Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA in California

Ruffin asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA race discrimination, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) FEHA failure to accommodate, (7) FEHA failure to prevent, (8) whistleblower retaliation, and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff moves to consolidate this action with Elizabeth Handy v.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION / REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION — DEMURRER FOR UNCERTAINTY Frontiers argues that Holmes’s SAC should be dismissed for uncertainty because it impermissibly combines a disability discrimination claim and a reasonable accommodation claim into one cause of action. (Demurrer at p. 1–2.) It is true that a reasonable accommodation claim is legally distinct from a disability discrimination claim.

This is sufficient to allege that she is a “qualified individual” under the FEHA. MFE also argues that the Complaint fails to properly allege causation. Causation between the adverse employment action and the disability is a necessary element in a FEHA disability discrimination claim.

As such, Plaintiff stated adequate facts to sufficiently state a cause of action for disability discrimination.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 12/05/17 against defendant for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination based on sex/gender in violation of FEHA; and (6) retaliation in violation of FEHA.

Her claims of disability discrimination based upon a workrelated injury were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the WCAB. [City of Moorpark at 1154-1155,; see also Fretland v.

Reproductive Health Decision-Making Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Govt Code 12940, et seq.) 2. Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.) 3. Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.) 4. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.) 5. Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.) 6.

FEHA does provide a cause of action for associational disability discrimination, though it is a “seldom-litigated cause of action.” ( Castro-Ramirez, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1036 .)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) CFRA violation, (3) CFRA interference, (4) FEHA disability discrimination, (5) FEHA failure to accommodate, (6) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (7) FEHA failure to prevent, (8) FEHA retaliation, and (9) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On 8/18/16, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1st cause of action Disability Discrimination, Harassment, Retailiation - FEHA: SUSTAIN with leave to amend to allege facts showing conduct by Jones outside that necessary for job performance. 2nd cause of action Violation of CA Family Rights Act [CFRA]: SUSTAIN without leave Jones is not Plaintiff's employer. See Government Code 19245.2(c)(2). 3rd cause of action Disability Discrimination: SUSTAIN without leave to amend.

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to Plaintiff’ first cause of action for disability discrimination for failure to accommodate, second cause of action for disability discrimination for failure to engage in the interactive process, third cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, fourth cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, seventh cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA, and eighth cause of action

Rather, the issues involve violation of FEHA and breach of contract. Chapman presented no authority that doctrine of “judicial nonintervention into the academic affairs of schools” applies to an alleged violation of FEHA and breach of contract. The court has analyzed in four categories this motion is four categories. (I.) Disability Discrimination, (II.) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation, (III.) Breach of Contract and (IV.) Punitive Damages.

It further explained that the “common law tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of FEHA’s policy against disability discrimination ... is not ... subject to the procedural requirements or limitations affecting only the availability and nature of nonexclusive remedies under FEHA.” Id. at 1383. An unfair business practices claim is governed by a four-year statute of limitations. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) pregnancy discrimination; (2) failure to prevent pregnancy discrimination; (3) disability discrimination; (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination; (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (6) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (7) retaliation; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (9) misclassification as independent contractor.

This is an employment action filed on December 7, 2016; Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) violation of FEHA—disability discrimination, (2) violation of FEHA—retaliation, (3) violation of FEHA—failure to prevent, (4) violation of FEHA—failure to accommodate, (5) violation of FEHA—failure to engage in timely good faith, interactive process, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. On June 19, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination under FEHA, the Second Cause of Action for Failure to Accommodate in violation of FEHA, and the Third Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in an interactive process is OVERRULED. As a general rule, subject to limitations concerning damages, an action by a successor in interest can be brought alleging violation of a statutory duty owed to a decedent.

However, because plaintiff has adequately alleged causes of action for disability discrimination and other FEHA-based claims, and because those claims adequately support the conclusion that she was subjected to a wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the demurrer to this cause of action must be overruled.

