Employment Discrimination Attorney in Los Angeles

Discriminatory Termination, Demotion, and Hiring

Section 12940 covers the full arc of employment decisions. Unlawful discrimination is not limited to termination. Employers also violate FEHA when they refuse to hire someone, deny a promotion, exclude an employee from training, reduce pay, or alter any other term or condition of employment because of a protected characteristic. A worker passed over repeatedly for promotion while less-qualified colleagues advance may have a viable disparate treatment claim even if they were never fired.

Workplace Harassment and Hostile Work Environment

FEHA’s harassment provisions apply to all California employers regardless of size, including a business with a single employee. This is a meaningful distinction from federal law, which requires at least 15 employees for Title VII to apply.

In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611, the California Supreme Court made clear that a single use of an unambiguous racial slur can constitute actionable harassment under FEHA if it is sufficiently severe under the totality of the circumstances, evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s racial group. This overturned the prior understanding that required a pattern or series of harassing conduct. The court also held that an employer’s failure to take “immediate and appropriate corrective action” upon learning of a harassment incident creates independent employer liability.

Illustrative example: A supervisor at a 12-person logistics company uses an unambiguous racial epithet toward a warehouse worker once, in front of coworkers. The worker reports it to HR. HR tells the worker to “let it go” and takes no further action. Under Bailey, both the single incident and the employer’s failure to respond could independently support a FEHA harassment claim, even though the company employs far fewer than 15 people.

Disability Discrimination and the Interactive Process

Government Code section 12940(n) imposes an affirmative duty on employers to engage in a “timely, good faith, interactive process” when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation for a physical or mental disability. Critically, failure to engage in this dialogue is itself a separate, independently actionable FEHA violation. The employee does not need to prove the accommodation was ultimately denied. If the employer simply refused to have the conversation, that refusal is enough to support a claim. Workers navigating this process often benefit from working with a disability discrimination lawyer who can document the employer’s failure to engage.

Retaliation for Reporting Discrimination

Government Code section 12940(h) prohibits employers from retaliating against any employee who opposed a FEHA-prohibited practice, filed a complaint, or assisted in a FEHA proceeding. To establish a prima facie retaliation case under the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework, an employee must show: (1) they engaged in a protected activity, (2) the employer subjected them to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the two. (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042.)

Bailey (2024) expanded the definition of adverse employment action in this context. The court held that conduct by an HR manager that obstructs an employee’s ability to report harassment and engages in intimidating behavior can itself constitute an adverse action supporting a retaliation claim. Retaliation does not require a formal demotion or termination. If you reported discrimination and your working conditions became worse in any tangible way, that sequence matters legally.