32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436 (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 116 P.3d 1123

Elysa J. YANOWITZ, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

No. S115154.

Supreme Court of California

August 11, 2005.

*438 Herbert W. Yanowitz, San Francisco, and Joseph R. Grodin, Berkeley, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

William R. Tamayo, San Francisco, Eric S. Dreiband, Lorraine C. Davis, Vincent Blackwood, Washington, DC, and Elizabeth E. Theran for U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Winikow and Jeffrey K. Winikow, Los Angeles, for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Charlotte E. Fishman, San Francisco, for Equal Rights Advocates, Asian Law Caucus, California Women's Law Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., The Impact Fund, The Legal *439 Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The National Women's Law Center and Women's Employment Rights Clinic as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Morgenstein & Jubelirer, William J. Carroll and David H. Bromfield, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent.

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, Lawrence A. Michaels and Suzanne M. Steinke, Los Angeles, for California Employment Law Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt, Linda Miller Savitt, John J. Manier and Christine T. Hoeffner, Universal City, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Pillsbury Winthrop, George S. Howard, Jr., and Brian L. Johnson, San Diego, for Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

*437 GEORGE, C.J.

Plaintiff Elysa J. Yanowitz was a regional sales manager employed by defendant L'Oreal USA, Inc. (L'Oreal), a prominent cosmetics and fragrance company. Yanowitz alleges that after she refused to carry out an order from a male supervisor to terminate the employment of a female sales associate who, in the supervisor's view, was not sufficiently sexually attractive or "hot," she was subjected to heightened scrutiny and increasingly hostile adverse treatment that undermined her relationship with the employees she supervised and caused severe emotional distress that led her to leave her position. In bringing this action against L'Oreal, Yanowitz contended, among other matters, that L'Oreal's actions toward her constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of the provisions of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h) (section 12940(h)), which forbids employers from retaliating against employees who have acted to protect the rights afforded by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12900 et. seq).^[1]

Section 12940(h) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part." In this case, we are presented with an array of issues regarding the proper legal standards to apply in determining whether an allegedly retaliatory action by an employer is actionable under section 12940(h). First, we must decide whether an employee's refusal to follow a supervisor's order (to discharge a subordinate) that the employee reasonably believes to be discriminatory constitutes "protected activity" under the FEHA for which the employee may not properly be subjected to retaliation, when the employee objects to the supervisor's order but does not explicitly tell the supervisor or the employer that she (the employee) believes the order violates the FEHA or is otherwise discriminatory. Second, we must decide how the term "adverse employment action" — a term of art that generally is used as a shorthand description of the kind of adverse treatment imposed upon an employee that will support a cause of action under an employment discrimination statute — should be defined for purposes of a retaliation claim under the *440 FEHA, and whether, in evaluating whether or not an employee was subjected to an adverse employment action under the appropriate standard, each individual sanction or punitive measure to which the employee was subjected must be evaluated separately or instead collectively through consideration of the totality of the circumstances. On a related point, we must decide whether a plaintiff may invoke the continuing violations doctrine to rely upon allegedly retaliatory acts that occurred outside the limitations period when such acts are related to acts that occur within the limitations period prescribed by the FEHA. Finally, in light of our conclusions on the foregoing issues, we must determine whether, under the circumstances disclosed by the record in this case, the Court of Appeal properly concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer.

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that an employee's refusal to follow a supervisor's order that she reasonably believes to be discriminatory constitutes protected activity under the FEHA and that an employer may not retaliate against an employee on the basis of such conduct when the employer, in light of all the circumstances, knows that the employee believes the order to be discriminatory, even when the employee does not explicitly state to her supervisor or employer that she believes the order to be discriminatory. Second, we conclude that the proper standard for defining an adverse employment action is the "materiality" test, a standard that requires an employer's adverse action to materially affect the terms and conditions of employment (see Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1454-1457, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 602), rather than the arguably broader "deterrence" test adopted by the Court of Appeal in the present case. We further conclude that in determining whether an employee has been subjected to treatment that materially affects the terms and conditions of employment, it is appropriate to consider the totality of the circumstances and to apply the "continuing violation" doctrine that we recently adopted in Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 87, 29 P.3d 175 (Richards). Finally, applying these general principles to the record that was before the trial court on the summary judgment motion, we conclude the Court of Appeal properly determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer.

Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reversed the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant.

I.

A

Because this case comes before us after the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment, we take the facts from the record that was before the trial court when it ruled on that motion. (State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1034-35, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556.) "We review the trial court's decision de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers except that to which objections were made and sustained." (Id. at p. 1035, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556.) We liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 615, 88 P.3d 517.)

Yanowitz began her employment with the predecessor of L'Oreal as a sales representative *441 in 1981^[2] and was promoted to regional sales manager for Northern California and the Pacific Northwest in 1986. As regional sales manager, Yanowitz was responsible for managing L'Oreal's sales team and dealing with the department and specialty stores that sold L'Oreal's fragrances. From 1986 to 1996, Yanowitz's performance as a regional sales manager consistently was judged as "Above Expectation" and in some instances fell close to "Outstanding," the highest possible rating, although her reviews over this period also consistently contained some criticism of her "listening" and "communication" skills.

In early 1997, Yanowitz was named L'Oreal's regional sales manager of the year (for 1996). She received a Cartier watch and a congratulatory note from human resources manager Jane Sears praising her leadership, loyalty, motivation, and ability to inspire team spirit. Yanowitz's bonuses for the years 1996 and 1997 were the highest paid to any regional sales manager in her division.

Beginning in 1996, Yanowitz's immediate supervisor was Richard Roderick, the vice-president of sales for the designer fragrance division. Roderick reported directly to Jack Wiswall, the general manager of the designer fragrance division. Roderick and Wiswall worked out of New York, and Yanowitz was based in San Francisco.

In June 1997, Roderick wrote a memorandum to Yanowitz's personnel file in which he criticized Yanowitz's listening skills and characterized her attitude as "negative." He also noted that he had received complaints about Yanowitz's attitude from several retailers. In August 1997, Roderick wrote a memorandum to Sears, L'Oreal's human resources manager, in which he again criticized Yanowitz for her listening skills and her "negative" attitude, noting that several accounts also had complained about Yanowitz's attitude. Roderick stated in this memorandum that "Elysa does a terrific job as a regional manager, however, she must become a better listener and she must not put a gun to the heads of the retailers in order to get them to do what needs to be done."

In the fall of 1997, L'Oreal restructured the designer fragrance division, merging the division with the Ralph Lauren fragrance division. Although some regional sales managers were laid off after the restructuring, L'Oreal retained Yanowitz and increased her responsibilities. After the merger and restructuring, Yanowitz was assigned to supervise the personnel who formerly worked for the Ralph Lauren division, and to supervise the marketing of Ralph Lauren fragrances in her region.

Shortly after Yanowitz assumed responsibility for the Ralph Lauren sales force and marketing campaigns in the fall of 1997, Wiswall and Yanowitz toured the Ralph Lauren Polo installation at Macy's in the Valley Fair Shopping Center in San Jose. After the tour, Wiswall instructed Yanowitz to terminate the employment of a dark-skinned female sales associate because he did not find the woman to be sufficiently physically attractive. Wiswall expressed a preference for fair-skinned blondes and directed Yanowitz to "[g]et me somebody hot," or words to that effect. On a return trip to the store, Wiswall discovered that the sales associate had not been dismissed. He reiterated to Yanowitz that he wanted the associate terminated and complained that Yanowitz had failed to do so. He passed "a young attractive *442 blonde girl, very sexy," on his way out, turned to Yanowitz, and told her, "God damn it, get me one that looks like that." Yanowitz asked Wiswall for an adequate justification before she would terminate the associate. On several subsequent occasions, Wiswall asked Yanowitz whether the associate had been dismissed. On each occasion, Yanowitz asked Wiswall to provide adequate justification for dismissing the associate. In March 1998, in the midst of Yanowitz's conversations with Wiswall regarding the termination of the sales associate, Yanowitz learned that the sales associate in question was among the top sellers of men's fragrances in the Macy's West chain. Ultimately, Yanowitz refused to carry out Wiswall's order and did not terminate the sales associate. She never complained to her immediate supervisor or to the human resources department that Wiswall was pressuring her to fire the sales associate, however, nor did she explicitly tell Wiswall that she believed his order was discriminatory.

