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.

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 steelworker fired months after testifying in a coworker’s asbestos case revived his public-policy and FEHA disability claims: they required no CBA interpretation, his union could not waive his judicial forum, and coworker evidence that the termination-night incident was staged made pretext a jury question.

Affirming a remitted $500,000 FEHA retaliation judgment for a Nigerian-American harbor-department engineer, the Second District held that pretext may be shown by direct evidence of decisionmakers' retaliatory remarks and by comparative evidence of disparate treatment — not only by a head-on attack on the employer's stated performance reasons — and that lay testimony alone can support a substantial emotional-distress award.

Affirming summary judgment for the employer, the Court of Appeal held in the published portion of this opinion that a finite leave of absence can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, “provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties.” On undisputed facts the employer had accommodated its injured meatcutter twice — sixteen months of leave (nearly double the CBA's nine) and an offer of a vacant part-time position — so it need not also furnish the hand brace and other measures the employee preferred. The interactive-process discussion has since been overtaken by the Legislature's addition of an independent interactive-process duty (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n)).

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…

The outside-salesperson exemption is determined by a fact-specific inquiry into how the employee actually spends his or her time, not merely the employer’s job description or expectations; California uses its own quantitative standard (more than half the time engaged in outside sales) rather than importing the federal…

Affirming summary judgment on a 59-year-old communications manager's age claim, the First District adopted Hersant's substantial-evidence pretext standard, gave the same-actor inference "strong" force across a five-year span, and discounted a non-decisionmaker's isolated remark — making Horn the case every California employment plaintiff must be ready to distinguish.

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.

Section 132a does not provide an exclusive remedy; an employee may pursue FEHA disability-discrimination and common-law wrongful-termination claims notwithstanding the availability of a section 132a remedy.

Reversing summary judgment in a FEHA failure-to-promote case, the Ninth Circuit reconciled its competing pretext lines — direct evidence of bias needs only "very little" weight to reach a jury, while circumstantial evidence must be "specific" and "substantial" — a formulation later questioned after Desert Palace but still central to MSJ briefing on both sides.

The FEHA allows employees to sue and hold liable their employers, but not individual supervisors, for discrimination; the same rule applies to common-law claims for wrongful discharge (id. at p. 643).

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 undocumented assembler bought false papers to get hired, then sued for relentless sexual harassment. The employer's only defense was after-acquired evidence of her document fraud. Following McKennon, the Court of Appeal reversed: after-acquired evidence is no complete bar to a FEHA harassment claim, an undocumented worker keeps full employment-law protection while employed, and the defense's factual predicate — whether the employer in fact would have fired her — is a jury question.

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.

Good cause to terminate under an implied “good cause” contract means a reasoned, good-faith conclusion that the misconduct occurred, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that gave the employee notice and a chance to respond — not the jury’s after-the-fact determination of…

In Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a FEHA age-discrimination case, adopting the rule that once an employer offers a legitimate, non-age-based reason for an adverse action, the employee must offer substantial evidence that the reason is untrue or pretextual, or evidence of discriminatory animus, or a combination, and not merely triable issues about whether the decision was sound.

Age discrimination in violation of the FEHA supports a common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. When a plaintiff relies on a statutory prohibition to support such a claim, the common-law claim is subject to the statute’s substantive limits (the nature and scope of the prohibition) but not…

Reversing summary judgment for the hospital, Division One held that a registry nurse's point-by-point factual dispute, the employer's conclusory comparative-qualifications showing, and the decisionmaker's anti-Mexican remarks created triable issues of discrimination and retaliation — and that the FEHA's antiretaliation provision protects job applicants, including one whose injury was the loss of temporary contract work.

In Mullins v. Rockwell International Corp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 731, a long-tenured manager who resigned after a demotion and a steady erosion of his responsibilities sued for constructive discharge in contract; the trial court and Court of Appeal held his claims time-barred, running the limitations period from the date he learned of the adverse changes. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed. Extending its reasoning in Romano v. Rockwell, the court held that the limitations period for a contract action based on constructive discharge runs from the date of actual termination of employment — the resignation — not from the onset of, or the employee's knowledge of, the intolerable conditions. Because the breach alleged is termination without good cause, and an employee who continues to perform retains an election of remedies, the cause of action accrues only upon resignation. The court disapproved Regents of University of California v. Superior Court to the extent inconsistent.

