Fair Employment & Housing Act Authorizes Claims Against Individuals For Retaliation But Not Underlying Discrimination

In Walrath v. Sprinkel, 2002 WL 1424890, the California Court of Appeal considered whether an employee can pursue a claim against his supervisor for retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) after he complained of age discrimination.

Facts

Hatcher Press, Inc employed Walrath. Sprinkel, Hatcher’s president, was his supervisor. After Hatcher adopted a new press technology, Walrath complained that only younger employees were offered jobs in the new, electronic pre-press department, while he and other older employees remained in the conventional pre-press department. According to Walrath, after he complained, Sprinkel ousted him from his office and had his office furniture and possessions moved. When the conventional pre-press department was closed, its employees, including Walrath, were laid off.

Walrath sued both Hatcher and Sprinkel, claiming a violation of FEHA. The trial judge granted summary judgment (without a trial) in favor of Sprinkel, concluding that claims against individuals are not authorized under FEHA. Walrath appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal reasoned that FEHA’s section authorizing claims for discrimination refers only to “an employer,” while its section authorizing claims for retaliation refers to “any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person.” Based on this distinction, the Court concluded that, although FEHA does not authorize claims against individuals for discrimination, it does authorize such claims for retaliation. Therefore, Walrath’s claim that Sprinkel personally retaliated against him when he complained of discrimination should been allowed to proceed to trial. The Court also concluded that Walrath’s claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy should also have been allowed to proceed to trial.