In April 1998, Roderick began soliciting negative information about Yanowitz from her subordinates. Roderick called Christine DeGracia, who reported to Yanowitz, and asked her about any "frustrations" she had with Yanowitz. When DeGracia said she had had some, Roderick asked her to hold her thoughts so that the matter could be discussed with human resources. Roderick and Sears then called back DeGracia to discuss those issues. When Roderick asked DeGracia whether any other persons were having problems with Yanowitz, DeGracia did not provide any names. Two weeks later, Roderick called DeGracia again and told her it was urgent that she help him persuade individuals to come forward with their problems concerning Yanowitz. In early June 1998, Roderick again asked DeGracia to notify him of negative incidents involving Yanowitz and other account executives.

On May 13, 1998, Roderick summoned Yanowitz to L'Oreal's home office in New York. Roderick opened the meeting by asking whether she thought she had been brought in to be terminated, then criticized Yanowitz for her "dictatorial" management style with regard to two account executives. He closed the meeting by saying, "It would be a shame to end an eighteen-year career this way." During May and June 1998, Roderick and Wiswall obtained Yanowitz's travel and expense reports and audited them.

On June 19, 1998, a representative for Macy's West, one of Yanowitz's accounts, wrote to Roderick to complain about the handling of a Polo Sport promotion, which Yanowitz's team was responsible for coordinating. In June 1998, Yanowitz met with Wiswall, Roderick, and various account executives and regional sales managers responsible for the Macy's account. Wiswall screamed at Yanowitz in front of her staff, told her he was "sick and tired of all the fuckups" on the Macy's account, and said that Yanowitz could not get it right. In July 1998, the Macy's account executive wrote to Roderick and again complained about the handling of a different promotion by Yanowitz's team.

On June 22, 1998, Yanowitz wrote Roderick, advising him that her Macy's West team was disturbed about certain issues. Wiswall, who had been sent a copy, wrote a note to Roderick on Yanowitz's memo: "Dick — She is writing everything! Are you!!!? ? ?" One week after Wiswall's note, Roderick prepared three memos to human resources documenting the meeting with Yanowitz on May 13, 1998, a conversation with DeGracia on June 4, 1998, and a visit to Yanowitz's market area in early June 1998. These memos were critical of Yanowitz; the memo discussing the May 13 *443 meeting criticized her for being too assertive.

On July 16, 1998, Roderick prepared a more elaborate memorandum and delivered it to Yanowitz. The memorandum criticized Yanowitz's handling of a Polo Sport promotion, a Picasso promotion, coordination of advertising with others, handling of the Sacramento market, and the length and substance of a March 1998 business trip to Hawaii. Roderick closed, "I have yet to see evidence that you took [the May 13] conversation seriously and made the necessary style modifications. Elysa, I am quite surprised that a person with so many years of experience and so many years with Cosmair could become so ineffective so quickly. [¶] Our business is changing daily and we all must learn to adapt to those changes or we will fail as individuals and as a company. Your changes must start immediately. [¶] I expect a reply to this memo within one week of receipt."

Yanowitz viewed the memorandum as an expression of intent to develop pretextual grounds and then terminate her. She suggested the parties meet to discuss a severance package, but also indicated she first wanted to prepare her written response to the July 16, 1998, memorandum.

