, holding that a cluster of evidentiary rulings cumulatively skewed a credibility contest against the plaintiff. The court drew a usable line under Evidence Code section 1106: a plaintiff’s sexually charged banter directed at the harasser is admissible under subdivision (b), but a privately posted photograph of her tattoo — never shared “with” the harasser — remains barred by subdivision (a). It also confirmed that a harasser puts his intent in issue, and opens the door to me-too evidence, simply by claiming he treated everyone the same.

Reversing a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, the Court of Appeal held that a hotel housekeeper stated viable FEHA claims for sexual harassment by a nonemployee (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1)) and for failure to prevent harassment (id., subd. (k)) where she alleged she was assaulted on the employer's premises by a drunk trespasser the employer knew or should have known was wandering the property and aggressively propositioning other housekeepers. Whether the employer's response was adequate is a question of fact unsuitable for resolution on demurrer.

A PAGA plaintiff is presumptively entitled to discover the identities and contact information of other aggrieved employees statewide, subject to the employees’ privacy interests (which may be protected through a Belaire-West opt-out notice) rather than to a heightened threshold showing of merit before discovery.

A massage therapist won a FEHA verdict against her spa employer for failing to prevent customer sexual harassment and sex discrimination — even though the same jury found the harassing conduct was not severe or pervasive and that she suffered no adverse employment action. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a claim under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k) is wholly derivative: it cannot stand without an underlying, actionable FEHA violation. Sharpening Trujillo, the court held it is the absence of actionable harassment — not the lack of any harassing conduct — that defeats the prevention claim, and directed entry of judgment for the employer.

A franchisor is not ordinarily the employer of its franchisee’s employees and is not vicariously liable for a franchisee-supervisor’s harassment unless the franchisor has retained or assumed general control over the relevant day-to-day aspects of the franchisee’s employment practices; a comprehensive operating system…

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 holds that class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable after Concepcion (abrogating Gentry), but a predispute waiver of a representative PAGA action is contrary to public policy and not preempted by the FAA, because a PAGA claim belongs to the state.

In Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the University and reaffirmed the FEHA line between discrimination and harassment: a supervisor’s personnel-management decisions — who attends an employee’s meetings, how they are run, and accusations of dishonesty or poor performance — are not harassment under Reno v. Baird and Janken, even if discriminatory; the few stray remarks the plaintiff cited were neither offensive nor pervasive. The court also held after-acquired expert evidence of no adverse consequences did not raise a triable issue on pretext.

In Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 886, the Court of Appeal affirmed a defense verdict in an age-discrimination suit and held that an employer may put before the jury, on mitigation of damages, the employee’s failure to invoke the employer’s internal grievance procedure — extending the FEHA avoidable-consequences doctrine of State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court beyond the hostile-environment harassment context in which it arose.

A heterosexual male volunteer at a city water plant sued under FEHA for same-sex harassment by two supervisors. The First District reversed summary judgment for one supervisor — gifts, lunches, suggestive remarks, and pornographic images supported an inference of genuine sexual interest and pervasiveness — while affirming for the other. Finding sexual interest on the record, the court expressly declined to decide the effect of the new statute providing that harassing conduct “need not be motivated by sexual desire.”

A male oil-rig floorhand was relentlessly gay-baited, urinated on, and propositioned by his supervisors. The Court of Appeal held these sex-based attacks on his heterosexual identity were harassment because of sex under the FEHA — no proof of the harassers' sexual desire required — endorsing Singleton, rejecting Kelley, and holding that a special verdict rendered defective by a drafting typo is subject to harmless-error review.

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that an employee is a “supervisor” for Title VII vicarious-liability purposes only if empowered to take tangible employment actions — hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline. An employee who merely directs daily work is a co-worker, so the employer is liable only for negligence. The decision does not govern California’s FEHA, which defines “supervisor” more broadly and imposes strict liability for supervisor harassment.

A Muslim engineer born in Pakistan raised triable claims that his employer was liable for a hostile work environment created by Indian coworkers. Because the harassers were nonsupervisory, liability turned on negligence — whether the employer knew or should have known and failed to take corrective action. The Court of Appeal granted a writ reversing summary adjudication of the national-origin and religion harassment claims.

After a Kern County jury returned a defense verdict, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that “me-too” evidence of harassment of other women — even outside the plaintiff’s presence — is admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to prove discriminatory intent and motive, and that harassment “because of sex” requires bias against the plaintiff’s gender, not sexual desire.

