Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist.green2 sentences2025However, in all events, a claim that CDRC failed to prevent retaliation cannot succeed absent a predicate determination that retaliation itself occurred (cf. Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1166 [“[w]here . . . a plaintiff cannot establish a claim for discrimination, the employer as a matter of law cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent same”]; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289 [“ ‘there’s no logic that says an employee who has not been discriminated against can sue an employer for not preve 2021Where, as here, a plaintiff cannot establish a claim for discrimination under section 12940, subdivision (a), the employer as a matter of law cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent discrimination: “ ‘ “[T]here’s no logic that says an employee who has not been discriminated against can sue an employer for not preventing discrimination that didn’t happen ... .” ’ (Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280 , 288–289.)” (Featherstone, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1166 .) Plaintiff does not dispute that his failure to prevent discrimination claim is derivative of hi | 2 | 3 |
Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Groupgreen2 sentences2025However, in all events, a claim that CDRC failed to prevent retaliation cannot succeed absent a predicate determination that retaliation itself occurred (cf. Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1166 [“[w]here . . . a plaintiff cannot establish a claim for discrimination, the employer as a matter of law cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent same”]; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289 [“ ‘there’s no logic that says an employee who has not been discriminated against can sue an employer for not preve 2024Generally, this provision requires employers “to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” (§ 12940, subd. (k).) However, “[a]n actionable claim under section 12940, subdivision (k) is dependent on a claim of actual discrimination: ‘Employers should not be held liable to employees for failure to take necessary steps to prevent such conduct, except where the actions took place and were not prevented.’ ” (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at 1021 ; Wilkin v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 806 , 830 [“An employer | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Generally, this provision requires employers “to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” (§ 12940, subd. (k).) However, “[a]n actionable claim under section 12940, subdivision (k) is dependent on a claim of actual discrimination: ‘Employers should not be held liable to employees for failure to take necessary steps to prevent such conduct, except where the actions took place and were not prevented.’ ” (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at 1021 ; Wilkin v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 806 , 830 [“An employer 2024Generally, this provision requires employers “to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” (§ 12940, subd. (k).) However, “[a]n actionable claim under section 12940, subdivision (k) is dependent on a claim of actual discrimination: ‘Employers should not be held liable to employees for failure to take necessary steps to prevent such conduct, except where the actions took place and were not prevented.’ ” (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at 1021 ; Wilkin v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 806 , 830 [“An employer | 3 | 2023–2024 |
Doe v. Capital Cities
green
1 sentence2025Negligent Hiring, Supervision or Retention * “[A]n employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee” where “the employer knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.” (Capital Cities, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1054 .) Plaintiff claims that BRS was negligent in hiring, supervising, and/or retaining Sanders, Giles and Carroll 9 Plaintiff’s cognizable harassment claim is based, in part, on BRS’s failure to take any action in response to his complaint and, | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025(CACI No. 2527; Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1307 , 1312–1313 [§ 12940(k) creates a separate actionable tort enforceable upon the establishment of the usual tort elements of duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages].) “Generally, [section 12940(k)] requires employers ‘to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.’ (§ 12940, subd. (k).) However, ‘an actionable claim under section 12940, subdivision (k) is dependent on a claim of actual discrimination: “Employers should not be held liable to employees for fai | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Caldera v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.
green
1 sentence2023(Caldera v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 31 , 43–44 (Caldera).) “An actionable claim under section 12940, subdivision (k) is dependent on a claim of actual discrimination: ‘Employers should not be held liable to employees for failure to take necessary steps to prevent such conduct, except where the actions took place and were not prevented.’ [Citation.]” (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1021 .) In other words, when a plaintiff cannot establish a violation of the FEHA based on certain conduct, the employer as a matter of law cannot be held responsible | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.