Carol Giustino, Sears's replacement as human resources director, set up a meeting for July 22 and rejected Yanowitz's request that the meeting be postponed. Giustino also denied Yanowitz's request to have Yanowitz's attorney-husband present at the meeting, citing company policy. During the July 22 meeting, Roderick and Giustino questioned Yanowitz about the accusations in the July 16 memorandum without reading her written response. Yanowitz, who was being treated for nervous anxiety allegedly brought on by the situation at work, broke down in tears. During the meeting, Roderick imposed a new travel schedule on Yanowitz, a schedule that regulated precisely how often she should visit each market in her territory. Two days after the meeting, Yanowitz departed on disability leave due to stress. She did not return, and L'Oreal replaced her in November 1998.

B

Yanowitz filed a discrimination charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) on June 25, 1999. She alleged that L'Oreal had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, age (Yanowitz was 53), and religion (Yanowitz is Jewish). She also alleged that L'Oreal had retaliated against her for refusing to terminate the female employee whom Wiswall considered unattractive.

After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the DFEH, Yanowitz brought this action against L'Oreal in superior court. The first amended complaint, filed on September 13, 1999, included claims for age and religious discrimination and retaliation under the FEHA, violation of the unfair competition law (UCL), and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The second amended complaint, filed July 21, 2000, added a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

L'Oreal filed two separate motions for summary adjudication. The first motion challenged Yanowitz's claims under the FEHA and for emotional distress, each of which was based upon L'Oreal's conduct toward Yanowitz in 1998. The second motion challenged Yanowitz's UCL and good faith and fair dealing claims, which arose from L'Oreal's unrelated practice of selling products to distributors other than its primary distributors — high-end department stores and specialty stores. Each motion for summary adjudication ultimately was *444 granted, and judgment was entered in favor of L'Oreal on April 25, 2001.^[3]

With respect to the retaliation claim, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of L'Oreal, finding Yanowitz had not engaged in any protected activity. The Court of Appeal reversed this aspect of the trial court's judgment, holding that: (1) Yanowitz's refusal to obey Wiswall's sexually discriminatory order was protected activity under the FEHA; (2) Yanowitz was not required to give L'Oreal notice that Wiswall's order was discriminatory; (3) Yanowitz was not precluded from relying on L'Oreal's acts that occurred prior to the date of the alleged adverse action shown in the administrative complaint; (4) L'Oreal's conduct constituted adverse employment action; (5) a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether L'Oreal's ostensibly nonretaliatory reasons for the adverse employment action were pretextual; (6) a workers' compensation exclusivity requirement did not bar Yanowitz's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress derivative of her FEHA claim; and (7) L'Oreal's intentional acts could not provide a basis for establishing negligent infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court accordingly concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of L'Oreal with regard to Yanowitz's retaliation claim and reversed the judgment, remanding the matter to the superior court to permit the retaliation claim to proceed to trial.

L'Oreal petitioned for review, contending (1) with regard to the "protected conduct" issue, that the Court of Appeal had erred in concluding that Yanowitz's acts properly could be considered protected conduct even though Yanowitz had not specifically notified any supervisor that she believed Wiswall's order was discriminatory, and (2) with regard to the "adverse employment action" issue, that the Court of Appeal had erred (a) in adopting an improper standard for evaluating whether an adverse employment action was imposed upon an employee, (b) in aggregating discrete employment actions and considering L'Oreal's conduct under a totality of the circumstances approach, and (c) in applying the continuing violation doctrine to consider adverse actions that occurred outside the statute of limitations period. Finally, L'Oreal maintained that even if the Court of Appeal properly found that Yanowitz had established a prima facie case of retaliation, that court erred in finding that she had presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether L'Oreal's ostensible nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual.

In light of the importance of a number of these issues, particularly the proper standard for determining whether an employee has been subjected to an adverse employment action, we granted review.

II.

Past California cases hold that in order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FEHA, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a "protected activity," (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer's action. (Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 803, 814-815, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 505; Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 476, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 522 [adopting *445 the title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802-805, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668].) Once an employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. (Morgan v. Regents of University of California (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 68, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 652.) If the employer produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliation "drops out of the picture," and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional retaliation. (Ibid.)

