California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Murray v. Oceanside School Dist., 79 Cal.App.4th 1338, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 28 (Cal. App. 2000):
"Contrary to plaintiff's argument, Reno v. Baird [1998] 18 Cal.4th 640, does not compel a contrary conclusion. That case involved solely the question of individual liability for discrimination. We expressed no opinion 'regarding individuals' liability for harassment.' (Id. at p. 645, fn. 2.) To support our conclusion that only the employer is liable for discrimination, we noted the difference in the statutory treatment of discrimination and harassment. (Id. at pp. 644-645.) Section 12940 does indeed treat the two differently, and for a reason. 'Whatever similarities there may be between [discrimination and harassment], the employer ultimately does the former; coworkers and supervisors do the latter.' (Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 657, original italics.) This differing statutory language means that our conclusion regarding discrimination does not compel a similar conclusion regarding harassment. It does not, however, compel a contrary conclusion either. It merely means that each question must be decided separately, considering the discrimination language to decide the discrimination issue, as we did in Reno v. Baird, and independently considering the harassment language to decide the harassment issue, as we do here." (Carrisales, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1137.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.