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

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Second Cause of Action: Violation of Government Code section 12940 (Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, and Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation) “[T]he [Fair Employment and Housing Act] FEHA provides that no complaint for any violation of its provisions may be filed with the Department ‘after the expiration of one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred,’ with an exception for delayed discovery” or for continuing violations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

The operative Complaint, filed April 7, 2019, sets forth claims against Everport for 1) interference with right to leave under CFRA; 2) actual/perceived disability discrimination (FEHA); 3) failure to engage in interactive process (FEHA); 4) failure to grant reasonable accommodations (FEHA); 5) retaliation (FEHA); and 6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 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

Issue 6: Associational Sex Discrimination under the FEHAFEHA provides a cause of action for associational disability discrimination, although it is a seldom-litigated cause of action.” (Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1036 (Castro).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 2. Age Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 3. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (Gov. Code § 12940(m)) 4. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHELLE VEGA VS KIPP LA SCHOOLS

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION To establish a discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must prove the following elements: “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Dinslage v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID BRONSON VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION [Gov. Code § 12940(a)]; 2. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY [Gov. Code § 12940(m)]; 3. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PENNINGTON VS SURFSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL APC

Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 7, 2020, alleging the following causes of action against her former employer: (1) wrongful termination, (2) disability discrimination, (3) violation of Bus. & Prof. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL

Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to his FEHA age discrimination claim, and Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to the second cause of action is granted. 2. Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case for disability discrimination?

  • 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

First Cause of Action – Disability Discrimination To establish a discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must prove the following elements: “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Dinslage 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

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

JEANETTE FRANCE VS LOS ANGELES DEPT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL

Plaintiff sued for disability discrimination, failure to provide accommodation, to prevent discrimination, and for retaliation. On December 20, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and defendant now brings this motion requesting $22,750.00 in attorneys’ fees and $24,902.59 in costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON ROJAS VS COUNTRYWOOD PARK HOMES

First Cause of Action – Disability Discrimination To establish a discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must prove the following elements: “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Dinslage v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

First Cause of Action – Disability Discrimination To establish a discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must prove the following elements: “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Dinslage v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MAYRA I JONES VS LAW OFFICES OF ALFONSO MORALES

Demurrer Disability Discrimination The elements of a cause of action for disability discrimination under FEHA are that plaintiff: “(1) suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability. [Citation.]” (Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Sixth Cause of Action – Retaliation for Complaining of Disability Discrimination and/or Harassment FEHA makes it unlawful for the employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because he or she has “opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).)

  • 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

LIN VS. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC

Issue No. 7: The Seventh Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination failed, because he cannot prove association disability discrimination and retaliation. (UMF 46). DENIED. “’Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), prohibits an employer from failing ‘to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

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

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Lyneer Staffing Solutions LLC, Employers HR LLC, Capacity West LLC, Juan Hilario, Jonathan Silva, Yvonne Canseco, and Does 1 to 100 alleging claims for: (1) sexual assault and battery; (2) sexual harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) disability harassment in violation of the FEHA; (4) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KRISTINE SALAZAR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

As to disability discrimination, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not pled any disability. To state a claim for disability and/or medical condition discrimination under FEHA, a plaintiff must allege he or she “(1) suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability.” (Sandell v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROSEMARIE BERNAL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

Similarly, “a prima facie case of disability discrimination under FEHA requires the employee to show he or she (1) suffered from a disability, (2) was otherwise qualified to do his or her job, and (3) was subjected to adverse employment action because of the disability. (Citation.)” (Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 359, 378; italics added.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 1, 2019, alleging 15 causes of action: Disability discrimination Gender discrimination Disability harassment Failure to prevent, investigate, and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation Failure to accommodate disability Failure to engage in the interactive process Violation of CFRA Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing acts forbidden by FEHA Retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA Wrongful termination in violation

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ADRIANA RUBALCABA VS ALEXANDRA GLICKMAN, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 1, 2019, alleging 15 causes of action: Disability discrimination Gender discrimination Disability harassment Failure to prevent, investigate, and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation Failure to accommodate disability Failure to engage in the interactive process Violation of CFRA Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing acts forbidden by FEHA Retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA Wrongful termination in violation

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIBEL PINEDA BONILLA ET AL VS GLIDER ONE LLC ET AL

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 1, 2019, alleging 15 causes of action: Disability discrimination Gender discrimination Disability harassment Failure to prevent, investigate, and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation Failure to accommodate disability Failure to engage in the interactive process Violation of CFRA Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing acts forbidden by FEHA Retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA Wrongful termination in violation

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 34     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.