FEHA

Subscribe to FEHA via RSS

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

An employer cannot be held liable for failure to prevent sexual harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) if there is no actionable sexual harassment, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc., No. B253154 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2015). Likewise, a jury’s finding that an employer is not liable for sex discrimination precludes liability for failure to prevent discrimination.

Background

Domaniqueca Dickson, a massage therapist at a spa, sued her employer, Burke Williams, Inc. (“BWI”), for alleged sexual harassment by two customers. She asserted claims for sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and the failure to prevent sexual harassment and sexual discrimination under the FEHA, among other things.Continue Reading No Employer Liability If There is No Actionable Harassment or Discrimination, California Court Rules

Affirming summary judgment in favor of an employer on an employee’s disability discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Court of Appeal has ruled that the employer was not required to eliminate essential functions of a position as a reasonable accommodation. Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, No. B246634 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2015). The Court further held that reassigning the employee to a position for which he was not qualified and granting him an indefinite leave of absence until a suitable position became available also were not reasonable accommodations. As to the employee’s retaliation claim, the Court held that a request for a reasonable accommodation alone was insufficient to establish the employee engaged in protected activity.
Continue Reading Removing Essential Job Functions Not Reasonable Disability Accommodation Under California Law, Court Rules

At the recent close of the 2014 legislative session, Governor Brown signed into law AB 1660, which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of his or her driver’s license.
Continue Reading Catch-22 for Employers: Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Driver’s License

A university properly terminated a professor for failing to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination after he had engaged in instances of threatening behavior, the California Court of Appeal has ruled, affirming a judgment in favor of the University of San Francisco on a professor’s alleged disability discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Kao v. University of San Francisco, No. A135750 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2014). Significantly, the Court ruled the University was not required to engage in an “interactive process” before requesting the examination because the professor never sought any accommodation for any disability.

Background

John S. Kao was a mathematics professor at the University of San Francisco from 1991 to 2009. Beginning in 2008, Kao engaged in a series of confrontations with co-workers during which he often appeared enraged and threatening. Consequently, his co-workers became concerned for their physical safety. The University investigated, consulting with experts in threat assessment and workplace violence.
Continue Reading Professor’s Refusal to Undergo Fitness-for-Duty Exam Warranted Termination, California Court Rules

California has become the third state in the country, after New York and Oregon, to ban sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace directed toward unpaid interns.

The new law (AB 1443) extends workplace harassment and discrimination protections under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to unpaid interns, volunteers, and individuals in apprenticeship training programs. It will go into effect January 1, 2015.
Continue Reading California Law Protects Unpaid Interns and Volunteers from Harassment and Discrimination

In a recent opinion with important implications for California businesses, the California Supreme Court held that franchisors are not vicariously liable for the conduct of employees managed by its franchisees.

In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, et al., the plaintiff, a service employee at a Southern California Domino’s Pizza franchise, alleged that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor, the store’s Assistant Manager.  She asserted claims against the alleged harasser, the franchisee, and Domino’s Pizza, the franchisor, alleging that, although she (and the alleged harasser) formally were employed by the franchisee, the franchisor was vicariously liable for her injuries.  More specifically, she argued that because the franchisor exercised extensive control over the franchisee’s operations, the franchisee was an “agent” of the franchisor and the franchisor was an “employer” of the franchisee’s employees, subjecting the franchisor to liability for injuries arising out of the employees’ performance of their job duties. 
Continue Reading California High Court Rules that Franchisors are Not Liable for Workplace Injuries Inflicted By Franchisees’ Employees

Ambiguity in settlement agreements can sabotage finality and certainty as a recent California decision shows. Where a settlement agreement is silent regarding litigation costs, an employee may obtain mandatory costs as the prevailing party under state law as the settlement proceeds constituted the required “net monetary recovery,” the California Court of Appeal has ruled. DeSaulles …

On October 10, 2013, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill, A.B. 556, to add “military and veteran status” to the list of categories protected from employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

When this bill becomes operative on January 1, 2014, the FEHA will prohibit harassment and discrimination in…

In Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556 (June 24, 2013), the United States Supreme Court defined “supervisory” authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962 as requiring the power to make “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or…