California employment case index

97 cases

Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.: The Public-Policy Wrongful-Discharge Tort

June 22, 2026

Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 created California’s public-policy wrongful-discharge tort: an employee fired for refusing to commit an illegal act may sue in tort, recovering tort and punitive damages, not just contract remedies.

Martinez v. Combs: The Wage Orders Define “Employer” — Control, Suffer or Permit, or Common-Law Engagement

May 20, 2010

Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 holds that the IWC wage orders’ own definitions govern who is an “employer” for minimum-wage claims: to “employ” means (a) to exercise control over wages, hours, or working conditions, (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage in a common-law employment relationship. The produce merchants were not the workers’ employers.

George v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.: The Substantial-Motivating-Factor Standard

December 9, 2009

A state administrative law judge prevailed on a FEHA retaliation claim after she was suspended following gender-bias complaints. Affirming her judgment, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a retaliation plaintiff need prove only that retaliatory animus was “at least a substantial or motivating factor” in the adverse action — not its sole or but-for cause — and that a civil-service board's finding that some discipline was warranted does not, by itself, defeat the claim.

Roby v. McKesson Corp.

November 30, 2009

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…

Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.

October 9, 2009

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…

A.M. v. Albertsons: The Interactive Process and Reasonable Accommodation Are Separate Duties

September 18, 2009

Affirming a judgment for a disabled grocery checker on her FEHA failure-to-accommodate claim, the Court of Appeal held that the duty to engage in the interactive process (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n)) and the duty to provide a reasonable accommodation (id., subd. (m)) are separate, independent claims; an employer cannot graft the interactive process onto, and thereby excuse, a later failure to deliver an accommodation it had already granted. The court also held the failure-to-accommodate statute contains no “pattern of failure” requirement, so a single lapse is actionable, with triviality a jury question.

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756 v. Superior Court: PAGA Claims Cannot Be Assigned

June 29, 2009

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: PAGA Representative Actions Need No Class Certification

June 29, 2009

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.

Scotch v. Art Institute of California

May 6, 2009

To recover for failure to engage in the interactive process, an employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that was available at the time the interactive process should have occurred; because Scotch did not identify such an available accommodation, he could not recover on that claim.

Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy — “Me-Too” Declarations Are Per Se Admissible and Defeat Summary Judgment

April 30, 2009

Fired the day she returned from pregnancy-related bed rest, a caregiver defeated summary judgment with declarations from four coworkers describing pregnancy-triggered firings by the same supervisors — evidence the court held admissible as a matter of law to prove motive, not propensity.

DeJung v. Superior Court: Direct Evidence, the Cat’s-Paw Doctrine, and No Discretionary Immunity Under FEHA

December 19, 2008

A 64-year-old superior-court commissioner, passed over for a full-time post in favor of a 43-year-old after the presiding judge said the court wanted “somebody younger, maybe in their 40's,” sued for age discrimination under the FEHA. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment, holding a superior court has no discretionary-act immunity against FEHA suits and that the presiding judge's remarks were direct evidence whose animus could taint a multilevel hiring decision under the cat's-paw doctrine.

Dominguez v. Washington Mutual Bank: The Continuing-Violation Doctrine and FEHA Limitations Accrual

November 21, 2008

Reversing summary judgment, the Second District held that a lesbian mail-services employee raised triable issues on whether her FEHA administrative complaint was timely under the continuing-violation doctrine, even though her harasser stopped his explicit sexual-orientation slurs over a year before she filed. Applying Richards v. CH2M Hill, the court held the harasser's later, facially neutral work-sabotage campaign could be “similar in kind” to the slurs and that “permanence” turns on when the harassment stops, the employee resigns, or protest becomes futile — not on when the offensive words cease.

Hoopes v. Dolan: Sequencing Equitable Defenses Against a Jury Verdict on Common Facts

November 12, 2008

In a mixed legal-equitable trial, the First District held that a judge must follow a jury's factual findings on the legal claims when fashioning equitable relief on common facts — yet may independently resolve an equitable defense such as estoppel that turns on facts the jury never decided. Hoopes v. Dolan affirmed a defense judgment and supplies the procedural architecture for sequencing and trying equitable affirmative defenses alongside a jury verdict — a structure FEHA practitioners invoke when an employer raises equitable defenses.

Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.

September 10, 2008

The decision clarified the reasonable-accommodation burdens: an employee claiming failure to accommodate by reassignment must show a vacant position existed for which she was qualified, while the allocation of proof tracks who has access to the relevant information; on this record, triable issues precluded summary…

Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

August 11, 2008

An employee fired under a no-fault attendance policy after a pancreatitis hospitalization sued under FEHA, CFRA, and Tameny. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment on the FEHA disability claims — telling the employer he was “sick” or hospitalized did not give notice of a disability — but reversed on CFRA and the related Tameny claim, holding that while “calling in sick” alone is insufficient CFRA notice, hospital records showing inpatient care can constitute a request for CFRA-qualifying leave, shifting to the employer the burden to inquire and designate, and that causation does not require the decision-maker to know the absences were protected.

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP

August 7, 2008

Section 16600 voids contracts that restrain anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business; Edwards’s noncompetition agreement was therefore invalid. California does not recognize the federal courts’ “narrow-restraint” exception — even a limited or partial restraint on practicing one’s profession is…

Miklosy v. Regents of University of California

July 31, 2008

Miklosy v. Regents of University of CaliforniaThe Whistleblower Protection Act bars a damages action against the University once it timely decides an internal retaliation complaint; a Tameny tort does not lie against a public entity or against a supervisor; and workers’ compensation exclusivity bars the related emotional-distress claim.Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) […]

Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.

July 30, 2008

Summary judgment was error. A plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence from which a trier of fact could find the employer’s proffered reasons unworthy of credence, and the record here showed the dismissal decision may in fact have been made by Mamou’s own biased immediate supervisor, raising triable…

Arteaga v. Brink’s — Temporal Proximity Is Not Pretext

May 28, 2008

Carlos Arteaga, a messenger on Brink’s armored trucks, first told the company about pain and numbness in his arms and fingers — and filed workers’ compensation claims — while Brink’s was investigating a string of cash shortages on his ATM runs; he was terminat

Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd.: Preemptive FEHA Retaliation

May 13, 2008

In Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1241, the Third District affirmed a judgment and fee award for an employee, holding that FEHA's anti-retaliation provision reaches preemptive retaliation—adverse action taken against an employee the employer believes will become a complainant or witness in a discrimination proceeding—even before the employee has formally opposed any practice or filed any charge.

Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central

April 7, 2008

The California Supreme Court held that a CFRA employee’s simultaneous performance of a similar part-time job for another employer is strong but not conclusive evidence that she could perform the functions of her own full-time position. Because the phrase “functions of the position of that employee” means the job this employer assigned — not job functions “generally” — whether Lonicki had a serious health condition disabling her from her Sutter job remained a triable issue, and summary judgment was reversed. The Court separately held that an employer’s failure to invoke the second- and third-opinion dispute-resolution procedure does not estop it from litigating the medical merits.

Hicks v. KNTV Television — Falsity Alone Is Not Pretext: The Limits of a Decisionmaker’s Lie at Summary Judgment

March 5, 2008

A White news anchor’s claim that his station’s “on-air style” rationale masked race-conscious hiring failed on summary judgment because the record corroborated the employer’s subjective assessment, and his sole contrary showing — that the executive lied about counseling him — could not alone support the inference that race was the real reason.

Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership

March 3, 2008

The same rule that governs discrimination governs retaliation: the employer, but not nonemployer individuals, may be held liable for retaliation under the FEHA (id. at p. 1160).

Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.

January 24, 2008

The FEHA does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act did not address the rights and duties of employers and employees, and under California law an employer may require pre-employment drug testing and may take illegal drug use into account in employment…

Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California

November 29, 2007

Failure to engage in the interactive process is a separate FEHA violation requiring different proof from failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; the two findings are not inconsistent, so a jury may hold an employer liable for failing to engage in the interactive process even while finding no failure to…

Mokler v. County of Orange — Whistleblower Retaliation, Waived Exhaustion, and a Harassment Holding Overtaken by § 12923

November 26, 2007

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.

