Age Discrimination and Retaliation in California Workplaces

California law protects employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Labor Code section 1102.5. These laws ensure that workers are treated fairly and can report workplace violations without fear of reprisal. A recent case highlights how an employee’s allegations of age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation can lead to questions about whether an employer’s stated reasons for adverse employment actions were legitimate or pretextual.

An employee alleged that their employer discriminated against them due to age by failing to promote them to higher positions. The employee also asserted that they were retaliated against for raising concerns about misuse of workplace funds and complaining about discriminatory practices. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the employer, finding that the employer had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, finding that the employee presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding discrimination and retaliation.

What Constitutes Age Discrimination Under FEHA?

FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against workers aged 40 and older based on age. Discrimination can take many forms, including denying promotions, imposing unfavorable work conditions, or terminating employment due to age. To succeed in a discrimination claim, an employee must establish a prima facie case by showing they are part of a protected class, suffered an adverse employment action, and were treated less favorably than younger employees with similar qualifications.

In the recent case, the employee met this burden by showing they were part of the protected age group and were passed over for promotion in favor of a younger, less qualified candidate. Evidence included test results indicating that the employee performed better than the promoted candidate in key evaluations. This evidence raised a presumption of discrimination, requiring the employer to provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision.

Employer’s Burden to Rebut Discrimination Claims

Once an employee establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer must rebut the presumption by producing evidence of legitimate reasons for the adverse action. In this case, the employer cited poor performance in a temporary leadership role and specific weaknesses identified in the employee’s evaluations as justification for the decision. Employers are permitted to make employment decisions based on job performance, provided those decisions are not motivated by discriminatory intent.

However, presenting a legitimate reason does not end the inquiry. An employee may still challenge the employer’s explanation by showing that it is pretextual, not the true reason for the action. Evidence of pretext often includes inconsistent statements, deviations from standard practices, or discriminatory remarks.

Evidence of Pretext in the Recent Case

In this case, the employee presented substantial evidence suggesting that the employer’s stated reasons were a cover for discrimination. The key evidence included ageist remarks made by a supervisor, such as references to the employee as “the old guy” and comments suggesting that older employees were less capable of adapting to new technology. When considered alongside the promotion of a younger and arguably less qualified candidate, these remarks raised doubts about the employer’s motives.

The appellate court noted that these remarks could indicate discriminatory intent, particularly since the employer’s decision to bypass a more qualified candidate was described as unusual. The court emphasized that a jury could find the supervisor’s statements reflected bias and choose to disbelieve the employer’s justification for the decision.

Retaliation Claims Under FEHA and Labor Code Section 1102.5

California law also prohibits retaliation against employees who report unlawful practices or workplace violations. Retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse action against an employee because of their complaints or whistleblowing activities. To prove retaliation, an employee must show a connection between their protected activity and the adverse action.

In this case, the employee alleged retaliation after raising concerns about misuse of workplace funds and discriminatory practices. Although the employer denied these claims, the appellate court found that the employee provided sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Specifically, the timing of the adverse actions and the supervisor’s disparaging remarks supported an inference of retaliation.

The Role of Triable Issues in Employment Cases

When an employee presents evidence questioning the employer’s motives, courts are reluctant to resolve the case through summary judgment. Instead, these disputes are typically left for a jury to decide. In this case, the appellate court determined that the totality of the evidence—ageist comments, the promotion of a less qualified candidate, and the unusual nature of the decision—required further consideration by a jury.

This decision underscores the importance of examining all relevant circumstances in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. Courts must consider not only the employer’s stated reasons but also the surrounding context, including patterns of behavior, past practices, and the credibility of witnesses.

Protecting Employee Rights in California

California employees have strong protections against discrimination and retaliation. Workers who believe they have been mistreated due to age, race, gender, or other protected characteristics should know their rights under FEHA. Similarly, employees who report workplace violations are protected from retaliatory actions that could harm their careers.

When disputes arise, evidence is critical. Employees should document discriminatory or retaliatory behavior, including offensive remarks, changes in job responsibilities, and deviations from standard practices. Legal representation can also help employees build a strong case by gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and advocating for their rights.

Speak with a California Employment Lawyer About Age Discrimination and Retaliation

If you have been denied a promotion, subjected to unfair treatment, or faced retaliation after speaking up in the workplace, you have legal options. Employers often attempt to justify their decisions with seemingly neutral explanations, but California law protects workers from discrimination and retaliation. At the Nourmand Law Firm, APC, our experienced employment attorneys understand how to challenge pretextual justifications and hold employers accountable for unlawful actions. We will review your case, gather evidence, and advocate for the justice you deserve. Do not let an employer’s unfair treatment go unchallenged. Contact the Nourmand Law Firm, APC, today for a free consultation and take the first step toward protecting your career a