Alan Carter Sr. worked for The Salvation Army from February to April 2024. Carter filed an eleven-count complaint against The Salvation Army and several of its affiliated entities, including the Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC) in Canoga Park, and two individual employees: Brenton Doe, his shift manager, and Dora Rojero, the HR generalist who processed his termination. Carter alleged that during this brief tenure, he claimed that Doe repeatedly made inappropriate and harassing comments to him based on his race and perceived gender or sexual orientation.
According to Carter, he reported the harassment to the District Manager and then to Human Resources. Instead of investigating, he alleged that Rojero terminated him on April 8, 2024 in retaliation for his complaints. His complaint included claims under FEHA for discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment. He also brought claims for sexual harassment, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, whistleblower retaliation, breach of contract, negligent hiring, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Salvation Army and Rojero objected to several of Carter’s causes of action, arguing that as a religious nonprofit, the organization was exempt from liability under FEHA and that the other claims were either insufficiently pled or not applicable in an employer-employee context. In particular, they argued that under Government Code section 12926(d), religious nonprofit employers are explicitly exempt from FEHA’s definition of “employer.” The Salvation Army also requested judicial notice of its Articles of Incorporation to confirm its religious nonprofit status, which the Court granted.
Carter attempted to circumvent FEHA’s statutory exemption by arguing that his position fell into a healthcare-related exception under Government Code section 12926.2, which provides limited carve-outs for employees in healthcare roles. The Court rejected this argument, explaining that the exception applies only to specified healthcare-related contexts and does not suggest that non-healthcare-related employees may bring FEHA claims against religious organizations by implication.
The Court held that The Salvation Army was a religious nonprofit, properly excluded from FEHA’s reach. The Court relied on both the statutory definition and case law interpreting it, including decisions barring FEHA claims against religious schools and churches under similar facts. It concluded that because Carter had not alleged facts taking his role outside the general employer-employee context, his FEHA-based claims were barred as a matter of law and could not be amended to survive dismissal.
Regarding Carter’s sexual harassment claim, Carter invoked both FEHA and California Civil Code section 51.9. The Court dismissed the FEHA-based aspect for the reasons already stated. It then examined whether section 51.9 could independently support the claim. Section 51.9 applies where a plaintiff and defendant have a “business, service, or professional relationship” akin to those of landlord-tenant, teacher-student, or attorney-client. Critically, Courts have held that the statute does not apply to employer-employee relationships. Because Carter alleged only an employment relationship with The Salvation Army and its staff, the Court found that his claim fell outside the scope of section 51.9 and dismissed it with leave to amend.
Carter’s final cause of action at issue was a common-law wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Carter cited general references to the California Constitution, FEHA, and the Labor Code. The Court noted that a viable wrongful termination claim requires the plaintiff to articulate a “delineated” public policy grounded in constitutional or statutory authority, that is “public” in nature, and that was clearly established at the time of discharge. Because Carter’s complaint was vague and did not identify a specific, actionable public policy violated by his termination, the Court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.
Carter v. The Salvation Army (Cal. Super. Ct. June 5, 2025) 2025 Cal. Super. LEXIS 26873
Note: This case serves as an important reminder that FEHA has an exemption for nonprofit employers incorporated as religious corporations.