Gentry v. Superior Court

August 30, 2007

A class-action waiver in an employment arbitration agreement may be unenforceable where class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way to vindicate employees’ unwaivable statutory rights (such as overtime), considering factors like the modest size of individual recoveries, the risk of retaliation, and…

Green v. State of California

August 23, 2007

The employee bears the burden of proving he or she is a qualified individual under the FEHA — that is, able to perform the essential duties of the position with or without reasonable accommodation — just as the federal ADA requires; it is not the employer’s burden to disprove qualification.

Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation: Proving the Nexus and Adverse Action

June 14, 2007

Affirming summary judgment for the employer, the Court of Appeal held that a correctional officer's FEHA claims for sexual harassment, gender and race discrimination, and retaliation all failed because she could not establish a nexus between the conduct and her protected status — asked whether her coworkers' conduct was prompted by gender or race, she “repeatedly answered, 'No' and 'I don't know'” — and could not show a “substantial adverse change in the terms and conditions” of her employment. Her common-law claims for assault, emotional distress, and negligent supervision were barred by workers' compensation exclusivity.

King v. United Parcel Service — The Honest-Belief Rule on Summary Judgment

May 23, 2007

The Third District affirmed summary judgment for UPS on a 30-year supervisor's disability claims, holding that the employer's honest belief in its integrity-violation charge — not the truth of the accusation — controls, and that accommodation claims require a specific request and concrete medical restrictions.

Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. — Temporal Proximity Alone Does Not Defeat Summary Judgment

May 14, 2007

The Fourth District held that while the timing of an adverse action can carry a FEHA retaliation plaintiff past the prima facie stage — even on an uncorroborated declaration — temporal proximity does not, standing alone, create a triable issue of pretext once the employer produces evidence of a legitimate reason, and it expressly rejected Gemini Aluminum's suggestion that employers must also prove their termination procedures were objectively fair.

Faust v. California Portland Cement Co.: CFRA Interference, Employer Notice Duties, and the No-Magic-Words Rule at Summary Judgment

May 10, 2007

Reversing summary judgment, the Court of Appeal held that an employee need not mention the CFRA to request protected medical leave — and that an employer that never gave notice of CFRA rights, rejected a chiropractor's certification out of hand, and refused to communicate with the employee's designated representatives could not defeat his interference, retaliation, disability discrimination, and wrongful termination claims as a matter of law.

Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.

April 16, 2007

The section 226.7 meal/rest payment is a wage (premium pay), not a penalty, and is therefore governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to wage claims rather than the one-year period for penalties.

Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dept.: A Less-Preferred Assignment Is Not an Adverse Employment Action

March 29, 2007

A fire captain who lost his leg sued for disability discrimination after his department barred him from the firefighting “platoon duty” he loved and kept him in an office-style “special duty” assignment. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the department, holding the reassignment was not an adverse employment action under the FEHA: the special-duty post carried equal pay, equal promotional opportunity, and substantial overtime, so the captain's complaint was a preference, not a material detriment.

Myers v. Trendwest Resorts: Supervisor Strict Liability Under FEHA

February 28, 2007

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.

Taylor v. L.A. DWP: Retaliation as Discrimination Under § 12940(k)

November 20, 2006

In Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, the Second District reversed a dismissal on demurrer, holding that retaliation is a form of discrimination so that the employer's duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), extends to retaliation—and that a supervisor may be held personally liable for retaliation under subdivision (h).

McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation — What Counts as an Adverse Employment Action After Yanowitz

August 29, 2006

On retransfer from the Supreme Court in light of Yanowitz, the First District reversed a $75,000 retaliation verdict, holding that file memoranda, a letter of instruction, an investigation, an unimplemented 30-day suspension, and a lateral transfer to a comparable position did not — separately or collectively — materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, and that the surgeon's beliefs about her employer's motives were not substantial evidence of pretext.

