{"id":1305,"date":"2021-10-25T03:51:09","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:51:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1305"},"modified":"2022-05-05T17:08:45","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T17:08:45","slug":"caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h))"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kumgdikz-3bb14d90fb18c80ff3a361742f81390b\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-kumgdikz-3bb14d90fb18c80ff3a361742f81390b{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-kumgdikz-3bb14d90fb18c80ff3a361742f81390b .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-kumgdikz-3bb14d90fb18c80ff3a361742f81390b .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-kumgdikz-3bb14d90fb18c80ff3a361742f81390b av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h))<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kumgf7zi-0f71404a68614a755e953403bb429e1d\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-kumgf7zi-0f71404a68614a755e953403bb429e1d .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-kumgf7zi-0f71404a68614a755e953403bb429e1d '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">2505\u00a0Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h))<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] retaliated against [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">describe activity protected by the FEHA<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]. To establish this claim, [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] must prove all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">1.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">describe protected activity<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">2.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [discharged\/demoted\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">specify other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>[<span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">or<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] subjected [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] to an adverse employment action;]<\/span><\/p>\n<p>[<span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">or<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was constructively discharged;]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">3.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">describe protected activity<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was a substantial motivating reason for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [decision to [discharge\/demote\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">specify other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\/conduct];<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">4.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was harmed; and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">5.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s decision to [discharge\/demote\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">specify other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was a substantial factor in causing [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] harm.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] does not have to prove [discrimination\/harassment] in order to be protected from retaliation. If [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [reasonably believed that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s conduct was unlawful\/requested a [disability\/religious] accommodation], [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] may prevail on a retaliation claim even if [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] does not present, or prevail on, a separate claim for [discrimination\/harassment\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]].]<\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New September 2003; Revised August 2007, April 2008, October 2008, April 2009, June 2010, June 2012, December 2012, June 2013, June 2014, June 2016, December 2016 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>In elements 1 and 3, describe the protected activity in question.\u00a0Government Code section 12940(h)\u00a0provides that it is unlawful to retaliate against a person \u201cbecause the person has opposed any practices forbidden under [Government Code sections 12900 through 12966] or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under [the FEHA].\u201d It is also unlawful to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting an accommodation for religious practice or disability, regardless of whether the request was granted. (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">l<\/span>)(4) [religious practice], (m)(2) [disability].)<\/p>\n<p>Read the first option for element 2 if there is no dispute as to whether the employer\u2019s acts constituted an adverse employment action. Read the second option and also give\u00a0CACI No. 2509,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cAdverse Employment Action\u201d Explained<\/span>, if whether there was an adverse employment action is a question of fact for the jury. For example, the case may involve a pattern of employer harassment consisting of acts that might not individually be sufficient to constitute retaliation, but taken as a whole establish prohibited conduct. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Yanowitz v. L\u2019Oreal USA, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1052\u20131056 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123].) Give both the first and second options if the employee presents evidence supporting liability under both a sufficient-single-act theory or a pattern-of-harassment theory. (See, e.g.,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California<\/span>\u00a0(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 413, 423\u2013424 [69 Cal.Rptr.3d 1].) Also select \u201cconduct\u201d in element 3 if the second option or both the first and second options are included for element 2.<\/p>\n<p>Retaliation in violation of the FEHA may be established by constructive discharge; that is, that the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions to exist that were so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee\u2019s position would have had no reasonable alternative other than to resign. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd.<\/span>\u00a0(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1253 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 632].) If constructive discharge is alleged, give the third option for element 2 and also give\u00a0CACI No. 2510,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cConstructive Discharge\u201d Explained<\/span>. Also select \u201cconduct\u201d in element 3 if the third option is included for element 2.<\/p>\n<p>Element 3 requires that the protected activity be a substantial motivating reason for the retaliatory acts. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris v. City of Santa Monica<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, 294 P.3d 49];\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 466, 479 [161 Cal.Rptr.3d 758]; see also\u00a0CACI No. 2507,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cSubstantial Motivating Reason\u201d Explained<\/span>.)