California Family Rights Act (CFRA) in California

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges causes of action against TE and two of its managers for (1) discrimination, (2) harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent harassment, (5) failure to accommodate disability, (6) failure to engage in interactive process, (7) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (8) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act, (9) wrongful termination, and (10) failure to pay wages due.

There are no facts alleging that plaintiff was eligible for leave under the California Family Rights Act [CFRA]; that she requested or used time off for CFRA leave; or that moving defendant 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 complaint also fails to allege causation and/or discriminatory motive.

Fourth COA (Interference, Discrimination & Retaliation in Violation of the California Family Rights Act): Government Code section 12960(d) provides that a complaint must be filed with the DFEH within one year of the alleged unlawful action. Government Code section 12965(b) provides that a civil action for violation of FEHA must be filed within one year of the right to sue notice.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct discrimination

Case No. 21SMCV00703 Hearing Date June 21, 2023 TJB Gearys Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award Plaintiff Chelico sued his former employer, TJB Gearys, LLC, for harassment, discrimination, wrongful termination and violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). This court granted Gearys motion to compel arbitration, and the matter proceeded before an AAA arbitrator. The arbitrator issued a final award denying Chelicos claims.

The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) covers employers who directly employ five or more persons to perform services for a salary or wage and the state, and any political or civil subdivision of the state and cities. (Gov. Code., sec. 12945.2(b)(3).) Unlike the FMLA, there is no individual liability for retaliation for taking leave under the CFRA. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 287 [affirming summary adjudication in favor of supervisor of CFRA retaliation claim].)

Fourth Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of California Family Rights Act 9 CFRA) (Government Code § 1294.2(l)(1). The California Family Rights Act provides that an employee can take 12 workweeks of leave in a 12-month "leave year" for a combinations of reasons, including an employee's own serious health condition. Government Code § 12945.2(a), (c)(3). While the leave is unpaid, the employee has a right to return to his/her position, such that this is considered a "job security" statute.

Plaintiff alleges four causes of action in the second amended complaint (“SAC”) including: (1) retaliation for frequent use of leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”); (2) retaliation under Gov. Code §12940(h); (3) failure to prevent retaliation under Gov. Code §12940(k) and (4) interference with leave under the California Family Rights Act under Gov. Code §12945.2.

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for (1) sex discrimination and (2) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"). The motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for sex discrimination is denied. In analyzing an employee's claim for unlawful discrimination, California applies the three-stage burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792.

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for (1) sex discrimination and (2) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"). The motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for sex discrimination is denied. In analyzing an employee's claim for unlawful discrimination, California applies the three-stage burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792.

Discriminatory Termination/Interference in Violation of California Family Rights Act, California Government Code § 12945.2; 8. Retaliation for Exercising the Right to CFRA Leave Under Government Code § 12945.2; 9. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Based Upon CFRA 10. Retaliation for Exercising the Right to CFRA Leave Under Government Code § 12945.2; 11.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct discrimination

Plaintiff alleges four causes of action in the second amended complaint (“SAC”) including: (1) retaliation for frequent use of leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”); (2) retaliation under Gov. Code §12940(h); (3) failure to prevent retaliation under Gov. Code §12940(k) and (4) interference with leave under the California Family Rights Act under Gov. Code §12945.2.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct discrimination

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), retaliation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to maintain records, failure to provide personnel records, failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, and violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200. On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed this demurrer.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct discrimination

Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action is for alleged violation of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”). CFRA is a part of FEHA and provides “protections to employees needing family leave or medical leave.” Gibbs v. American Airlines (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1, 6.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct discrimination

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint arising from her alleged wrongful termination, alleging causes of action against Defendants for: (1) violation of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”); (2) violation of the CFRA—interference with exercise of family leave rights; (3) violation of the CFRA—retaliation; (4) disability discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (5) failure to accommodate; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process; (7) retaliation in violation

Plaintiff also claims retaliation for his prior use of California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) leave. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) harassment; (2) discrimination; (3) retaliation; (4) California Family Rights Act violation; and (5) failure to maintain free of discrimination/harassment. DISCUSSION A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch.

