Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Claims

California is among the nation’s leaders in the range of characteristics protected from workplace discrimination and harassment, including ● race, ● color, ● ancestry, ● national origin, ● religious creed and practice, ● age (40 and over), ● mental and physical disabilities, ● sex, ● gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions), ● gender orientation, ● gender identity, ● gender expression, ● medical condition, ● genetic information, ● reproductive health decision-making, ● marital status, and ● military or veteran status.

A business may not base an employment decision – e.g., hiring, wage rate, advancement opportunity, discipline or termination – on any of these categories.  Rather, proper personnel management stems from worker training, ability and productivity.

An employer must also refrain from creating or condoning a work environment hostile to any of these classes, e.g., unwelcome sexual advances or racial slurs.  Proper personnel management promotes worker respect, decorum and positive collaboration. See, e.g., the California Civil Rights Department’s Harassment Prevention Guide

While experienced management may well appreciate these legal hazards, an enterprise may yet find itself in litigation for retaliation, i.e., fumbling a discrimination or harassment complaint by failing to adequately document its investigation and resolution and the non-discriminatory, business-based reasons for any subsequent discipline or termination.

Take-Aways:

On report that any worker, supervisor, associated independent contractor, or, in some instances, a customer has engaged in such discrimination or harassment against an employee, management must investigate fully, keeping written reports of findings and any resulting – and appropriate – performance improvement plan and/or discipline for documented offenders. To help head off retaliation claims, managers must also take care to document the basis for any following adverse employment action against the complaining individual or anyone else.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

•  Staffing Agency Meltdown: Discrimination Settlement Shuts Down National Firm(April 12, 2024)
• Religious Ruling Favors Employees: Supreme Court Requires Accommodation Unless Substantial Cost Burden (September 1, 2023)
• Do Something: EEOC Sues Convenience Stores Owner for Condoning Sexual Harassment (March 4, 2022)

Tim Bowles
October 3, 2025