Overview

Overview: feha law

HOLDINGS: [1]-Although an employee claiming wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on age discrimination did not also assert a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq., the trial court did not err in giving mixed-motive jury instructions applicable to FEHA claims; [2]-The employee failed to properly raise or preserve issues pertaining to declaratory and injunctive relief; [3]-Attorney fees under Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b), were not available absent a FEHA claim; [4]-The employee did not meet the requirements of Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, for private attorney general fees; [5]-The employee could maintain a wage claim under Lab. Code, §§ 221, 224, because the evidence showed deductions from wages for what appeared to be ordinary business expenses and the employer had the burden of proof as to whether the deductions were lawful.

Outcome

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.