FEHA

Subscribe to FEHA via RSS

Univ. of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4704 (Jun. 24, 2013)

The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action.  In a five-to-four decision, the Court rejected the lower court’s…

McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1510 (2013)

John McGrory alleged his employment was terminated because he is male and because he participated in his employer’s internal investigation. He also alleged defamation associated with a statement the vice president of human resources made to another employee about why McGrory had been terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the…

Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., 2013 WL 635266 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)

In a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeal determined in this case whether an employee who has exhausted all permissible leave (four months) under the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) may state a claim for failure to accommodate a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The…

Harris v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013)

Wynona Harris alleged her employment was terminated by the City of Santa Monica because of her pregnancy in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The city claimed Harris had been fired for poor job performance – she had two preventable traffic accidents and two late arrivals to work during her first six months…

Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 941 (Feb. 7, 2013)

Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  The City denied Harris’s allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that the City had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to fire Harris.  At trial, the City asked the court to instruct the jury that if it found a mix of discriminatory and legitimate motives, the City could escape liability by proving that a legitimate motive alone would have led to the same decision.  The trial court refused the instruction and instead told the jury that Harris had to prove that her pregnancy was a “motivating factor/reason for the discharge.”  The jury found in favor of Harris and awarded her $177,905 in damages.  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the requested instruction was legally correct and that refusal to give the instruction was prejudicial error.

Lui v. City and County of San Francisco, 211 Cal. App. 4th 962 (2012)

After suffering a major heart attack, Kenneth Lui retired from his position as a police officer with the San Francisco Police Department. After the Department informed him there were no administrative positions available that did not require him to perform the strenuous duties regularly performed by patrol officers in the…

Alamo v. Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp., 2012 WL 4450066 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

Lorena Alamo sued her former employer Practice Management Information Corp. (“PMIC”) for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Alamo was terminated for poor work performance after she returned from maternity leave. Following a jury…

Effective January 1, 2013, California employers will be required to accommodate their employees’ religious dress and grooming practices. Governor Brown has signed into law the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012” (authored by Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis)), which specifies that religious dress and grooming practices shall be considered a protected religious observance under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The bill defines “religious dress…

Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1207 (2012)

Richard Joaquin alleged his employment as an LAPD officer was terminated in retaliation for his having filed a sexual harassment complaint against his supervisor, Sgt. James Sands. The case was tried to a jury and Joaquin was awarded more than $2.1 million in damages. On appeal, the city asserted that Joaquin had…

We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2012 California Employment Law Notes – a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

…