California Code of Regulations › Title 2 - Administration › Division 4.1 - Civil Rights Department › Chapter 5 - Civil Rights Council › Subchapter 7 - Discrimination in Housing › Article 12 - Harassment and Retaliation › Section 12130 - Retaliation

Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 28, July 12, 2024
(a) The Act
					 prohibits retaliation against individuals who exercise their rights to be free
					 from discriminatory or harassing housing practices. It shall be unlawful for
					 any person to take adverse action against an aggrieved person when a purpose
					 for the adverse action is retaliation for engaging in protected
					 activity.
(b) Persons Protected.
					 For purposes of a retaliation claim, an aggrieved person includes any person
					 who has alleged that they have been subject to adverse action due to engagement
					 in a protected activity. For purposes of a retaliation claim, the person does
					 not need to have a claim under any other provision of the Act.
(c) "Protected activity" includes making a
					 complaint, testifying, assisting or participating in any manner in a proceeding
					 under the Fair Housing Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with
					 Disabilities Act, Section
					 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the
					 Unruh Act, or any other federal, state or local law protecting fair housing
					 rights or prohibiting discrimination in housing; opposition to housing
					 practices believed to be discriminatory or made unlawful by a fair housing law;
					 informing law enforcement or other government agencies of practices believed to
					 be discriminatory or made unlawful by a fair housing law; assertion of rights
					 protected by fair housing laws (including in response to perceived harassment);
					 aiding or encouraging a person to exercise their fair housing rights; meeting
					 or assembling with other persons in order to address potential or actual
					 violations of fair housing rights (including, for example, by joining,
					 supporting, or organizing an organization that advances or protects fair
					 housing rights); making a request for a reasonable accommodation or reasonable
					 modification for an individual with a disability even if the request is not
					 granted; or any other action related to access to statutory or constitutional
					 remedial processes or remedies for violations of fair housing laws or laws
					 prohibiting discrimination in housing.
(d) Burden-shifting rule. To establish a
					 prima facie case of retaliation in a legal proceeding, a complainant must show
					 that (1) the complainant was engaged in a protected activity; (2) the
					 respondent subjected the complainant to an adverse action; and (3) a causal
					 link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. If the
					 complainant can establish a prima facie case, the respondent then has the
					 burden to offer a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action,
					 whereupon the burden shifts back to the complainant to demonstrate that the
					 proffered reason is pretextual or false.
(e) "Purpose" means that retaliation formed
					 some part of the basis for the respondent's action even if it was not the sole
					 motivating factor. The purpose must be more than a remote or trivial factor.
					 Purpose may be established by evidence which indicates that the timing of the
					 adverse action in relation to the respondent's notification of the protected
					 activity is such that retaliatory motivation can be inferred, may be
					 established by the non-existence of another plausible purpose for the
					 respondent's adverse action, or by other direct or circumstantial evidence. For
					 purposes of section
					 12955(f) of the
					 Act, "dominant purpose" shall have the same meaning as purpose under this
					 subsection.
(f) An aggrieved person
					 under this Act may raise retaliation as an affirmative defense in an unlawful
					 detainer action. Nothing in this subsection is intended to cause or permit the
					 delay of an unlawful detainer action due to asserting retaliation as an
					 affirmative defense. Raising retaliation as a good faith affirmative defense
					 does not in and of itself constitute a delay of an unlawful detainer
					 action.
1. New
						section filed 9-16-2019; operative 1-1-2020 (Register 2019, No.
						38).
Note: Authority cited: Section
						  12935(a),
						  Government Code. Reference: Sections
						  12920,
						  12921,
						  12927,
						  12948,
						  12955 and
						  12955.7,
						  Government Code.