Taylor

An engineer sued his municipal employer and supervisor for retaliation because he opposed race discrimination against a subordinate and for failure to prevent retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) (the FEHA). The trial court dismissed the action after sustaining defendants’ general demurrer to the operative first amended complaint (complaint) without leave to amend.

We conclude the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for retaliation under both the materiality test followed by the California Supreme Court in Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436 , 116 P.3d 1123 ] (Yanowitz) and the deterrence test adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington, N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White (2006) 548 U.S._[ 165 L.Ed.2d 345 , 126 S.Ct. 2405 ] (Burlington). We also hold that a supervisor can be held personally liable for retaliation under the FEHA (§ 12940, subd. (h)). As pleaded, the supervisor’s conduct is further not barred by the governmental immunity provisions of section 820.2. In addition, we find subdivision (k) of section 12940 is applicable to a cause of action…