A

We first must determine whether Yanowitz's refusal to follow Wiswall's order to terminate the sales associate because he found the associate sexually unattractive was protected activity for which she could not be subjected to retaliation. The statutory language of section 12940(h) indicates that protected conduct can take many forms. Specifically, section 12940(h) makes it an unlawful employment practice "[f]or any employer . . . to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part." (Italics added.) The question here is whether Yanowitz's refusal to follow Wiswall's directive qualifies under the first category — that is, whether by refusing the directive, Yanowitz "opposed any practices forbidden under this part."

As a threshold matter, L'Oreal does not dispute that an employee's conduct may constitute protected activity for purposes of the antiretaliation provision of the FEHA not only when the employee opposes conduct that ultimately is determined to be unlawfully discriminatory under the FEHA, but also when the employee opposes conduct that the employee reasonably and in good faith believes to be discriminatory, whether or not the challenged conduct is ultimately found to violate the FEHA. It is well established that a retaliation claim may be brought by an employee who has complained of or opposed conduct that the employee reasonably believes to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the FEHA. (See, e.g., Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, ___, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 820, 115 P.3d 77, 95-96; Flait v. North American Watch Corp., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 477, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 522; Moyo v. Gomez (9th Cir.1994) 40 F.3d 982, 985; Gifford v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (9th Cir.1982) 685 F.2d 1149, 1157.)^[4]

Strong policy considerations support this rule. Employees often are legally unsophisticated and will not be in a position to make an informed judgment as to whether a particular practice or conduct actually violates the governing antidiscrimination statute. A rule that permits an employer to retaliate against an employee with impunity whenever the employee's *446 reasonable belief turns out to be incorrect would significantly deter employees from opposing conduct they believe to be discriminatory. (See, e.g., Gifford v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., supra, 685 F.2d at p. 1157; Moyo, supra, 40 F.3d at p. 985.) As the United States Supreme Court recently emphasized in the context of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), "[r]eporting incidents of discrimination is integral to Title IX enforcement and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished. Indeed, if retaliation were not prohibited, Title IX's enforcement scheme would unravel." (Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 1508, 161 L.Ed.2d 361.) By the same token, a rule that would allow retaliation against an employee for opposing conduct the employee reasonably and in good faith believed was discriminatory, whenever the conduct subsequently was found not to violate the FEHA, would significantly discourage employees from opposing incidents of discrimination, thereby undermining the fundamental purposes of the antidiscrimination statutes.

In the present case, in her opposition to L'Oreal's motion for summary judgment, Yanowitz presented evidence that she reasonably believed that Wiswall's order constituted unlawful sex discrimination, because she thought the order represented the application of a different standard for female sales associates than for male sales associates. Yanowitz stated in this regard that she had hired and supervised both male and female sales associates for a number of years, and never had been asked to fire a male sales associate because he was not sufficiently attractive. Because a trier of fact could find from this evidence that Yanowitz believed Wiswall's order was discriminatory as reflecting an instance of disparate treatment on the basis of sex, we have no occasion in this case to determine whether a gender-neutral requirement that a cosmetic sales associate be physically or sexually attractive would itself be violative of the FEHA or could reasonably be viewed by an employee as unlawfully discriminatory. Courts in other jurisdictions have uniformly held that an appearance standard that imposes more stringent appearance requirements on employees of one sex than on employees of the other sex constitutes unlawful sexual discrimination unless such differential treatment can be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification. (Frank v. United Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir.2000) 216 F.3d 845, 854-855; Gerdom v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 692 F.2d 602, 608 [in bank]; Association of Flight Attendants v. Ozark Air Lines (N.D.Ill.1979) 470 F.Supp. 1132, 1135; Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (D.D.C.1973) 366 F.Supp. 763, 790.) We believe it is clear that such unjustified disparate treatment also would constitute unlawful sex discrimination under the FEHA.

