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

76-100 of 1242 results

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

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JENNIFER ADAMS VS WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., ET AL.

Background On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed her complaint against WDPR, DWWS, TWDC, and Rona Kay (“Kay”) alleging causes of action for violations (1) employment discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA failure to engage in timely and good faith interactive process, (4) FEHA harassment, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) failure to prevent/remedy discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (8) intentional infliction

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HOUDA ASSALY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (8) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (9) retaliation for taking CFRA leave in violation of the FEHA, (10) negligent hiring, supervision and retention, (11) whistleblower retaliation, (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARGARITA Z. RAMIREZ VS WORLD OIL CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (2) intrusion into private affairs, (3) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (4) violation of CFRA rights, (5) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, and (7) wrongful constructive discharge.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WAHAB VS. YRC INC.

Plaintiff’s 5th Cause of Action for failure to engage in the interactive process. To establish his claim that Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process, Plaintiff must prove: (1) he was employed by Defendant; (2) he had a disability known to Defendant; (3) he requested a reasonable accommodation so that he could perform the essential job requirements; (4) he was willing to participate in the interactive process; (5) Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process; and (6) resulting harm.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

GEOFFREY BENTLEY VS EL MONTE LODGE NO 1097

Cause of Action #5: Failure to Engage in Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code Section 12940(n); 6. Cause of Action #6: Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of Government Code Section 12940(k); 7. Cause of Action #7: Retaliation in Violation of Government Code Section 12940(h); 8. Cause of Action #8: Wrongful Termination; 9. Cause of Action #9: Meal and Rest Break Violations; and, 10. Cause of Action #10: Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN V. STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Third Cause of Action: Defendant next moves for summary adjudication of the third cause of action for failure to engage in the good faith interactive process.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CUA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Summary adjudication of this cause of action is granted on this basis. 7th COA: Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process Paragraph 77 within this cause of action alleges: "Despite Defendants' knowledge of Plaintiff's disability and medical condition, as well as that of her brother's and Plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodations, Defendants not only failed to engage in a good faith interactive process, they terminated her employment."

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Complaint states eight causes of action for: 1) disability discrimination; 2) failure to engage in god faith interactive process; 3) failure to accommodate; 4) retaliation; 5) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or retaliation; 6) violation of the CFRA; 7) retaliation in violation of the CFRA; and 8) wrongful termination. On August 24, 2020, Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Fifth Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in Interactive Process—FEHA Given that no triable issue of fact exists regarding whether or not Plaintiff received a reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive process also necessarily fails. The motion is granted as to this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Fifth Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in Interactive Process—FEHA Given that no triable issue of fact exists regarding whether or not Plaintiff received a reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive process also necessarily fails. The motion is granted as to this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RAGAIE GOBRAN VS KEYAUD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on December 6, 2019, alleging seven 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 FEHA, (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (6) declaratory judgment, and (7) wrongful termination in violation

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LIGGINS V. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC

First Cause of Action (Violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act on the basis of Race and Disability ((Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation; Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation and Harassment)): Defendant challenges the first cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

DARLA WALTERS VS LEE AIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause, (8) breach of implied-in-fact

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SARAH MCCLAIN- FOWLER VS EASTSIDE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of 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 in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and (7) declaratory judgment. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NICOLE DOWNEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY

On June 16, 2020 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging causes of action for: · C/A 1: Discrimination based on Perceived Disability under FEHA · C/A 2: Failure to Accommodate under FEHA · C/A 3: Failure to Engage in Interactive Process under FEHA · C/A 4: Failure to Hire in Violation of Public Policy On July 17, 2020 Defendant demurred to the FAC on the grounds that all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that the fourth cause of action is not a claim upon which

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GEOFFREY GEE VS INSPERITY, ET AL.

His First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges: (1) Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; (2) Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in the interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (7) Defamation; (8) Breach of Express Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ESTER E. AGUILAR-OSTORGA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CUSTOM GOODS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) nonpayment of overtime compensation, (2) failure to provide meal breaks, (3) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to reasonable accommodate, (5) failure to engage in an interactive process, (6) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (8) violation of Government Code section 12945, (9) whistleblower protection, (10) labor retaliation, (11) sick leave retaliation, (12) wrongful discharge in violation of

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRICIA WINSTON VS UNIFY FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 13, 2020, and alleges claims for: Disability Discrimination - Mental Disability; Disability Discrimination - Physical Disability; Disability Discrimination - Medical Condition; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; Failure to Engage in Interactive Process; Retaliation Under FEHA; Retaliation Under FEHA - Requesting/Requiring a Reasonable Accommodation; Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation; Age Discrimination

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ VS NETWORK AUTO BODY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed March 12, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in interactive process; and (5) failure to permit inspection of employee records. B. Relevant Background and Motion to Strike On February 21, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to strike allegations for punitive damages in the initial complaint with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE ROSSO VS ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Further, Plaintiff’s argument about failure to offer a reasonable accommodation for disability and failure to engage in the good faith interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation cannot be used in the Opposition to raise a triable issue of material fact because Plaintiff did not plead these causes of action in the 3AC. Plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment by showing a triable issue as to an unpled theory. (Bosetti v. United States Life Ins.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HERNANDEZ VS BTL MACHINE

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts the following cause of action: (1) disability discrimination, (2) disability discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940(a), (3) failure to reasonably accommodate, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940, (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Acromil brings this motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 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.