Failure to Engage Interactive Process

Useful Rulings on Disability Discrimination – Failure to Engage Interactive Process

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination – Failure to Engage Interactive Process

ERIKA COLMENARES VS LAS PALMITAS FRESH FRUIT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff Erika Colmenares commenced this action against Defendants Las Palmitas Fresh Fruit Inc. and Don Luis aka Luis Gil for (1) sexual harassment/hostile work environment; (2) discrimination based upon sex/gender; (3) discrimination based upon disability; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) retaliation; (7) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOANNE SOSSMAN VS ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORP, A CORPORATE ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

Code § 12940(m); (4) Failure to Engage in Interactive Process in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(n); (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(k); (6) Retaliation in Violation of Gov. Code §12940; (7) Failure to Provide Complete Access to Employee Personnel File and Payroll Records in Violation of Labor Code §§ 226, 432, 1198.5; (8) Wrongful Termination and (9) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KIARA JONES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Kiara Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) alleging seven causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”): (1) discrimination; (2) failure to prevent discrimination; (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process; (4) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (5) retaliation; (6) harassment; and (7) failure to prevent harassment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YADIRA VELASQUEZ VS NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

.; (6) failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) declaratory judgment; (9) negligent supervision and retention; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (11) retaliation for disclosing violations of law (Labor Code §§ 1102.5, 1102.6). On September 10, 2020, Defendants Northgate Gonzalez Markets, Inc. and Jose Garcia (“Defendants”) filed the instant motion to compel arbitration.

  • 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

YADIRA VELASQUEZ VS NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

.; (6) failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) declaratory judgment; (9) negligent supervision and retention; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (11) retaliation for disclosing violations of law (Labor Code §§ 1102.5, 1102.6). On September 10, 2020, Defendants Northgate Gonzalez Markets, Inc. and Jose Garcia (“Defendants”) filed the instant motion to compel arbitration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARY CRUZ CRESPO VS NORA FLORES, ET AL.

., Employers HR, LLC, and Nora Flores for (1) employment discrimination on the basis of actual and perceived disability and medical condition; (2) harassment on the basis of actual and perceived disability; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) retaliation for exercising rights under FEHA; (6) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) declaratory relief; and (9) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARC BUENTIEMPO V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Third cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process. Defendants request the Court summarily adjudicate one discrete issue regarding Plaintiff’s third cause of action. Defendants argue Plaintiff’s third cause of action fails as a matter of law because the CDCR actively engaged with Plaintiff until his service retirement. The interactive process is fluid and ongoing, and not satisfied by a single attempt by the employer.

  • Hearing

AVERY SCHWARTZ VS DIGNITY HEALTH

The court ORDERS Plaintiff to clarify, in any future pleading, whether the second cause of action is a claim for discrimination under Government Code section 12940(a), a claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation under subdivision (m), or a claim for failure to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process under subdivision (n). E.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.

Sixth Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Defendants demur to the sixth cause of action on the grounds that the Complaint states facts showing they engaged in the interactive process. Under FEHA, employers must make reasonable accommodations for applicants’ and employees’ known disabilities so that they can perform a position’s essential functions, unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer's operations. (Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JACQUELINE LEE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, A CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

.; (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(k); and (7) declaratory judgment. Defendant filed a demurrer to the seventh cause of action in the complaint. MEET AND CONFER The meet and confer requirement has been met. DISCUSSION The function of a demurrer is to assess the sufficiency of a complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault and battery, (2) discrimination in violation of the UCRA and FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA and Civil Code section 51.9, (4) violation of the Ralph Act, (5) interference with the exercise of civil rights in violation of the Bane Act, (6) gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (9) failure to engage in the interactive

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAWN SUERMANN VS EMERALD HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

procedural history Suermann filed the Complaint on March 11, 2020, alleging eight causes of action: FEHA discrimination FEHA retaliation Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation Failure to provide reasonable accommodations Failure to engage in a good faith interactive process Retaliation in violation of Gov. Code § 12945.2 Declaratory judgment Wrongful termination in violation of public policy Emerald filed an Answer on May 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CARI R ANDREWS VS CASEY STEWART, ET AL.

On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Essilor, Stewart, Deatrich and Does 1-10 for: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Violation of Government Code § 12940; Discrimination Based on Medical Condition and Disability Violation of Government Code § 12940; Retaliation Violation of Government Code § 12940; Failure to Accommodate Violation of Government Code § 12940; Failure to Engage in Interactive Process Violation of Government

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process (Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq) CA/7: for Declaratory Relief LAUSD hired Plaintiff in November 2014 as a building and grounds worker to clean classrooms, restrooms, and perform facility repairs.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CARLOS OCHOA VS EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING COMPANY DBA SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Claims Plaintiff’s claims in this action are for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Retaliation; (3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment And Retaliation; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations; (5) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (8) Declaratory Judgment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHARLES SMITH VS SMART72, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (7) waiting time penalties, and (8) failure to produce personnel and payroll records.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KORGAN PHD VS UNIVERSITY OF SAINT KATHERINE

Merits of Demurrer (Seventh Cause of Action – Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process and/or Provide Reasonable Accommodations) Plaintiff claims that he needed reasonable accommodations while seeing a licensed clinical psychologist due to the emotional distress created by the work environment in which he found himself. Plaintiff alleges he requested accommodations for a temporary period, and, in response, was stripped of his roles and put on full medical leave.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KORGAN PHD VS UNIVERSITY OF SAINT KATHERINE

Merits of Demurrer (Seventh Cause of Action – Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process and/or Provide Reasonable Accommodations) Plaintiff claims that he needed reasonable accommodations while seeing a licensed clinical psychologist due to the emotional distress created by the work environment in which he found himself. Plaintiff alleges he requested accommodations for a temporary period, and, in response, was stripped of his roles and put on full medical leave.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GARY GIBBS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

As to failure to engage in the interactive process, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing what reasonable accommodation should have been available, but wasn’t. As to retaliation, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that he opposed any practice forbidden by the FEHA, or specific facts to show how he was subjected to any particular adverse employment action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID J. TAVITA VS COROVAN CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint states eight causes of action for: 1) wrongful termination; 2) retaliation; 3) disability discrimination; 4) failure to prevent discrimination; 5) hostile work environment; 6) failure to accommodate; 7) failure to engage in the good faith interactive process; and 8) unfair competition. On September 24, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration. On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On October 29, 2020, Defendants filed a reply.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DESIREE PRIETO VS ADAM DEBERRY, ET AL.

CODE § 12945 (5) ACTUAL/PERCEIVED DISABILITY HARASSMENT [FEHA] (6) ACTUAL/PERCEIVED DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION [FEHA] (7) ACTUAL/PERCEIVED DISABILITY RETALIATION [FEHA] (8) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS [FEHA] (9) FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE [FEHA] 10) VIOLATION OF THE CAL FAMILY RIGHTS ACT, GOV.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERIC BUCHS VS BOOT BARN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Boot Barn) and Valerie Goerin, alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (6) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; (7) retaliation in violation of Govt.

  • 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 48     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.