- \n
- Harassment Laws<\/strong>: Harassment is unlawful when it creates a hostile work environment or results in an employment decision affecting the employee. This can include harassment based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Wrongful Termination<\/strong>: California’s employment law operates under the “at-will” doctrine, but there are exceptions. Termination becomes wrongful if it violates state or federal anti-discrimination laws, including retaliation against an employee for complaining about harassment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Employer Responsibilities<\/strong>: Employers are required to take reasonable steps to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior in the workplace. Failure to do so can result in liability.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Burden of Proof<\/strong>: In harassment-related wrongful termination claims, the burden of proof often falls on the employee to demonstrate that harassment occurred and was a contributing factor in their termination.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Potential Problems and Challenges<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Subtle Harassment<\/strong>: Harassment can often be subtle or indirect, making it difficult to prove. Situations where harassment isn’t overtly hostile or clear-cut present significant challenges in litigation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Retaliation Concerns<\/strong>: An employee who is terminated after reporting harassment may face challenges in proving a direct link between their complaint and the termination decision.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Mixed Motive Issues<\/strong>: Employers may claim that the termination was due to legitimate reasons, unrelated to any harassment claim, leading to complex “mixed motive” cases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Documentation and Evidence<\/strong>: Lack of proper documentation or evidence of harassment and its connection to termination can make legal redress challenging.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Examples<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Case Example – Sexual Harassment<\/strong>: An employee facing unwanted sexual advances from a supervisor reports the behavior. Soon after, they are terminated for “unrelated” performance issues. This could be a case of wrongful termination where the employer retaliated against the employee for reporting harassment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Racial Harassment Scenario<\/strong>: An employee of a particular race is subjected to racial slurs and jokes. After complaining to HR, their work is scrutinized more than their colleagues, leading to termination. This could be seen as wrongful termination stemming from racial harassment and subsequent retaliation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Disability Harassment and Termination<\/strong>: An employee with a disability is constantly harassed about their condition and unfairly criticized at work. After filing a complaint, they are terminated for minor infractions, which could be a case of wrongful termination linked to harassment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
California\u2019s legal framework regarding harassment and wrongful termination is designed to protect employees from discriminatory practices. However, the intricacies of proving harassment, especially in the context of termination, can be daunting. Employers must ensure a harassment-free workplace and exercise caution in termination decisions, particularly following harassment complaints. For employees, the challenges lie in proving the harassment and its connection to their termination. Each case requires a detailed examination of the facts, evidence, and the interplay between harassment and the reasons for termination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2521B<\/strong>. <\/strong>Work Environment Harassment\u2014Conduct Directed at Others\u2014Essential Factual Elements\u2014Employer or Entity Defendant (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u00a7 12923, 12940(j))<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td><\/tr> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
[<\/strong>Name of plaintiff<\/em>] claims that coworkers at [<\/strong>name of defendant<\/em>] were subjected to harassment based on [<\/strong>describe protected status, e.g., race, gender, or age<\/em>] and that this harassment created a work environment for [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] that was hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
To establish this claim, [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] must prove all of the following:<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- <\/strong>That [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] was [an employee of\/an applicant for a position with\/a person providing services under a contract with\/ an unpaid intern with\/a volunteer with] [<\/strong>name of defendant<\/em>];<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- <\/strong>That [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>], although not personally subjected to harassing conduct, personally witnessed harassing conduct that took place in<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