First Cause of Action for Violation of California Family Rights Act: “[T]he elements of a cause of action for retaliation in violation of CFRA under the circumstances of this case are as follows: (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

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA – Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA – retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) based on her disability. On February 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed her complaint containing eight causes of action. Defendant demurs to the entire complaint on the following grounds: No.

Family Rights Act (CFRA) Violation of Rights (denied leave to care for her disabilities).

Plaintiff asserted causes of action which essentially fell into two categories -- those related to alleged disability discrimination under FEHA and those which related to violations of the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"). At the center of his allegations was that defendant had ended plaintiff's thirty-plus year employment for reasons having to do with an actual or perceived disability. Defendant denied knowing of the disability.

The Regents move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for harassment, failed to sufficiently allege retaliation, failed to state a cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate, failed to state a cause of action for disability discrimination and failed to state a cause of action for a violation of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”).

Family Rights Act (CFRA); and (8) CFRA Leave Retaliation.

Second Cause of Action: FMLA/Paternity Leave Discrimination Defendant demurs on grounds that FEHA does not provide a cause of action for discrimination for requesting paternity leave under the FMLA, and Plaintiff has not asserted a cause of action under the California Family Rights Act or the California Parent Leave Act.

Defendant's demurrer addressed to the sixth (California Family Rights Act (CFRA) retaliation) and seventh cause of action (CFRA violation for FMLA interference) on the ground the claims are barred by the statute of limitations is overruled. The demurrer to the eighth cause of action (failure to engage in the interactive process) on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies is overruled. This case was filed on January 7, 2010.

Defendant The Regents of the University of California's motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining cause of action for retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act is denied. The Regents satisfied its summary judgment burden by showing that it had a legitimate reason for terminating Ms. Young's employment. The Regents (through Ms. Figert, Ms. Lopez, and others) concluded that Ms. Young violated the Regents' workplace violence policy by threatening Ms. Lopez on November 4, 2018.

As to the first cause of action for a violation of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), Gov’t Code Section 12945.2, Plaintiff has alleged both a failure to allow a CFRA leave and retaliation for taking a CFRA leave. FAILURE TO ALLOW A CFRA LEAVE There is no evidence that Plaintiff ever specifically requested, or was denied, a CFRA leave by Chevron. It is well-settled that the employer does not have any duty to “read an employee’s mind” about his need for a leave.

Family Rights Act (CFRA); (11) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (13) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause; and (14) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Background On May 24, 2019, Joann Kishi (Plaintiff) filed an action against the City of Los Angeles ( Defendant ) alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) arising out of her employment with Defendant.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct discrimination

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) religious discrimination, (2) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), (3) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for religious discrimination is denied.

Family Rights Act (CFRA); and (8) wrongful termination.

Family Rights Act (CFRA), and need for leave under the CFRA and/or taking and/or requesting medical leave, and for opposing practices prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (e.g., reporting discrimination and harassment she experienced to management).

(“GFS”) and Gateway Security, Inc. dba Gateway Group One (“GS”), and her manager, Annie An (“An”), discriminated against her and retaliated against her for taking leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

On 7/15/2022, Plaintiff Ruth Sandoval (Plaintiff) filed suit against Adrianas Insurance Services, alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (6) violation of California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (7) declaratory judgment; (8) wrongful termination; (9) denial of and discrimination based upon the use of sick leave; (10) failure to pay wages; (11) failure

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on 7/14/21, alleging 1) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 2) violation of California Family Rights Act, Gov. Code § 12945.2 (“CFRA”); and 3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant now demurs to each cause of action for failure to state sufficient facts. Plaintiff opposes contending that sufficient facts have been stated.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on 7/14/21, alleging 1) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 2) violation of California Family Rights Act, Gov. Code § 12945.2 (“CFRA”); and 3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant now demurs to each cause of action for failure to state sufficient facts. Plaintiff opposes contending that sufficient facts have been stated.