A public employer may require suspicionless drug testing of job applicants as part of a lawful pre-employment medical examination, because applicants’ privacy expectations are lower and such testing is a reasonable hiring practice; but it may not impose the same blanket, suspicionless testing on current employees…

Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc.An employer who knows of an employee’s disability has an affirmative duty to make known available, suitable job opportunities and to determine whether the employee is interested and qualified — not merely to wait for the employee to ask.Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935Parallel citation: 62 […]

The DLSE’s interpretive policies constitute regulations and are void because they were not adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “underground regulation” rule); nevertheless, the agency properly exercised enforcement jurisdiction, and the IWC wage orders apply to the work at issue, so the trial court…

A conservative Jewish airline employee fired for refusing to work the first day of Passover sued under FEHA for religious discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment, holding the claims were not RLA-preempted 'minor' disputes and that a collective bargaining agreement does not, in the abstract, discharge an employer's duty to accommodate where the employer did nothing to explore alternatives. Any reasonable accommodation suffices, but the employer must actually offer one.

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.

A school administrator lost his FEHA age- and race-discrimination claims at trial, then won a new trial when the judge decided he had mis-instructed the jury on the McDonnell Douglas prima facie burden. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the prima facie and rebuttal stages are questions of law for the court, not the jury: once the employer articulates a legitimate reason, the burden-shifting construct drops from the case and only the ultimate question of discriminatory intent reaches the jury.

Nine days after Fatmeh Badih told her employer — a physician with fewer than five employees — that she was pregnant, her last day was set; the DFEH would not even accept her complaint because the office was too small for the FEHA. Division One of the First District affirmed her wrongful-discharge verdict anyway, holding that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under article I, section 8 of the California Constitution, whose fundamental public policy against sex discrimination in employment binds every employer regardless of size. Jennings v. Marralle was distinguished, not disturbed: age has no constitutional anchor, but sex — and therefore pregnancy — does. Badih remains the pleading answer for pregnancy discharges at California's smallest workplaces.

A married couple fired by a law firm sued for wrongful termination, but the firm discovered during litigation that both had concealed felony convictions. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment: their at-will acknowledgments doomed the contract claims, and the after-acquired-evidence doctrine barred the statutory and public-policy claims because the Camps had misrepresented a government-imposed job qualification, leaving them unlawfully unqualified for the position. Camp marks the point where after-acquired evidence shifts from limiting remedies to barring recovery outright.

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 McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 352, a 62-year-old secretary discharged in what the employer conceded for summary-judgment purposes was age discrimination admitted in deposition that she had copied confidential company documents during her final year. The lower courts held this after-acquired evidence barred all ADEA relief. A unanimous Supreme Court, per Justice Kennedy, reversed. Such evidence does not bar liability — the ADEA violation that prompted the discharge cannot be disregarded — but it bears on the remedy: as a general rule it forecloses reinstatement and front pay, and back pay runs only from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the employer discovered the wrongdoing. And the employer must first prove the wrongdoing was so severe that it would in fact have discharged the employee on that ground alone.

The Sixth District's 1994 decision translated McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting into Code of Civil Procedure section 437c practice — affirming summary judgment for Lockheed where a laid-off 65-year-old answered a documented reduction in force with speculation rather than "substantial responsive evidence," and holding that EEOC-only filings did not exhaust DFEH remedies.

To establish a constructive discharge, an employee must prove that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have had no reasonable alternative but to resign; ordinary job dissatisfaction or…

General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court In-house counsel may sue for wrongful termination — both on an implied-in-fact contract theory and, within limits, a Tameny public-policy theory — even though a client may generally discharge its lawyer at will. General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1164 Parallel citations: 876 P.2d 487; 32 […]

A 10-year employee sued for wrongful discharge and age discrimination; the employer then discovered application misrepresentations made nearly a decade earlier and won summary judgment on the theory that the fraud forfeited all remedies. The Court of Appeal reversed, declining to adopt a blanket rule that material application falsification is a complete defense to a claim the employer did not know about when it fired the worker. The first published California decision on the point, Cooper anticipated the Supreme Court's McKennon by less than a year.

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 plaintiff asserting a state constitutional privacy claim must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) conduct constituting a serious invasion of privacy; the defendant may then prevail by showing legitimate, countervailing…

In Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, a unanimous California Supreme Court resolved three recurring procedural and damages questions: a postjudgment order denying discovery-sanction (cost-of-proof) attorney fees is separately appealable; a personal-injury plaintiff bears the burden of proving which portion of a general award is “damages for personal injury” before claiming Civil Code section 3291 prejudgment interest; and that interest never accrues on punitive damages. The court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded.

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.

