What is the California Family Rights Act (CFRA)?

Useful Rulings on California Family Rights Act (CFRA)

Recent Rulings on California Family Rights Act (CFRA)

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

CFRA Interference Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for interference with his right to medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”). The CFRA provides that eligible employees may take up to twelve weeks of leave in a 12-month period to care for, among other things, an employee’s own “serious health condition.” (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2, subd (a), (c).) An employee has a cause of action when an employer interferes with, restrains, or denies an employee’s exercise of this right.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHELLE VEGA VS KIPP LA SCHOOLS

The elements of a CFRA violation claim are ““(1) the defendant was an employer covered by CFRA; (2) the plaintiff was an employee eligible to take CFRA leave; (3) the plaintiff exercised her right to take leave for a qualifying CFRA purpose; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, fine, or suspension, because of her exercise of her right to CFRA leave.” (Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 864, 885.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID BRONSON VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHT UNDER CFRA [Gov. Code § 12945.2]; [and] 10. LIBEL.” Defendants Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc. seek to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement as to which Plaintiff did not opt-out and which encompasses the Complaint’s claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LYDIA LIM VS ADP TOTAL SOURCE INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Violation of California Family Rights Act; Discrimination (Associational) in Violation of FEHA; Gender Discrimination; Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Breach of Written Contract; Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract; and Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

procedural history Reid filed the original Complaint on November 16, 2018, alleging 13 causes of action: Violation of FEHA Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of FEHA Retaliation for Taking CFRA Leave in Violation of FEHA Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 Breach of Express Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment Without Good Cause Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Not to Terminate Employment Without Good Cause Violation of

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CANDICE OREJEL VS EARLY STRIDES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER LLC

On 1/26/18 Orejel filed a complaint against Early Strides alleging eight causes of action: C/A 1: FEHA Disability Discrimination C/A 2: Failure to Accommodate C/A 3: Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process C/A 4: FEHA Retaliation C/A 5: Failure to Prevent Discrimination or Retaliation C/A 6: Interference with CFRA C/A 7: CFRA Retaliation C/A 8: Wrongful Discharge On 11/25/19 Early Strides filed the present motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LIN VS. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC

Plaintiff must show that he exercised his right to take leave for a qualifying CFRA purpose. Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 604. Gov. Code, § 12945.2 (h) requires that “If the employee's need for a leave pursuant to this section is foreseeable, the employee shall provide the employer with reasonable advance notice of the need for the leave.” In this case, Plaintiff failed to request his available family leave.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ROSEMARIE BERNAL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

Complaint/Allegations On 11/5/18 Plaintiff Rosemarie Bernal filed this action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) against Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”) alleging: · C/A 1: discrimination under FEHA · C/A 2: retaliation under FEHA · C/A 3: failure to participate in interactive process under FEHA · C/A 4: failure to provide reasonable accommodation under FEHA · C/A 5: failure to prevent discrimination and harassment under FEHA

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUXURY DINING GROUP LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS MICHAEL FORSYTH

Family Rights Act, and 15) violation of Lab.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 1, 2019, alleging 15 causes of action: Disability discrimination Gender discrimination Disability harassment Failure to prevent, investigate, and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation Failure to accommodate disability Failure to engage in the interactive process Violation of CFRA Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing acts forbidden by FEHA Retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA Wrongful termination in violation

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ROBERT LIPKIN VS JOSE GUZMAN

Family Rights Act, and 15) violation of Lab.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARIBEL PINEDA BONILLA ET AL VS GLIDER ONE LLC ET AL

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 1, 2019, alleging 15 causes of action: Disability discrimination Gender discrimination Disability harassment Failure to prevent, investigate, and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation Failure to accommodate disability Failure to engage in the interactive process Violation of CFRA Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing acts forbidden by FEHA Retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA Wrongful termination in violation

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADRIANA RUBALCABA VS ALEXANDRA GLICKMAN, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 1, 2019, alleging 15 causes of action: Disability discrimination Gender discrimination Disability harassment Failure to prevent, investigate, and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation Failure to accommodate disability Failure to engage in the interactive process Violation of CFRA Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing acts forbidden by FEHA Retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA Wrongful termination in violation

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FRED DAILEY VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

Fourth Cause of Action—Retaliation in Violation of CFRA The elements of a cause of action for retaliation in violation of CFRA are: “(1) the defendant was an employer covered by CFRA; (2) the plaintiff was an employee eligible to take CFRA leave; (3) the plaintiff exercised [his or] her right to take leave for a qualifying CFRA purpose; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, fine, or suspension, because of [his or] her exercise of [his or] her right to CFRA leave.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

REGINALD BROWN VS VANTAGE ACCEPTANCE, INC.