Plaintiff was told that Foster did not “like people on California Family Rights Act.” SAC ¶ 54. These allegations are sufficient at the pleading state to plead that plaintiff asserted her right to a protected activity under the FEHA (reasonable accommodation post-amendment) and that defendants imposed adverse employment actions (false warnings) as a result. Eleventh COA: Denial of Family Care Leave: OVRRULED.

Family Rights Act (CFRA), Gov’t Code § 12945.2 (defendants Tyco), 8) violation of the CFRA - retaliation, Gov’t Code § 12945 (defendants Tyco), 8 (second eighth cause of action) wrongful termination in violation f public policy (defendants Tyco), 9) failure to pay wages due (defendants Tyco).

Violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) - Retaliation 6. Interference with Plaintiffs CFRA Leave Rights 7. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on the public policies embodied in the CFRA, FEHA, and in the California stay-at-home order. Plaintiff worked for Defendant for 20 years as Manager Integration Architect & Applications in the IT department. Plaintiffs son has a disability that puts him at high risk for COVID.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to participate in the interactive process; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation; (6) harassment; (7) violations of California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”); (8) discrimination on the basis of taking protected CFRA leave; (9) retaliation for taking protected CFRA leave; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (11) wrongful

Factual ¿ ¿¿ On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff Kristina Seals (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50 for the following causes of action: (1) Discrimination on the Basis of Race; (2) Harassment on the Basis of Race; (3) Retaliation for opposing Discrimination and Harassment on the Basis of Race; (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation; (5) Violation of the California Family Rights Act; (6) Interference with Exercise of CFRA Rights; (7

The defendant PCM argues that the plaintiff’s complaint and each cause of action pled is barred as a matter of law, because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he was denied leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), that his termination was motivated by taking such leave, or that PCM did not reasonably accommodate his disability.

Specifically, under both the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California Family Rights Act (CFRA), an employee is entitled to leave for a "serious health condition" that renders her unable to perform her job. (See 29 USC § 2611(11); Gov.Code § 12945.2(c)(3)(C).) "ADA's 'disability' and FMLA's 'serious health condition' are different concepts, and must be analyzed separately." (29 C.F.R. § 825.702(b); Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (2008) 43 Cal.4th 201, 216.

Revai filed her complaint on January 19, 2016, alleging seven causes of action for: (1) sex discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) disability discrimination – failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process; (4) disability discrimination – failure to accommodate; (5) California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) interference; (6) CFRA retaliation; (7) pregnancy disability interference.

Family Rights Act (CFRA), and need for leave under the CFRA and/or taking and/or requesting medical leave, and for opposing practices prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (e.g., reporting discrimination and harassment she experienced to management).

Plaintiff also alleges Defendant violated his rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) [i]n or around November 2018, when he says he was entitled to a 12-week statutory leave because he had worked for Defendant for over one year and worked over 1,250 hours during the prior 12 months. (FAC ¶¶ 28, 111-12).

On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) discrimination—race, (2) discrimination—national origin, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, and (5) retaliation under the California Family Rights Act. Request for Judicial Notice Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is granted.

(“GFS”) and Gateway Security, Inc. dba Gateway Group One (“GSI”), and her manager, Annie An (“An”), discriminated against her and retaliated against her for taking leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Plaintiff commenced this action on February 8, 2018.

The FAC filed on January 25, 2023 asserts the following causes of action against Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office: (1) Age Discrimination in Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; and (3) Retaliation in Violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

On March 7, 2023, Salinas filed a complaint against Goulds Pumps, Ardoin, Kevin Harris, and Does 1-25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) failure to accommodate, (2) failure to engage in an interactive process, (3) retaliation for whistleblowing, (4) disability discrimination, (5) retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), (6) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), (7) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA,

With respect to the proposed new cause of action, Defendant argues that plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) because the facts upon which it is based were not asserted in her DFEH claim. Defendant also argues that the allegations are insufficient to state a claim. Ordinarily, the court does not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature.

He has also specifically alleged that he is an employer under various provisions of the Government Code and also for the purposes of the California Family Rights Act. Plaintiff has adequately pled that Zibaali is an employer.

