California Supreme Court Watch

#22-107 Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, S273630. (9th Cir. No. 21-55229; 28 F.4th 968; Southern District of California; No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: Does California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which defines “employer” to include “any person acting as an agent of an employer” (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (d)), permit a business entity acting as an agent of an employer to be held directly liable for employment discrimination?

Request for certification granted: 4/27/2022

Case fully briefed: 9/06/2022

Cause argued and submitted: 5/25/2023

Opinion filed: 8/21/2023

See the Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of California.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group (2023) 15 Cal.5th 268.)

“We answer the Ninth Circuit’s question as follows: The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which defines ’employer’ to ‘include[]’ ‘any person acting as an agent of an employer’ (§ 12926, subd. (d)), permits a business entity acting as an agent of an employer to be held directly liable as an employer for employment discrimination in violation of the FEHA in appropriate circumstances when the business-entity agent has at least five employees and carries out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of an employer. We do not decide the significance, if any, of employer control over the act(s) of the agent that gave rise to the FEHA violation, and we also do not decide whether our conclusion extends to business-entity agents that have fewer than five employees. We base our conclusion on our interpretation of the FEHA’s definition of employer (§ 12926, subd. (d)); we express no view of the scope of a business entity agent’s possible liability under the FEHA’s aider and abettor provision (§ 12940, subd. (i)).”

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