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

151-175 of 1000 results

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

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

ADAN MOTA VS ALPERT & ALPERT IRON & METAL, INC.

(“Defendant”) alleging causes of action for (1) Disability Discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) Failure to Accommodate under FEHA, (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process under FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination under FEHA, (5) Retaliation under FEHA, and (6) Wrongful Termination in violation of public policy. On April 9, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration. On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed his opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PRINCESS OBIENU VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA – Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA – retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DUNCAN MILNER VS TBWA WORLDWIDE, INC., ET AL.

The Court extrapolates from associational disability discrimination: “FEHA creates an associational disability discrimination claim in the manner just described—by reading association with a physically disabled person (§ 12926, subd. (o)) into the Act where discrimination based on “physical disability” appears (§ 12940, subd. (a)).” (Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1039.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RACHEL PHIPPS VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DUNCAN MILNER VS TBWA WORLDWIDE, INC., ET AL.

The Court extrapolates from associational disability discrimination: “FEHA creates an associational disability discrimination claim in the manner just described—by reading association with a physically disabled person (§ 12926, subd. (o)) into the Act where discrimination based on “physical disability” appears (§ 12940, subd. (a)).” (Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1039.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a 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 in violation

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ELINOR BANKS ET AL. VS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN ET AL.

Moreover, the 5th cause of action of the Third Amended Complaint for medical condition/disability discrimination is also resolved. After due consideration of the written arguments and documentary evidence presented, the Court makes the following Tentative Ruling: EVIDENTIARY RULINGS Defendants submitted objections to the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

IRENE MORENO VS CIRRUS ASSET MANAGEMENT INC

The court finds plaintiff’s requests for production as they relate to sexual harassment or anything not related to plaintiff’s claim for age and disability discrimination are overbroad. While the court recognizes these requests also raise privacy concerns, defendant has not met it burden of showing these concerns outweigh plaintiff’s interest in discovery. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests production 1, 4-9, 13-23 is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SERGIO DELGADILLO VS AIDS PROJECT LOS ANGELES, APLA HEALTH & WELLNESS, DOING BUSINESS AS APLA HEALTH

Defendant does not demur to the 1st (disability discrimination [FEHA]), 2nd (failure to reasonably accommodate [FEHA]), 3rd (failure to engage in a good faith interactive process [FEHA]), 6th (harassment [FEHA]), 7th (retaliation [FEHA]), and 8th (failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation) causes of action. On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in the instant action, in which he alleged the same eight causes of action against Defendant as in the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY

and battery in violation of Civil Code § 1708.5; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy contained in FEHA; (7) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (8) interference with CFRA rights and retaliation for taking CFRA leave in violation of FEHA adverse employment action in violation of public policy; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (10) failure to do everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring in violation

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ASHLEY MASTERTON VS NEW BOX SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 6, 2018, alleging the following 11 causes of action: (1) hostile work environment in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of the FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (4) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (5) failure to reasonably accommodate disability in violation of the FEHA, (6) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (7) failure to pay minimum wages, (8) failure

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 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

CRISTIAN DELGADO BARRERA VS ALBERTSON'S LLC

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to accommodate disability under the FEHA, (3) failure to engage in an interactive process under the FEHA, (4) “wrongful discharge for exercise of FEHA rights and retaliation”, (5) wrongful termination under the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

TIFFANY LEE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

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

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

  « 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.