The motion for summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action for retaliation based on use of California Family Rights Act (CFRA) (California Government Code § 12945.2 is granted. Defendant has established a complete defense to this cause of action (i.e., that plaintiff did not exercise her right to take leave) and plaintiff has failed to present admissible evidence establishing that either she was qualified to take CFRA leave or that she was deprived of CFRA leave.

Similarly, the Court overrules the demurrer to the fourth cause of action under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Per CFRA, employees may take up to twelve weeks of unpaid medical leave for a serious medical condition per year. (Gov. Code, § 12945.2, subd. (a).)

From the facts alleged in the body of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff attempted to state causes of action on the legal theories that Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated either in direct violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Act or in violation of public Page 1 of 3 policy articulated by these Acts, that Defendant engaged in harassment prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Defendant published

From the facts alleged in the body of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff attempted to state causes of action on the legal theories that Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated either in direct violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Act or in violation of public Page 1 of 3 policy articulated by these Acts, that Defendant engaged in harassment prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Defendant published

From the facts alleged in the body of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff attempted to state causes of action on the legal theories that Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated either in direct violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Act or in violation of public Page 1 of 3 policy articulated by these Acts, that Defendant engaged in harassment prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Defendant published

From the facts alleged in the body of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff attempted to state causes of action on the legal theories that Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated either in direct violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Act or in violation of public Page 1 of 3 policy articulated by these Acts, that Defendant engaged in harassment prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Defendant published

From the facts alleged in the body of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff attempted to state causes of action on the legal theories that Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated either in direct violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Act or in violation of public Page 1 of 3 policy articulated by these Acts, that Defendant engaged in harassment prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Defendant published

From the facts alleged in the body of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff attempted to state causes of action on the legal theories that Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated either in direct violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Act or in violation of public Page 1 of 3 policy articulated by these Acts, that Defendant engaged in harassment prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Defendant published

From the facts alleged in the body of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff attempted to state causes of action on the legal theories that Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated either in direct violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Act or in violation of public Page 1 of 3 policy articulated by these Acts, that Defendant engaged in harassment prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Defendant published

Violation and Interference as to CFRA Rights: In her first and second causes of action, Plaintiff alleges (1) Defendant violated and (2) interfered with her rights under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), respectively.

Furthermore, a pamphlet was given to all new hires (DFEH-188), which describes the employees rights under California Family Rights Act, along with a Sexual Harassment pamphlet (DFEH-185). (FAC ¶ 35.) CCM submits for judicial notice its 2023 Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State and a screenshot of the Secretary of States websites entry for CCM, entity no. 2095404, indicating that CCM is a religious nonprofit organization.

Discussion First Cause of Action – Violation of California Family Rights Act “The CFRA is contained within the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), which is intended to give employees an opportunity to leave work for certain medical reasons without jeopardizing job security.” (Rogers v. Cty. of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 480, 487.)

Family Rights Act and for defamation

Family Rights Act and for defamation

In order to proceed on this theory, Plaintiff must prove that she was entitled to leave under the California Family Rights Act (the CFRA), meaning that she had a serious health condition. That term is defined as the following: [A]n illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either of the following: (1) Inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility; [or] (2) Continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider. (Gov.

California Family Rights Act The California Family Rights Act makes it unlawful for a “covered employer” to refuse to grant a request by an “eligible employee’ to take up to 12 workweeks in any 12-month period for family care and medical leave. (Gov. Code §12945.2) A violation of the CFRA simply requires that the employer deny the employee’s entitlement to CRFA. (Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 864, 879.)

