The Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether FEHA’s definition of “employer” extends to corporate agents of the employer such as a company that conducts preemployment medical screenings. In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that their employment offers were conditioned upon their completion of pre-employment
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is already one of the most employee-friendly state civil rights laws in the country. Until now, it was not clear whether employees could sue not only their direct employers for discrimination and harassment, but also other independent businesses that work on behalf on their employers.
In Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, the California Supreme Court ruled
Rodriguez v. Oto, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (2013)
Heriberto Ceja Rodriguez sued Takeshi Oto for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. Unbeknownst to Rodriguez, at the time of the accident, Oto was driving from an event related to his employment. (Oto was driving a car he rented from Hertz, the cost of which was reimbursed to him by his employer.) Seven months after
C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch., 53 Cal. 4th 861 (2012)
Through a guardian ad litem, C.A. alleged that while he was a student at Golden Valley High School, he was subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by Roselyn Hubbell, the head guidance counselor at his school. C.A. sued the school district for negligent supervision of Hubbell because the district knew or