<\/p>\n<p>Note that there are two causation elements. There must be a causal link between the retaliatory animus and the adverse action (see element 3), and there must be a causal link between the adverse action and damages (see element 5). (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 713 [81 Cal.Rptr.3d 406].)<\/p>\n<p>This instruction has been criticized in dictum because it is alleged that there is no element requiring retaliatory intent. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1229\u20131231 [136 Cal.Rptr.3d 472].) The court urged the Judicial Council to redraft the instruction and the corresponding special verdict form so as to clearly state that retaliatory intent is a necessary element of a retaliation claim under FEHA.<\/p>\n<p>The jury in the case was instructed per element 3 \u201cthat Richard Joaquin\u2019s reporting that he had been sexually harassed was a motivating reason for the City of Los Angeles\u2019 decision to terminate Richard Joaquin\u2019s employment or deny Richard Joaquin promotion to the rank of sergeant.\u201d The committee believes that the instruction as given is correct for the intent element in a retaliation case. (Cf.\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace v. County of Stanislaus<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 127\u2013132 [199 Cal.Rptr.3d 462]\u00a0[for disability discrimination, \u201csubstantial motivating reason\u201d is only language required to express intent].) However, in cases such as\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Joaquin<\/span>\u00a0that involve allegations of a prohibited motivating reason (based on a report of sexual harassment) and a permitted motivating reason (based on a good faith belief that the report was falsified), the instruction may need to be modified to make it clear that plaintiff must prove that defendant acted based on the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">prohibited<\/span>\u00a0motivating reason and not the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">permitted<\/span>\u00a0motivating reason. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Retaliation Prohibited Under Fair Employment and Housing Act.\u00a0Government Code section 12940(h).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Retaliation for Requesting Reasonable Accommodation for Religious Practice and Disability Prohibited.\u00a0Government Code section 12940(<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">l<\/span>)(4), (m)(2).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cPerson\u201d Defined Under Fair Employment and Housing Act.\u00a0Government Code section 12925(d).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Prohibited Retaliation.\u00a0Title 2 California Code of Regulations section 11021.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[I]n order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FEHA, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a \u2018protected activity,\u2019 (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer\u2019s action. Once an employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliation \u2018\u2009\u201c\u2009\u2018drops out of the picture,\u2019\u2009\u201d\u2009\u2019 and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional retaliation.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Yanowitz, supra<\/span>, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1042, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cActions for retaliation are \u2018inherently fact-driven\u2019; it is the jury, not the court, that is charged with determining the facts.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283, 299 [156 Cal.Rptr.3d 851].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIt is well established that a plaintiff in a retaliation case need only prove that a retaliatory animus was at least a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment decision.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">George v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.<\/span>\u00a0(2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1492 [102 Cal.Rptr.3d 431].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cRetaliation claims are inherently fact-specific, and the impact of an employer\u2019s action in a particular case must be evaluated in context. Accordingly, although an adverse employment action must materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment to be actionable, the determination of whether a particular action or course of conduct rises to the level of actionable conduct should take into account the unique circumstances of the affected employee as well as the workplace context of the claim.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Yanowitz, supra<\/span>, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1052.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cContrary to [defendant]\u2019s assertion that it is improper to consider collectively the alleged retaliatory acts, there is no requirement that an employer\u2019s retaliatory acts constitute one swift blow, rather than a series of subtle, yet damaging, injuries. Enforcing a requirement that each act separately constitute an adverse employment action would subvert the purpose and intent of the statute.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Yanowitz, supra<\/span>, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 1055\u20131056, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[U]nder certain circumstances, a retaliation claim may be brought by an employee who has complained of or opposed conduct, even when a court or jury subsequently determines the conduct actually was not prohibited by the FEHA. Indeed, this precept is well settled. An employee is protected against retaliation if the employee reasonably and in good faith believed that what he or she was opposing constituted unlawful employer conduct such as sexual harassment or sexual discrimination.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Miller v. Department of Corr.<\/span>\u00a0(2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 473\u2013474 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 115 P.3d 77], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cClearly, section 12940, subdivision (h) encompasses a broad range of protected activity. An employee need not use specific legal terms or buzzwords in opposing discrimination. Nor is it necessary for an employee to file a formal charge. The protected activity element may be established by evidence that the plaintiff threatened to file a discrimination charge, by a showing that the plaintiff mistakenly, but reasonably and sincerely believed he was opposing discrimination, or by evidence an employer believed the plaintiff was a potential witness in another employee\u2019s FEHA action.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 652 [163 Cal.Rptr.3d 392], internal citations and footnote omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018Standing alone, an employee\u2019s unarticulated belief that an employer is engaging in discrimination will not suffice to establish protected conduct for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, where there is no evidence the employer knew that the employee\u2019s opposition was based upon a reasonable belief that the employer was engaging in discrimination.