FEHA

Subscribe to FEHA via RSS

The California Court of Appeal reversed a $1 million judgment against the City of Los Angeles in a racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation case brought by a firefighter under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles. After 12 years of litigation and two jury trials, the Court ruled that the firefighter’s claims occurred outside the one-year statute of limitations period and that the “continuing violation” exception to the statute of limitations did not apply.
Continue Reading Reversing $1 Million Judgment against Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeals Ruled Continuing Violation Doctrine did not apply to Firefighter’s Decades-Old Race Discrimination and Harassment Claims

Effective January 1, 2016, an employee’s request for an accommodation for a disability or for religious reasons is considered to be “protected activity” for a retaliation claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
Continue Reading An Employee’s Request for a Disability or Religious Accommodation Is Considered Protected Activity Under Change to the Fair Employment and Housing Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) both require employers to make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities, provided that the accommodations do not impose an “undue hardship” on the employer.

By definition, a reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job, to an employee’s work environment, or to the way things usually are done that enables a qualified individual with a disability to enjoy an equal employment opportunity. It also is any modification or adjustment that allows an employee to perform the essential functions of a job that similarly situated employees without disabilities hold. The reasonable accommodation process can be tricky to navigate, and mistakes can lead to unwanted litigation. Here is a list to help you identify and avoid the most common employer mistakes.
Continue Reading Top 10 Mistakes to Avoid During the Reasonable Accommodation Process

On July 16, 2015, AB 987 was signed into law by the Governor Jerry Brown which provides a paradigm shift in favor of employees with respect to their retaliation claims. The new law overturns the retaliation holding in Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, and makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for “requesting” an accommodation based on religion or disability. 
Continue Reading California Legislature Overturns Retaliation Holding in Rope v. Auto-Chlor and Classifies a Mere Request for Accommodation as a “Protected Activity”

In a recent Ninth Circuit decision, the court held that “a piece of evidence [may not be disregarded] at the summary judgment stage solely based on its self-serving nature.” As a result, declarations created after summary judgment motions are filed may be sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact and, therefore, defeat summary judgment. This decision is particularly concerning because it allows a party to thwart summary judgment with little to no credible or corroborated evidence.
Continue Reading Follow-up on: Be Careful What You Say—It Might End Up in a Declaration to Defeat Summary Judgment

On May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that a prevailing defendant in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) lawsuit can only recover ordinary litigation costs if it demonstrates that the plaintiff’s FEHA claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.  (Williams v. Chino Valley Ind. Fire Distr. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2015), Case No. S213100).  Prior to this ruling, a majority of California courts had ruled that a prevailing defendant in a FEHA case could recover costs as a matter of right.  As such, the Williams case significantly changes California’s employment litigation landscape by making cost shifting even more one-sided in favor of employees.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court: California Employers Face New Challenge In Recovering Post-Litigation Costs