The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) FEHA disability discrimination, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) violation of wage and hour laws—unpaid overtime wages, (9) violation of wage and hour laws—waiting time penalties, (10) failure to provide accurate wage statements

Further, as discussed above, day-to-day activities are relevant to plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination. With respect to item 11, defendant seeks reimbursement for models, enlargements and photocopies of exhibits demonstrating worker’s compensation exclusivity. Defendant argues that this cost relates only to the fifth cause of action, which is a non-FEHA claim. Defendant points to the court’s ruling wherein the fifth cause of action was dismissed based upon said evidence. This is sufficient.

Code 12900 and 12940]; Defendant demurs claiming the causes of action are duplicative of one another because they are all claims for disability discrimination under FEHA.

Code 12900 and 12940]; Defendant demurs claiming the causes of action are duplicative of one another because they are all claims for disability discrimination under FEHA.

The demurrer to the first cause of action for disability discrimination is sustained. To state a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that (1) Plaintiff suffered a disability; (2) she was otherwise qualified to do her job; (3) she suffered an adverse employment, and (4) the employer harbored discriminatory intent. See Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1246-47. Elements 1 and 4 are not alleged.

Harassment in Violation of FEHA 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (FEHA) 4. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 5. Race Discrimination 6. Failure to Prevent Race-Based Discrimination 7. Retaliation 8. Medical Disability Discrimination 9. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA 10.

Defendant seeks summary adjudication of the following issues: Issue No. 1 : The undisputed material facts establish that Feldmar is entitled to summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for Disability Discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) because Plaintiff cannot prove that he was competently performing at the time of termination as part of his prima facie case.

On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

Ideal Property and Realty, Inc. et al. (19GDCV01060) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Anderson Ballard Companies, Inc.’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is OVERRULED as to the seventh cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, but SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the ninth cause of action for Disability Discrimination under FEHA, tenth cause of action for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process under FEHA, and eleventh cause of action for Disability Discrimination

First Cause of Action: Disability Discrimination With respect to the first cause of action [disability discrimination], the District makes the following arguments: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedy; and (2) Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination.

Tentative Ruling Re: Defendant Conejo Valley Unified School District's demurrer to Plaintiff Mary Orleans' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") Overrule Defendant Conejo Valley Unified School District's demurrer to Plaintiff Mary Orleans" second amended complaint ("SAC"), causes of action 1("stress disability" discrimination); 2 (harassment); 3 (failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA); 4 (failure to accomodate); 5 (failure to engage in interactive process); and 7 (wrongful constructive discharge).

Plaintiff’s causes of action are labeled as follows: (1) veteran status/disability/perceived disability harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) veteran status harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) disability/perceived disability harassment in violation of FEHA; (4) veteran status/disability/perceived disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) veteran status discrimination in violation of FEHA; and (6) disability/perceived disability discrimination in violation of FEHA.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s cause action for disability discrimination lacks merit because Plaintiff cannot establish her initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of disability discrimination under FEHA. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that Defendant terminated her employment on July 17, 2017 because of any mental or physical disability.

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff Selim Hoxha filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Jessica Regis Hodge, and Yony Perdomo for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA retaliation for requesting accommodations, (5) FEHA harassment, (6) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (7) violation of paid sick leave, etc., (8) retaliation and interference

The County demurs to plaintiff’s first cause of action for disability discrimination on the ground that plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to support a claim for discrimination under FEHA. FEHA prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because of a physical disability or medical condition. Government Code §12940(a).

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: 1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Cal Gov’t Code § 12940(a)); 2) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA for Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (Cal Gov’t Code § 12940(m)); 3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Cal Gov’t Code § 12940(n)); 4) Tortious Termination and Discrimination in Violation of Public Policy Based on

failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, (6) FEHA disability discrimination, (7) violation of the CFRA, (8) FEHA retaliation, (9) FEHA failure to accommodate, (10) FEHA failure to engage in interactive process, (11) wrongful termination, (12) FEHA disability harassment, (13) failure to pay overtime wages, (14) violation of the UCL, and (15) fraud.

