What is disability discrimination?

Useful Rulings on Disability Discrimination

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination

ALAMEDA SQUARE OWNER LLC VS THE LOS ANGELES WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, LLC

Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (Serrano IV).) The Court in Serrano IV also stated that fees associated with preparing the motion to recover attorneys’ fees are recoverable. (See id. at p. 624.) Alameda argues that LAWPM’s requested rates are not reasonable because they are seeking attorneys’ fees higher than those actually incurred. (Oppo. at p. 5.) As the Court stated in Syers Properties III, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GEORGE SANTOPIETRO VS JAMES HARDEN, ET AL.

Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (Serrano IV).) The Court in Serrano IV also stated that fees associated with preparing the motion to recover attorneys’ fees are recoverable. (See id. at p. 624.) The court is mindful that, in assessing fees appropriate to a prevailing party on an anti-SLAPP motion, “[t]he defendant may recover fees and costs only for the motion to strike, not the entire litigation.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

In LA Metro, Plaintiff sued MTA because he experienced a series of homophobic and other slurs while riding a bus and sought civil penalties under the Unruh Act. (LA Metro, 123 Cal.App.4th at 265.) The Court of Appeal found that because the legislative history of the Unruh Act demonstrated that it was not solely punitive, then Plaintiff’s recovery of penalties under the Unruh Act was not barred by Government Code section 818. (Id. at 271-275.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MOORE V. GATES

Defendants submit deposition testimony from Thuy Vi, Christina Kelemen, Sandra Frakes, and Carlina Thomas, all of whom consistently testified that Gates targeted and harassed the older Plaintiffs. 3rd cause of action for disability discrimination (Field against City) To establish disability discrimination under the FEHA, Field must demonstrate, inter alia, that he suffered adverse employment actions substantially motivated by his disability.

  • Hearing

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

Exhaustion of administrative remedies The 3rd cause of action for FMLA violations and 4th cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of the ADA are also barred because plaintiff did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies under FEHA or the ADA.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AIDA OGANESIAN, ET AL. VS CAH-2014-1 BORROWER, LLC, ET AL.

(a), Failure to Engage in Interactive Process; and (10) Violation of Civil Code § 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act. PRESENTATION: Defendants filed all three motions on October 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to all motions on November 06, 2020, and Defendants filed replies to all motions on November 12, 2020. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants move for an order compelling Oganesian, Garegin, and Narine to appear for depositions within ten days of the instant hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MARY CRUZ CRESPO VS NORA FLORES, ET AL.

Plaintiff maintains that “the information sought by these requests is critical to identifying possible witnesses and potential victims of the same ‘pattern and practice’ of disability discrimination as well as retaliation – claims alleged by Plaintiff in this case.” (Id. at p. 9:20-22.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LIU V. FAN, ET AL.

Pioneer Box & Lumber Co. (1930) 105 Cal.App. 760, 769 (stating that “[p]revention of performance by the promisee is equivalent to performance by the promisor”); see also Unruh v. Smith (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 431, 437 (stating same); see also Rains v. Arnett (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 337, 347 (stating “[a] person cannot take advantage of his own act or omission to escape liability”).)

  • Hearing

RAMON MCNEAL VS RAYMOND L. JENKINS, AN INDIVIDUAL

Specifically, if a civil action alleging physical inaccessibility from non-compliance with technical standards is brought against a public accommodation pursuant to the Unruh Act or the Disabled Persons Act, the attorney filing the complaint must notify the defendant of possible eligibility for a stay and an early evaluation conference upon service of the summons. (Civ. Code § 55.54(a).) A small business may be eligible for a stay and an early evaluation conference.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARC BUENTIEMPO V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

discrimination.

