California Supreme Court Holds Employees Not Liable For Retaliation

In a March decision, Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, the California Supreme Court ruled that individual employees may not be held personally liable for retaliation claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Therefore, while employers are still subject to such suits, individual employees are not. In part, the Court relied on its 1998 decision in Reno v. Baird, which excluded supervisors and other employees from personal liability for discrimination claims.

Jones, an employee of the Lodge at Torrey Pines (the “Lodge”), sued both his supervisor and his employer for sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation. Jones alleged that two of his supervisors made sexually explicit jokes regarding his sexual orientation. Additionally, several female co-workers told Jones that some of the supervisors' comments made them uncomfortable. When Jones complained, the supervisors threatened to fire him if he reported the complaints to human resources. At trial, Jones' claims were tried before a jury. The jury found for Jones on both claims and awarded $1,395,000 against the Lodge and of $155,000 against one of the supervisors. Thereafter, the Lodge and the individual supervisor requested that the trial court overrule the jury's verdict. After numerous appeals, the Supreme Court heard the case.

The California Supreme Court held that individuals cannot be held personally liable for retaliation under the FEHA because the statute is meant only to prohibit retaliation by the employer entity. The Court stated that claims of retaliation (and discrimination) arise out of conduct that is inherent in personnel decisions, difficult decisions a supervisor must necessarily make. If personal liability could be imposed on supervisory employees, the possibility of discrimination or retaliation claims may chill their ability to make decisions that further their employer's best interests.

The Court distinguished harassment from retaliation and discrimination by stating, harassment is “not necessary to a supervisor's job performance.” The Court further stated that harassment is “presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives.” Such behavior supports a finding of personal liability.

Thus, following Jones, individual supervisors or coworkers may not be held individually liable for retaliation or discrimination. However, individual employees, both supervisors and coworkers, may still be held personally liable for unlawful harassment.

Following this decisions, employers are reminded to:

Please note that the information contained in this newsletter is not intended to provide specific legal advice. You should consult with an attorney and not rely on any information contained herein regarding your specific situation.