On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for (1) FEHA race discrimination, (2) FEHA religious discrimination, (3) FEHA disability discrimination, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, (6) FEHA harassment, (7) FEHA retaliation, (8) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (9) wrongful termination, and (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

“Accordingly, when FEHA forbids discrimination based on a disability, it also forbids discrimination based on a person's association with another who has a disability.” (Castro- Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1036.) A. Cases Finding Associational Disability Discrimination There are very few California cases discussing associational disability discrimination under the FEHA.

On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, (3) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), and (6) retaliation in violation of public policy.

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, (3) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and (5) FHEA retaliation.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s cause of action for failure to prevent disability discrimination is derivative of Plaintiff’s causes of action for disability discrimination under the FEHA. Having found triable issues of material fact as to the first three issues regarding Plaintiff’s disability discrimination cause of action, the court finds a triable issue of material fact and hereby DENIES summary adjudication as to Issue 4. F.

First Cause of Action - Disability Discrimination In this disability discrimination case, there is direct evidence of Anker’s motive for taking the adverse employment action against Flores: Anker informed Flores that she could not return to work unless she was released to work without restrictions. Flores was then discharged while still under partial work restrictions and before returning to work. Consequently, the court applies the “direct evidence” framework as articulated in Wallace v.

These facts are more than sufficient to establish notice for purposes of the seventh cause of action for failure to prevent disability discrimination. (Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1008.) Further, the second amended complaint alleges an ultimate fact, not a conclusory one, that Goodwill took no steps to train or educate its employees regarding an employer's obligations under FEHA to prevent disability discrimination. This is sufficient as against a general demurrer.

In other words, FEHA 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.)

Issue Three: There are no triable issues of material fact as to Plaintiff’s SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT FEHA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION because the underlying claim of disability discrimination has no merit.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) FEHA failure to prevent, (5) FEHA retaliation, whistleblower retaliation pursuant to (6) Labor Code § 1102.5 and (7) Labor Code § 98.6, (8) inaccurate wage statements, and (9) failure to pay wages. Trial is set for 11/27/17; FSC for 11/16/17; all-purpose status conference and OSC re: dismissal of unnamed and unserved defendants for 3/6/17.

of disability discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA; (16) retaliation for requests for accommodation, complaints of disability discrimination and/or harassment in violation of public policy; (17) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; and (18) failure to everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation from occurring in violation of FEHA.

The elements of a disability discrimination claim under FEHA are that a: (1) plaintiff has a disability or medical condition or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) plaintiff could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations; (3) plaintiff was subject to defendant’s adverse employment decision; (4) because of plaintiff's actual or perceived disability or medical condition. (Faust v. Cal. Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 864, 886.)

Second Cause of Action: Disability Discrimination To establish a cause of action for disability discrimination, Plaintiff must plead that he: (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 [(4)] because of the disability or perceived disability. Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc.

On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action asserting causes of action for: (1) race discrimination (FEHA); (2) sex discrimination (FEHA); (3) sex harassment (FEHA); (4) race harassment (FEHA); (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, retaliation (FEHA); (6) retaliation (FEHA); (7) retaliation (Labor Code section 1102.5); (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (9) disability discrimination (FEHA); (10) failure to accommodate disability (FEHA); and (11) failure to engage in the good

The operative Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA race and age discrimination and harassment, (2) FEHA retaliation, (3) FEHA race and age harassment, and (4) FEHA failure to accommodate and disability discrimination. The 3rd COA is against Peinado; the remaining COAs are against the County. Defendants demur and move to strike the SAC.

