In Caldera v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Court of Appeal was asked to determine the proper amount of attorneys’ fees that should be awarded to a disabled employee who won a $500,000 verdict at trial. The employee, Augustine Caldera, complained that his supervisors regularly harassed and mocked him because of his stutter…. Read More
Posts Tagged With: FEHA
AB 9 Now Gives Employees 3 Years to Bring Harassment and Discrimination Claims
On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 9 into law. AB 9 extends the deadline for employees to file a charge of employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) from 1 year to 3 years. The new deadline is 3x longer than the current state requirement… Read More
Recent FEHA Amendment on Fee-Shifting is Retroactive
As a direct response to the “Me Too” movement, California enacted a number of new laws in 2018 regarding workplace sexual harassment. This wave of legislation included an amendment to the section of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) governing fee and cost awards, which was intended to make it more difficult for prevailing… Read More
Section 998 Offers Cannot Shift Attorneys’ Fees to Plaintiffs in FEHA Cases
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCC”) §1032. But under CCP §998, a party may make an “offer to compromise,” which can cut-off and even reverse the parties’ right to recover costs after the date of the… Read More
California Court Makes it Easier for Overweight Employees to Sue Their Employers
California law has not (yet) recognized weight as a protected category along with race, gender, gender identity, religion, sexual orientation, medical condition, and many others. However, more than 25 years ago, the California Supreme Court held that an overweight employee could qualify as a “disabled” under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) — and,… Read More
California Court Confirms: Employers are Liable for Sexual Harassment by Non-Employees
With all of the recent news surrounding workplace sexual harassment and sexual misconduct by politicians, news anchors, celebrities, and other high-profile persons, it comes as no surprise that a California court has weighed in on the issue of workplace sexual harassment.
California Court Issues First-Ever Ruling Recognizing Associational Disability Discrimination
The California Court of Appeals has, for the first time ever, held that healthy employees without any disability — but who are “associated” with a disabled person who needs their assistance — are protected under California’s disability discrimination law. Thus, as a result of this decision, California employers are now obligated to engage in the… Read More
New Regulations on Sexual Harassment Take Effect Today
The California Fair Employment & Housing Council (FEHC) recently passed new regulations that strengthen California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA). This is the state law banning discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace, which is already among the toughest in the nation. These new regulations take effect on April 1, 2016. Under the new… Read More
California DFEH Issues Guidance on Transgender Workers
On February 17, 2016, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) issued new guidelines on transgender rights in the workplace. While most of these guidelines are common sense based on existing law, there are some concrete recommendations in the DFEH’s new brochure, including: 1. Employers should not ask about an applicant’s or employee’s… Read More
CA Supreme Court Clarifies When Defendants Can Get Fees and Costs Awarded in FEHA Actions
On May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District that a successful defendant in a FEHA case can get awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs only when “the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the action without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit.” In other… Read More
