ARTICLE
5 September 2023

California Supreme Court Finds That An Employer's Third Party Agents May Be Held Directly Liable For Violations Of California's Fair Employment And Housing Act

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
On August 21, 2023, the California Supreme Court held in Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group that a business entity acting as an employer's agent can be held directly liable...
United States California Employment and HR
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)

On August 21, 2023, the California Supreme Court held in Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group that a business entity acting as an employer's agent can be held directly liable under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for claims of employment discrimination.

In Raines, the two plaintiffs received offers of employment that were conditioned on the completion of preemployment medical screening.The medical screening was conducted by third party occupational health providers.As part of the medical screening, the third party providers required the plaintiffs to complete an extensive health history questionnaire with questions unrelated to the job at issue.The plaintiffs brought a putative class action against the third party providers alleging that the questionnaire violated the FEHA.

The primary issue decided by the California Supreme Court was whether third party providers, such as those that provide medical screenings, can be held liable for violations of the FEHA based on such providers acting as an agent of the employer.The California Supreme Court concluded "yes."

The FEHA defines "employer" as "any person regularly employing five or more persons, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly."See Cal. Govt. Code § 12926(d).After an extensive review of the legislative history, federal court decisions, and legislative policy related to this definition of "employer," the California Supreme Court concluded that business entities with at least five employees that carry out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of an employer can be held directly liable for discrimination under the FEHA.In reaching this decision, the California Supreme Court declined to opine on the "specific scenarios" in which a business-entity agent could face liability and further declined to opine on whether its holding extends to entities with fewer than five employees.

As a result of this decision, third party entities that are involved in the employment hiring process, including those that provide medical screenings and background checks should review their policies, methods, and practices to ensure that they are compliant with the FEHA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More