This is sufficient to allege disability discrimination. The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED. C. Sixth and Eighth Causes of Action for Retaliation To establish retaliation under FEHA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity, (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employers action. ( Yanowitz v. LOreal USA, Inc.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – FEHA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG19034506 11/03/2021 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 19 The MSA for Eaves’s 1st cause of action for disability discrimination is GRANTED. This is a CACI 2540 claim for intentional discrimination. This disability discrimination claim is similar to a claim for race or sex discrimination. The parties framed the analysis under the McDonnell Douglas approach.

The elements of disability discrimination in violation of FEHA are: (1) plaintiff has a disability or medical condition or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) plaintiff could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations; (3) the defendants adverse employment decision; and (4) because of plaintiff's actual or perceived disability or medical condition. Faust v. Cal. Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 864, 886.

The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on 9/2/15 and asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (2) FEHA disability discrimination, (3) FMLA interference, (4) CFRA interference, (5) Pregnancy Disability Leave Law interference, (6) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, (7) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (8) FEHA retaliation, and (9) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

Notably, the Defendant only discusses the claim of race discrimination but completely ignores Plaintiffs claim of disability discrimination. In any case, Defendants argument fails for simple reason that a failure to make a reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in the interactive process, may be an incident of disability discrimination. ( See Gov.

Notably, the Defendant only discusses the claim of race discrimination but completely ignores Plaintiffs claim of disability discrimination. In any case, Defendants argument fails for simple reason that a failure to make a reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in the interactive process, may be an incident of disability discrimination. ( See Gov.

Defendant contends Plaintiff improperly joined three separate and distinct causes of action here: claims of disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. (Compl., ¶¶ 44-46.) Plaintiff’s allegations are necessary to establish the cause of action for disability discrimination. Plaintiff’s allegation that he was discriminated against because of his disability falls squarely under this cause of action.

Plaintiff was allegedly “illegally fired” 6/17/20: Plaintiff filed a DFEH charge 2/25/21: Plaintiff filed the Complaint herein, asserting 7 C/As v. all defs: 1. disability discrimination [FEHA] 2. failure to engage in the interactive process [FEHA] 3. failure to provide reasonable accommodation [FEHA] 4. retaliation [FEHA] 5. failure to take all steps necessary to prevent discr/harassmt [FEHA] 6. wrongful termination in violation of public policy 7. failure to pay wages 4/19/21: Moving defendant filed

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – FEHA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION The MSA for Plaintiff’s 1st cause of action for disability discrimination is DENIED. This is a CACI 2540 claim for intentional discrimination. This disability discrimination claim is similar to a claim for race or sex discrimination. The parties framed the analysis under the McDonnell Douglas approach. The court uses that analysis.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §§12920, 12921, 12940, ET SEQ; 9. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, PERCEPTION OF DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12926 (j)(3), (4), (5) ET SEQ.; 10. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(h); 11. HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(a), (j), BASED UPON DISABILITY, PERCEPTION OF DISABILITY, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT; 12.

; 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.

DISCUSSION The Complaint On 12/17/15, P filed his Complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(a); (2) Disability Discrimination in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(m); (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(n); (4) Retaliation in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(h); (5) Failure to Do Everything Reasonably Necessary to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation from Occurring in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(k); (6) Violation of Govt.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to prevent discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in interactive process; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of the CFRA; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. DISCUSSION Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civil Code § 3294(a).)

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Disability Discrimination; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination; Retaliation under FEHA; and Wrongful Termination. Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for disability discrimination, the third cause of action for failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, and the fifth cause of action for wrongful termination.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) FEHA disability harassment, (7) FEHA failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (9) CFRA discrimination and retaliation. The case has been at issue since December 28, 2015, more than a year ago.

In presenting her case to the jury, Plaintiff presented some evidence of possible disability discrimination and/or other FEHA violations such that an award of costs would not be proper. See Cummings v. Benco Building Services (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1389 (where the plaintiff provided some evidence of discrimination but not enough to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff’s FEHA claim was not “frivolous” and a fee award to defendant was improper).

