What is the California Family Rights Act (CFRA)?

Useful Rulings on California Family Rights Act (CFRA)

Recent Rulings on California Family Rights Act (CFRA)

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

FMLA “provides protections to employees needing family or medical leave similar to those provided by CFRA.” Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1237, 1254 n.8. It requires actions to be filed no later than two years after the date of the last event “constituting the alleged violation for which the action is brought.” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KATHERINE BIGELOW VS WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

However, the Court agrees the interrogatory, as written, is overbroad and notes Plaintiff’s assertion in her moving papers that she has offered to limit the scope of the request to lawsuits alleging disability and race discrimination, failure to accommodate, interference with CFRA/FMLA leave, retaliation for complaining about race and/or disability-based discrimination and/or wrongful termination based on disability, race, or taking a protected leave. (Employment FI-Motion, pgs. 6-7.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, ancestry, national origin (includes language restrictions), color, disability (physical or mental), age (40 and over), other, association with a member of a protected class and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, reprimanded, asked impermissible nonjob-related questions, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, ancestry, national origin (includes language restrictions), color, disability (physical or mental), age (40 and over), other, association with a member of a protected class and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, reprimanded, asked impermissible nonjob-related questions, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

Defendant demurred to the complaint, which was overruled on all grounds, except the unopposed 4th cause of action for CFRA retaliation, which was sustained without leave to amend, as agreed at the June 25, 2020 hearing. The court also struck the word “mistaken” from Plaintiff’s complaint at ¶ 26, page 6, line 23.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WEI VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

("CFRA"); 5) perceived and/or sex/gender harassment in violation FEHA; 6) perceived and/or sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; 7) perceived and/or sex/gender retaliation in violation of FEHA; 8) retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of FEHA; and 9) declaratory relief. The District demurs to each of the first eight causes of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GARY GIBBS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

[CFRA]: Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that his claimed injuries to his thumb and shoulder are “serious health conditions”; that he was eligible for, or attempted to exercise a request for CFRA leave.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DESIREE PRIETO VS ADAM DEBERRY, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT (Gov. Code §§ 12945 et seq.) FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW: GRANTED. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Tenth Cause of Action fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff never requested or took leave for her own serious health condition during her employment with Defendants.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA GONZALEZ VS TYSON FOODS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) disability harassment, (3)perceived disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to reasonably accommodate, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (7) age discrimination, (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (9) intentional infliction

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Mansour argues that the taking of medical leave is protected under the California Family Rights Act (CRFA) and under Government Code section 12945.2, subdivision (l) (i.e., FEHA.) But as correctly noted by Defendants, Mansour is alleging a retaliation claim pursuant to Labor Code section 98.6, not CRFA or FEHA. Mansour does not point to any Labor Code section that protects an employee’s right to take medical leave. Defendants next argue that Mansour was not subjected to an adverse employment action.

  • Hearing

HOUDA ASSALY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

violation of the FEHA, (3) hostile work environment harassment on the basis of age in violation of the FEHA, (4) hostile work environment harassment on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, (5) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (7) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (8) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (9) retaliation for taking CFRA

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARGARITA Z. RAMIREZ VS WORLD OIL CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (2) intrusion into private affairs, (3) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (4) violation of CFRA rights, (5) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, and (7) wrongful constructive discharge.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WAHAB VS. YRC INC.

Plaintiff’s 4th Cause of Action for CFRA violation. Defendants move for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s CFRA claim on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff cannot prove he was denied leave; and (2) Plaintiff cannot prove Defendants interfered with his leave. In order to prove his CFRA claim, Plaintiff must prove: (1) he was employed by Defendant; (2) he exercised his right to take CFRA leave; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of the exercise of that right. Dudley v.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Complaint states eight causes of action for: 1) disability discrimination; 2) failure to engage in god faith interactive process; 3) failure to accommodate; 4) retaliation; 5) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or retaliation; 6) violation of the CFRA; 7) retaliation in violation of the CFRA; and 8) wrongful termination. On August 24, 2020, Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

  • Hearing

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Based on this diagnosis, the defendant granted the plaintiff a stress-related disability leave of absence under CFRA and FMLA. (Id.) When the plaintiff returned to work, she received a negative performance evaluation from her supervisor who, according to the plaintiff, singled the plaintiff out for negative treatment, treated her poorly compared to other coworkers, gave her a disproportionate share of work, inaccurately accused her of misconduct, and yelled at her. (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Based on this diagnosis, the defendant granted the plaintiff a stress-related disability leave of absence under CFRA and FMLA. (Id.) When the plaintiff returned to work, she received a negative performance evaluation from her supervisor who, according to the plaintiff, singled the plaintiff out for negative treatment, treated her poorly compared to other coworkers, gave her a disproportionate share of work, inaccurately accused her of misconduct, and yelled at her. (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MORENO VS FLEETWOOD HOMES INC

Cavco does not address whether it violated the CFRA, which Plaintiff alleges in the SAC. The pleadings determine the scope of relevant issues on a summary judgment motion. (Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 74.) Fleetwood’s failure to show that the “material facts” are undisputed is fatal to the motion. (CCP § 437c(b)(1).)

  • Hearing

DARLA WALTERS VS LEE AIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause, (8) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause, (9) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (11) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (13) violation of the CFRA

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GEOFFREY GEE VS INSPERITY, ET AL.

Leave; (16) Interference with CFRA Leave.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARIA GONZALEZ VS TYSON FOODS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) disability harassment, (3)perceived disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to reasonably accommodate, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (7) age discrimination, (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (9) intentional infliction

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRICIA WINSTON VS UNIFY FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, ET AL.

; Violation of the CFRA; Harassment Under FEHA; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE ROSSO VS ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Issue No. 6: “For an order of summary adjudication pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1) as to Rosso’s fifth cause of action for retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of the California Family Rights Act Government Code §§ 12945.2 et seq. [CFRA] because she cannot establish at least one element of that cause of action and cannot establish a triable issue of fact.” Issue No. 6 erroneously states that the fifth cause of action is for retaliation in violation of the CFRA, Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARTIN TOSCANO, JR VS W.A. RASIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Complaint asserts causes of action under: (1) FEHA for disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate disability; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) violation of California Family Rights Act; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (10

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DEVENIA ZIMMERMAN VS GOODWILL, SERVING THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

Claims To Be Arbitrated Plaintiff alleges fourteen causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate/engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (3) association based discrimination; (4) interference with CFRA rights and retaliation for taking/requesting CFRA leave in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation for requesting accommodation/opposing practices forbidden by the FEHA; (6) hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (7) failure to

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL BOYD VS CLARE FOUNDATION, INC.. ET AL.,

Eighth Cause of Action for Retaliation in Violation of the CFRA Plaintiff’s claim is based solely on allegations that defendants wrongfully terminated him for exercising his right to take medical leave. 4AC at ¶¶205, 209. The court determined on March 13, 2020 that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence the termination was pretextual or retaliatory. See 3/13/2020 minute order, pg. 4. Plaintiff provided no new evidence showing his termination was retaliatory. GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.