Harassment and discrimination are distinct wrongs, but official personnel actions can themselves supply evidence of a hostile message and thus support a harassment claim; the two theories are not hermetically sealed. On punitive damages, the court held that in the circumstances of this case the amount of compensatory…

Summary judgment was improperly granted on the harassment and retaliation claims because triable issues of fact existed; the decision is notable for its strong criticism of the overuse and abuse of summary judgment in employment cases, for its treatment of the parties’ voluminous (and often meritless) evidentiary…

Two unions took assignments from more than 150 transportation workers and sued their employers under the UCL and PAGA for meal- and rest-break violations. The Supreme Court unanimously shut the door: after Proposition 64, an assignment cannot confer UCL standing on an uninjured assignee, and a PAGA claim cannot be assigned at all — the act creates no property right, so the aggrieved employee, suing as the state’s proxy, ‘does not own an assignable interest.’ Associational standing does not fill the gap, and representative UCL claims must proceed as class actions per the same-day companion, Arias. The state-proxy architecture announced here is the foundation Iskanian, Kim v. Reins, Adolph, and Turrieta all build on — and the 2024 reform kept its line intact.

Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969 holds that a representative PAGA action for civil penalties need not satisfy class-action requirements, while a representative UCL claim for the same Labor Code violations must — and that a non-class PAGA action does not violate the employer’s due-process rights.

The Fourth District affirmed a whistleblower-retaliation verdict for an Office on Aging director fired after warning that a County reorganization was unlawful — holding the County waived its exhaustion defense by first raising it after trial — while reversing her sexual-harassment claim under the pre-§ 12923 "severe or pervasive" standard and affirming a remittitur-backed new trial order on damages.

In Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, the Third District reversed summary adjudication for the employer, reaffirming that under FEHA an employer is strictly liable for a supervisor's sexual harassment of a subordinate unless the harassment 'result[ed] from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment'—a narrow exception the court declined to apply where the supervisor exploited his workplace authority.

In Singleton v. United States Gypsum Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1547, the Second District reversed summary judgment for the employer, holding that same-sex sexual harassment need not be motivated by sexual desire to be actionable: it is enough that sex was 'used as a weapon to create a hostile work environment,' and the court found triable issues on both the harassment and the employer's knowledge.

The sexually coarse and vulgar language used in the Friends writers’ room was not actionable sexual harassment on this record, because it was generally part of the creative process of writing adult comedic material rather than conduct directed at the plaintiff or at women because of their sex; harassment must be…

Although an isolated workplace romance does not by itself constitute sexual harassment, widespread sexual favoritism that is severe or pervasive may create an actionable hostile work environment — one that conveys the demeaning message that women are sexual playthings and that managers view sexual favors as the way to…

Whether a harasser is personally liable under the FEHA — and his employer strictly liable — often turns on one threshold fact: was he the plaintiff's “supervisor”? In Chapman v. Enos, the Court of Appeal reversed a defense verdict because the trial court told the jury a supervisor must be “fully accountable and responsible” for a subordinate's work product, an extra-statutory requirement that wrongly narrowed the FEHA's class of supervisors. Full accountability is an indicium of supervisory power, the court held, not an element; the statute requires only the responsibility to direct an employee's work using independent judgment.

An employer is strictly liable under the FEHA for a supervisor’s hostile-environment sexual harassment. But the avoidable-consequences doctrine applies: the employer may avoid liability for those damages the employee could have avoided with reasonable effort — for example, by timely using the employer’s complaint…

A workers' compensation judge awarded an inspector benefits for a psychiatric injury, finding the employer's investigation into a coworker's accusation that he had racially discriminated against a trainee was not a good faith personnel action under Labor Code section 3208.3, subdivision (h). The Court of Appeal reversed: because FEHA imposes an affirmative, mandatory duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent and investigate workplace discrimination, a legally compelled investigation conducted without arbitrary motive or intent to deceive is a good faith personnel action exempting the employer from compensation liability — and an unsubstantiated outcome does not retroactively brand the inquiry bad faith.

The California Supreme Court held that a nonsupervisory coworker could not be held personally liable under FEHA for harassing a fellow employee: although former Government Code section 12940 prohibited “any … person” from harassing an employee, the statute as a whole reached only the employer's failure to take corrective action, not the coworker's underlying conduct. The court pointed the policy question to the Legislature — which responded the next year by adding Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j)(3), making individual employees personally liable for their own harassment and abrogating the holding.

A remedial injunction prohibiting an employer (and a supervisor adjudicated to have engaged in unlawful racial harassment) from continuing to use racial epithets in the workplace against the plaintiff employees is permissible and does not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint, because it enjoins speech only…

In one of California's first published workplace racial-harassment decisions under FEHA, the Court of Appeal affirmed a defense verdict, holding that the trial court properly instructed jurors that “occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial” racial conduct is not actionable and importing the federal Title VII “severe or pervasive” threshold into state law.

In Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, the Second District affirmed a defense judgment, holding that a hostile-environment claim requires conduct that is both objectively and subjectively offensive, and that harassment directed at other employees is relevant only where the plaintiff was aware of it—conduct she neither witnessed nor knew about could not have altered the conditions of her own employment.

An employer is vicariously liable for actionable hostile-environment harassment by a supervisor with authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action was taken, the employer may raise an affirmative defense (the Faragher/Ellerth defense): that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct…

In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer is vicariously liable under Title VII for a supervisor’s hostile-environment harassment of a subordinate, but where the harassment yields no tangible employment action the employer may raise the two-element Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The Court demoted the “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environment” labels from liability tests to threshold proof categories and grounded employer liability in general agency principles.

The Fifth District affirmed summary judgment and a $64,796.50 defense fee award against a correctional counselor whose gender-bias case rested on "perception" rather than proof — writing the evidentiary rulebook for MSJ oppositions: admissible, specific, personal-knowledge evidence (and record citations on appeal), or nothing.

In Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, the Court of Appeal affirmed a FEHA sexual-harassment verdict for a legal secretary against a partner and his international law firm, sustaining punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. The court applied section 3294, subdivision (b)'s managing-agent and ratification requirements to hold the firm liable for the partner's harassment and upheld the punitive award against constitutional challenge.

The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the employer, holding that a jury finding of failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment cannot stand where the same jury found, by special verdict, that no discrimination, harassment, or retaliation actually occurred. A failure-to-prevent claim is derivative: there must be an underlying actionable wrong to prevent.

Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex” protects against same-sex sexual harassment; nothing in the statute bars a claim merely because the plaintiff and the harassers are of the same sex, so long as the conduct constitutes discrimination because of sex and meets Title VII’s other requirements.

The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment on the pleadings for a second-tier supervisor sued only for failing to act on a harassment complaint, holding that a nonharassing supervisor is not personally liable under FEHA — not as an aider and abettor of the harasser or employer, and not as the employer's agent — and distilling supervisor liability into three clear rules.

An aspiring actor alleged a casting director drugged and gang-raped him at the director's home. The Court of Appeal held the director could be treated as the network's agent, triggering FEHA strict liability rather than the negligence standard for coworkers, and that the off-site, off-hours assault was sufficiently work-related to be actionable — while affirming dismissal of the negligent-hiring claim.

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…

In Proksel v. Gattis (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1626, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's favoritism toward a coworker with whom he is romantically involved does not, without more, give rise to a sex discrimination or sexual harassment claim under FEHA or California public policy — declining to make courts a generalized police power over consensual office relationships.

In a same-sex sexual-harassment action under FEHA, the trial court sustained the individual defendants' demurrers on the theory that only the employer can be liable. The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate, holding that 'persons' under Government Code section 12965 includes individuals, so a harassment claimant may sue the supervisors who personally participated in or aided and abetted the conduct. Harassment by a supervisor with hire-and-fire power is a particularly personal form of discrimination, distinct from hiring discrimination, for which the employer alone answers.

In Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, the Court of Appeal carried Harris v. Forklift Systems into California's FEHA, holding that harassment need not seriously affect a plaintiff's psychological well-being to be actionable. It confirmed that an employer is strictly liable in compensatory damages for a supervisor's harassment, but held that punitive damages run only through Civil Code section 3294's managing-agent test — which a supervisor with hiring-and-firing power, but no policymaking discretion, did not satisfy.

A male creative editor alleged that his male supervisor subjected him to quid pro quo and hostile-environment sexual harassment. Sustaining the complaint, the Court of Appeal held that FEHA’s prohibition on sexual harassment reaches same-gender conduct: the statute protects against harassment “because of sex” regardless of whether harasser and victim are of the same sex.

A unanimous Supreme Court held that Title VII hostile-environment harassment need not “seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well-being” or cause tangible injury. Reaffirming Meritor, the Court adopted a “middle path” requiring conduct severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that both a reasonable person and the victim find abusive, judged on the totality of the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a multimillion-dollar FEHA sexual-harassment judgment, holding that AT&T's concealment of the harasser's lost personnel file justified a willful-suppression instruction, and that sexual harassment is a personal injury supporting prejudgment interest. The decision is a leading authority on respondeat-superior liability for harassment and on the adverse inference from spoliated employment records.

To state a hostile-environment sexual harassment claim, a plaintiff must allege conduct that was unwelcome, based on sex, and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment; an employee may be “subjected to” a hostile environment by harassment she…

A claim of “hostile environment” sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII; the harassment need not cause economic or tangible loss, but must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, and must be unwelcome.