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for disability discrimination. “It is . . . unlawful . . .

Second Cause of Action – Disability Discrimination Yoshinoya argues that Martinez cannot establish a claim for disability discrimination because there are no facts alleged in the complaint or elsewhere that Yoshinoya knew of or perceived a disability. (Motion at p. 17.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action for disability discrimination is DENIED.

The Court found that Rodriguez’s timely administrative complaint (for race) failed to offer an adequate basis to support a charge of disability discrimination, and thus his untimely amended charge for disability discrimination did not relate back and was untimely. (Id. at 899.)

Absent such allegations, Plaintiff has failed to plead the existence of a qualifying disability under FEHA, the first element of her disability discrimination claim. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained as to the first cause of action. Because Plaintiff has failed to plead her first cause of action for disability discrimination, her third cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA also fails. (Trujillo v.

Second Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination: “As to disability discrimination generally, FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer, ‘because of the ... physical disability ... of any person, ... to discharge the person from employment ... or to discriminate against the person ... in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’ (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) The very definition of a ‘physical disability’ embraces association with a physically disabled person.

Plaintiff has not properly alleged she was disabled under FEHA and Plaintiffs' FEHA and Wrongful Termination claims (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 8th causes of action) should be sustained with leave to amend. As a preliminary matter, and as pointed out in moving papers, in order to prevail on claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/ or failure to engage in the interactive process, a plaintiff must first establish that she was "disabled" at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct.

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in his claim for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation fin violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

In sum, Defendant meets its burden on demurrer to demonstrate that the third cause of action for disability discrimination is precluded, on the face of the SAC, because of issue preclusion, and the court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the third cause of action. At the hearing, Plaintiff should be prepared to discuss whether a reasonable possibility exists that she can amend the claims to state her disability discrimination claim.

In response, defendants persuasively argue plaintiffs have not and cannot state a disability discrimination cause of action against the seven individual defendants. In their untimely response, plaintiffs do not dispute defendants argument. Indeed, plaintiffs do not even attempt to show how the seven individual defendants could be liable for disability discrimination.

In response, defendants persuasively argue plaintiffs have not and cannot state a disability discrimination cause of action against the seven individual defendants. In their untimely response, plaintiffs do not dispute defendants argument. Indeed, plaintiffs do not even attempt to show how the seven individual defendants could be liable for disability discrimination.

First Cause of Action – Disability Discrimination Defendants demur to the first cause of action for disability discrimination on the grounds that the FAC does not allege that Plaintiff has a condition that qualifies as a disability under FEHA, that there are no facts that they knew she was unable to perform essential duties, or that she was terminated due to that disability, if any.

Disability Discrimination Claim The basis for the disability discrimination claim is that plaintiff suffered a stroke in 2016. (Complaint, ¶¶ 30-38.) Discrimination claims are subject to burden shifting analysis. To establish a claim for discrimination, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802-05.) If the employee does so, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions.

With respect to the Second Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination, the Third Cause of Action for Failure to Accommodate and the Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, the Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. In order to establish a prima facie disability discrimination case, plaintiff must show that she suffered from a disability, was otherwise qualified to do her job, and was subjected to adverse employment action because of her disability. See Finegan v.

Starbucks new motion argues that Plaintiffs claims for disability discrimination, perceived disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, and negligent supervision fail as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot establish she had a qualifying disability or medical condition under the FEHA. The issue of whether Plaintiff had a disability is identical to the issue adjudicated in the September 22, 2022 order.

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation

Defendants argue that all of the targeted causes of action are barred by relevant statutes of limitations and that the sixth cause of action, brought solely by PROCTOR for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (the “FEHA”), additionally fails due to PROCTOR’s lack of a right-to-sue notice from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “DFEH”).