immediate work environment;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- <\/strong>That the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive;<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- <\/strong>That a reasonable [<\/strong>describe member of protected group, e.g., woman<\/em>] in [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>]\u2019s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive;<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- <\/strong>That [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] considered the work environment to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive toward [<\/strong>e.g., women<\/em>];<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- <\/strong>[<\/strong>Select applicable basis of defendant\u2019s liability:<\/em>] [That a supervisor engaged in the conduct;] [<\/strong>or<\/em>]<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
[That [<\/strong>name of defendant<\/em>] [or [his\/her\/<\/strong>nonbinary pronoun<\/em>\/its] supervisors or agents] knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action;]<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- <\/strong>That [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] was harmed; and<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- <\/strong>That the conduct was a substantial factor in causing [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>]\u2019s harm.<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/td><\/tr> <\/td> <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Derived from former CACI No. 2521 December 2007; Revised June 2013, December 2015, May 2018, July 2019, November 2021<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Directions for Use<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
This instruction is for use in a hostile work environment case if the plaintiff was not the target of the harassing conduct and the defendant is an employer or other entity covered by the FEHA. If the defendant is a labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment (rather than an employer), the instruction should be modified as appropriate. (See Gov. Code, \u00a7 12940(j)(1).) The relevant provision protects an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services under a contract. (See ibid.<\/em>) If the alleged harassment did not occur in the workplace, the instruction should be modified as appropriate. (See Doe v. Capital Cities <\/em>(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1051 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 122] [\u201c[A]s long as the harassment occurs in a work-related context, the employer is liable\u201d].)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For an individual defendant, such as the alleged harasser or plaintiff\u2019s coworker, see CACI No. 2522B, Work Environment Harassment\u2014Conduct Directed at Others\u2014Essential Factual Elements\u2014Individual Defendant. <\/em>For a case in which the plaintiff is the target of the harassment, see CACI No. 2521A, Work Environment Harassment\u2014Conduct Directed at Plaintiff\u2014Essential Factual Elements\u2014Employer or Entity Defendant. <\/em>For an instruction for use if the hostile environment is due to sexual favoritism, see CACI No. 2521C, Work Environment Harassment\u2014Sexual Favoritism\u2014Essential Factual Elements\u2014Employer or Entity Defendant<\/em>. Also read CACI No. 2523, \u201cHarassing Conduct\u201d Explained<\/em>, and CACI No. 2524, \u201cSevere or Pervasive\u201d Explained<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In element 6, select the applicable basis of employer liability: (a) strict liability for a supervisor\u2019s harassing conduct, or (b) the employer\u2019s ratification of the conduct. For a definition of \u201csupervisor,\u201d see CACI No. 2525, Harassment\u2014\u201cSupervisor\u201d Defined. <\/em>If there are both employer and individual supervisor defendants (see CACI No. 2522B, Work Environment Harassment\u2014Conduct Directed at Others\u2014Essential Factual Elements\u2014Individual Defendant<\/em>) and both are found liable, they are both jointly and severally liable for any damages. Comparative fault and Proposition 51 do not apply to the employer\u2019s strict liability for supervisor harassment. (State<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dep\u2019t. of Health Servs. v. Superior Court <\/em>(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1041\u20131042 [6<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556]; see Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. <\/em>(1993)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
13 Cal.App.4th 976, 1000 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 787], disapproved on other grounds in<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries <\/em>(1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 664 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
109, 863 P.2d 179]; see also Rashtian v. BRAC-BH, Inc. <\/em>(1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1847,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1851 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 411] [Proposition 51 cannot be applied to those who are without fault and only have vicarious liability by virtue of some statutory fiat].)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
See also the Sources and Authority to CACI No. 2521A, Work Environment Harassment\u2014Conduct Directed at Plaintiff\u2014Essential Factual Elements\u2014Employer or Entity Defendant.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sources and Authority<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Legislative Intent With Regard to Application of the Laws About Harassment. Government Code section 12923.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Harassment Prohibited Under Fair Employment and Housing Act. Government Code section 12940(j)(1).
