Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 NOVEMBER 2016

Finally! Something That's Not "Protected Activity" In California

It turns out that "protected activity" sufficient to make out a retaliation claim in California is not as broad as it may sometimes seem.

United StatesEmployment and HR

Executive Summary: It turns out that "protected activity" sufficient to make out a retaliation claim in California is not as broad as it may sometimes seem. On November 9, 2016, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the employer in Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco (A142365). The Court held that an employee can only state a prima facie case for retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act when the protected activity is directed at an unlawful employment practice.

Background

Dinslage worked for San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department organizing programs for the disabled. Later the Department changed its focus to inclusive programming rather than segregated programming for the disabled community. Dinslage's position was discontinued and reclassified. Dinslage believed the reorganization discriminated against the public and spoke out about his belief in public forums. He applied for the new position, made it to the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from