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

126-150 of 992 results

DALIA MORENO VS RUFFIN HOTELS LP

Thus, the district court did not err in reversing the jury's verdict for disability discrimination under the FEHA. We affirm.” (Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc. (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) 274 F.3d 1276, 1291.) Plaintiff does not cite any evidence that she notified Defendant that she had re-aggravated her lumbar strain.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

The federal court order at issue granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiffs did not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether its clients were disabled, and therefore failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of that element essential to its federal FHA and ADA causes of action and their FEHA claims for disability discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

NICOLE SANDERS VS L A COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

BACKGROUND On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff Nicole Sanders (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County” or “Defendant”), asserting causes of action for (1) violation of CFRA; (2) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) disability harassment in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (7) discriminatory failure to promote; and (8

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JEFF APALATEGUI VS KASLEN TEXTILES, LLC

Motion For Summary Adjudication FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 1. ISSUE NO. 1: “Kaslen is entitled to summary adjudication in its favor and against Plaintiff on the First Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) because Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish a claim.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ESTHER ISAAC, ET AL. VS ELWYN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

FEHA's policy prohibiting disability discrimination in employment is sufficiently substantial and fundamental to support a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Citations omitted.) (Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 660, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 942 [bold emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WUCHERPFENNIG V. PADI AMERICAS INCORPORATED

First Cause of Action for disability discrimination under FEHA: The Court grants the MSA as to Issues 1, 2, and 3. Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action is for disability discrimination under FEHA. Defendant seeks summary adjudication of the entire cause of action under the heading “Issues 1, 2 and 3.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The 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, QTC); (7) failure to prevent

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

LAWRENCE JACKOWSKI VS BATTERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.

Second Cause of Action: Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Defendants contend that the second cause of action fails because (1) Plaintiff fails to allege that he suffered from a disability, (2) Plaintiff fails to allege that he was a qualified individual, and (3) Plaintiff fails to allege that any adverse employment action was taken because of his disability.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REBECCA HOMBS VS CONVAID PRODUCTS, LLC

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (4) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE VS SKYLER LUCCI, ET AL.

., Skyler Lucci, and Ryan Neman for (1) harassment in violation of FEHA – hostile work environment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; (4) sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.5; (5) sex discrimination; (6) disability discrimination; (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) violation of Government Code § 12964.5; (10) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (11)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE VS SKYLER LUCCI, ET AL.

., Skyler Lucci, and Ryan Neman for (1) harassment in violation of FEHA – hostile work environment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; (4) sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.5; (5) sex discrimination; (6) disability discrimination; (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) violation of Government Code § 12964.5; (10) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (11)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KELLY VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

As to the Sixth COA (Associational Disability Discrimination), adjudication is DENIED. Defendants challenge the Sixth COA, asserting the relationship identified within the Complaint is, as a matter of law, insufficient to support associational disability discrimination. Defendants cite Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028 and Rope v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

KELLY VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

As to the Sixth COA (Associational Disability Discrimination), adjudication is DENIED. Defendants challenge the Sixth COA, asserting the relationship identified within the Complaint is, as a matter of law, insufficient to support associational disability discrimination. Defendants cite Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028 and Rope v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

STEPHENSON VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028 ("Castro-Ramirez") [associational disability discrimination]; Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in Castro-Ramirez, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at 1036 ("Rope") [associational disability discrimination]; and Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860 (“Thompson”) [associational harassment based on race].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(j)); Sexual Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); Sexual Battery (against Newman); Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DONATO SERRANO VS CROWN ENERGY SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

.: 19STCV19954 Hearing Date: August 5, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s further respOnses to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, Number 29 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

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VANESSA HERRERA VS METROLAB INC ET AL

(“Metrolab”), Teresa Izaguirre (“Izaguirre”), and Behrouz Tavakoli (“Tavakoli”) (collectively “Defendants”) demur to the 1st (disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA), 2nd (disability harassment in violation of the FEHA), 3rd (retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 4th (failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 5th (failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA), 6th (failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MENDOZA VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN

To allege disability discrimination, the plaintiff initially has the burden to state a prima facie case by presenting evidence that demonstrates, even circumstantially or by inference, that 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

    Jul 31, 2020

MENDOZA VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN

To allege disability discrimination, the plaintiff initially has the burden to state a prima facie case by presenting evidence that demonstrates, even circumstantially or by inference, that 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

    Jul 31, 2020

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

Wrongful Termination/Disability Discrimination/Retaliation, violation of Government Code, § 12940(a), Violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); 2.) Failure to prevent Discrimination and Harassment and Retaliation; 3.) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Government Code, § 12940 et seq.; 4.) Wrongful termination in Violation of Public Policy; and 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

ERICA A TORRES VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

The Commission's hearing officer rejected her claims of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, and the Commission had not issued a final decision when she filed this lawsuit. Page never filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus to overturn the adverse decision of the Commission. Instead, she filed a premature FEHA action over which the trial court [*1143] lacked jurisdiction because she failed to exhaust both her administrative and judicial remedies.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MATTHEW WOODSON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

Accordingly, the Acuna court rejected Plaintiff’s argument regarding equitable tolling, finding that Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim was time barred because Plaintiff’s Complaint did not allege that she was pursuing an alternative remedy and further, acknowledged that Plaintiff’s employer refused to provide her accommodation for her disability more than one year prior to her DFEH complaint. (Id. at 1416-1417.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KARIE NAKADATE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 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

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GEORGE CASTRO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a fifth amended complaint (5AC) alleging: (1) disability discrimination based on failure to grant a reasonable accommodation and (2) disability discrimination: failure to engage in interactive process. Defendant demurrers to the 5AC in its entirety. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s 5AC. Legal Standards A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHWON SASANI VS SO CAL PLUMBING HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC., ET AL.

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 defendant’s 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « 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.