|
3531 REVIEW GRANTED An employee who refused to fire a female subordinate because a male executive of the employer did not find her sufficiently attractive was engaging in an activity protected by the FEHA and could properly maintain a suit for retaliatory employment action; employment action likely to prevent an employee from protesting the employer's conduct that violates FEHA is sufficiently adverse to satisfy the requirements of the Act's prohibition against retaliation; evidence that an executive told plaintiff's subordinates that he wanted to get rid of her and solicited information from them that would give him reason to do so sufficiently raised issues of fact regarding the pretextual nature of the reason given by the employer for adverse action against her to defeat summary judgment.CitationYANOWITZ v L'OREAL (Unattractive Subordinate) 106 CA4 1036 [See: GovC 12940; McDonnell Douglas v Green 411 US 792; Richards v CH2M 26 C4 798, T/AT 9/01]
|
|
