Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Iris Arnold, Setiawatin Beckman, Angela Karapetyan, Sarah Olczak, and Laurie Peachey were former employees of Granada Hills Charter, an independent public charter school authorized by the Los Angeles Unified School District. The charter school operated a high school campus on LAUSD-owned property and another campus on property owned by the charter school. In August 2021, LAUSD required COVID-19 vaccination for adults working on its campuses, including charter schools located on district property. The plaintiffs alleged that LAUSD used its contracting power and threatened charter enforcement to pressure charter schools to adopt mandatory vaccination policies. Granada Hills Charter then adopted its own vaccination policy, which included accommodation procedures but no virtual academy.
Each plaintiff sought a religious exemption and accommodation, and Beckman and Olczak also sought accommodations based on medical conditions. Granada Hills Charter's executive director denied the requests, citing campus work requirements, LAUSD's restrictions on unvaccinated people working on its property, and threatened legal action. The plaintiffs' employment was terminated. Their separate FEHA action against the charter school was not at issue in this appeal. In this case, the operative second amended complaint alleged religious discrimination against LAUSD on behalf of all plaintiffs and medical-condition discrimination for Olczak and Beckman. The plaintiffs dismissed their privacy and declaratory-relief claims before the demurrer hearing. The superior court sustained LAUSD's demurrer to the remaining FEHA claims without leave to amend on July 3, 2025, and entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice on July 15, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reviewed the demurrer ruling de novo, accepting properly pleaded material facts but not legal conclusions, and considered whether amendment could cure any defect. The plaintiffs conceded that LAUSD was neither their employer nor joint employer under the legal tests used to determine the existence of an employment relationship. They instead invoked the federal Title VII interference theory, under which some decisions permit claims against an entity that discriminatorily controls access to employment with another employer. The court surveyed that authority, including Sibley Memorial Hospital v. Wilson, Gomez v. Alexian Bros. Hospital of San Jose, and the divided Association of Mexican-American Educators decision, alongside decisions rejecting or narrowing the theory. It also emphasized that FEHA ordinarily makes discrimination by an employer unlawful and that California courts independently interpret the statute.
The court concluded that even if an entity may be held liable under the FEHA for interfering with an individual's employment with a third party, the interference theory does not apply in this case. LAUSD and Granada Hills Charter were separate entities, and the charter school retained decisive control over hiring, discipline, accommodation requests, the interactive process, and termination. The court compared LAUSD's property-based health and safety policy with the state safety regulations in Vernon v. State of California, which did not create FEHA liability for a non-employer. Unlike defendants in the federal interference cases, LAUSD did not itself perform the discriminatory act that prevented continued employment. The court also noted that LAUSD did not deny a request from GHC for an exemption from the vaccination policy. Liability under the FEHA simply cannot be extended to provide a remedy to the plaintiffs based on the facts of this case. The court therefore affirmed the judgment, and no costs were awarded on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The court concluded that the interference theory does not apply in this case, even assuming an entity may be held liable under FEHA for interfering with employment with a third party.
- A third party must exert the required actual control over access to employment or itself perform the discriminatory act to be subject to interference liability.
- LAUSD's vaccination requirement and pressure on charter schools did not give it control over the plaintiffs' hiring, discipline, accommodations, or termination.
- Granada Hills Charter's independent control of those employment decisions was central to affirming dismissal of the claims against LAUSD.
- The separate dispute concerning the charter school's own accommodation obligations was not decided in this appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes pressure through property rules and charter agreements from direct control over an employment relationship. It shows that allegations of substantial influence over another employer's policies do not necessarily establish non-employer liability under FEHA.
Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not certified for citation as precedent except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b). Its reasoning nevertheless explains why this panel found the federal interference authorities insufficient to sustain these claims against LAUSD.