- \u201cEmployer\u201d Defined for Harassment. Government Code section 12940(j)(4)(A).<\/li><\/ul>
- Person Providing Services Under Contract. Government Code section 12940(j)(5).<\/li><\/ul>
- Harassment Because of Sex. Government Code section 12940(j)(4)(C).<\/li><\/ul>
- Aiding and Abetting Fair Employment and Housing Act Violations. Government Code section 12940(i).<\/li><\/ul>
- Perception and Association. Government Code section 12926(o).<\/li><\/ul>\n
- \n
- \u201cThe elements [of a prima facie claim of hostile-environment sexual harassment] are: (1) plaintiff belongs to a protected group; (2) plaintiff was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; (4) the harassment complained of was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment; and<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
(5) respondeat superior.\u201d (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital <\/em>(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 608 [262 Cal.Rptr. 842], footnote omitted.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- \u201c[T]he adjudicator\u2019s inquiry should center, dominantly, on whether the discriminatory conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff\u2019s work performance. To show such interference, \u2018the plaintiff need not prove that his or her tangible productivity has declined as a result of the harassment.\u2019 It suffices to prove that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find, as the plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to \u2018make it more difficult to do the job.\u2019 \u201d (Harris v. Forklift Sys. <\/em>(1993) 510 U.S. 17, 25 [114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295], conc. opn. of Ginsburg, J.; see Gov. Code, \u00a7 12923(a) endorsing this language as reflective of California law.)
- \u201cThe plaintiff\u2019s work environment is affected not only by conduct directed at herself but also by the treatment of others. A woman\u2019s perception that her work environment is hostile to women will obviously be reinforced if she witnesses the harassment of other female workers.\u201d (Beyda v. City of Los Angeles <\/em>(1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 519 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 547], internal citations omitted.)<\/li><\/ul>
- \u201cHarassment against others in the workplace is only relevant to the plaintiff\u2019s case if she has personal knowledge of it. Unless plaintiff witnesses the conduct against others, or is otherwise aware of it, that conduct cannot alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. Stated another way, a reasonable person in plaintiff\u2019s position would not find the environment hostile or abusive unless that person had knowledge of the objectionable conduct toward others.\u201d (Beyda, supra, <\/em>65 Cal.App.4th at p. 520.)<\/li><\/ul>\n
- \n
- \u201cTo state that an employee must be the direct victim of the sexually harassing conduct is somewhat misleading as an employee who is subjected to a hostile work environment is a victim of sexual harassment even though no offensive remarks or touchings are directed to or perpetrated upon that employee. Generally, however, sexual conduct that involves or is aimed at persons other<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
than the plaintiff is considered less offensive and severe than conduct that is directed at the plaintiff. A hostile work environment sexual harassment claim by a plaintiff who was not personally subjected to offensive remarks and touchings requires \u2018an even higher showing\u2019 than a claim by one who had been sexually harassed without suffering tangible job detriment: such a plaintiff must \u2018establish that the sexually harassing conduct permeated [her] direct work environment.\u2019 [\u00b6] To meet this burden, the plaintiff generally must show that the harassment directed at others was in her immediate work environment, and that she personally witnessed it. The reason for this is obvious: if the plaintiff does not witness the incidents involving others, \u2018those incidents cannot affect . . . her perception of the hostility of the work environment.\u2019 \u201d (Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions <\/em>(2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 284\u2013285 [42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211], internal citations omitted.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- \u201c[U]nder the FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all <\/em>acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor. (State Dep\u2019t. of Health Servs.<\/em>, supra<\/em>, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1041, original italics.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \u201cThe applicable language of the FEHA does not suggest that an employer\u2019s liability for sexual harassment by a supervisor is constrained by principles of agency law. Had the Legislature so intended, it would have used language in the FEHA imposing the negligence standard of liability on acts of harassment by an employee \u2018other than an agent,\u2019 \u2018not acting as the employer\u2019s agent,\u2019 or \u2018not acting within the scope of an agency for the employer.