Equal Pay Laws - FEHA, EPA

Useful Rulings on Equal Pay (FEHA, EPA)

Recent Rulings on Equal Pay (FEHA, EPA)

LOS ANGELES BY-PRODUCTS CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALMAT CO.

EPA Demand, Defendant has hired and paid—and continues to pay—outside legal counsel to defend it and other professions to assist with its responses and its defense. (Id. at ¶ 45.) It follows that those some of those actions were not occurring, in the sense of expenses yet incurred for legal counsel and other professionals, at the time Defendant filed its answer in the 2014 Lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION VS. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT

CMTA also cites the 2013 EPA report (discussed above) for the proposition that the EPA agrees IUI is not an adverse health effect and should not be used to set the PHG. (See MPA at 34:6-8.) It is far from clear that this is true.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION VS. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT

EPA Science [Advisory] Board," and it asks the Court to judicially notice a report prepared by the EPA's Science Advisory Board ("SAB") in 2013. (MPA at 28:18-29; RJN Ex. D.)'^ This EPA report, in tum, is the linchpin of this particular argument. It is not clear whether CMTA challenges OEHHA's decision to focus on infants as the most sensitive subpopulation.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

PARAQUAT CASES

It is clear that Buckman does not apply here, since both sides agree that the complaints do not include a claim based on fraud-on-the-EPA. Defendants start their conflict preemption discussion with a note that the “Complaints all avoid any explicit statements that Defendants secured Paraquat’s registrations by defrauding the EPA.” (Memo p. 23.) Plaintiffs agree that their complaints are not based on fraud on the EPA. (Oppo. p. 22.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

COUNCIL FOR AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS-CALIFORNIA ET AL VS L

EPA, (“Reyes”) (D.D.C. 2014) 991 F.Supp.2d 20, 27; Earle v. United States, DOJ (D.D.C. 2016) 217 F.Supp.3d 117, 123. Moreover, if an agency shows it never had or no longer possesses the records requested, "the reasonable search required... may be no search at all." Reyes, supra, 991 F.Supp.2d at 27; Earle, supra, 217 F.Supp.3d at 124 (search would be futile where agency declaration showed records in question did not exist); Amnesty Int'l v. CIA, (S.D.N.Y.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

We must determine first whether the [federal Clean Water Act], its regulations and guidelines, and any other evidence of federal mandate such as similar permits issued by the EPA, required each condition. If they did, we conclude the requirement is a federal mandate and not entitled to subvention under section 6.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

We must determine first whether the [federal Clean Water Act], its regulations and guidelines, and any other evidence of federal mandate such as similar permits issued by the EPA, required each condition. If they did, we conclude the requirement is a federal mandate and not entitled to subvention under section 6.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

RURAL COMMUNITIES UNITED V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

In 2015, the EPA issued new air emission requirements for new residential wood heaters, setting specific particulate matter limits for several types of wood heaters, including woodstoves, pellet stoves wood-fired hydronic heaters, and wood-fired forced air furnaces (EPA 2015).

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

TARYN INTRAVARTOLO VS JOHN W SEEDORF ET AL

In ordering a further response, the Court found plaintiff’s response that the EPA has rules and regulations about mold that were violated, but that she did not know if the violations were reported to the EPA, to be deficient, in failing to specify what code sections were violated, or when, how, and by whom the code sections were violated. The Court ordered plaintiff to provide a further response.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

FINCLUSION LABS, INC. DBA WETRUST V. RON MEROM, ET AL.

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) but Edeniq was consistently unable to obtain such approval. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-17.) In 2016, having run out of money and faced with a dire financial situation, Edeniq began negotiating a deal with Aemetis whereby Aemetis would acquire Edeniq and utilize its experience in the biotechnology industry to help Edeniq obtain EPA approval for its technology. (TAC, ¶ 19, 22.) Aemetis’ CEO, Eric McAfee, then went to great lengths to obtain EPA approval for Edeniq’s technology.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

DOLORES CHURCHILL, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Honda Motor Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1472-1473 [finding that an automobile manufacturer’s advertisements stating that a customer need not do “anything special” in order to get “terrific mileage” was sufficient to support the plaintiff’s deceptive advertising claims where the advertisements also highlighted specific EPA mileage numbers].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SAN FRANCISCO PIZZA, INC., ET AL. V. VIETNAM TOWN CONDOMINIUM OWNERS

County of Los Angeles (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 318, 323, the court wrote, “The EPA exists to ensure that employees performing equal work are paid equal wages without regard to gender. To prove a violation of that basic principle, a plaintiff must establish that, based on gender, the employer pays different wages to employees doing substantially similar work under substantially similar conditions.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

EARTH LAW CENTER VS. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Because the State Board's concerns relate solely to the effect a judgment in this case might have on EPA, the risk of incomplete relief does not make EPA necessary. The court can order the State Board to comply with the subject deadlines without joining EPA. The State Board argues in earnest that EPA is a necessary party because EPA is interested in the subject matter and could be impeded in its ability to protect its interests unless joined.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

EARTH LAW CENTER VS. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Because the State Board’s concerns relate solely to the effect a judgment in this case might have on EPA, the risk of incomplete relief does not make EPA necessary. The court can order the State Board to comply with the subject deadlines without joining EPA. The State Board argues in earnest that EPA is a necessary party because EPA is interested in the subject matter and could be impeded in its ability to protect its interests unless joined.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

AEMETIS, INC. V. EDENIQ, INC., ET AL.