  • Hearing

AVERY SCHWARTZ VS DIGNITY HEALTH

Although the second cause of action is identified as a claim for disability discrimination, it appears to be a claim for failure to accommodate or engage in the interactive process. See TAC ¶¶ 57-66. Government Code section 12940(m) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an employee.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BEDFORD, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

[2] The complaint contained a second cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act pursuant to Civil Code section 51, et seq. The trial court sustained the demurrer to that cause of action, and the appellate court affirmed. (Id. at p. 741.) The appellate court’s discussion is omitted as it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

  • Hearing

REBECCA CASTILLO VS TASTEA HOLDINGS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq. On November 6, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for November 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ED HULL VS RAYMOND E. NEVEAU, AN INDIVIDUAL

Neveau for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges Defendant owns a business called “Class Auto,” and the premises of the business has impermissible barriers that preclude persons with disabilities, including Plaintiff, from accessing the business. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 6/29/20. Defendant filed an answer on 8/05/20.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JANE JG DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Tenth Cause of Action: Sexual Harassment The Unruh Act provides that all persons are entitled “to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” “no matter what their sex . . .” or other characteristics. (Civ. Code § 51 subd. (b).) Under the Unruh Act, anyone who “denies, aids, or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction” contrary to the Unruh Act is liable for damages. (Civ. Code § 51 subd.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GERALD CORN VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

.), 2nd (PAR Panel violation of California Constitution Art. 1 §3), 3rd (disability discrimination), 4th (violation of Cal. Ed. Code §44031), 5th (breach of LAUSD/UTLA contract), 6th (intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”)), 7th (Cal. Ed. Code §§44660-44664 as a bill of attainder), 8th (Cal. Ed. Code §§44938 and 44932 are bills of attainder), and 9th (denial of Weingarten rights) causes of action in the second amended petition (“SAC”) of Plaintiff/Petitioner Gerald Corn (“Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AJA STEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS IHS GLOBAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (5) retaliation under FEHA, (6) wrongful termination, (7) failure to provide personnel files, and (8) failure to provide payroll files. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GRADY THOMAS VS LEIDOS, INC., ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint sets forth 16 causes of action as follows: (1) sex harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") (Lei, QTC, Smith) ; (2) race, color, ancestry harassment under the FEHA (Leidos, QTC, Smith); (3) race, color, ancestry, sex, and disability discrimination under the FEHA (Leidos, QTC); (4) retaliation under the FEHA (Leidos, QTC); (5) failure to accommodate under the FEHA (Leidos, QTC); (6) failure to engage in the interactive process under the FEHA (Leidos,

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VENTOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GARBIS CHRIKJIAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CIGAR COMPANY

Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.) In the instant matter, there is no dispute Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Rather, the parties dispute whether the clause in the lease allows for attorney fees in the instant matter. In the alternative, Defendant disputes the amount of fees requested. The court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees.

  • Hearing

JULIO MARTINEZ VS ELIGIO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Based on the attorney fees provision in the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the statute under which this action was brought, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees for his successful appeal. (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REA VS MALLIET

This is a wrongful termination, disability discrimination claim. As alleged, plaintiff worked for defendants as the Director of Marketing and COO. She was allegedly fired after reporting what she believed to be sexual impropriety by a manager (directed at a third-party) during a work function. Before the Court this day is an unopposed motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff herein is Barbara Rea (hereinafter “plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

VEGA VS. MANOR CARE

Prayer ¶ 7, asserting injunctive relief under Unruh Civil Rights Act), under Health & Safety Code § 1430(b), plaintiff is also alleging a right to attorneys' fees and costs if she proves Manor Care committed the regulatory violations plaintiff alleges other than understaffing and misrepresentations regarding the quality of care.

  • Hearing

TOLARA GROSS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against defendant Education Management Systems (“Defendant”) alleging causes of action for (1) Fraudulent Inducement; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Disability Discrimination; (4) Libel Per Se; (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Unpaid Wage Claim. On August 6, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STAMATIS STAMATOPOULOS VS ALEX YAMINI, ET AL.

Defendants argue, and Plaintiff does not contest, that his status as a long-term tenant of a rent-stabilized apartment is not a protected characteristic under the Unruh Act. Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish that his age was the substantial motivating reason for the alleged disparate treatment. The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to Unruh Act claims. (Mackey v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640, 661.)

  • Hearing

ESTHERN BAHK VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Unruh (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 621, 635). ¿A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether. ¿(Id.)

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 138     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.