Murphy v. Shasta Cmty. Health Ctr. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION

Murphy v. Shasta Cmty. Health Ctr., No. 2:13–CV–0412–CMK (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014)

A former employee (“plaintiff”) of Shasta Community Health Center (“defendant”) sued, among others, defendant’s chief operating officer (“Glasco”) for retaliatory harassment under Title VII and retaliatory termination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted defendants’ motion to dismiss both claims against Glasco.  The court ruled that Title VII does not impose individual liability on employees, including supervisors.  The court also held that FEHA does not create an individual cause of action against supervisors who engage in retaliatory or discriminatory conduct.  Although supervisors can be held individually liable for harassment, they cannot be individually liable for discrimination or retaliation because those claims involve management and personnel decisions that are necessary to the supervisory role.  Plaintiff tried to characterize her FEHA claim as one of harassment, but the court found that because the claim concerned employment-related decisions and failed to mention derogatory remarks, physical interference with movement or similar conduct, it was not actionable under the FEHA.