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

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

Third and Fourth Causes of Action: Failure to provide reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in interactive process Govt. Code §12940(m) makes it unlawful for “an employer . . . to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known . . . disability of an . . . employee.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CELIA ALEGRIA VS IN-N-OUT BURGERS ET AL

.; (6) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (8) declaratory judgment. On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action and all parties in the action. Dismissal was entered with prejudice on May 29, 2019. On January 22, 2020, Defendant filed a petition to confirm contractual arbitration award.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

OSCAR RUIZ VS PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff Oscar Ruiz (Plaintiff) filed suit against Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, KBS Staffing, Newhall Temporary Staffing Services, LLC dba Pirate Staffing #110, and Champion Windows alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination 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) declaratory judgment; (8) failure to

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIEL SANCHEZ VS R & B SANCHEZ DBA MCDONALD'S STORE NO. 10920, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY

To prevail on a claim under section 12940, subdivision (n) for failure to engage in the interactive process, an employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred." (Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 986,1018-1019.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

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. Code § 12940(k)) 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.) A Case Management Conference is set for September 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SARAH THOMAS VS WILLIAM DUNCAN ET AL

engage in a good faith interactive process; and (9) wrongful (constructive) termination.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DAVID BRONSON VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

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. FAILURE TO FURNISH A COPY OF PERSONNEL RECORDS [Labor Code § 1198.5]; 9. RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHT UNDER CFRA [Gov. Code § 12945.2]; [and] 10.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PENNINGTON VS SURFSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL APC

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. Plaintiff also named one Jesse Jennings (Jennings) as a defendant in this case, alleging that he was the "employer, manager, corporate agent, [and] supervisor" of Plaintiff with full decision-making authority regarding her employment.

  • 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 failure to engage in the interactive process? LAUSD contends it is entitled to summary adjudication as to the fifth cause of action for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process.

  • 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

Fourth Cause of Action – Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Defendants argue that there is no “stand-alone” claim for failure to engage int eh interactive process, where the employee is not a qualified individual. (Motion at p. 17.) However, as addressed in sections B and D, above, Defendants have not established that Salazar was not a qualified individual because a person is qualified if they can perform the duties of the position with a reasonable accommodation. (Jensen v.

  • 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

LEYLA ARENAS VS SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

In her Complaint, Arenas asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) failure to prevent discrimination, (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (6) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (7) harassment in violation of FEHA, and (8) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA. SMC now demurs to each of the causes of action in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DANIEL MENCHACA VS REULAND ELECTRIC CO.

The complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process under FEHA; and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON ROJAS VS COUNTRYWOOD PARK HOMES

Fourth Cause of Action – Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Defendants argue that there is no “stand-alone” claim for failure to engage int eh interactive process, where the employee is not a qualified individual. (Motion at p. 17.) However, as addressed in sections B and D, above, Defendants have not established that Salazar was not a qualified individual because a person is qualified if they can perform the duties of the position with a reasonable accommodation. (Jensen v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

Fourth Cause of Action – Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Defendants argue that there is no “stand-alone” claim for failure to engage int eh interactive process, where the employee is not a qualified individual. (Motion at p. 17.) However, as addressed in sections B and D, above, Defendants have not established that Salazar was not a qualified individual because a person is qualified if they can perform the duties of the position with a reasonable accommodation. (Jensen v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YARELI ADAN VS BELLA + CANVAS, LLC, ET AL.

C/A 6: Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process (Gov’t Code §§12940, et seq.) C/A 7: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy In 2010, BARONHR hired Plaintiff as a full-time employee. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff began working on-site for BELLA. Both Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against her due to her pregnancy, disability, and requests for medical leave.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

Additionally, Defendants state that because these paragraphs allege failure to engage in the interactive process or failure to provide reasonable accommodation, which were not part of the second amended complaint, they should be stricken.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MITRA RASHTI VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

This is sufficient to allege failure to engage in the interactive process in good faith. Seventh cause of action The seventh cause of action is for retaliation. County argues Plaintiff did not allege facts showing she was subjected to any adverse employment action, i.e., one requiring a material change in the terms of her employment or impaired her employment because her claims are “trivial and petty.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

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

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS; TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS FEHA prohibits an employer from failing to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical and mental disability of an employee. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m).)

  • 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

GABRIEL GONZALES VS. WALMART INC.

Gonzales individually: disability discrimination failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliatory termination. These claims may have value, but there is no discussion of them in the moving papers. Of course, there is no requirement that the settlement of those claims be approved by the Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

LIN VS. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC

Although Plaintiff did not specifically file an administrative claim for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, his administrative claim was for discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Therefore, there is a factual dispute whether Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process was inherently related to the claims listed in Plaintiff’s administrative claim. Issue No. 4: The Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of Govt.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

HESPER NATALE, ET AL V. SKY RIVER, INC., ET AL

Natale’s TAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: 1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Polices; 2) Retaliation; 3) Disparate Treatment; 4) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; 5) Failure to Engage in Interactive Process; 6) Hostile Work Environment Harassment (Entity Defendant); 7) Hostile Work Environment Harassment (Individual Defendant); 8) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment; 9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 10) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS EMPLOYERS HR, LLC, ET AL.

to engage in the interactive process.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 40     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.