Reno v. Baird

7 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. California’s FEHA Liability Extends to Service Providers

    CDF Labor Law LLPRyan LaroccaAugust 25, 2023

    Employer Liability Under FEHACalifornia’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits employers from engaging in unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation. When such a violation occurs, the FEHA imposes liability on “Employers,” which “includes any person regularly employing five or more persons, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly […]”Who Can Be Held Liable?In recent years, the Supreme Court has clarified that the FEHA does not impose liability in discrimination and retaliation matters on employer’s agents if said agents are individual employees - Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640 (Reno); Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158 (Jones). However, until recently, the Court had yet to address whether other types of agents could be held liable as an agent of an employer under the FEHA.On August 21, 2023, the Court issued its decision in Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group (Raines), concluding that business-entity agents with five or more employees may be held directly liable as the employer for employment discrimination when that entity carries out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of the employer. This means businesses that provide employment-related services to California employers can potentially be held liable for FEHA violations.The Raines DecisionIn Raines, the named Plaintiffs received conditional offers of employment, subject to a pre-employment medical screening through a third-party vendor. As part of the screening process, applicants were required to complete a written health history questionnaire, which included non-job-

  2. Hearsay Statements Increase an Employer’s Risk in California

    Carr McClellan P.C.Robert A. BleicherFebruary 21, 2014

    Following Gichner v. Antonio Troiano Tile & Marble Co. (D.C. Cir. 1969) 410 F.2d 238, 242, the Court of Appeal determined that the statement attributed to the supervisor was antithetical to the supervisor’s pecuniary interests because “if publicly known, it would expose her employer to liability and jeopardize her own present and future employment.” Relying also on Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 662, the Court of Appeal observed that a supervisor guilty of engaging in unlawful discrimination can cause her employer to incur monetary liability and potentially suffer her own demotion or unemployment, thus also impacting the supervisor’s ability to obtain future employment. Additionally, the statement, which itself could be seen as a form of harassment, could subject the supervisor to personal civil liability under California’s workplace laws.

  3. California Supreme Court Limits Liability of Individuals for Retaliation Under FEHA

    Crowell & Moring LLPMark A. RomeoMarch 11, 2008

    The Jones decision thus brings liability for retaliation into line with claims for discrimination, which have long excluded individual liability. SeeReno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640 (1998).The 4-3 majority explained that, as with discrimination claims, retaliation claims are frequently based on decisions that are at the core of a supervisor's or manager's regular responsibilities.

  4. Resolving a Key Legal Issue, California Supreme Court Holds Individual Employees Not Liable for Retaliation Under the FEHA

    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLPMarch 11, 2008

    Likewise, the FEHA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who have complained about discrimination or harassment or have otherwise exercised their rights under the FEHA. A decade ago, the California Supreme Court held in Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640 (1998), that individual employees may not be held personally liable for discrimination under the FEHA. Over the past several years, both state and federal courts have taken pains to distinguish Reno from cases involving retaliation and have held that individual employees may be held liable for retaliation.

  5. RMKB Lawyers Labor & Employment Red Alert: California Supreme Court Rejects Personal Liability for Retaliation

    Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley PCMarch 3, 2008

    S151022) and addressed the issue, for the first time, of whether the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes individuals personally liable for retaliation. In Jones, the Court resolved this issue, by a 4-3 vote, by extending the rule announced in Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640) that although an employer may be held liable under the FEHA (California Government Code section 12900 et seq.), non-employer individuals are not personally liable for that discrimination. In light of the Jones decision issued today, the employer, but not non-employer individuals may be held liable for certain unlawful acts of retaliation.Please see full alert for more information.

  6. Supervisor May Be Sued For Retaliation In Response To Complaints About Discrimination

    Proskauer Rose LLPTony OncidiSeptember 1, 2002

    The trial court granted the supervisor’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that a supervisor (unlike an employer) cannot be held liable for retaliation. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that although the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640 (1998) interprets the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as insulating a supervisor from a claim of discrimination, the FEHA does not similarly preclude a retaliation claim such as the one alleged in this case.

  7. Grounds for Imposition of Individual Liability for Unpaid Wages and Penalties Against Corporate Officer --- Barry Vincent Lyou v. Centrecom, Inc., and Donald S. Feuer, an individual; jointly and severally (State Case No. 18-15109)

    California Department of Industrial RelationsJune 18, 2002

    And other laws, which may have a much narrower definition of “employer,” should not be used as guidance in construing the term under the IWC orders. For example, in Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, the California Supreme Court held that there is no individual liability for certain discriminatory employment practices under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Two of the factors upon which the Supreme Court premised its holding in Reno show precisely why that decision is inapposite to the issue of the definition of “employer,” and the scope of individual liability under wage and hour law.