Family Rights Act, all as amended, and any other local, state or federal anti-discrimination or employment statute), and any other employment laws, except only claims which may not, by statute, be arbitrated.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VRIELING VS. VETERINARY MEDICAL AND SURGICAL GROUP

There are no facts alleging that plaintiff requested or used time off for CFRA leave, or that defendants interfered with or refused to grant plaintiff CFRA leave or any other CFRA rights. Further, because plaintiff does not allege that she requested or used time off under the CFRA, the FAC also fails to allege causation and/or discriminatory motive. All of the foregoing are required under both the fifth and sixth causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DARCY MAUPIN VS. CONTRA COSTA

Causes of Action 1, 2, 4, and 6 Plaintiff sued for violation of California Family Rights Act (cause of action 1), disparate treatment under FEHA (cause of action 2), retaliation under FEHA (cause of action 4) and disability discrimination under FEHA (cause of action 6). All these claims are based on Plaintiff’s claim that she was demoted when she was moved to the EMS Captain position. (FAC ¶25.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

KATHLEEN O’BRIEN V. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, ET AL.

Requests 23 through 27 ask for civil complaints against Defendants related to FMLA/CFRA leave (23 and 26), wrongful termination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy and Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaints related to disability discrimination or retaliation in the last ten years. These requests for “me too” evidence are overbroad as applied to this case, but Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff’s right to relevant “me too” evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

ANTHONY COPPOLA, M.D. ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Also, the court finds that Defendant CDCR has established that the basis for permissive joinder no longer exists with the exception of Plaintiff’s third COA for claimed retaliation for taking CFRA leave (CCP 378,379.5). The court also finds severing Defendant Coppola’s claim is “in furtherance of convenience” and will “avoid prejudice” (CCP 1048(b).

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

VEGA VS. YAPSTONE

. § 2612) and CFRA (Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2(a)(3) are inapplicable here. Sibling relationships do not qualify for leave under these statutes. After Plaintiff notified Yapstone that she would be out indefinitely, Yapstone set a return date. (UMF Nos. 8 and 9.) Due to business needs, Yapstone could no longer hold her position open. Defendant maintains Plaintiff’s departure left Yapstone short-staffed in the Online Risk Fraud Department where Plaintiff worked. (UMF No. 3.)

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2020

KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY

On January 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint for (1) sex/gender/marital status discrimination, (2) hostile work environment harassment because of sex/gender, (3) quid pro quo sex/gender harassment, (4) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA and requesting accommodation, (5) sexual assault and battery, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy contained in FEHA, (7) disability discrimination, (8) interference with CFRA rights and retaliation for taking CFRA leave in

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DEWAYNE CASSEL V. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.

Google initially denied his request for protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and only approved his leave after he signed a release allowing Google and others to access all of his medical information. (Id. at ¶ 84.) Plaintiff contends that this violates the FMLA, CFRA, the California constitution, and other laws. (Id. at ¶¶ 85-87.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

GLORIA GUZMAN VS HOOMAN ENTERPRISES INC

Code § 12945.2 (CFRA); (5) medical leave discrimination, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12945.2 (CFRA); (6) failure to pay wages due upon termination, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 202-203 ; (7) failure to pay wages due upon termination- vacation pay, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 202-203, 218, 227.3; (8) discrimination based on age, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12940(a); (9) retaliation for opposing violations of FEHA, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12900, et seq., Govt.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EDMOUND DAVOUDIAN VS KEYVAL, INC.

process Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace Retaliation Wrongful termination Failure to produce personnel file and employment records Retaliation in violation of CFRA Failure to provide meal periods and rest periods or compensation in lieu Knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions Failure to timely pay wages due at termination Keyval filed the present Petition to Compel Arbitration on November 22, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LOPEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The court summarily adjudicates the VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT ("CFRA") [Gov. Code §12495.1] cause of action in favor of Defendant The Regents of the University of California and against Plaintiff. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CFRA [Gov. Code §12945.2(l)] The same burden shifting analysis discussed above applies to Plaintiff's CFRA retaliation cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.