\u2019 \u2009\u2018[C]omplaints about personal grievances or vague or conclusory remarks that fail to put an employer on notice as to what conduct it should investigate will not suffice to establish protected conduct.\u2019 [\u00b6] But employees need not explicitly and directly inform their employer that they believe the employer\u2019s conduct was discriminatory or otherwise forbidden by FEHA.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1046 [207 Cal.Rptr.3d 120], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe relevant question \u2026 is not whether a formal accusation of discrimination is made but whether the employee\u2019s communications to the employer sufficiently convey the employee\u2019s reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1193 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 42].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cNotifying one\u2019s employer of one\u2019s medical status, even if such medical status constitutes a \u2018disability\u2019 under FEHA, does not fall within the protected activity identified in subdivision (h) of section 12940\u2014i.e., it does not constitute engaging in opposition to any practices forbidden under FEHA or the filing of a complaint, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding under FEHA.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moore v. Regents of University of California<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 247 [206 Cal.Rptr.3d 841].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Plaintiff]\u2019s advocacy for the disabled community and opposition to elimination of programs that might benefit that community do not fall within the definition of protected activity. [Plaintiff] has not shown the [defendant]\u2019s actions amounted to discrimination against disabled citizens, but even if they could be so construed, discrimination by an employer against members of the general public is not a prohibited\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">employment<\/span>\u00a0practice under the FEHA.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 368, 383 [209 Cal.Rptr.3d 809], original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cMoreover, [defendant]\u2019s actions had a substantial and material impact on the conditions of employment. The refusal to promote [plaintiff] is an adverse employment action under FEHA. There was also a pattern of conduct, the totality of which constitutes an adverse employment action. This includes undeserved negative job reviews, reductions in his staff, ignoring his health concerns and acts which caused him substantial psychological harm.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wysinger, supra<\/span>, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 424, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cA long period between an employer\u2019s adverse employment action and the employee\u2019s earlier protected activity may lead to the inference that the two events are not causally connected. But if between these events the employer engages in a pattern of conduct consistent with a retaliatory intent, there may be a causal connection.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wysinger, supra<\/span>, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 421, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBoth direct and circumstantial evidence can be used to show an employer\u2019s intent to retaliate. \u2018Direct evidence of retaliation may consist of remarks made by decisionmakers displaying a retaliatory motive.\u2019 Circumstantial evidence typically relates to such factors as the plaintiff\u2019s job performance, the timing of events, and how the plaintiff was treated in comparison to other workers.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Colarossi v. Coty US Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1153 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 131], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe retaliatory motive is \u2018proved by showing that plaintiff engaged in protected activities, that his employer was aware of the protected activities, and that the adverse action followed within a relatively short time thereafter.\u2019\u2009\u2018The causal link may be established by an inference derived from circumstantial evidence, \u201csuch as the employer\u2019s knowledge that the [employee] engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and allegedly retaliatory employment decision.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital<\/span>\u00a0(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 615 [262 Cal.Rptr. 842], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A]n employer generally can be held liable for the retaliatory actions of its supervisors.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wysinger, supra<\/span>, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 420.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cPlaintiff, although a partner, is a person whom section 12940, subdivision (h) protects from retaliation for opposing the partnership-employer\u2019s harassment against those employees.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group<\/span>\u00a0(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1429 [141 Cal.Rptr.3d 265].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A]n employer may be found to have engaged in an adverse employment action, and thus liable for retaliation under section 12940(h), \u2018by permitting \u2026 fellow employees to punish [him] for invoking [his] rights.\u2019 We therefore hold that an employer may be held liable for coworker retaliatory conduct if the employer knew or should have known of coworker retaliatory conduct and either participated and encouraged the conduct, or failed to take reasonable actions to end the retaliatory conduct.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Kelley v. The Conco Cos.<\/span>\u00a0(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191, 213 [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 651], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he employer is liable for retaliation under section 12940, subdivision (h), but nonemployer individuals are not personally liable for their role in that retaliation.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership<\/span>\u00a0(2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1173 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 177 P.3d 232].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018The legislative purpose underlying FEHA\u2019s prohibition against retaliation is to prevent employers from deterring employees from asserting good faith discrimination complaints\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u2019 Employer retaliation against employees who are believed to be prospective complainants or witnesses for complainants undermines this legislative purpose just as effectively as retaliation after the filing of a complaint. To limit FEHA in such a way would be to condone \u2018an absurd result\u2019 that is contrary to legislative intent. We agree with the trial court that FEHA protects employees against preemptive retaliation by the employer.