Dore v. Arnold Worldwide — “at will” means at any time: offer letters and the end of the implied-contract workaround

August 3, 2006

A unanimous Supreme Court holds that a signed offer letter stating employment is "at will" and terminable "at any time" is unambiguous — recruitment talk of a "long-term fix" cannot create an implied for-cause contract or support fraud reliance — with Justice Baxter (joined by Corrigan) urging reconsideration of Pacific Gas and Justice Moreno reserving "upon notice" clauses.

Smith v. Superior Court (L’Oreal)

July 10, 2006

“Discharge” under sections 201 and 203 includes not only firing but also releasing an employee upon completion of the particular job assignment or time duration for which he or she was hired; final wages are then immediately due, and a willful failure to pay triggers waiting-time penalties.

Singleton v. United States Gypsum: Same-Sex Harassment Without Desire

July 3, 2006

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.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

June 22, 2006

Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is not limited to employer actions affecting the terms and conditions of employment or occurring at the workplace; it prohibits any employer action that a reasonable employee would have found materially adverse — that is, action that might well dissuade a reasonable worker from…

Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

June 2, 2006

Yes. An employer that regards a person as physically disabled must engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation to that person, even if he or she is not actually disabled; the duty runs to those “regarded as” disabled, not only to the actually disabled (id. at p. 40).

Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions

April 20, 2006

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…

Armenta v. Osmose, Inc.

December 29, 2005

California does not permit wage averaging: the minimum-wage standard applies to each hour worked, and an employer must pay at least the minimum wage for every compensable hour; it cannot use higher pay for some hours to offset unpaid or sub-minimum hours.

Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. — the employer’s initial summary-judgment burden and the limits of the RIF defense

December 21, 2005

A pregnant marketing VP laid off in a reduction in force wins reversal of summary judgment: the Second District holds the moving employer must present evidence permitting a more-likely-than-not finding that its nondiscriminatory reason actually drove the discharge, and that replacement by a consultant, a decisionmaker's lie, and an evaluation e-mailed hours after her internal complaint made falsity and pregnancy animus triable.

Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist.: The Yanowitz Materiality Test Governs a Section 1102.5 Whistleblower Claim

December 19, 2005

When a whistleblowing high-school principal was moved to a smaller, quieter school at identical pay, title, and job description, the Third District held that the Yanowitz “materiality” standard for an adverse employment action — built for FEHA retaliation — governs a Labor Code section 1102.5(b) whistleblower claim too, and that a same-pay transfer can still be materially adverse where it significantly diminishes the employee's responsibilities.

Claudio v. Regents of UC: Suing for a Failed Interactive Process

November 22, 2005

In Claudio v. Regents of University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, the Third District reversed summary judgment, holding that an employee may bring a stand-alone FEHA claim for the employer's failure to engage in the timely, good-faith interactive process required by Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n)—while emphasizing that the process demands good-faith participation by both employer and employee.

Miller v. Department of Corrections

July 18, 2005

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…

Discover Bank v. Superior Court

June 27, 2005

At least some class-action waivers in consumer adhesion contracts are unconscionable under California law — the “Discover Bank rule” — where the waiver is in an adhesion contract, the disputes predictably involve small amounts of damages, and the party with superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to cheat…

Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment — employer knowledge, direct evidence, and the pregnancy prima facie case

May 31, 2005

Over a Mosk dissent, Division Five holds that a pregnancy-discrimination plaintiff who confided her early pregnancy only to sworn-to-secrecy friends cannot make a prima facie case absent evidence the decisionmaker knew, and that "Not while you are working for me" and post-firing outbursts were not direct evidence bypassing McDonnell Douglas.

Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.

January 1, 2005

An employee engages in protected activity by opposing conduct she reasonably and in good faith believes is unlawful under the FEHA, even without using magic words or filing a formal complaint. For the adverse-action element, the FEHA reaches employer actions that materially and adversely affect the terms, conditions,…

Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court: Deferential Review and the Theory-of-Recovery Test for Class Certification

August 26, 2004

Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319 holds that wage-and-hour class certification is reviewed for abuse of discretion and turns on whether the plaintiffs’ theory of recovery is amenable to common proof — not on the existence of individual issues or the ultimate merits. The Court reinstated certification of a manager-misclassification class.