L'Oreal does not claim that such disparate treatment on the basis of sex is permissible under the FEHA, but maintains that the evidence presented at the summary judgment motion was insufficient to support a reasonable belief that Wiswall's order represented an instance of impermissible disparate treatment on the basis of sex. We disagree. Yanowitz presented evidence that Wiswall ordered her to terminate a female sales associate simply because he felt the associate was "not good looking enough," and directed her to "[g]et me someone hot." On a subsequent visit to the Macy's store, when Wiswall discovered Yanowitz had not terminated the sales associate, he pointed out a young attractive blonde woman and stated, "God damn it, get me one that looks like that." Although Yanowitz repeatedly requested *447 that Wiswall provide her with "adequate justification" for the dismissal, he failed to respond to the request. As noted, Yanowitz additionally stated that she had hired and supervised both male and female sales associates for a number of years, and never had been asked to fire a male sales associate because he was not sufficiently attractive.^[5]

Moreover, L'Oreal failed to present any evidence in the summary judgment proceedings to counter the claim that Wiswall's order constituted an instance of disparate treatment on the basis of sex. It introduced no evidence suggesting that Wiswall's order was based upon the particular sales associate's performance or sales record, or, indeed, that Wiswall had any knowledge of such matters. In addition, L'Oreal did not establish that the company maintained a general policy requiring cosmetic sales associates to be physically or sexually attractive, or that such a policy was routinely applied to both male and female sales associates.^[6]

L'Oreal additionally asserts that Yanowitz's evidence is insufficient to support a reasonable belief that Wiswall's order was discriminatory, because her belief rests solely on her own subjective experience. Inasmuch as Yanowitz had been a regional sales manager for many years and presumably was familiar with the company's job requirements for sales associates, we believe that a trier of fact properly could find that, in light of Yanowitz's experience, her assessment that Wiswall's order represented disparate treatment on the basis of the sex of the sales associate was reasonable. Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Yanowitz reasonably believed that Wiswall's order constituted sexual discrimination.

L'Oreal argues, however, that even if Yanowitz refused to follow Wiswall's order because she reasonably believed it was discriminatory, the papers before the trial court on the summary judgment motion failed to demonstrate that Yanowitz engaged in protected activity, because the materials failed to demonstrate that she ever made L'Oreal aware that her refusal to terminate the sales associate on the basis of her appearance amounted to a protest against unlawful discrimination. L'Oreal's position is that Yanowitz cannot be found to have "opposed" a practice forbidden by the FEHA, within the meaning of 12940(h), because Yanowitz never notified or advised either Wiswall or any other supervisor that she was refusing to *448 obey the order because she believed the order violated the FEHA.

By contrast, although Yanowitz acknowledges that she never explicitly stated to Wiswall that she believed his order was discriminatory, she contends that in light of the nature of the order and her repeated requests that Wiswall provide "adequate justification" for that order, there is sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could find that Wiswall knew that she had declined to follow the order because she believed it to be discriminatory, and that under such circumstances retaliation on the basis of her conduct was forbidden, even if she did not explicitly tell Wiswall, in so many words, that the order was discriminatory.

We agree with Yanowitz that when the circumstances surrounding an employee's conduct are sufficient to establish that an employer knew that an employee's refusal to comply with an order was based on the employee's reasonable belief that the order is discriminatory, an employer may not avoid the reach of the FEHA's antiretaliation provision by relying on the circumstance that the employee did not explicitly inform the employer that she believed the order was discriminatory. The relevant portion of section 12940(h) states simply that an employer may not discriminate against an employee "because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part." When an employer knows that the employee's actions rest on such a basis, the purpose of the antiretaliation provision is applicable, whether or not the employee has told her employer explicitly and directly that she believes an order is discriminatory. (See Miller v. Department of Corrections, supra, 36 Cal.4th 446, ___ _ ___, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 820-822, 115 P.3d 77, 95-98.)

