(March 4, 2008) The California Supreme Court resolved a disagreement between the state’s appellate courts, ruling yesterday that supervisors cannot be held personally liable for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
At issue was the meaning behind the word “person” contained in Government Code Section 12960, subdivision (h), and whether the Legislature intended to make employees personally liable for retaliation.
In holding that neither the statute nor public policy supports extending liability for retaliation to employees, the state high court followed a 1998 ruling in which it held that employees are not personally liable for discrimination under FEHA. Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640.
In Reno, the court declined to extend individual liability to employees because doing so would ultimately chill the ability or desire of supervisory employees to perform their job out of fear that any decision rendered could expose them to liability. The court, in its March 3 ruling, followed the same rational for claims of retaliation.
The court reasoned, “If an employee gains a reputation as a complainer, supervisors might be particularly afraid to impose discipline on that employee or make other lawful personnel decisions out of fear the employee might claim the action was retaliation for complaining.”
In addition, the court concluded that there was no legislative history supporting the position that by adding the word “person," the legislature intended to extend personal liability for retaliation to employees. The word "person" was added through the enactment of AB 1167 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.). In viewing the legislative history, the court was particularly persuaded by the fact that the amendment was viewed as a “technical change to the law.”
The court reasoned that had the Legislature intended to change the law to impose individual liability for retaliation, the amended change would not have been viewed as “technical,” but rather as substantive. Moreover, the court noted that the bill adding the word “person” passed both houses of the Legislature with very few dissenting votes. The court opined, “It is hard to imagine that a bill that created individual liability for retaliation where none had existed could be considered so noncontroversial.”
The California Chamber of Commerce submitted a “friend of the court brief” urging the court to rule that just as individual managers and supervisors are immune from lawsuits for personnel actions alleged to be motivated by race, sex and discriminatory intent, they are equally protected against lawsuits claiming that the very same personnel actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate against the employee.
California’s intricate and complex state laws present countless challenges to businesses seeking to comply. Accordingly, compliance is made easier when employers have bright lines and clear rulings rather than conflicting and confusing legal precedent, the CalChamber argued in its brief.
This case resolves the split in decisional law affecting California’s employers and employees. The decision will bring California employers a much-needed final determination on the extent to which they, as well as their supervisors, could be held liable for specific workplace conduct.
Staff Contact: Erika Frank