Defendants demurrer to only to four of the twelve causes of action of the First Amended Complaint, all of which are brought under FEHA: the second cause of action, for pregnancy harassment; the fifth cause of action, for physical disability harassment; the seventh cause of action, for violation of the California Family Rights Act; and ninth cause of action, for sex harassment. As a preliminary matter, the moving papers do satisfy the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 5 causes of action for: (1) mental disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods and (5) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Defendants file their Answer to the Complaint on July 12, 2017.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 6 causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) failure to accommodate physical disability in violation of the FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) interference under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

Family Rights Act (“CFRA”); (8) retaliation in violation of the CFRA; (9) failure to pay all wages in violation of the Labor Code; (10) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; (11) failure to pay wages due at the time of discharge in violation of the Labor Code and (12) violation of Business & Professions Code, § 17200 (the “UCL,” Unfair Competition Law).

Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action: Violation of the California Family Rights Act and California Family Rights Act Retaliation Defendants argue that the ninth and tenth causes of action fail because “the Complaint is devoid of any allegations even suggesting that Plaintiff sought, took, or was approved for medical leave pursuant to CFRA [California Family Rights Act].” (Demurrer p.20:21-23.)

The Motion requests leave to file a first amended complaint (the FAC) that includes a tenth cause of action for violations of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Defendants objections to the Declaration of Michael A. Levy (Levy Decl.) are OVERRULED in their entirety. DISCUSSION California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice.

Plaintiff ’ s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act ( “ FEHA ” ), (2) failure to accommodate, (3) failure to engage in interactive process, (4) harassment in violation of FEHA based on disability and medical condition, (5) harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) interference in violation of California Family Rights Act ( “ CFRA ” ), (8) retaliation in violation of CFRA/FMLA/PDL/Public Policy, (9)

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to accommodate, (3) failure to engage in interactive process, (4) harassment in violation of FEHA based on disability and medical condition, (5) harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) interference in violation of California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), (8) retaliation in violation of CFRA/FMLA/PDL/Public Policy, (9) failure to

GRANTED as to Plaintiff’ fifth cause of action for violation of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and sixth cause of action for retaliation in violation of the CFRA, as Plaintiff concedes she lacked the hours to be eligible for any leave under the CFRA. See, Gov’t Code § 12945.2(a).

The allegations in support of Plaintiffs eight cause of action state that Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in violation of fundamental public policies embodied in FEHA, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), the California Labor Code (CLC) 1102.5 (retaliation), and other California labor codes.

Plaintiffs counsel asked the Court to reconsider its decision to grant summary adjudication of the sixth cause of action, retaliation, to the extent the claim is predicated upon the California Family Rights Act, as well as the related claim for punitive damages. Defendants counsel asked the Court to reconsider its decision to deny summary adjudication of the second cause of action, for retaliation under FEHA, as well as the related third and eighth causes of action.

On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Labor Code, the Unfair Competition Law, and common law claims. On July 7, 2021, Defendants filed this demurrer to the first nine causes of action and motion to strike.

On 7/15/2022, Plaintiff Ruth Sandoval (Plaintiff) filed suit against Adrianas Insurance Services, alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (6) violation of California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (7) declaratory judgment; (8) wrongful termination; (9) denial of and discrimination based upon the use of sick leave; (10) failure to pay wages; (11) failure

.); Eighth Cause of Action (Discrimination in Violation of California Family Rights Act (CFRA); Ninth Cause of Action (Retaliation in Violation of California Family Rights Act (CFRA); Tenth Cause of Action (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) and Fourteenth Cause of Action (Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practices in Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq.).

Family Rights Act (CFRA); and (8) wrongful termination.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges six causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) failure to Accommodate Physical Disability in violation of the FEHA; (3) failure to engage in the good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) interference under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

The Second Cause of Action for Interference with California Family Rights Act, California Government Code Section 12945.2 and Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601 Et Sequitur FTB's arguments aimed at the second cause of action are the same ones aimed at the first cause of action. The court having rejected those arguments previously, the demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

Whether Education Code Section 45192, Subdivision (g) Precludes Plaintiffs Claim for Retaliation Under California Family Rights Act (CFRA) Defendant contends Plaintiffs claim for retaliation under CFRA fails given Defendants application of Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g). However, the court has already denied Defendants motion for summary adjudication of this cause of action. (November 19, 2021, Minute Order, pp. 7-8.)

The elements of a cause of action for retaliation in violation of [California Family Rights Act] 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]. ( Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc.