For more information about PAGA, click here.Proof of an employment relationship is an element that a plaintiff must prove to prevail on these claims. Specifically, a plaintiff must show that an employment relationship exists to prevail on a FEHA claim. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.; Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042; see CACI 2500, et seq.) The same is true for a plaintiff to prove a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Specifically, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify classes of all female and all African American non-exempt employees of Anthem Blue Cross California and related entities. The complaint alleged both violations of the EPA, as well as discrimination in promotions and pay in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code §12900 et. seq.).

Specifically, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify classes of all female and all African American non-exempt employees of Anthem Blue Cross California and related entities. The complaint alleged both violations of the EPA, as well as discrimination in promotions and pay in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code §12900 et. seq.).

Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower.

The adage that “there is no rest for the weary” is perhaps an all too familiar one for California employers. Although employers might have already spent the past few months implementing a host of new laws that took effect in early 2016, there has been less fanfare about the upcoming regulatory amendments under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA,” Cal. Govt. Code § 12900, et seq.) that go into effect April 1, 2016. The FEHA statute, which generally applies to employers of five or more employees, is most known for prohibiting workplace harassment and discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.

(2 C.C.R. 11087(a) and (l); 11090(e).) Adding the word "essential" conforms with California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA," Cal. Gov. Code 12900 et seq.). For an employee who takes a pregnancy disability leave in addition to CFRA leave, the 1,250 hour "look back" to assess CFRA eligibility begins immediately prior to the first day of pregnancy disability leave – not the first day of subsequent CFRA leave for reason of the birth of the employee's child.

[2] The EEOC’s recent efforts in the private sector follow on the heels of Executive Order 13672, issued by President Obama in July to prohibit lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender discrimination against federal employees.[3]EEOC v. Lakeland Eye Clinic, M.D. Fla. Case No. 8:14-cv-2421 and EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., E.D. Mich. Case No. 2:14-cv-13710.[4] Eighteen states—California (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq.); Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-301 et seq.); Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51 et seq.); Delaware (Del.

[author: Natalie A. Rainforth]The number of protected classes under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq., has risen by one.The FEHA, together with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, currently prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and services provided by business establishments on the basis of various personal characteristics such as sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and disability.Additional protections have been added over time to include within the purview of these anti-discrimination statutes medical condition, marital status, and sexual orientation.

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.