California cause of actio for misclassification
However, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to such claims because “there is no possible justification for harassment in the workplace.” Phan v. In order to prevail on a claim for disability harassment, a plaintiff must show that the conduct was “severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees” because of their disability.
Liability on the part of the harasser lies regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known about the conduct. Ibid.Įmployees who commit disability harassment are personally liable for that harassment. Employers are also responsible for the acts of nonemployees who engage in disability harassment when the employers, or its agents or supervisors, know or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Employers may be liable for harassment committed by employees who are not agents or supervisors if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known about the conduct and failed to take “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Gov. Code, § 12940(k).Įmployers are strictly liable for disability harassment committed by their agents or supervisors.
It separately provides that employers are liable when they fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers from harassing employees, applicants, unpaid interns, and volunteers because of their “physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information,” among other things.