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

ARRIETA VS ASSA ABLOY ACCESSORIES

Second Cause of Action - Perceived and/or Mental Disability Discrimination To state a claim for this cause of action, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that he or she was a member of a protected class; was qualified for the position he sought; suffered an adverse employment action, and there were circumstances suggesting that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive. (Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1379200.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROUSHAN BEGUM, MS. VS WEISS FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 24, 2020, alleging sixteen causes of action: FEHA disability discrimination FEHA disability harassment FEHA disability retaliation Failure to engage in good faith interactive process Failure to provide reasonable accommodations FEHA sex/gender harassment FEHA sex/gender discrimination FEHA sex/gender retaliation Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation Negligent hiring and retention Nonpayment of wages Failure to indemnify

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

HOLLOWAY VS. BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

First Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination, Fourth Cause of Action for Gender/Pregnancy/Fertility Discrimination, and Sixth Cause of Action for Retaliation. The District contends that each of these causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because plaintiff has not alleged that she suffered an adverse action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

HEIDER VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES adjudication as to Issues 15 and 16 and the Sixth Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA. Issue 19: The Court cannot adjudicate this “issue” because it does not completely dispose of this cause of action given that there are adverse employment actions that occurred after September 7, 2017 at issue. Thus, the Court DENIES adjudication as to Issue 19.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JACQUELINE JONES VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS , ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANI MIRZOYAN VS WEST COAST WOUND AND SKIN CARE INC.

Code § 12940) (against WCWSC and Saidiani); (5) Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code § 12940(A)) (against WCWSC); (6) Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(M) (against WCWSC); (7) Failure to Engage in Timely, Good Faith, Interactive Process to Determine Reasonable Accommodation For Disability (Gov. Code § 12940(N)) (against WCWSC); (8) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Disabilities (Gov. Code § 12940(M) ((against WCWSC); (9) Pregnancy Disability Leave Retaliation (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SALAS V. AMECI PIZZA & PASTA, INC.

As a result, the allegations are insufficient to support a claim for disability discrimination. Accordingly, the demurrer as to the second cause of action is sustained with 15 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

GORJI ASHRAF VS KOLAH FARANGI INC ET AL

As such, Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to sustain the “minimal” burden for stating a prima facie case for disability discrimination. (Ibid.) The Court concludes the foregoing is sufficient to state a prima facie case for disability discrimination. KF, Inc. must therefore submit evidence that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason for terminating Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DIANA LANDAVERDE VS MOVADO GROUP, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code § 12940(a)) (against Movado Defendants); Disability Discrimination (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a)) (against Movado Defendants); Failure to Accommodate (Cal. Gov. Code § 19240(m)) (against Movado Defendants); Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(n)) (against Movado Defendants); Harassment on the Basis of Pregnancy, Sex, and/or Disability (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)); Retaliation for Requesting Accommodation (Cal. Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SALVADOR CISNEROS VS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The operative First Amended Complaint contains causes of action for: (1) Disability Discrimination – Failure to Reinstate (Gov’t Code 12940, et seq.); (2) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (Gov’t Code 12940(m)); (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov’t Code 12940(n)); (4) Retaliation (Gov’t Code 12940(h)&(m)(2)); and (5) Failure to Maintain a Discrimination Free Environment (Gov’t Code 12940(k)).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DAIJI HAMAZAKI VS MARUWA AMERICA CORP.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CIPRIANO RIOS VS ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Plaintiff alleges disability discrimination and related claims against his former employer. Defendant moves to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is stayed pending conclusion of the arbitration. Any and all future dates are advanced and vacated. A Status Conference/OSC re: Dismissal is set for January 14, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KARLA GOMEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ANDOVER MAINTENANCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA COMPANY; SPECIALTY SERVICES, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.

(“Andover”), Specialty Services, Dolores Lopez (“Lopez”), and Daniel Tellez (“Tellez”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging (1) associational disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate disability; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process of accommodation; (4) family and medical leave discrimination and retaliation; (5) retaliation for requesting accommodations; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence; (9) failure

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HAIDEE SANCHEZ VS PERSONNEL PLUS EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On May 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants Personnel Plus Employment Services (“PPESI”), Pearl Franz (“Franz”), Total Productive Staffing, Inc. dba Coast Personnel Services (“Coast”) (collectively, “Remaining Defendants”), and Classic alleging causes of action for violations of the FEHA in connection with alleged disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALEJANDRO ARZOLA VS BETTY GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability harassment in violation of the FEHA, (2) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to provide reasonable disability accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to engage in an interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (5) retaliation for requests for accommodation, complaints of discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (6) unlawful violation of the California Family Rights Act, (7) unlawful retaliation

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALBARRAN VS MCSPI, INC

State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1118.) 1st Cause of Action – Disability Discrimination A prima facie case for discrimination ‘on grounds of physical disability under the FEHA requires plaintiff to show: (1) he suffers from a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to do his job; and, (3) he was subjected to adverse employment action because of his disability. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2020

JONATHAN SCHWARTZ VS PACIFICA HOLLYWOOD, LLC, ET AL.

Whether or not Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity applies depends upon whether such injuries arise based on conduct found to be prohibited by FEHA (such as disability discrimination). (Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 96, 101.) For reasons we will explain, we conclude the workers' compensation system is not the exclusive remedy for Light's alleged injuries because they are based on conduct prohibited by FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SANDRA DOMINGUEZ ET AL. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, A PUBLIC AGENCY ET AL.

At issue here, the FAC pleads causes of action for Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, and Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation, all in violation of FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

RAYMOND PELOSO V. ARCIERO & SONS, INC. ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policies; (2) age discrimination; (3) harassment based on age; (4) disability discrimination; (5) harassment based on disabilities and perceived disabilities; (6) retaliation for requesting and using accommodations for disabilities; (7) failure to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine reasonable accommodation for disability; (8) failure to reasonably accommodate disabilities; (9) retaliation for

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

MARIA GONZALEZ VS TYSON FOODS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed September 24, 2020, alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) disability harassment, (3)perceived disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to reasonably accommodate, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (7) age discrimination, (8) wrongful termination in violation of public

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELIZABETH MUNANA VS LEMUS, MEDICAL INC.

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Defendant: disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; failure to accommodate in violation of the FEHA; failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the work place in violation of the FEHA; retaliation in violation of the FEHA; wrongful termination in violation of public policy and the FEHA; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOE J SERRANO VS STATER BROS MARKETS ET AL

In the operative Third1 Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Defendants for: (1) disability discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) discrimination based on religion under FEHA; (3) harassment based on medical condition under FEHA; (4) harassment based on religion under FEHA; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under FEHA; (7 but identified in the TAC as 8) declaratory judgment; and (8 but identified in

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LAWRENCE JACKOWSKI VS BATTERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.

On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (3) Retaliation, (4) Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (5) Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation, (7) Violation of the California Family Rights Act, (8) California Family Rights Act Retaliation, (9) Violation

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RHONDA CLARK VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Disability Discrimination Allstate moves against the seventh cause of action for disability discrimination. (See Issues nos. 15-18.) An employer may not discriminate against an employee because the employee has a physical disability. (Gov. Code §12940(a).) A disability discrimination prima facie case under the FEHA requires a plaintiff to plead that (1) she suffered from a disability, (2) was otherwise qualified to do the job, and (3) was subjected to adverse employment action because of the disability.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 15th cause of action. 16th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or remedy discrimination/retaliation in violation of FEHA As stated above, the court finds that the allegations are sufficient to state the underlying claim for disability discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.