Defendants argue that all of the targeted causes of action are barred by relevant statutes of limitations and that the sixth cause of action, brought solely by PROCTOR for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (the “FEHA”), additionally fails due to PROCTOR’s lack of a right-to-sue notice from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “DFEH”).

Defendants argue that all of the targeted causes of action are barred by relevant statutes of limitations and that the sixth cause of action, brought solely by PROCTOR for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (the “FEHA”), additionally fails due to PROCTOR’s lack of a right-to-sue notice from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “DFEH”).

Defendants argue that all of the targeted causes of action are barred by relevant statutes of limitations and that the sixth cause of action, brought solely by PROCTOR for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (the “FEHA”), additionally fails due to PROCTOR’s lack of a right-to-sue notice from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “DFEH”).

Defendants argue that all of the targeted causes of action are barred by relevant statutes of limitations and that the sixth cause of action, brought solely by PROCTOR for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (the “FEHA”), additionally fails due to PROCTOR’s lack of a right-to-sue notice from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “DFEH”).

Defendants argue that all of the targeted causes of action are barred by relevant statutes of limitations and that the sixth cause of action, brought solely by PROCTOR for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (the “FEHA”), additionally fails due to PROCTOR’s lack of a right-to-sue notice from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “DFEH”).

No evidence has been submitted by Plaintiff to establish that disability discrimination or retaliation was a substantial motivating factor for any adverse employment action. Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 232; see also Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 466, 479.

January 28, 2019 Dept. 56 Plaintiff filed this employment action on August 15, 2018, alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA sex discrimination, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) FEHA disability discrimination, (6) FEHA failure to accommodate, (7) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (8) failure to pay minimum wages, (9) non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain accurate payroll records, and (10) wages not timely paid upon

Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; 2. Disability Discrimination Refusal to Permit Reasonable Modification To Housing Unit in Violation of FEHA; 3. Disability Discrimination Refusal To Permit Reasonable Accommodation In Housing in Violation of FEHA; 4. Violation of the California Unruh Act; 5. Harassment in Violation of FEHA; 6. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress; 7. Breach of Contract; 8. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 9. Declaratory Relief; 10.

Application to Facts Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because no triable issue of material fact exists as to each cause of action asserted in the complaint. 1 st cause of action for disability discrimination Defendants contend that this cause of action fails as a matter of law because: (1) Plaintiff cannot state a prima facie case of disability discrimination; and (2) there is no admissible evidence (let alone the required substantial evidence

Disability discrimination (4th cause of action) FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discharge an employee or discriminate them in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of an employee’s protected status, including race, national original, physical disability, mental disability, mental condition, etc. (Gov. Code §12940(a).)

Disability discrimination (4th cause of action) FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discharge an employee or discriminate them in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of an employee’s protected status, including race, national original, physical disability, mental disability, mental condition, etc. (Gov. Code §12940(a).)

Disability discrimination (4th cause of action) FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discharge an employee or discriminate them in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of an employee’s protected status, including race, national original, physical disability, mental disability, mental condition, etc. (Gov. Code §12940(a).)

Case Number: 21STCV43300 Hearing Date: June 9, 2022 Dept: 48 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff Kim Abejo filed this action against Defendants The Home Depot, Home Depot USA Inc., and Jonathan Flores, alleging (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), (2) perceived disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) failure to make reasonable

The Complaint contains the following causes of action: FEHA Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation, FEHA Failure to Engage in Timely Good Faith Interactive Process, FEHA Retaliation, FEHA Disability Discrimination, Violation of Labor Code § 233, Violation of Labor Code § 98.6, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Defendant now moves to compel arbitration. Plaintiff opposes. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

Second Cause of Action: Physical Disability Discrimination : Defendant demurs to the cause of action for physical disability discrimination because Plaintiff does not allege his 2017 knee injuries are covered by FEHA. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing that he was discriminated against and given a double workload because of his alleged disability stemming from two knee injuries that did not require work restrictions.

Tenth Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t. Code § 12940, et seq.) Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Gov.