What is disability discrimination?

Useful Rulings on Disability Discrimination

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Second Cause of Action: Violation of Government Code section 12940 (Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, and Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation) “[T]he [Fair Employment and Housing Act] FEHA provides that no complaint for any violation of its provisions may be filed with the Department ‘after the expiration of one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred,’ with an exception for delayed discovery” or for continuing violations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

Second Cause of Action: Disability Discrimination California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of a disability. (Govt. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 2. Age Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 3. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (Gov. Code § 12940(m)) 4. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov. Code § 12940(n)) 5. Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) 6. Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination and Retaliation (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Based on these allegations, Petitioners have asserted nine separate claims for relief, alleging: violations of the due process clauses of the California and United States Constitutions (claims 1 and 2); disability discrimination in violation of the Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Government Code section 11135 (claims 3, 4, and 5); a Bane Act claim (claim 6); “Violation of Mandatory Duty” (claim 7); violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (claim 8); entitlement to a writ of mandate pursuant

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

STEVEN YEARWOOD VS NCWC DEALER SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff believes that this termination violated numerous laws including FEHA and the Unruh Act. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.) B. Course of Proceedings On February 10, 2020, the Court sustained USDS’s and Fox’s demurrer to the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court concluded that the Complaint was fatally uncertain and precluded USDS and Fox from effectively filing Answers. Discussion Defendants USDS and Fox (hereinafter, Defendants) demur to the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SCOTT DUNCOMBE VS BARFRESH FOOD GROUP INC

Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639.) While “a fee request ordinarily should be documented in great detail,” the absence of time records and billing statements did not deprive the court of “substantial evidence” to support an award when the attorney provided a declaration under the penalty of perjury which described the work and permitted the trial court to make its own evaluation of the reasonableness of the work done in light of the nature of the case and on the credibility of counsel’s declaration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JEMAL WILLIAMS VS HOOSHANG RADNIA AS TRUSTEE OF THE HOOSHANG RADNIA FAMILY TRUST, ET AL.

ANALYSIS: On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Jemal Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Hooshang Radnia as Trustee of the Hooshang Radnia Family Trust and United RTM Incorporated (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Following Defendants’ failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered Defendants’ default on August 22, 2018. On September 27, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ROSA CISNEROS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A

Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635, fn. 21.) “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford, supra, at p. 396.) Here, Cisneros’s counsel has attached billing statements to the instant motion detailing the nature of the work performed. (Mikhov Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) GM argues that counsel’s hourly rates are inflated.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JANE BETTS VS PAULA KANE

(1) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: (1) and (2) Defendant Paula Kane RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) and (2) Plaintiff Jane Betts STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that she was fired from her position as Defendant’s legal assistant, after over 25 years, based on age, gender, and disability/perceived disability discrimination, and that she suffered retaliation, harassment including sexual harassment, and various Labor

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHELLE VEGA VS KIPP LA SCHOOLS

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION To establish a discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must prove the following elements: “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Dinslage v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID BRONSON VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION [Gov. Code § 12940(a)]; 2. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY [Gov. Code § 12940(m)]; 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS [Gov. Code § 12940(n)]; 4. RETALIATION FOR REQUESTING ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940(m)]; 5. HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY [Gov. Code §12940(j)]; 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, & HARASSMENT [Gov. Code §12940(k)]; 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 8.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PENNINGTON VS SURFSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL APC

Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 7, 2020, alleging the following causes of action against her former employer: (1) wrongful termination, (2) disability discrimination, (3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations (Gov't Code 12940), (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process (Gov't Code §§ 12940, et seq.), and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL

Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case for disability discrimination? LAUSD contends Plaintiff could not perform essential functions on the job nor was Plaintiff subjected to adverse employment and, as such, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

In Opposition, Salazar argues that her claim for disability discrimination was based on the fact that she was not given reasonable accommodations (with light duty assignment) although “male officers, during the same time as Plaintiff’s restrictions, were provided with light-duty assignments, despite those male officers being injured outside of the GDP workplace.” (UMF 59; Opp. at pp. 13-14.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DONATO SERRANO VS CROWN ENERGY SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

.: 19STCV19954 Hearing Date: July 8, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s further respOnses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set one Background On June 7, 2019, plaintiff Donato Serrano (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Crown Energy Services, Inc. alleging causes of action for (1) Disability and Perceived Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEANETTE FRANCE VS LOS ANGELES DEPT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL

Plaintiff sued for disability discrimination, failure to provide accommodation, to prevent discrimination, and for retaliation. On December 20, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and defendant now brings this motion requesting $22,750.00 in attorneys’ fees and $24,902.59 in costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIEL MENCHACA VS REULAND ELECTRIC CO.

DISCUSSION Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA A prima facie case of disability discrimination requires: (1) plaintiff suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) plaintiff could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations; and (3) plaintiff was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability. (Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON ROJAS VS COUNTRYWOOD PARK HOMES

In Opposition, Salazar argues that her claim for disability discrimination was based on the fact that she was not given reasonable accommodations (with light duty assignment) although “male officers, during the same time as Plaintiff’s restrictions, were provided with light-duty assignments, despite those male officers being injured outside of the GDP workplace.” (UMF 59; Opp. at pp. 13-14.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ERIC TANDY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

Code §§ 1812.10, 2984.4.[2]) Plaintiff cannot seriously dispute that these venue provisions in the Unruh Act and Rees-Levering Act do not apply to corporate defendants. Because the Legislature amended CCP section 395(b) to serve the same function as these other consumer protection laws, CCP section 395(b) must also apply to consumer transaction actions brought by a consumer plaintiff against corporate defendants. In sum, CCP section 395(b) is the governing venue statute in this action. B.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

In Opposition, Salazar argues that her claim for disability discrimination was based on the fact that she was not given reasonable accommodations (with light duty assignment) although “male officers, during the same time as Plaintiff’s restrictions, were provided with light-duty assignments, despite those male officers being injured outside of the GDP workplace.” (UMF 59; Opp. at pp. 13-14.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MAYRA I JONES VS LAW OFFICES OF ALFONSO MORALES

Demurrer Disability Discrimination The elements of a cause of action for disability discrimination under FEHA are that plaintiff: “(1) suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability. [Citation.]” (Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HA C. LU VS. LAURIE VAALA-OLSEN

Discussion To the extent Plaintiff is seeking damages for negligence, intentional tort, and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, he is required to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. “The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof based not only on tort liability, but on any claim for ‘money or damages.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

Plaintiff Delia Perdue’s Claims of Disability MMLB and DayZ move to strike paragraphs 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 83, 84, 98, 99, 113 and 114 of the TAC, which allege that Delia Perdue became physically disabled during her time working at the park on the grounds that these paragraphs allege irrelevant information as neither the Second Amended Complaint nor the Third Amended Complaint includes any cause of action for disability discrimination, failure to engage in an interactive process, or failure to provide a reasonable

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Sixth Cause of Action – Retaliation for Complaining of Disability Discrimination and/or Harassment FEHA makes it unlawful for the employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because he or she 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.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).)

  • 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 120     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.