California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act continues to generate published and newly reported Court of Appeal decisions with practical consequences for employees, employers, and Civil Rights Department (CRD) investigations. This legal update summarizes three recently reported FEHA opinions: Civil Rights Department v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (filed Aug. 11, 2026; certified for partial publication Sept. 9, 2026), Glick v. City of Los Angeles (July 30, 2026), and Morales v. Superior Court (Aug. 3, 2026).
Together, the cases address how far FEHA investigations may reach across state lines, how trial courts may (and may not) cut jury awards for discrimination and retaliation, and when a narrow employment arbitration clause leaves FEHA and related claims in court.
1. CRD v. SpaceX: Out-of-state work does not automatically stop a FEHA investigation
In Civil Rights Department v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B346853 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3, filed Aug. 11, 2026) 2026 WL 2654677, the Second District affirmed a Los Angeles Superior Court order compelling SpaceX to comply with a CRD investigatory subpoena.
What happened
A former SpaceX employee filed a CRD complaint alleging sex/gender pay and promotion discrimination and retaliation for helping draft and circulate an open letter criticizing the company and its CEO. SpaceX listed a California address on the complaint. The employee had been hired to work in Redmond, Washington. SpaceX objected that CRD lacked power to investigate because FEHA does not apply outside California. CRD first focused discovery on where the alleged conduct occurred, then petitioned the superior court to compel production on the retaliation claim and on remaining jurisdictional facts for the discrimination claims. The trial court granted the petition. SpaceX appealed.
What the Court of Appeal held
The court affirmed. SpaceX did not carry its burden to show that enforcing the subpoena was unconstitutional, barred by the presumption against extraterritorial legislation, or beyond CRD’s FEHA jurisdiction. Key points:
- Constitutional challenges were forfeited. SpaceX’s opening brief offered only a cursory mix of Commerce Clause, due process, full-faith-and-credit, and supremacy arguments, without explaining how an investigatory subpoena to a company with a significant California presence violated any of them. A Fourth Amendment “fishing expedition” argument raised for the first time in the reply brief was also forfeited.
- Extraterritoriality is not a categorical bar. Following Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732, the court treated the question as which California connections trigger the relevant FEHA provisions—not whether any out-of-state effect automatically defeats the statute. Investigatory authority and substantive liability raise separate analyses; fewer connections may suffice to let CRD investigate than to impose liability.
- No blanket “employee must work in California” rule for FEHA. SpaceX argued that FEHA never reaches workers who live and work outside California, relying on wage-and-hour cases such as Tidewater, Sullivan, Ward, and Oman. The court rejected that categorical rule. Those decisions did not involve FEHA, and the Supreme Court has emphasized that each statute must be construed on its own terms.
- The complaint did not prove the claims were purely Washington events. SpaceX overstated the territorial facts. The administrative complaint did not allege that every adverse action occurred exclusively in Washington. CRD pointed to California connections alleged in related litigation, including California-based managers, pay statements issued from California, and California new-hire paperwork. Campbell v. Arco Marine, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1850 was distinguishable because the California connections there were settled and insufficient; here, those facts were still being investigated.
The opinion was later certified for partial publication (no change in the judgment) on September 9, 2026.
Why it matters
Employers with California headquarters, California managers, or California payroll cannot assume that a worker’s out-of-state residence and duty station ends a CRD investigation at the threshold. CRD may use subpoenas to determine whether alleged discrimination or retaliation has a substantial connection to California. Employees who report to California leadership or receive California-sourced pay may have a path to FEHA process even if they physically work elsewhere. The decision does not hold that FEHA always applies to out-of-state workers; it holds that SpaceX failed to show CRD lacked investigatory jurisdiction on this record.
2. Glick v. City of Los Angeles: No artificial cap on “garden-variety” FEHA emotional-distress awards
In Glick v. City of Los Angeles (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 151, the Second District (Division 2) reversed a remittitur that had slashed a FEHA gender-discrimination and retaliation verdict against the City of Los Angeles, and it reinstated the jury’s judgment.