Reeves v. Hanlon

August 12, 2004

To recover for intentional interference with an at-will employment relationship, a plaintiff must show the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act — conduct unlawful by some measure beyond the interference itself — that induced the employees to leave or otherwise disrupted the relationship; here, the…

Reeves v. Safeway Stores: California’s Cat’s-Paw Rule for Retaliatory Discharge

July 29, 2004

California's leading “cat's paw” decision. A 29-year Safeway food clerk who complained that his female coworkers were being sexually harassed was fired after a trivial bathroom-door confrontation was escalated into “workplace violence” by a resentful store manager and a one-sided security investigation, then rubber-stamped by a district manager who had never heard of his complaints. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment, holding that a biased supervisor's animus is a but-for cause that imputes to the employer through the “cat's paw” it uses to carry out the firing.

Chapman v. Enos: Who Is a ‘Supervisor’ for FEHA Harassment Liability

March 10, 2004

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.

State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court

November 24, 2003

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…

Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc.

February 20, 2003

The FEHA requires only that a physiological disease or condition affecting a body system “limit” — not “substantially limit” — the plaintiff’s ability to participate in a major life activity, a standard broader than the federal ADA; the later Poppink Act merely clarified, and did not change, that existing “limits”…

Cucuzza v. City of Santa Clara — The Continuing-Violation Doctrine Ends at Permanence

December 23, 2002

The Sixth District affirmed summary judgment for the City, holding that a five-year pattern of stripping a female employee's coveted technical duties was "a collection of isolated employment decisions" that had acquired permanence by 1996 under Richards v. CH2M Hill — and that a biased supervisor's sexist remarks could not show pretext where he neither knew of her candidacy nor took part in the challenged hiring.

Northrop Grumman v. WCAB: A FEHA-Mandated Investigation Is a Good Faith Personnel Action

November 21, 2002

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.

Colarossi v. Coty US Inc.: Circumstantial Evidence of Retaliatory Termination

April 24, 2002

An alleged harasser’s vow to “get revenge” on those who cooperated against her, plus suspiciously timed scrutiny of a star performer’s paperwork, was enough direct and circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive to defeat summary judgment on a wrongful-termination claim.

Bagatti v. Department of Rehabilitation: Failure to Accommodate Is Its Own FEHA Wrong

April 2, 2002

Reviewing a demurrer sustained without leave to amend, the Court of Appeal held that an employee stated a cause of action for damages caused by her employer's failure to make reasonable accommodation for her known disability under FEHA. Treating Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m) as a “separate and distinct” unlawful employment practice independent of the disability-discrimination prohibition in subdivision (a), the court rejected the importation of federal ADA limits (the “qualified individual” and adverse-action requirements) and held the FEHA accommodation duty broader than the ADA's, and not barred by workers' compensation exclusivity.

West v. Bechtel: A Foreign Sovereign Client’s Age Bias Cannot Be Imputed to an Innocent Agent

March 6, 2002

A 62-year-old Bechtel engineer removed from a Saudi project after the Saudi government client called him too old won a FEHA age-discrimination and contract verdict in San Francisco. The Court of Appeal reversed outright, holding that a principal's discriminatory bias cannot be imputed to an innocent agent who merely carries out a foreign sovereign's removal order, and that, absent substantial evidence of the project director's own animus, the verdict could not stand. The contract award separately failed because West, who refused comparable offers and never looked for work, failed to mitigate as a matter of law.

Akers v. County of San Diego — defining the adverse employment action in FEHA retaliation claims

February 8, 2002

Affirming a retaliation verdict for a former deputy district attorney, the Court of Appeal held that FEHA retaliation requires a substantial and material adverse effect on the terms and conditions of employment — a test satisfied where undeserved accusations of dishonesty and incompetence destroyed the prosecutor's promotability even without a firing, demotion, or lost pay.

Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc.

August 23, 2001

The continuing-violation doctrine applies to FEHA claims: an employer’s related unlawful acts are treated as a single continuing violation — and the limitations period does not begin to run — so long as the conduct is sufficiently similar and frequent and has not yet acquired a degree of permanence that should put the…

Flannery v. Prentice

August 13, 2001

Attorney fees awarded under section 12965 belong to the attorneys whose services earned them, except to the extent the attorneys and client have entered an enforceable agreement providing otherwise; the portion of a statutory fee award exceeding fees the client already paid does not belong to the client by default.

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

June 14, 2001

A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit — that one or more elements cannot be established or that there is a complete defense — by either conclusively negating an element or showing the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence to…

Slatkin v. University of Redlands — Pretext Evidence Must Point to Animus: The Concealed-Grudge Rule in FEHA Tenure Cases

May 8, 2001

“Academic catfighting or anti-Semitism?” — a professor’s proof that her tenure denial rested on a hidden, forbidden “collegiality” criterion defeated her own FEHA claim, because the same evidence showed the real motive was a colleague’s grudge, not her religion.

Clark County School District v. Breeden: “Very Close” Temporal Proximity and the Limits of Retaliation’s Most-Cited Defense Authority

April 23, 2001

The Supreme Court's per curiam reversal holds that no reasonable person could believe a single offhand exchange violated Title VII and that timing alone proves retaliatory causation only when the employer's knowledge and the adverse action are "very close" — the twin rules that now anchor nearly every FEHA retaliation summary judgment motion.

Ketchum v. Moses

February 26, 2001

Statutory attorney fees are calculated by the lodestar method — the reasonable hours expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate — and the lodestar may be adjusted by a multiplier based on factors including the contingent risk of the representation, the novelty and difficulty of the issues, the skill displayed,…

Thompson v. Tracor Flight Systems: After-Acquired Evidence Limits Remedies, Never Liability

February 2, 2001

A jury found Rosie Thompson, a human-resources director, was constructively discharged in retaliation for opposing employment practices she reasonably believed unlawful. The Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict and the full damages award, holding the after-acquired-evidence defense — an equitable doctrine akin to unclean hands — limits relief only where the employer proves the employee in fact would have been terminated for the later-discovered conduct, a burden Tracor failed to meet.

Morgan v. Regents of University of California: The Continuing-Violation Doctrine and the Significant-Participant Rule

November 30, 2000

An African-American electronic technician laid off in a budget cut applied for dozens of university jobs, was hired for none, and sued under the FEHA for retaliation. Affirming summary judgment, the Court of Appeal held that a string of rejections by different managers in unrelated departments is a series of isolated decisions, not a “continuing violation” — and that retaliatory remarks by HR staff who took no part in the hiring cannot establish causation, because every actual decisionmaker disclaimed knowledge of the protected grievance.

Diffey v. Riverside County Sheriff: Limits of the “Regarded-As” Prong

November 14, 2000

In Diffey v. Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1031, the Fourth District reversed a verdict for a color-blind deputy applicant and directed judgment for the County, holding that a 'regarded-as' disability claim requires proof that the employer's perception stemmed from a false idea—'myths, fears and stereotypes'—about disability; an employer's accurate assessment of a genuine limitation does not satisfy the perceived-disability prong.

Chuang v. UC Davis — The Ninth Circuit Pretext Playbook

August 30, 2000

A world-class AIDS researcher — the only full-time, non-Caucasian faculty member in his department, and the only one without a tenured (FTE) position — was promised a tenure line for over a decade while the university gave the openings to others, then had his

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

August 24, 2000

Mandatory employment arbitration of unwaivable statutory claims is permissible only if the agreement provides certain minimum protections — a neutral arbitrator, adequate discovery, a written award subject to limited review, all types of relief otherwise available in court, and no requirement that the employee bear…

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.

