Fair Employment And Housing Act Feha

Katrina Baptiste resolved her employment lawsuit against The City and County of San Francisco through a $125,000 settlement reached in June 2025. Baptiste had alleged severe workplace misconduct, including sexual and racial harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation for reporting the misconduct. She claimed the hostile conditions caused emotional distress, financial loss, and professional harm. The City denied all allegations, asserting it responded properly and violated no laws. The settlement brought an end to nearly two years of litigation and allowed both sides to avoid the risks and burdens of a public trial

The Tramil v. City and County of San Francisco lawsuit began in 2019 after former employee Mary Tramil alleged the City violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The complaint asserted that the City had failed to engage in a mandatory interactive process and refused to provide reasonable accommodations for her physical disability, ultimately leading to her wrongful discharge. Tramil sought lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress. The CCSF denied all liability, citing various immunities and arguing that its actions were reasonable and non-discriminatory. After years of litigation, the parties reached a negotiated settlement, concluding the case for $230,000.

The case of Mario Cardona v. City of Los Angeles (Case No. 22STCV17208) centered on allegations of whistleblower retaliation and workplace discrimination within the Los Angeles Police Department. Sgt. Mario Cardona claimed he suffered retaliation after refusing a supervisor’s request to rescind a parking ticket, which he believed violated state law. Filed in May 2022, the lawsuit accused the City of violating California’s Labor Code §1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by allegedly transferring Cardona and referring him to the Risk Management Executive Committee in retaliation for his report. The City denied wrongdoing, arguing that his reassignment and internal review were legitimate administrative decisions unrelated to any disclosure. The case went to trial before Judge Maurice A. Leiter in May 2025. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the jury found that although Cardona reasonably believed his disclosure concerned a violation of law, the City did not take any adverse employment action against him. The jury concluded that neither the transfer nor the referral constituted retaliation or discrimination. On June 13, 2025, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a verdict in favor of the City, awarding no damages to the plaintiff and granting the City recovery of its legal costs. The outcome closed nearly three years of litigation and reaffirmed that personnel decisions made by the department were lawful and non-retaliatory.

The employment lawsuit, Anderson Mackey v. County of Los Angeles, et al., filed in February 2023, alleged unlawful disparate treatment and retaliation against the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) under California’s FEHA. Mackey claimed he suffered emotional distress and lost wages due to the hostile work environment. The case was resolved out of court in November 2024, confirming a final settlement payment of $635,127 authorized by the County to resolve all claims without an admission of liability by the defendants.

The case of Anderson Mackey v. County of Los Angeles, et al., filed in early 2023, centered on claims of unlawful employment practices and disparate treatment within the Los Angeles County Fire Department, rooted in California's FEHA (California Fair Employment and Housing Act). The plaintiff sought compensation for emotional distress, lost wages, and punitive damages. Instead of proceeding to a jury trial, the parties reached a settlement in November 2024, with public records confirming the County authorized a payment of $579,000 to resolve the matter. The settlement secured a final disposition of the claims without a formal determination of liability by the court.