What happened
Two male LAPD officers, Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia, alleged they were treated more harshly than their female partners after an arrestee claimed unknown officers had defaced him in a holding cell. Internal Affairs seized the male officers’ phones, lockers, and vehicles, benched them from the field while their female partners stayed on patrol, and the chief of police later sought termination-level discipline that was ultimately reduced. A union representative who complained about the disparity was told, in substance, that this was “something guys would do, not females.”
A jury found gender discrimination and retaliation. It awarded Glick about $8.62 million (including $8 million in noneconomic damages and $621,358 in future economic damages) and Garcia $4.5 million in noneconomic damages. The officers had stipulated they were not claiming emotional distress beyond the usual distress associated with the claimed injuries and would not present expert psychiatric testimony. The trial court conditionally granted a new trial unless Glick accepted $250,000 and Garcia accepted $125,000, characterizing the proof as “garden-variety” distress and wiping out Glick’s economic award as speculative.
What the Court of Appeal held
- The officers’ own testimony about stress, family strain, career harm, alcohol relapse, and loss of trust in the department was enough to support the noneconomic awards. Expert testimony is not required for emotional distress within jurors’ common experience.
- The trial court abused its discretion by treating “garden-variety” distress as subject to an unofficial ceiling in the low five- or six-figure range. There is no fixed legal maximum for noneconomic damages, and the awards were not so large as to show passion or prejudice as a matter of law.
- Zeroing Glick’s future economic damages was also an abuse of discretion. The jury heard admissible testimony from Glick that the City’s conduct would cause him to retire earlier than planned, plus expert testimony quantifying that loss at $621,358. The City had even disavowed a challenge to the economic award in its new-trial motion.
The new-trial order was reversed and the original judgment reinstated and affirmed.
Why it matters
Public and private employers defending FEHA verdicts cannot count on a trial judge to recut a large noneconomic award merely because the plaintiff did not call a psychiatrist or labeled the distress “usual.” Plaintiff-side, a stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320 does not automatically confine a jury to a token number. The decision also underscores that an employee’s own testimony about shortened career plans, if credited, can support future economic damages.
3. Morales v. Superior Court: Narrow arbitration language does not cover FEHA, CFRA, or Tameny claims
Morales v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 239 is now in the official reports. We previously analyzed the writ decision in detail in Morales v. Superior Court: Narrow Arbitration Clauses and FEHA Claims.
In short, Silvia Morales sued San Diego Gas & Electric after a 2024 termination, alleging FEHA disability claims, CFRA retaliation, and a Tameny public-policy claim. The Fourth District (Division 1) held that the later, integrated invention/confidentiality agreement—not the earlier offer letter—controlled, and that a clause covering disputes “regarding any aspect of this Agreement” or alleged violations of the Agreement did not reach statutory and public-policy claims that exist independent of the contract. The court directed the superior court to deny the motion to compel arbitration.
For employees and employers still using older offer letters and invention agreements, wording limited to disputes about the agreement is not a broad employment-arbitration clause.
Practical takeaways
- Multistate employers: A Washington (or other out-of-state) duty station is not, standing alone, a complete defense to a CRD subpoena. California headquarters, California decisionmakers, California pay, and California ratification remain fair game for investigation.
- CRD process: Fighting a subpoena on territorial grounds requires a developed showing that the alleged unlawful practices lack sufficient California connections—not a categorical assertion that FEHA never leaves the state line.
- FEHA damages: Large noneconomic verdicts can stand on lay testimony. Remittitur still exists, but courts may not invent a “garden-variety” dollar cap.
- Arbitration: Read the clause. Agreement-only language often leaves FEHA, CFRA, and wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claims in court. See our full Morales discussion.
If you are facing a CRD investigation, a FEHA lawsuit, or an employer’s effort to force discrimination or retaliation claims into arbitration, the details of location, proof of harm, and contract language matter. Contact Jonny Law to discuss your situation. This post is general information about recent California decisions and is not legal advice about any specific case.
Cases: Civil Rights Department v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B346853 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3, filed Aug. 11, 2026, pub. order Sept. 9, 2026) 2026 WL 2654677; Glick v. City of Los Angeles (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 151; Morales v. Superior Court (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 239.