June 12, 2000

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. A plaintiff’s prima facie case combined with sufficient evidence that the employer’s stated reason is false can, without more, sustain a finding of intentional discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000) 530 U.S. 133 Parallel citations: 120 S.Ct. 2097; 147 L.Ed.2d 105. Supreme Court of the United States. […]

Spitzer v. Good Guys: The FEHA Duty to Reassign

May 1, 2000

In Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, the First District reversed summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim, holding in the published portion that FEHA's reasonable-accommodation duty can require reassigning a disabled employee to a vacant position—an obligation the employer escapes only by showing undue hardship or that no suitable vacancy exists.

Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville: When McDonnell Douglas Burdens Drop From the Case at Trial

April 14, 2000

A city secretary hired at 62 and let go at 74 during a budget crisis lost her FEHA age-discrimination claim after a bench trial. Affirming, the First District clarified that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is a pretrial screening device; at trial it drops from the case, leaving only the ultimate question whether the employer intentionally discriminated, reviewed on appeal for substantial evidence.

Pang v. Beverly Hospital, Inc.

April 10, 2000

In Pang v. Beverly Hospital, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, the Court of Appeal drew the first California line around what it means to take family leave “to care for” a parent. A physical therapist fired after flying to New York to help her independent, 81-year-old mother pack and relocate to a one-level apartment was held not to be “caring for” her mother under the Family Rights Act: her participation had to be “warranted” during “a period of the treatment or supervision” of her mother, and packing boxes and directing movers was not. Affirming judgment on the pleadings, the court confirmed that courts — not the agency — bear ultimate responsibility for construing CalFRA.

Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.: The Two Independent Definitions of “Hours Worked” and Compensable Compulsory Travel Time

March 27, 2000

Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575 holds that the wage order’s “subject to the control of an employer” and “suffered or permitted to work” clauses are independent: an employee under the employer’s control is paid even when not working. Compulsory travel on employer-mandated buses is compensable “hours worked,” and the federal Portal-to-Portal Act does not govern California law.

Thomas v. Department of Corrections: An Adverse Employment Action Must Be Both Detrimental and Substantial

January 10, 2000

In one of California's early decisions defining the scope of an “adverse employment action,” the Court of Appeal borrowed the prevailing federal standard and held the action must be both detrimental and substantial — a material change in the terms of employment. A corrections officer's pleaded grievances (a delayed paycheck, an early job change, one missed overtime payment, interference with an outside credit-union post) failed that test on demurrer. The opinion was certified for partial publication; the citable holdings live in published parts 6 and 7.

Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital

October 2, 1989

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…

Raytheon Co. v. FEHC: AIDS Is a Protected Handicap and the Danger Defense Is the Employer’s Burden

August 7, 1989

Raytheon refused to reinstate an employee diagnosed with AIDS even though its own medical staff and public-health officials uniformly found the disease was not transmissible through ordinary workplace contact. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission found unlawful handicap discrimination, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. AIDS is a physical handicap protected by California's antidiscrimination law, and an employer invoking the threat-to-health-and-safety-of-others defense bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

June 5, 1989

In Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989) 490 U.S. 642, the Supreme Court held that a disparate-impact plaintiff must identify the specific employment practice causing a statistical disparity and bears the burden of persuasion on business justification, with the employer carrying only a burden of production and the challenged practice needing only to serve legitimate goals — not to be “essential.” The Civil Rights Act of 1991 later superseded the burden-of-persuasion holding, restoring Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations: California’s Multifactor Control Test for Independent-Contractor Status

March 23, 1989

S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 sets California’s multifactor control test for employee vs. independent-contractor status — the right to control the manner and means of the work, plus secondary factors, applied in light of the statute’s protective purpose. It still governs the Assembly Bill 5 exemptions after Dynamex.

Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.

