With the enactment of SB 1137, California has explicitly recognized “intersectionality” under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and related statutes: or the idea that in certain instances, discrimination is not based solely on one trait, but rather based on the combination of two or more protected characteristics. Intersectionality is an analytical framework for understanding how different forms of inequality operate together, exacerbate each other, and can result in amplified forms of prejudice and harm. For example, under the intersectionality framework, an employee might claim discrimination on the basis of the intersection of gender, national origin, and disability status, rather than any one trait alone.

Traditionally, discrimination claims are framed around one trait at a time: sex discrimination, race discrimination, age discrimination, and so forth. Intersectional claims, however, recognize that discrimination often arises because of overlapping traits. Courts have acknowledged this reality, holding that bias can target the unique intersection of identities—as in Lam v. University of Hawai‘i, 40 F.3d 1551, 1561-62 (9th Cir. 1994), where the court recognized that discrimination against an Asian woman could not be understood merely as discrimination based on sex or race alone.

For example, an employee might allege that she was passed over for promotion not simply because she is a woman (sex discrimination) or because she is Black (race discrimination), but because of the intersection of those two characteristics—the unique stereotypes or assumptions attached to her identity as a Black woman.

Practical Take-Aways for Public Agencies

Employees may now frame claims that reflect the unique ways bias operates at the crossroads of identity categories—such as being both a woman and a person of color, or an older and disabled employee. For employers, including public agencies, this means reviewing policies, training, and documentation practices through a more nuanced lens. Public employers should anticipate that intersectional logic could extend to harassment, retaliation, and failure-to-accommodate claims, especially when multiple protected characteristics interact.

To that end, public agency employers should:

• Update policies and procedures: Ensure that nondiscrimination policies expressly acknowledge that discrimination can occur based on a combination of traits. This clarification reflects the intent of SB 1137 and may strengthen an agency’s compliance posture.
• Train supervisors and Human Resources: Supervisory and HR staff should understand that when employee experiences involve overlapping protected traits, disciplinary or evaluative decisions may carry heightened risk of being perceived as discriminatory or retaliatory. Training should emphasize careful documentation and consultation before acting.
• Review complaint-handling protocols: Investigators should be aware of the possibility for potential patterns of bias that stem from the intersection of traits, for example, analyzing whether older women or employees of a particular race and gender combination are affected differently.
• Reevaluate equity and inclusion programs: Consider how existing DEI or equal-employment initiatives address intersectional concerns. Programs that focus on one trait at a time may need to broaden their lens to reflect the realities SB 1137 codifies.
• Document consistently: When taking adverse action, ensure that the reasons are legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and supported by contemporaneous evidence.
• Consult counsel early: Intersectional claims often involve subtle factual and perception-based issues. Early involvement of legal counsel can help agencies assess risk, navigate investigations, and craft appropriate responses.

In conclusion, under recent California legal updates, for public agencies such as cities, counties, schools, and special districts, SB 1137 signals an important evolution in workplace equity obligations. Public agencies must be prepared for employees to assert claims that involve complex combinations of characteristics, and for investigators, arbitrators, and courts to analyze those claims more holistically.

Agencies should recognize that bias or adverse treatment may not always be evident when traits are considered separately—but may emerge when viewed together. Supervisors, HR professionals, and counsel should be trained to identify, document, and address these patterns early.

Trusted legal counsel can help public agencies stay compliant, proactive, and protective of employee rights by providing expert guidance on responding to intersectional discrimination claims.