Standing alone, an employee's unarticulated belief that an employer is engaging in discrimination will not suffice to establish protected conduct for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, where there is no evidence the employer knew that the employee's opposition was based upon a reasonable belief that the employer was engaging in discrimination. (See, e.g., Garcia-Paz v. Swift Textiles, Inc. (D.Kan.1995) 873 F.Supp. 547, 559-560 (Garcia-Paz) [holding that employee who champions cause of older worker is not engaged in protected activity under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, even where employee acts out of "an unarticulated belief that the employer is discriminating on the basis of age . . . unless the activity in question advances beyond advocacy and into recognizable opposition to an employment practice that the claimant reasonably believes to be unlawful"].) Although an employee need not formally file a charge in order to qualify as being engaged in protected opposing activity,^[7] such activity must oppose activity the employee reasonably believes constitutes unlawful discrimination, and complaints about personal grievances or vague or conclusory remarks that fail to put an employer on notice as to what conduct it should investigate will not suffice to establish protected conduct. (See *449 Garcia-Paz at p. 560 ["Employees often do not speak with the clarity or precision of lawyers. At the same time, however, employers need not approach every employee's comment as a riddle, puzzling over the possibility that it contains a cloaked complaint of discrimination"]; Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., (6th Cir. 1989) 879 F.2d 1304, 1313-14 [affirming district court's determination that an allegation of "ethnocism" was too vague to constitute protected opposition under Michigan's antidiscrimination statute].)

Nonetheless, we believe it is clear that "an employee is not required to use legal terms or buzzwords when opposing discrimination. The court will find opposing activity if the employee's comments, when read in their totality, oppose discrimination." (Wirtz v. Kansas Farm Bureau Services, Inc. (D.Kan.2003) 274 F.Supp.2d 1198, 1212, fn. omitted.) It is not difficult to envision circumstances in which a subordinate employee may wish to avoid directly confronting a supervisor with a charge of discrimination and the employee engages in subtler or more indirect means in order to avoid furthering or engaging in discriminatory conduct. As the court explained in Garcia-Paz, in such circumstances "the thrust of inartful, subtle, or circumspect remarks nevertheless may be perfectly clear to the employer, and [there is] no evidence that Congress intended to protect only the impudent or articulate. The relevant question . . . is not whether a formal accusation of discrimination is made but whether the employee's communications to the employer sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner." (Garcia-Paz, supra, 873 F.Supp. at p. 560.)

Thus, in the present case we must determine whether, on the record before the trial court on the motion for summary adjudication, a trier of fact properly could find that Wiswall knew that Yanowitz was objecting repeatedly to the order because she believed in good faith that it was discriminatory. As noted above, Wiswall on multiple occasions directed Yanowitz to fire a sales associate he believed was insufficiently attractive, and on one occasion pointed to an attractive blonde woman while indicating his preference for hiring a sales associate who looked like her. Yanowitz refused to implement Wiswall's directive and repeatedly asked for "adequate justification" for that order. There is no evidence in the record that Wiswall ever asked Yanowitz to explain her numerous requests for "adequate justification," and L'Oreal failed to present any evidence regarding Wiswall's understanding or knowledge of Yanowitz's reasons for refusing to follow his directive or for demanding "adequate justification" for that directive.

We conclude that, on this record, a trier of fact properly could find that Wiswall knew that Yanowitz's refusal to comply with his order to fire the sales associate was based on Yanowitz's belief that Wiswall's order constituted discrimination on the basis of sex — that is, the application of a different standard to a female employee than that applied to male employees — and that her opposition to the directive thus was not merely an unexplained insubordinate act bearing no relation to suspected discrimination. (See Nelson v. Kansas (D.Kan.2001) 2001 WL 584436 at p. *7 [fact that plaintiff used the words "unprofessional" and "disappointing" rather than "discrimination" or "sexual harassment" in incident report detailing the circumstances of a sexual joke or conversation "does not alter the fact that the incident report sufficiently conveyed plaintiff's reasonable concern that defendant engaged in sexual harassment"].) A trier of fact properly *450 could find that by repeatedly refusing to implement the directive unless Wiswall provided "adequate justification," Yanowitz sufficiently conveyed to Wiswall that she considered the order to be discriminatory and put him on notice that he should reconsider the order because of its apparent discriminatory nature.

In sum, we conclude that the evidence presented by Yanowitz would permit — although it certainly would n