FEHA also protects an employee against retaliation from an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person.

It is an unlawful employment practice if an employee is discharged, expelled, or discriminated against because he or she opposed practices by the employer that violated their rights under FEHA or because he or she filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding brought under FEHA. Cal Gov Code § 12940.

To bring a claim for retaliation a plaintiff must show that:

• the employee was engaged “in a protected activity,”
• “the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action,” and
• “a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action..” Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 1028, 1042.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

It is unlawful for an employer “to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [FLSA], or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.” 29 U.S.C.S. § 215(a).

Prohibited retaliatory practices include not only termination but also constructive discharge. Constructive discharge occurs if a “reasonable person in a similar situation would have felt that he[/she] was forced to quit because of intolerable and discriminatory working condition. Ford v. Alfaro (9th Cir. 1986) 785 F.2d 835, 841.

Title VII

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any employee or an applicant, because he/she has “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title...., or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.” 42 USCS § 2000e-3(a).

To bring a claim for retaliation a plaintiff must show that:

• the plaintiff “engaged in activity protected under Title VII,”
• “the employer subjected [plaintiff] to an adverse employment decision,” and
• “there was a causal link between the protected activity and the employer's action.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods. (9th Cir. 2000) 212 F.3d 493, 506.

See also California Labor Code 132A.

Contact Us

If you have experienced retaliation at your workplace, contact the top retaliation lawyers of Los Angeles at Kokozian Law Firm, APC. 323-857-5900. Ask about our free initial consultation.