Employees often attempt to prove discrimination by offering evidence that other, similar employees were subject to the same treatment, often referred to as “me too” evidence. The California Court of Appeal rejected an employee’s attempt to use “me too” evidence when the employee sought to introduce evidence showing how employees outside his protected class were
Discrimination
Discrimination as a Substantial Motivating Factor in Mixed Motive Cases
A positive development for employers. To establish liability in “mixed motive” employment discrimination cases under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the employee must show that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision, the California Supreme Court ruled. Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004 (Cal. Feb. …
California Court Of Appeal Rules Refusal To Cooperate With Company Investigation or Giving False Information To Company Investigator Is Not Protected By FEHA
A California court of appeal has recently ruled that an employee is not protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for refusing to participate in or cooperate with a Company investigation into misconduct. McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., (Cal Ct. App. No. H036597, 1/24/2013). In McGrory, California’s Sixth Appellate District rejected …
California Court of Appeal Rules A Labor Code Section 132a Violation Is Not a Proper Public Policy Basis for A Wrongful Termination Claim
California’s Third Appellate District has held that a violation of Labor Code section 132a cannot support a common law claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In general terms, Labor Code section 132a states an employer may not discriminate against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim or for having a work …
Religious Dress and Grooming Practices Qualify As Religious Belief Or Observance Under The Fair Employment & Housing Act
The California Governor signed into law AB 1964 which amends the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) to prohibit discrimination against individuals for the wearing of religious dress or the practice of religious grooming in the workplace. The FEHA already prohibits discrimination against “religious belief” or “observance.” However, the new amendment expressly states that religious dress…
The Elimination of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission Provides Far Greater Authority to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
In a move intended to reduce spending and increase efficiency amid continuing budget difficulties, Governor Brown recently signed Senate Bill 1038 which will, among other things, eliminate the Fair Employment and Housing Commission effective January 1, 2013. The duties of the Commission, primarily rulemaking and the administrative adjudication of discrimination claims, will be assumed in…
New Age Discrimination Case – Sometimes a Victory is Not Always a Victory
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer in an age discrimination case. However, not all news is good news regarding the Court’s decision in Schechner v. KPIX-TV, No. 11-15294 (9th Cir. May 29,2012). The Court “clarified” that the employees could use statistical evidence to establish a…
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Releases Annual Report and Settlement Information
At the end of 2011, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) released its Annual Report for 2010. It identifies some statistics that may be useful for employers, comparing results in 2010 with the previous three years. The numbers illustrate a clear effort by the DFEH to close cases as quickly and efficiently as …
The California Fair Employment & Housing Commission’s Wake-Up Call to Employers
The following is a reminder about a wake-up call to employers. The California Fair Employment & Housing Commission (“FEHC”) issued a decision which held that an employer can be liable for failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment even if there is no underlying discrimination or harassment. Department of Fair …
Class Action Update: Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit Decision Involving Certification of Nationwide Class of 1.5 Million Female Workers
In a decision that many employers have been waiting for since the Ninth Circuit’s decision certifying a class of approximately 1.5 million women, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected class action certification in “one of the most expansive class actions ever.” See Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277 (June 20, 2011). The case involved allegations of gender discrimination…