(2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One · Decided August 8, 2017
01. Facts
Melony Light worked for the Department of Parks and Recreation and sued the Department and her former supervisors, Leda Seals and Kathy Dolinar, after the trial court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motions (14 Cal.App.5th at p. 80). Light alleged FEHA retaliation, disability discrimination, and failure to prevent retaliation and discrimination, asserting (among other things) that she was targeted after she declined to participate in her supervisors’ campaign against a coworker and was subjected to threats and intimidation (id. at pp. 80–81).
02. Procedural posture
The Court of Appeal reversed in part, allowing the retaliation claim to proceed (14 Cal.App.5th at p. 80).
03. Issue
What constitutes protected activity and a materially adverse employment action for a FEHA retaliation claim — in particular, whether refusing to participate in perceived retaliation/discrimination is protected, and whether threats can amount to adverse action.
Holding
An employee’s refusal to participate in conduct she reasonably believes is unlawful under the FEHA — including refusing to go along with retaliation against a coworker — can constitute protected activity, and threats or intimidation may qualify as a materially adverse employment action supporting a retaliation claim; summary adjudication of Light’s retaliation claim was therefore error.
05. Reasoning
Applying Yanowitz, the court reasoned that the FEHA’s opposition clause protects employees who refuse to participate in what they reasonably believe is unlawful conduct, and that the adverse-action element is satisfied by employer actions materially affecting the terms and conditions of employment, judged by their totality. Threats and intimidation directed at an employee for her protected refusal can meet that standard, so the retaliation claim could not be resolved on summary judgment.
Practice Pointer
Light is useful authority that an employee’s refusal to join in perceived discrimination or retaliation is protected, and that threats can be adverse actions. Plaintiff’s counsel should frame a client’s refusal to participate as protected opposition and aggregate threats, intimidation, and other pressures into a materially adverse course of conduct under Yanowitz.
06. Open questions
Light applied Yanowitz to refusal-to-participate scenarios and threats, but the precise boundary of “materially adverse” action — and which pressures cross the line — remains fact-specific and continues to develop in FEHA retaliation litigation.
Cite this entry
Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75.
“Plaintiff Melony Light appeals judgments in favor of her employer, defendant Department of Parks and Recreation … and her former supervisors.” — 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 80
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].