A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Los Angeles LGBTQ Discrimination Lawyer

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Are You in Need of a LGBTQ Discrimination Lawyer?

Who you are attracted to or who you choose to be in a relationship with should have no bearing on your employment status or your ability to move up the company ladder. Unfortunately, there are still employers that refuse to accept that all men and women are equal, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender, religion or disabilities.

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), it is illegal for an employer (or prospective employer) to discriminate against an individual based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation. This means that an employer cannot fire, fail to promote, fail to hire, or otherwise discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, whether it’s real or perceived.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation encompasses a range of orientations, including gay, lesbian, straight, homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual. It’s important to note that even if an employer discriminates based on a mistaken perception of an individual’s sexual orientation, it’s still considered discrimination. For instance, if an employer discriminates against someone because they think the person is gay, it doesn’t matter if the person is actually straight; the action is still discriminatory.

The FEHA also outlines specific unlawful employment practices related to perceived sexual orientation, such as:

  • Refusing to hire
  • Firing or discharging
  • Refusing to select for a training program
  • Discriminating in compensation or conditions of employment
  • Providing reduced or inferior benefits
  • Assigning inferior work duties

Furthermore, it’s also illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or gender expression under FEHA. Discrimination based on sex includes gender identity and gender expression, with the latter referring to gender-related appearance and behavior, irrespective of the sex assigned at birth.

Lastly, the FEHA protects individuals from retaliation for reporting or opposing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means that an employer cannot take retaliatory actions, including termination, against someone for citing discrimination or harassment violations or for filing a sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit.

How Do I Report My Employer for Sexual Orientation Discrimination?

Certainly. If an individual believes they have been discriminated against based on sexual orientation in California, they can take the following steps to bring legal action against their employer:

  1. File a Complaint with the CRD: Before initiating a lawsuit, the affected individual should file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). This complaint should be submitted as a pre-complaint inquiry within three years of the last incident of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The complaint can be filed online, by phone, or using a form from the CRD website.
  2. Intake Interview: After submitting the pre-complaint inquiry, the CRD will initiate an intake interview to determine whether the complaint can be accepted for investigation. If the CRD decides not to pursue the complaint, the individual has the immediate right to sue the employer in court.
  3. Mediation: If the CRD accepts the complaint, they may offer mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method. Mediation involves a neutral mediator who helps both parties come to a mutually agreeable solution.
  4. Investigation: If the complaint isn’t resolved through mediation, the CRD will conduct an investigation to determine if there was a violation of California law. If a violation is found, the case will move to the CRD Legal Division.
  5. Right to Sue: If the CRD does not find a violation or decides not to pursue the claim, they will close the investigation, and the individual will have the immediate right to file a lawsuit against the employer. Before filing a lawsuit in civil court, the individual must obtain a “right to sue” notice from the CRD.
  6. Legal Representation: It’s advisable for the individual to seek legal counsel before proceeding to court. An attorney can guide them through the process, obtain the necessary “right to sue” notice, and represent them in court.
  7. Damages: If successful in court, the individual may be entitled to various damages, including back pay, benefits, pain and suffering, emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and potentially punitive damages.

It’s essential to remember that retaliation for reporting discrimination is also illegal under the FEHA. If an employer retaliates against an individual for reporting violations, the individual may also file a complaint for retaliation or wrongful termination.

At the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in Calabasas, we believe in equal employment opportunity and advancement based on merit, not sexual orientation. We have extensive experience standing up for the rights of workers nationwide and welcome the opportunity to make things right for you.

Our team of experienced Los Angeles employment attorneys will make sure you do not continue to bear the burden of workplace discrimination and will fight aggressively for the compensation you deserve.

Being Discriminated Against For Being Gay Or Lesbian? Contact An Attorney.

The debate over equality in the workplace has been settled, and you are on the right side.
Contact us today for a free initial consultation with a nationwide sexual orientation discrimination lawyer who will fight for you.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.