\u2019 By providing instead in section 12940, subdivision (j)(1), that the negligence standard applies to acts of harassment \u2018by an employee other than an agent or supervisor<\/em>\u2019 (italics added), the Legislature has indicated that all acts of harassment by a supervisor are to be exempted from the negligence standard, whether or not the supervisor was then acting as the employer\u2019s agent, and that agency principles come into play only when the harasser is not a supervisor. (State Dept. of Health Servs.<\/em>, supra<\/em>, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1041, original italics.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \u201c[I]n order for the employer to avoid strict liability for the supervisor\u2019s actions under the FEHA, the harassment must result from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment. Otherwise, the employer is strictly liable for the supervisor\u2019s actions regardless of whether the supervisor was acting as the employer\u2019s agent.\u201d (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. <\/em>(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1421 [56 Cal.Rptr.3d 501].)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \u201cIn order to be actionable, it must be shown that respondents knew, or should have known, of the alleged harassment and failed to take appropriate action.\u201d (McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. <\/em>(2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283, 294 [156<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Cal.Rptr.3d 851].)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- \u201cIf an employee other than an agent or supervisor commits the harassment, and the employer takes immediate and appropriate corrective action when it becomes or reasonably should become aware of the conduct\u2014for example, when the victim or someone else informs the employer\u2014there simply is no \u2018unlawful employment practice\u2019 that the FEHA governs.\u201d (Carrisales v. Dept. of<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
FAIR CACI No. 2521B<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Corrections <\/em>(1999) 21 Cal.4th 1132, 1136 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 804, 988 P.2d 1083], called into doubt on other grounds by statute.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondary Sources<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Agency and Employment,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a7\u00a7 363, 370<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 10-B, Sexual Harassment<\/em>, \u00b6\u00b6 10:40, 10:110\u201310:260 (The Rutter Group)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Discrimination Claims, \u00a7\u00a7 2.68, 2.75, Sexual and Other Harassment, \u00a7\u00a7 3.1, 3.14, 3.17, 3.21, 3.36,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.45<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 41, Substantive Requirements Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, <\/em>\u00a7\u00a7 41.80[1][a], 41.81[1][b] (Matthew Bender)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 43, Civil Actions Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, <\/em>\u00a7 43.01[10][g][i] (Matthew Bender)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
11 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115, Civil Rights: Employment Discrimination, <\/em>\u00a7 115.36 (Matthew Bender)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation \u00a7 2:56 (Thomson Reuters)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
_______________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
2522B. Work Environment Harassment\u2014Conduct Directed at Others\u2014Essential Factual Elements\u2014Individual Defendant (Gov.Code, \u00a7\u00a7 12923, 12940(j))<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td><\/tr> <\/td> [<\/strong>Name of plaintiff<\/em>] claims that coworkers at [<\/strong>name of covered entity<\/em>] were subjected to harassment based on [<\/strong>describe protected status, e.g., race, gender, or age<\/em>] and that this harassment created a work environment for [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] that was hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
To establish this claim, [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] must prove all of the following:<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. That [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>] was [an employee of\/an applicant for a position with\/a person providing services under a contract with\/ an unpaid intern with\/a volunteer with] [<\/strong>name of covered entity<\/em>];<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
[2. That [<\/strong>name of individual defendant<\/em>] was an employee of [<\/strong>name of covered entity<\/em>];]<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- \u201cThe applicable language of the FEHA does not suggest that an employer\u2019s liability for sexual harassment by a supervisor is constrained by principles of agency law. Had the Legislature so intended, it would have used language in the FEHA imposing the negligence standard of liability on acts of harassment by an employee \u2018other than an agent,\u2019 \u2018not acting as the employer\u2019s agent,\u2019 or \u2018not acting within the scope of an agency for the employer.\u2019 By providing instead in section 12940, subdivision (j)(1), that the negligence standard applies to acts of harassment \u2018by an employee other than an agent or supervisor<\/em>\u2019 (italics added), the Legislature has indicated that all acts of harassment by a supervisor are to be exempted from the negligence standard, whether or not the supervisor was then acting as the employer\u2019s agent, and that agency principles come into play only when the harasser is not a supervisor. (State Dept. of Health Servs.