In Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 75, the Court of Appeal held that trial courts have a threshold duty to determine if the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) bars arbitration, even if the parties do not expressly invoke it. Relying on New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019) 586 U.S. 105, the court clarified that determining whether a dispute falls within the Federal Arbitration Act's scope is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Furthermore, the court held that because the EFAA applies to an entire "case" rather than just specific "claims," a single allegation of sexual harassment is sufficient to keep all related causes of action in court.

This decision shifts the burden to the judiciary to identify EFAA bars and reinforces the "case-wide" anti-arbitration rule, ensuring that plaintiffs with hybrid harassment and other claims can litigate their entire action in a public forum.

In Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 200, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's response to a complaint can independently create a hostile work environment, even if the underlying harassment was not work-related. The court found the coworker's off-site harassing conduct was not sufficiently work-related to be actionable under FEHA. However, it reversed the dismissal of the HWE claim, holding that the HR representative's mocking response to the plaintiff's complaint was a work-related event that could create a hostile environment, following Fuller v. Idaho Department of Corrections (9th Cir. 2017) 865 F.3d 1154.

This decision confirms that while employers may not have a duty to remedy purely private conduct, they have a separate duty not to create a hostile environment in their response to an employee's complaint about that conduct.

In Carranza v. City of Los Angeles (2025) 111 Cal. App. 5th 388, the Court of Appeal affirmed a $4 million FEHA hostile work environment (HWE) sexual harassment verdict, holding that the "severe or pervasive" standard does not require "extreme" conduct or that the plaintiff experience direct, daily harassing interactions. The court rejected the employer's reliance on cases predating Gov. Code § 12923's clarification of FEHA, affirming that the employer's failure to stop the circulation of a nude photo resembling the plaintiff was sufficient to establish a hostile environment.

This decision confirms that an employer's failure to remedy known harassing conduct can create an actionable HWE, even if that conduct isn't directed at the plaintiff daily.

In Lui v. DeJoy (9th Cir. 2025) 129 F.4th 770, the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on a Title VII disparate treatment claim, holding that the fourth element of the McDonnell Douglas test is satisfied if the plaintiff is replaced by "a person outside the protected class," even if that replacement is not "similarly situated."

This decision clarifies and lightens the plaintiff's prima facie burden in replacement cases by separating the simple fourth-element test from the more complex "similarly situated" analysis often used to show pretext.

In Casey v. Superior Court (D.R. Horton Inc.) (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 575, the Court of Appeal held that the federal EFAA preempts conflicting state law that would otherwise compel arbitration of sexual harassment claims, even if the parties' agreement contains a state law choice-of-law provision. The court found that because the dispute involved interstate commerce, the EFAA applies and cannot be sidestepped by a contractual choice-of-law clause. The court also held that the EFAA renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to all of the plaintiff's claims, not just the sexual harassment count.

This decision confirms that the EFAA provides a powerful bar to arbitration for an entire case, overriding contractual attempts to select state law.

In Wawrzenski v. United Airlines (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 663, the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment on FEHA claims, holding that the trial court applied too high an evidentiary standard. The court clarified that comparator evidence need only be "similar in all relevant respects," not identical, and that evidence of pretext—such as a failure to investigate the plaintiff's internal complaints—must be properly considered.

This decision lowers the evidentiary bar for FEHA plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage by confirming that courts must broadly evaluate pretext and cannot reject comparator evidence based on minor differences.

In Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 791, the Court of Appeal held that when a plaintiff asserts at least one sexual harassment claim governed by the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), the entire action is rendered non-arbitrable. The court affirmed the denial of a motion to compel, finding that the EFAA's language precludes arbitration of all associated claims.

This decision significantly expands the EFAA's impact in mixed-claim lawsuits by preventing the severance and arbitration of non-sexual harassment claims.

In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611, the California Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for an employer, issuing two key holdings: (1) a single racial slur by a coworker (not just a supervisor) can be severe enough to support a FEHA harassment claim under the "totality of the circumstances" test from Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17; and (2) an HR manager's acts of obstructing an employee's harassment complaint can constitute an adverse employment action for a retaliation claim under Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028.

This decision lowers the summary judgment bar for single-incident harassment claims and confirms that actively obstructing an internal complaint is itself an actionable retaliatory harm.

In Okonowsky v. Garland (9th Cir. 2024) 109 F.4th 1166, the Ninth Circuit held that Title VII hostile work environment (HWE) claims are not limited to the physical workplace, ruling that offsite conduct (like a supervisor's social media posts) and non-sexual retaliatory conduct must be considered in the "totality of the circumstances" (citing Galdamez v. Potter (9th Cir. 2005) 415 F.3d 1015).

This decision confirms that the HWE analysis includes online harassment and subsequent non-sexual intimidation, making it harder for employers to dispose of such claims before trial.

In Mattioda v. Nelson (9th Cir. 2024) 98 F.4th 1164, the Ninth Circuit held that hostile work environment (HWE) claims are cognizable under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court noted that such claims are cognizable under the ADA and held they apply "by extension" to the Rehabilitation Act. It then reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's HWE claim, finding the district court failed to construe the allegations favorably under Iqbal/Twombly.

This decision formally confirms the viability of disability-based HWE claims under the Rehabilitation Act in the Ninth Circuit.