Failure to Engage Interactive Process

Useful Resources for Disability Discrimination – Failure to Engage Interactive Process

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination – Failure to Engage Interactive Process

26-50 of 1233 results

SANDRA DOMINGUEZ ET AL. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, A PUBLIC AGENCY ET AL.

At issue here, the FAC pleads causes of action for Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, and Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation, all in violation of FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

RAYMOND PELOSO V. ARCIERO & SONS, INC. ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policies; (2) age discrimination; (3) harassment based on age; (4) disability discrimination; (5) harassment based on disabilities and perceived disabilities; (6) retaliation for requesting and using accommodations for disabilities; (7) failure to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine reasonable accommodation for disability; (8) failure to reasonably accommodate disabilities; (9) retaliation for

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

ENIS GONZALEZ VS BOCCHI LABORATORIES, ET AL.

The Complaint states five causes of action for: 1) disability discrimination; 2) failure to accommodate; 3) failure to engage in the interactive process; 4) failure to prevent discrimination; and 5) harassment. On September 3, 2020, Horizon filed a motion to compel arbitration. On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On October 26, 2020, Horizon filed a reply.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SUJEY TINOCO VS TERESA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts 15 causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the FEHA, (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (6) violation of Government Code § 12945 (pregnancy disability leave), (7) violation of the California

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARIA GONZALEZ VS TYSON FOODS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed September 24, 2020, 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

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELIZABETH MUNANA VS LEMUS, MEDICAL INC.

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Defendant: disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; failure to accommodate in violation of the FEHA; failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the work place in violation of the FEHA; retaliation in violation of the FEHA; wrongful termination in violation of public policy and the FEHA; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WILLIAM T. WATERS, JR. VS AT&T SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Claims to Be Arbitrated Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action: (1) FEHA employment discrimination (Gov’t Code § 12940(a)); (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(m)); (3) failure to engage in a timely and good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(n)); (4) FEHA harassment (Gov’t Code § 12940(j)); (5) FEHA retaliation (Gov’t Code § 12940(h), (m)); (6) FEHA failure to prevent/remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation (Gov’t Code § 12940(k));

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RHONDA CLARK VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Accommodations and Failure to Engage Defendant moves against the failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process claims. (See Issues nos. 19-21.) Govt. Code §12940(m) requires an employer to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with known disabilities.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

APRIL VAN DYKE VS OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Bullard’s recognition of Plaintiff’s need for counseling, combined with her request for leave, should have triggered Bullard to begin an interactive process with Plaintiff. By failing to ask Plaintiff what the Public Defender could do to accommodate her mental distress amounts to a failure to engage in the interactive process, a failure to accommodate, and a failure to provide CFRA leave.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

SHWON SASANI VS SO CAL PLUMBING HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC., ET AL.

The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the 12th cause of action. 13th cause of action for failure to engage in interactive process in violation of FEHA “An employer’s failure to engage in this process is a separate FEHA violation.” Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal. App. 4th 1185, 1193. The FEHA imposes an additional duty on the employer “to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee . . . to determine effective reasonable accommodations. . . .” Gov. Code §12490(n).

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN TOSCANO, JR VS W.A. RASIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Complaint asserts causes of action under: (1) FEHA for disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate disability; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) violation of California Family Rights Act; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (10

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TIMOTHY TWYMAN VS NHBB INC., ET AL.

As such, Defendants’ Demurrer to the fourth cause of action for failure to accommodate a disability and fifth cause of action for failure to engage in a good faith interactive process is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MAURICIO JACOBS, ET AL. VS ROYAL MOVING & STORAGE INC., ET AL.

to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA; 16) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; 17) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 18) failure to prevent disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 19) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; 20) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff Joy Slagel (Plaintiff) filed suit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (LMIC), Ariam Alemseghed, and Leann Lo, alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) age harassment; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) discrimination on the basis of taking disability leave in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation for taking disability leave in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRYCE COUNTS VS AURORA CHARTER OAK - LOS ANGELES, LLC

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) discrimination based on disability, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and (6) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate all of her claims. Plaintiff opposes.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KATHERINE BIGELOW VS WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

Nos. 23 & 24 Nos. 23 and 24 ask Defendant to identify its person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) of its policies for providing employees with a “reasonable accommodation” and engaging in the “interactive process.” Defendant objects to these interrogatories as seeking irrelevant information given Plaintiff has not alleged a cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process and Plaintiff admitted Defendant provided her all accommodations she requested. (SI-Opposition, pg. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LAROME BROWNLEE VS PUBLIC STORAGE,A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.

.; (4) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA – Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.; (5) Retaliation in Violation of the CFRA – Gov.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

    Nov 30, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 24, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 23, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 20, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 20, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 20, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 20, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 19, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 50     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.