What is Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA?

Useful Rulings on Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

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

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

MARC BUENTIEMPO V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff has failed to prove the predicate cause of action for disability discrimination. Inasmuch as the Court has concluded that it will deny Defendants’ motion to summarily adjudicate the disability discrimination cause of action, it will also deny the motion to summarily adjudicate the failure to prevent discrimination cause of action. Conclusion. The motion for summary judgment is denied.

  • 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

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

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

WEI VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

("FEHA"); 2) perceived and/or mental disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; 3) perceived and/or mental disability retaliation in violation of FEHA; 4) violation of California Government Code §§12945.2 et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

GARY GIBBS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Further, as to disability discrimination, he fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he was a qualified individual with a disability under the FEHA, and specific fact to show that he suffered any particular adverse employment action. As to failure to accommodate, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to show that he was a qualified individual with a disability, or what accommodation was requested but not provided.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHENSON VS CITY OF RICHMOND

California case law recognizes claims under FEHA for associational harassment. (See, e.g., Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028 [associational disability discrimination]; Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860 (“Thompson”) [associational harassment based on race].) A.

  • Hearing

DESIREE PRIETO VS ADAM DEBERRY, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.) FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW: DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

JASON ROSENBAUM VS MUFG UNION BANK NA

Issue No. 3: “The Second Cause of Action for disability discrimination fails because plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination as there is no causal connection between Plaintiff’s alleged disability and any adverse employment action. (UMFs 1- 27.)” Based upon the ruling on Issue No. 4 below, the Court deems Issue No. 3 to be MOOT. 4.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDDIE PRICE VS MILLION AIR NORTH, INC., ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination; (2) disability harassment; (3) race discrimination; (4) racial harassment; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (6) failure to correct and remedy unlawful discrimination and harassment; (7) violation of the whistleblowing law; (8) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity; (9) family and medical leave discrimination and retaliation; (10) retaliation for complaints of

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDDIE WASHINGTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

“Permanence” is “understood to mean ‘than an employer’s statements and actions make clear to a reasonable employee that any further efforts at informal conciliation to obtain reasonable accommodation or end harassment will be futile.’ ” (Id. at 1059 fn. 5 (discussing disability discrimination).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GEOFFREY BENTLEY VS EL MONTE LODGE NO 1097

FEHA Discrimination (First through Seventh Causes of Action) Defendant’s demurrer to the first seven causes of action concern the Fair Employment and Employment Act (“FEHA”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CUA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The Court utilizes a shifting burden standard that is identical to the burdens applied for a claim of direct disability discrimination. Id. at 656.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE GUADALUPE RAMOS VS ICO BUILDERS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts that the Settlement resolves his individual disability discrimination claims under the FEHA, wage and hour claims, and his PAGA Representative claim. (Decl. of Geshgian ¶9.) The Settlement defines an “Aggrieved Employee” as any individual employed by Defendant as a non-exempt Sales Associate, or similar position, paid on a commission basis and worked one or more shifts of more than four hours in length from November 2019, 2017 to present. (Settlement, pg. 2.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PAULA JUSZCZYK VS NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE, ET AL.

The FAC alleges twelve causes of action for: (1) Hostile Work Environment Harassment (Conduct Directed at Plaintiff by an Individual); (2) Hostile Work Environment Harassment (Conduct Directed at Plaintiff by an Employer); (3) Gender Discrimination (FEHA); (4) Disability Discrimination (FEHA); (5) Retaliation (Violation of the FEHA); (6) Retaliation (Violation of the Lab.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PEDRO FERNANDEZ VS THE LATIGO KID

BACKGROUND On March 26, 2020, Pedro Fernandez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against The Latigo Kid (Defendant) and Does 1 through 25, alleging claims for: (1) disability discrimination; (2) disability harassment; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) wage/hour – failure to pay wages; (6) wage/hour – failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (7) wage/hour – failure to provide overtime wages; (8) wage/hour – failure to provide accurate wage statements; (9) wage/hour

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 39     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.