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Steele, supra<\/span>, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018The plaintiff\u2019s burden is to prove, by competent evidence, that the employer\u2019s proffered justification is mere pretext; i.e., that the presumptively valid reason for the employer\u2019s action was in fact a coverup.\u2009\u2026 In responding to the employer\u2019s showing of a legitimate reason for the complained-of action, the plaintiff cannot \u201c\u2009\u2018simply show the employer\u2019s decision was wrong, mistaken, or unwise. Rather, the employee \u2018\u2009\u201cmust demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer\u2019s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them \u201cunworthy of credence,\u201d \u2026 and hence infer \u201cthat the employer did not act for the [asserted] non-discriminatory reasons.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1409 [194 Cal.Rptr.3d 689].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe showing of pretext, while it may indicate retaliatory intent or animus, is not the sole means of rebutting the employer\u2019s evidence of nonretaliatory intent. \u2018\u2009\u201cWhile \u2018pretext\u2019 is certainly a relevant issue in a case of this kind, making it a central or necessary issue is not sound. The central issue is and should remain whether the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned inference that the challenged action was the product of discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The employer\u2019s mere articulation of a legitimate reason for the action cannot answer this question; it can only dispel the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">presumption<\/span>\u00a0of improper motive that would otherwise\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">entitle<\/span>\u00a0the employee to a judgment in his favor.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Light v. Department of Parks &amp; Recreation<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 94 [221 Cal.Rptr.3d 668], original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cGovernment Code section 12940, subdivision (h), does not shield an employee against termination or lesser discipline for either lying or withholding information during an employer\u2019s internal investigation of a discrimination claim. In other words, public policy does not protect deceptive activity during an internal investigation. Such conduct is a legitimate reason to terminate an at-will employee.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1528 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 154], footnotes omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough appellant does not argue she was constructively discharged, such a claim is not necessary to find unlawful retaliation.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McCoy, supra<\/span>, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 301.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe phrase \u2018because of\u2019 [in\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)] is ambiguous as to the type or level of intent (i.e., motivation) and the connection between that motivation and the decision to treat the disabled person differently. This ambiguity is closely related to [defendant]\u2019s argument that it is liable only if motivated by discriminatory animus. [\u00b6] The statutory ambiguity in the phrase \u2018because of\u201d was resolved by our Supreme Court about six months after the first jury trial [in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra<\/span>, 56 Cal.4th at p. 203].\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace, supra<\/span>, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 127.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[W]hile discrimination may be carried out by means of speech, such as a written notice of termination, and an illicit animus may be evidenced by speech, neither circumstance transforms a discrimination suit to one arising from speech. What gives rise to liability is not that the defendant spoke, but that the defendant denied the plaintiff a benefit, or subjected the plaintiff to a burden, on account of a discriminatory or retaliatory consideration.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University<\/span>\u00a0(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 772 [244 Cal.Rptr.3d 238].) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, \u00a7\u00a7\u20091028, 1052\u20131054<\/div>\n<div>Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 7-A,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Title VII And The California Fair Employment And Housing Act<\/span>, \u00b6\u00b6\u20097:121\u20137:205 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Discrimination Claims, \u00a7\u00a7\u20092.83\u20132.88<\/div>\n<div>2\u00a0Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 41,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Substantive Requirements Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws<\/span>, \u00a7\u200941.131\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>11\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Civil Rights: Employment Discrimination<\/span>, \u00a7\u00a7\u2009115.37,\u00a0115.94\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation, \u00a7\u00a7\u20092:74\u20132:75 (Thomson Reuters)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-7buwvt-d98cf40d10b055713a3ed61d2d4c4e96 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-67naop-ee81c706b967e279c088f8fc26bb4b2a\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-67naop-ee81c706b967e279c088f8fc26bb4b2a .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-67naop-ee81c706b967e279c088f8fc26bb4b2a '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1305","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940h\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940h\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-05T17:08:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:51:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-05T17:08:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h))\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940h\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940h\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-05T17:08:45+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\/","name":"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:51:09+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-05T17:08:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2505-retaliation-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940h\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 2505 Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(h))"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1305","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1305"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1305\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3787,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1305\/revisions\/3787"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}