What is Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA?

Useful Resources for Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

76-100 of 996 results

LYNN THOMPSON VS THE DIPLOMAT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Thompson has shown a reasonable prospect of success on her FEHA disability discrimination claim. 3. Balance of Hardships In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the second factor which a trial court examines is the interim harm that plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

In order to establish a prima facie case of FEHA disability discrimination, the employee-plaintiff must prove: (1) she suffered from a disability; (2) with or without reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of the employment position she held or desired; and (3) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action because of her disability. (Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 245, 254.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRANDI TRIGUEROS VS MCDONALDS RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA INC

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to reasonably accommodate in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to maintain a workplace free from discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (5) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (7) failure to re-hire

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NICOLE CAMPOS VS LAUSD

The second and third causes of action are for age and physical disability discrimination under the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CASE V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

“[I]n disability discrimination actions, the plaintiff has not shown the defendant has done anything wrong until the plaintiff can show he or she was able to do the job with or without reasonable accommodation.” [Green v. State of Calif., supra, 42 C4th at 265.] “Reasonable accommodation does not require the employer to wait indefinitely for an employee's medical condition to be corrected.” [Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 CA4th 215, 226-227; see Lawler v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

CRISTIAN DELGADO BARRERA VS ALBERTSON'S LLC

Defendant now moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on all of the following twelve issues: Plaintiffs first cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") fails because there is no prima facie case of disability discrimination; Plaintiffs first cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of FEHA fails because Albertson's legitimate reason for the adverse action is not a pretext for disability

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MARTA NAVA VS STERLING BV, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS BUENA VISTA FOOD PRODUCTS, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (3) failure to engage in interactive process in violation of FEHA, (4) harassment in violation of FEHA, (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation for requesting and/or taking CFRA leave, (7) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, (8) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARLENE ALFARO VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Disability Discrimination Lyneer asserts that the claim for disability discrimination fails because (1) the alleged disability is not covered under FEHA, and (2) there is no allegation that Defendant Lyneer had knowledge of the disability.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MCLAUGHLIN V. CUSHFIELD MAINTENANCE WEST CORP.

Plaintiff has also testified that she never reported any disability discrimination or harassment that she allegedly perceived to Cushfield. CSSMF No. 70. Cushfield would not have been able to stop any alleged harassment without knowledge of said harassment. The handful of alleged harassments also does not show it was severe, pervasive, and/or ongoing, which might overcome the time limitations issues.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

JAQUELINE MOMOLI VS RELIANCE UPHOLSTERY SUPPLY CO., INC.

On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff Jaqueline Momoli commenced this b based on violations of the FEHA against Defendant Reliance Upholstery Supply Co., Inc. for (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to reasonably accommodate; (3) failure to provide medical leave; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) failure to maintain a workplace free from discrimination and retaliation; (6) retaliation; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (8) failure to re-hire on account of disability

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

Stevenson and Rojo provide unequivocal authority for plaintiff to claim wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on disability discrimination despite not having exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to claims brought under FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ZAKIR SARANG VS FOX RENT A CAR, INC., ET AL.

(“Fox”) and Berhanu Wolde (“Wolde”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for: (1) race/national origin discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) religious discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (3) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to accommodate/ engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (5) interference with CFRA rights and retaliation for taking/requesting CFRA leave, (6) hostile work environment in violation

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZAMORA V. TURNING POINT OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA

“In the context of disability discrimination, the plaintiff initially has the burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AMBER GARCIA VS MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

As one court held: “Even assuming [employer’s] mistakes were reasonable and made in good faith, a lack of animus does not preclude liability for a disability discrimination claim. (Wallace, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 115.) Accordingly, we conclude [plaintiff] provided direct evidence of disability discrimination—[employer] terminated him because [employer] mistakenly believed he was totally disabled and unable to work. This is enough to defeat a motion for summary adjudication.” (Glynn v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CRISTIAN DELGADO BARRERA VS ALBERTSON'S LLC

Defendant now moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on all of the following twelve issues: Plaintiffs first cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") fails because there is no prima facie case of disability discrimination; Plaintiffs first cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of FEHA fails because Albertson's legitimate reason for the adverse action is not a pretext for disability

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ANTHONY T. LARSON VS PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(collectively “Defendants”) and Brett Havens[1] alleging causes of action for (1) Disability Discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) Retaliation under FEHA, (3) Harassment under FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination or Harassment under FEHA, and (5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. On June 15, 2020, Defendants filed and served the instant motion to compel arbitration. The hearing for this motion was initially set for July 31, 2020 at 10:00 am.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

S. MILLSAP VS DIANA MONDRAGON, ET AL.

ISSUES 1-11 1ST CAUSE OF ACTION: RACE/DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: FEHA prohibits an employer from taking any adverse action against a protected individual based on his or her race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age (if 40 or over), or pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions of any female employee.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIGUEL ARELLANO VS DAVICH U S A INC

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on February 28, 2020 and asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination for being associated with someone with a disability, (2) violations of Labor Code sections 233 and 234, (3) violation of Labor Code sections 246 and 246.5, (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (5) violation of Labor Code sections 1102.5(b) and (c), and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

OTT VS DILLAVOU

Although section 132a does not preclude an employee from pursuing FEHA and common law wrongful discharge remedies for work-related disability discrimination (City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1158), plaintiff does not assert such claims in count 7. Rather, plaintiff alleges that "[o]nce the worker's compensation claims resolved, Defendant Employers terminated Plaintiff's employment" and that such termination "violated the Labor Code 132a[.]" (FAC at ¶¶ 45, 47.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ERIC WONG, ET AL. VS IDEAL PROPERTIES, INC, ET AL.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION UNDER FEHA The Property Manager and Property Owners (collectively “Defendants”) contend plaintiff Eric Wong fails to demonstrate that the repair requests constitute reasonable accommodations. Based on the definition of “discrimination” in Government Code § 12927(c)(1), defendants’ alleged failure to repair the roof and windows and remediate the mold constitutes the “provision of inferior conditions associated with housing accommodations.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

MARTHA SILLMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for age and disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA. However, Defendants only demur to the first cause of action based on the sufficiency of allegations regarding disability discrimination. (Demurrer MPA, p. 1, fn. 3.) Defendants argue that “the FAC fails to state any facts suggesting that Plaintiff was discriminated against because of a perceived disability.” (Demurrer MPA, p. 4:6-7.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTHA SILLMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for age and disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA. However, Defendants only demur to the first cause of action based on the sufficiency of allegations regarding disability discrimination. (Demurrer MPA, p. 1, fn. 3.) Defendants argue that “the FAC fails to state any facts suggesting that Plaintiff was discriminated against because of a perceived disability.” (Demurrer MPA, p. 4:6-7.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JONATHAN VIZUETE VS LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL.

(“LCE”), Evan Sena, and Ulisses Garcia[1] (collectively “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for (1) sexual harassment; (2) disability discrimination; (3) disability harassment; (4) retaliation based on having a disability; (5) retaliation based on requesting accommodations; (6) failure to accommodate; (7) failure to engage in the interactive process; (8) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (9) violation of Labor Code whistleblower retaliation; (10) wrongful termination; (11) negligent

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COTA VS. SOUTH COAST OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER

Issue No. 1: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th causes of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, disability discrimination, gender discrimination, race discrimination, and age discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

CORINA GUZMAN V. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1) retaliation for taking CFRA (California Family Rights Act)/medical leave; (2) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act); (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and/or harassment in violation of the FEHA; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) wrongful termination; and (7) unfair business practices.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 40     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.