{"id":33525,"date":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","date_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/recent-california-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-scope-of-the-feha.html"},"modified":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","modified_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","slug":"recent-california-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-scope-of-the-feha","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/human-resources\/recent-california-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-scope-of-the-feha.html","title":{"rendered":"Recent California Supreme Court Ruling on the Scope of the FEHA"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n | Last reviewed\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

On December 9, 1999, the California Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding the scope of California's anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation statute–the Fair Employment and Housing Act<\/i> ("the FEHA").

In Carrisales v. Department of Corrections,<\/b><\/i> the Court held that coworkers who are not in a "supervisory relationship" with the victim cannot be held personally liable for harassment<\/i> under the FEHA. This decision supplements last year.s California Supreme Court decision in Reno v. Baird<\/i>, in which the Court held that coworkers, including supervisors, cannot be held liable for discrimination<\/i> under the FEHA.<\/p>

The Carrisales<\/i> decision makes clear that a non-supervisory employee cannot be held individually liable under the FEHA for harassment.<\/p>

The Court.s phrasing that "the FEHA does not apply to actions between coworkers not involving a supervisorial relationship"<\/i> suggests that a supervisor who does not actually supervise the victim<\/i> might not be personally liable for any proven harassment. However, because the Court was focused on behavior by a non-supervisor, we expect plaintiffs will argue that the decision should not be interpreted to foreclose harassment claims against a supervisor who does not actually supervise the alleged victim.<\/p>

The Court did not<\/i> decide whether non-supervisory coworkers can be held liable for retaliation<\/i> (some lower courts have recognized such liability). In addition, the Court explicitly stated that its decision was limited to coworker liability under the FEHA, and suggested that a coworker not in a supervisory relationship with the victim can still be held liable under traditional tort claims such as assault, battery and infliction of emotional distress.<\/p>

The decision does not limit an employer.s<\/i> obligations under the FEHA to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, and to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. If an employer is or should be aware of the harassment and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, the employer is liable under the FEHA regardless of whether the harasser was in a supervisorial relationship with the victim.<\/p>

) 1999 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP<\/small>.<\/i><\/p>

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton LLP<\/font> Disclaimer<\/b>These materials have been prepared by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton LLP,<\/font> for information purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between the sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Do not send us confidential information until you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us.<\/font><\/p><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On December 9, 1999, the California Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding the scope of California’s anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation statute–the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“the FEHA”). In the Court held that …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":true,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"corporate_categories":[6487,6486],"class_list":["post-33525","corporate","type-corporate","status-publish","hentry","corporate_categories-human-resources__employment-laws","corporate_categories-human-resources"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate\/33525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/corporate"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"corporate_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate_categories?post=33525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}