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks Disproving the employer’s stated reason permits — but does not compel — a finding of intentional discrimination; the plaintiff must persuade the factfinder both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) 509 U.S. 502 Parallel citations: 113 […]

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.

A Black assistant professor denied tenure won a jury verdict for race discrimination under FEHA, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in the published portion of its opinion. The court held the verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that a tenure plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination at every stage of a multilevel review: discrimination at one level can infect the ultimate decision. On causation, racial animus need not be the sole motivation, only a but-for cause of the adverse decision.

The discharge stated an actionable Tameny claim and was not preempted by the workers’-compensation law (id. at p. 1085). More durably, the court held that the public policy underpinning a Tameny claim must be “tethered to” specific constitutional or statutory provisions, not merely the court’s own notions of sound…

In a foundational FEHA retaliation opinion, the Court of Appeal held that a supervisor who confronts a fellow manager over sexual harassment of a subordinate engages in protected activity based on a reasonable, good-faith belief — whether or not harassment is ultimately proved — and reversed summary adjudication where the confronted harasser himself made the termination decision four months later.

In UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (1991) 499 U.S. 187, the Supreme Court held that an employer's fetal-protection policy excluding all fertile women from lead-exposed jobs is facial sex discrimination under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act — not a neutral practice to be tested for business necessity. The narrow bona fide occupational qualification defense reaches only qualifications affecting an employee's ability to do the job, and cannot be grounded in feared harm to a future fetus or in cost and tort-liability concerns.

The FEHA does not displace other state-law remedies, including common-law claims, for employment discrimination; an employee need not exhaust FEHA’s administrative process before pursuing nonstatutory causes of action; and sex discrimination in employment may support a tort claim for wrongful discharge in…

In Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 517, the Court of Appeal struck down a fetal-protection policy barring fertile women from lead-exposed battery jobs as overt sex discrimination under FEHA. The court articulated California's two-part bona fide occupational qualification test — the sex-based qualification must be reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business, and the employer must show that all or substantially all of the excluded class cannot safely and efficiently perform the job — and held the employer failed both prongs.

Larry Hardison was fired when his Saturday Sabbath collided with a low-seniority shift at TWA's around-the-clock maintenance base. Reversing the Eighth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that Title VII does not require an employer to override a bona fide seniority system to accommodate an employee's religion, and that requiring an employer to bear more than a de minimis cost is an undue hardship. Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented. The de minimis standard was later clarified and raised by Groff v. DeJoy (2023).

In Teamsters v. United States (1977) 431 U.S. 324, the Supreme Court drew the foundational line between disparate-treatment and disparate-impact discrimination, explained the Government's pattern-or-practice burden to prove that discrimination was a company's “standard operating procedure,” shielded bona fide seniority systems under section 703(h), and recognized the “futile gesture” doctrine excusing non-applicants deterred from applying by a known discriminatory policy.

In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976) 427 U.S. 273, two white employees were discharged for participating in the theft of antifreeze from a shipment in their employer's care, while a Black employee charged with the same misconduct was retained. The Supreme Court held — unanimously as to Title VII, and seven-to-two as to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 — that both statutes protect against racial discrimination directed at any race, including white persons. An employer “may justifiably refuse to rehire one who was engaged in unlawful, disruptive acts against it, but only if this criterion is applied alike to members of all races.” The judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed and the case remanded.

The Supreme Court held that back pay should normally be awarded to make Title VII victims whole — an employer’s good faith is no defense — and that job-validation studies must meet professional standards before discriminatory employment tests can stand.

Four women who paid into California’s employee-funded disability insurance program were denied benefits because their disabilities arose from pregnancy. Six Justices upheld the exclusion: the program’s risk selection was rational social-welfare line-drawing, and — in footnote 20, the most consequential footnote in pregnancy-discrimination law — the classification was not sex-based at all, because it divided “pregnant women and nonpregnant persons.” Congress answered with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; California answered with the FEHA’s definition of sex, the PDLL, and Badih v. Myers; even the SDI statute now expressly covers pregnancy. Yet the constitutional holding stands, reaffirmed in Dobbs — a live obstacle for equal-protection claims, and a museum piece everywhere else.

Title VII disparate-treatment claims proceed under a three-step framework: (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) the burden of production then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action; and (3) the plaintiff must then have the…

Title VII prohibits employment practices that operate to exclude protected groups and are not demonstrably related to job performance, regardless of the employer’s intent (disparate-impact liability). If a neutral practice has a disparate impact on a protected class, the employer must show the practice is job-related…