California Supreme Court Watch

#20-396 Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, S265223. (A153520; nonpublished opinion; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC15549675.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal properly affirm summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claims of hostile work environment based on race, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation?

Review granted: 12/30/2020

Case fully briefed: 7/02/2021

Cause argued and submitted: 5/22/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/29/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611.)

“This case asks us to assess whether certain conduct may be actionable under FEHA. First, we assess whether a coworker’s one-time use of a racial slur may be actionable in a claim of harassment, that is, whether such an incident may be so severe as to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile work environment. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that an isolated act of harassment may be actionable if it is sufficiently severe in light of the totality of the circumstances, and that a coworker’s use of an unambiguous racial epithet, such as the N-word, may be found to suffice. Second, we assess whether a course of conduct that effectively seeks to withdraw an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment in the workplace is actionable in a claim of retaliation, that is, whether such conduct may
constitute an adverse employment action. We conclude that it may. Applying these standards, the record presents triable issues of fact on Bailey’s harassment and retaliation claims. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.”

Justice Evans authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Jenkins concurred.

In the news: Egelko, State Supreme Court reinstates lawsuit against S.F. DA’s office over racial slur, S.F. Chronicle (July, 29 2024).