The trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s FEHA claims for sex discrimination and harassment. On the discrimination claim, plaintiff’s evidence showed that male flight attendants were not disciplined as severely as she was for posting suggestive pictures in uniform on her social media page. Additional evidence raising a triable issue as to discrimination included the evidence supporting plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. Under the continuing violation doctrine plaintiff could rely on evidence of conduct outside the limitations period to support her claim. Her evidence included unwelcome remarks about her body and how she looked in uniform and remarks made at one meeting implying that she was a prostitute. To prove her harassment claim, plaintiff only had to show the harassing conduct sufficiently offended, humiliated, distressed, or intruded on her so that it disrupted her “emotional tranquility in the workplace” or otherwise interfered with and undermined her “personal sense of well-being.” Her evidence sufficed to do so. Summary judgment should also not have been granted on plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claim. There was evidence plaintiff orally complained to her supervisor about the discrimination and harassment. She subjectively believed her complaints valid and her belief was objectively reasonable. She didn’t have to complain in any formal manner to the employer. Some of her complaints were made shortly before she was fired allowing an inference of retaliation. And her evidence of discrimination and harassment raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the employer’s non-retaliatory business reason for her termination was pretextual.