December 29, 1988

The Tameny claim failed because Foley’s report about a coworker served the employer’s private interest, not a fundamental public policy. Foley nonetheless adequately pleaded an implied-in-fact contract to discharge only for good cause — based on longevity of service, promotions, raises, assurances, and the employer’s…

Mixon v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission: Discriminatory Animus Need Not Be the Sole Motivation

June 24, 1987

A FEHA complainant need not prove that discriminatory animus was the sole motivation for an adverse action — but must still prove it was a determining factor. Affirming the Commission's finding that a Black employee was discharged for commute-cost reasons rather than race, the Sixth District clarified the causation standard that underlies CACI Nos. 2500 and 2507, even as it upheld the employer's legitimate-reason defense on the facts.

Ibarbia v. Regents of the University of California: Proving Discriminatory Impact Without Proving Intent

May 15, 1987

A disparate-impact plaintiff is relieved of proving discriminatory intent, but is not relieved of proving the discriminatory impact. Affirming summary judgment for the University, the First District held that the plaintiff offered no statistical or other evidence that a facially neutral practice fell more harshly on a protected group — the indispensable element of a disparate-impact theory (CACI No. 2502).

City and County of San Francisco v. FEHC: Disparate Impact in a Firefighter Promotional Exam

May 7, 1987

A facially neutral firefighter promotional exam that screened out Black candidates at well below four-fifths of the White rate, and that failed to test the job’s primary supervisory function, violated FEHA — though parallel federal litigation displaced the Commission’s remedy.

California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Guerra: Pregnancy-Leave Statute Upheld — the “Floor, Not a Ceiling”

January 13, 1987

When Lillian Garland returned from pregnancy disability leave to find her receptionist job filled, California’s guarantee of leave and reinstatement collided with her employer’s theory that Title VII forbade treating pregnancy “better” than other disabilities. The Supreme Court sided with California: the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is a floor beneath which pregnancy benefits may not drop, not a ceiling above which states may not rise — and employers can always comply with both laws by leveling benefits up. Guerra remains the constitutional foundation of the PDLL and of every California pregnancy protection built since.

Bohemian Club v. Fair Employment & Housing Com.: The BFOQ Defense and Customer Preference

November 20, 1986

An exclusive all-male club is a covered FEHA employer, and its members’ preference for male staff is no bona fide occupational qualification. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the BFOQ defense is an extremely narrow exception that customer preference can never satisfy.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson

June 19, 1986

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.

Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell

June 17, 1985

In Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell (1985) 472 U.S. 400, the Supreme Court adopted the two-part age-BFOQ test for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: the age limit must be reasonably necessary to the essence of the employer's business, and the employer must show either reasonable cause to believe that all or substantially all older workers cannot perform the job safely or that it is impossible or highly impractical to assess older employees individually. The Court rejected a deferential “rational basis” standard.

Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court

August 30, 1982

Punitive damages are recoverable under the FEHA in a court action for intentional employment discrimination; the statute’s remedial scheme does not limit a plaintiff to the relief the administrative agency could award, so the full range of tort-type remedies, including punitive damages, is available.

Connecticut v. Teal: Title VII Protects the Individual, Not the Bottom Line

June 21, 1982

The Supreme Court held that an employer cannot use a racially balanced “bottom-line” workforce to defend a discriminatory pass/fail barrier that excludes individual employees. Title VII protects the person, not just the group.

Sterling Transit Co. v. FEP Commission: The Physical-Handicap Danger and BFOQ Defenses

July 21, 1981

A trucking company refused permanent employment to a driver whose preemployment physical revealed a congenital low-back condition, applying an absolute rule against hiring anyone with back deficiencies. The Fair Employment Practice Commission found unlawful handicap discrimination, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. An employer cannot exclude handicapped workers by class unless all or substantially all of the class cannot perform safely, the individualized safety defense cannot rest on conjecture of future harm, and there is no financial-impact exception.

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine

March 4, 1981

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine At step two of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employer bears only a burden of production — to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times with the plaintiff. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248 Parallel citations: […]

Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc.

February 27, 1981

Yes. The longevity of Pugh’s service, together with the employer’s commendations and assurances and its acknowledged practices, supported an implied-in-fact promise that he would not be discharged except for good cause; the nonsuit was therefore error and the judgment was reversed (id. at p. 330).