<\/em>, supra<\/em>, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1041, original italics.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \u201c[U]nder the FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all <\/em>acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor. (State Dep\u2019t. of Health Servs.<\/em>, supra<\/em>, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1041, original italics.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \u201cTo state that an employee must be the direct victim of the sexually harassing conduct is somewhat misleading as an employee who is subjected to a hostile work environment is a victim of sexual harassment even though no offensive remarks or touchings are directed to or perpetrated upon that employee. Generally, however, sexual conduct that involves or is aimed at persons other<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- \u201cHarassment against others in the workplace is only relevant to the plaintiff\u2019s case if she has personal knowledge of it. Unless plaintiff witnesses the conduct against others, or is otherwise aware of it, that conduct cannot alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. Stated another way, a reasonable person in plaintiff\u2019s position would not find the environment hostile or abusive unless that person had knowledge of the objectionable conduct toward others.\u201d (Beyda, supra, <\/em>65 Cal.App.4th at p. 520.)<\/li><\/ul>\n
- \u201cThe plaintiff\u2019s work environment is affected not only by conduct directed at herself but also by the treatment of others. A woman\u2019s perception that her work environment is hostile to women will obviously be reinforced if she witnesses the harassment of other female workers.\u201d (Beyda v. City of Los Angeles <\/em>(1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 519 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 547], internal citations omitted.)<\/li><\/ul>
- \u201c[T]he adjudicator\u2019s inquiry should center, dominantly, on whether the discriminatory conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff\u2019s work performance. To show such interference, \u2018the plaintiff need not prove that his or her tangible productivity has declined as a result of the harassment.\u2019 It suffices to prove that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find, as the plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to \u2018make it more difficult to do the job.\u2019 \u201d (Harris v. Forklift Sys. <\/em>(1993) 510 U.S. 17, 25 [114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295], conc. opn. of Ginsburg, J.; see Gov. Code, \u00a7 12923(a) endorsing this language as reflective of California law.)
- \u201cThe elements [of a prima facie claim of hostile-environment sexual harassment] are: (1) plaintiff belongs to a protected group; (2) plaintiff was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; (4) the harassment complained of was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment; and<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- Perception and Association. Government Code section 12926(o).<\/li><\/ul>\n
- Aiding and Abetting Fair Employment and Housing Act Violations. Government Code section 12940(i).<\/li><\/ul>
- Harassment Because of Sex. Government Code section 12940(j)(4)(C).<\/li><\/ul>
- Person Providing Services Under Contract. Government Code section 12940(j)(5).<\/li><\/ul>
- \u201cEmployer\u201d Defined for Harassment. Government Code section 12940(j)(4)(A).<\/li><\/ul>
- Harassment Prohibited Under Fair Employment and Housing Act. Government Code section 12940(j)(1).
- <\/strong>That the conduct was a substantial factor in causing [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>]\u2019s harm.<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- <\/strong>That a reasonable [<\/strong>describe member of protected group, e.g., woman<\/em>] in [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>]\u2019s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive;<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- <\/strong>That [<\/strong>name of plaintiff<\/em>], although not personally subjected to harassing conduct, personally witnessed harassing conduct that took place in<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
- Racial Harassment Scenario<\/strong>: An employee of a particular race is subjected to racial slurs and jokes. After complaining to HR, their work is scrutinized more than their colleagues, leading to termination. This could be seen as wrongful termination stemming from racial harassment and subsequent retaliation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Retaliation Concerns<\/strong>: An employee who is terminated after reporting harassment may face challenges in proving a direct link between their complaint and the termination decision.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Wrongful Termination<\/strong>: California’s employment law operates under the “at-will” doctrine, but there are exceptions. Termination becomes wrongful if it violates state or federal anti-discrimination laws, including retaliation against an employee for complaining about harassment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n