California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing Will Study Local Enforcement of State Employment Anti-Discrimination Law
Time 2 Minute Read

There may be some changes coming to how California enforces its antidiscrimination law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).  In February 2017, a bill (Senate Bill 491) was introduced in the California Senate proposing to allow local government entities to enforce antidiscrimination statutes.

The authors of the bill declared that this bill is needed to counteract “dramatic budget cuts to federal labor standards and civil rights enforcement” and struggles with investigator caseload in the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”).

Under the current state of the law, FEHA is enforced by private lawsuits, lawsuits brought by the DFEH,  or lawsuits brought by the Attorney General’s office.  FEHA preempts local governments from enforcing its protections.  However, California is revisiting whether it is feasible to allow local governments to act as another enforcement arm of FEHA.

In April 2018, the DFEH announced the formation of an advisory group to study the feasibility of local government enforcement of the employment provisions of FEHA. Local enforcement may include activities by local government such as fact gathering, workplace site visits, collection of data, mediation, intake assistance and outreach.  The advisory group will study whether the law should allow local authorities to enforce FEHA and provide a report with findings and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature by December 31, 2018.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed an artificial intelligence (“AI”) bill on March 24 that would have regulated how employers used automation in the hiring process. 

Time 4 Minute Read

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion holding that a whistleblower with a retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to establish that their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to succeed on their claim. An employee must merely show that their protected whistleblowing activity was a “contributing factor” in an adverse employment action against them by their employer. Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S.Ct. 445 (2024). An employer’s retaliatory intent or lack of animosity is “irrelevant.”  Id. at 446.

Time 3 Minute Read

On December 6, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard arguments for Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which may have significant implications for discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the Supreme Court in this case could clarify whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires a clear showing of significant disadvantage or tangible harm to have an actionable claim.

Time 3 Minute Read

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published proposed enforcement guidance for workplace harassment for public comment on October 2, 2023. The proposed guidance can be found on the EEOC’s website. While the EEOC attempted to provide updated harassment guidance under the Trump administration in 2017, final guidance was never issued and if this new guidance is finalized it would represent the first time the EEOC has updated its workplace harassment guidance in nearly a quarter century.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page