Supreme Court Grants Review of Retaliation Case Involving Refusal to Terminate "Unattractive" Employee

October 1, 2003

By: Barbara L. McCully and Antonio J. Gonzalez

In the Spring, 2003 issue of M&C: In Brief, we reported on Yanowitz v. L'Oreal, 106 Cal.App.4th 1038 (2003), where the appellate court found that plaintiff made a valid claim for retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") for refusing to terminate a female sales employee because she was "unattractive." Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the trial court had been granted on the ground that defendant's conduct of subjecting plaintiff to months of unwarranted criticism in writing and in front of her peers, restricting her latitude in overseeing her sales territory, and threatening that she improve her performance immediately did not amount to an adverse job action, which is required to prevail on a claim of retaliation.

On June 11, 2003, the California Supreme Court granted Defendant-employer's petition for review. The defendant-employer argued that the Court of Appeal used the wrong standard for determining whether plaintiff suffered an "adverse job action."