California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 12900 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This part may be known and referred to as the “California Fair Employment and Housing Act.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,247 cases (401 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Aguilar v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc., 980 P.2d 846 (Cal. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Aguilar v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc., 980 P.2d 846 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 10× “, sued Avis and 10 named individuals, alleging causes of action for employment discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.), [1] wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional…”

Yanowitz v. L'oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123 (Cal. 2005). · cites it 4× “'Oreal, Yanowitz contended, among other matters, that L'Oreal's actions toward her constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of the provisions of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h) (section 12940(h)), which forbids employers from retaliating against employees who…”

Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines P'ship, 177 P.3d 232 (Cal. 2008). · cites it 6× “In this case, we must decide whether the FEHA makes individuals personally liable for retaliation. We conclude that the same rule applies to actions for retaliation that applies to actions for discrimination: The employer, but not nonemployer individuals, may be held liable.”

Ross v. RagingWire Telecomm., Inc., 174 P.3d 200 (Cal. 2008). · cites it 6× “The lower courts held plaintiff could not on that basis state a cause of action against his employer for disability-based discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.; see id., § 12940, subd.”

Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc., 63 P.3d 979 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 4× “(Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.) Little signed three nearly identical arbitration agreements while employed by defendant in June 1995, October 1996, and January 1997.”

Stevenson v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6918 (Cal. 1997). · cites it 6× “California statutory law prohibits employers from discriminating against older workers (statutorily defined as workers over the age of 40) because of their age.”

Green v. State, 165 P.3d 118 (Cal. 2007). · cites it 4× “, that they have the ability to perform a job's essential duties before they can prevail in a lawsuit for discrimination.”

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001). · cites it 2× “Two years later, Adams filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Circuit City in state court, asserting claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 12900 et seq. (West 1992 and Supp.”

Rojo v. Kliger, 801 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1990). · cites it 4× “We granted review in this case to determine whether the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) [1] (hereafter FEHA or act) provides the exclusive remedy for injuries relating to sex discrimination in employment; whether an employee must exhaust the…”

Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, 39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20008 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) were added, as were several additional Oakwood-related entities as defendants.”

Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 5 P.3d 874 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 4× “Does that holding apply to a city employee's discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)(Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.) and under title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) (42 U.”

Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 229 P.3d 83 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 4× “On October 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and…”

Show all 1,247 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.