Recent Developments in Anti-Discrimination Law
May 25, 2015 by Stephanie Platenkamp
Courts reaffirmed California’s commitment to protecting workers from discrimination and harassment in two decisions published recently.
In Hirst v. City of Oceanside, a California Court of Appeals affirmed the broad reach of California’s anti-harassment laws, upholding their reach to protect persons who provide contract services to the employer. Kimberli Hirst, an on-call phlebotomist employed by an organization under contract with San Diego County, sued the City of Oceanside after suffering sexual harassment and retaliation by a City police officer while providing services. After a jury awarded Hirst a $1.125 million verdict, the City tried to have the verdict set aside on the basis that Hirst was not employed by the City and thus the City could not be held liable for any harassment she received by City employees.
FEHA’s prohibition of harassment has an intentionally broader reach than its provisions prohibiting employment discrimination, and covers not only employees in employment relationships but also “person providing services pursuant to a contract.” The appellate court rejected the City’s argument, and upheld the jury verdict, concluding that Hirst was protected as a “person providing services [to the City] pursuant to a contract.”
In Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, the California Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who prevails in a discrimination action brought under FEHA may only recover ordinary court costs if it demonstrates that the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or objectively groundless. Before this ruling, courts generally interpreted the fees provision as allowing prevailing defendants to recover costs automatically, unless the plaintiff could show the award would cause an undue financial hardship. This decision furthers California’s policy of encouraging potentially meritorious claims of plaintiffs with limited resources. To find otherwise, the high court said, could significantly chill the vindication of employees’ civil rights and undercut the legislature’s efforts to promote vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