McAfee promptly and systematically responded to EPA concerns by remaining in direct and consistent contact with numerous EPA representatives. (TAC, ¶42.) McAfee informed the EPA that Aemetis had signed and fully performed under its acquisition agreement so that EPA could enforce any liability against Aemetis, a company with $150 million in revenue and $40 million of positive cash flow in 2014. (TAC, ¶43.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

TARYN INTRAVARTOLO VS JOHN W SEEDORF ET AL

Plaintiff responded that the EPA has rules and regulations concerning mold that were violated by defendants, but she does not know if the violations were reported to the EPA. (Separate Statement, p. 7:17-18.) Plaintiff’s response is deficient. Plaintiff does not specify what code sections were violated or when, how, and by whom the code sections were violated. Plaintiff shall provide a further response.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

R. ROSS, ET AL. V. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY

Analysis HPE argues that plaintiffs fail to plead individual claims under the EPA because they do not adequately describe their positions and responsibilities or identify a specific or adequate male “comparator.” It demurs to the second cause of action under the Labor Code, which is wholly derivative of plaintiffs’ EPA claim, and the third and fourth causes of action under the UCL and for declaratory relief, which are partially derivative of the EPA claim, on the same grounds.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

KORBIN VS US LEGAL SUPPORT INC [E-FILE]

Reno involves a discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, not the EPA and Jones does not involve any discrimination claim. The court finds, given that other statutes in the Labor Code do make explicit reference to "other persons," whereas the EPA does not, and the EPA is also not listed in section 558.1, the court sustains Defendants' demurrer as to this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KORBIN VS US LEGAL SUPPORT INC [E-FILE]

Reno involves a discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, not the EPA and Jones does not involve any discrimination claim. The court finds, given that other statutes in the Labor Code do make explicit reference to "other persons," whereas the EPA does not, and the EPA is also not listed in section 558.1, the court sustains Defendants' demurrer as to this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ARROYO SECO FOUNDATION ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Petitioners’ argument that studies prepared for SCAQMD indicated that NOx emissions from Model Year 2010 (and later) trucks are higher than assumed in the original 2007 EPA certification standard was an attempt to re-litigate the Petition. Id., p.11. The court further found that the RFEIR confirmed that MM BIO-1 through -8 would apply to the Water Conservation Project. Id. E.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

To reduce the construction and operational impacts from NOx emissions, SCAQMD staff recommended that the City adopt several additional mitigation measures, including the following: Require the use of 2010 model year diesel haul trucks that conform to 2010 EPA truck standards or newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export), and if the Lead Agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel haul trucks cannot be obtained, the Lead Agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VOICE FOR THE ANIMALS FOUNDATION ET AL VS JOHN LEWIS ET AL

EPA, (“Reyes”) (D.D.C. 2014) 991 F.Supp.2d 20, 27; Earle v. United States, DOJ (D.D.C. 2016) 217 F.Supp.3d 117, 123. Moreover, if an agency shows it never had or no longer possesses the records requested, "the reasonable search required... may be no search at all." Reyes, supra, 991 F.Supp.2d at 27; Earle, supra, 217 F.Supp.3d at 124 (search would be futile where agency declaration showed records in question did not exist); Amnesty Int'l v. CIA, (S.D.N.Y.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

DFK WHOLESALE, INC. V. J-BOB, LLC

informed defendant landlord J-Bob that plaintiff could no longer install refrigerant in the system at the premises and defendant J-Bob refused plaintiff’s repeated requests to up-date or replace the leaking evaporator coils; a few weeks later, after meetings with a refrigeration contractor, plaintiff learned that systems such as the one installed at the premises had useful lives of between 15- 20 years at most, which is much less than the age of subject system, new systems use 55% less electricity, due to EPA

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The statute of limitations has not run on plaintiff’s Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) claim, and therefore, leave should be granted as to the EPA claim. However, the statute of limitations has run on plaintiff’s California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims against Osprey, as well as her wrongful termination claim. Plaintiff requests application of the Relation Back Doctrine.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

STEPHANIE TILHOF-LESINSKI VS ORANGE LOME OIL COMPANY

The statute of limitations has not run on plaintiff’s Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) claim, and therefore, leave should be granted as to the EPA claim. However, the statute of limitations has run on plaintiff’s California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims against Osprey, as well as her wrongful termination claim. Plaintiff requests application of the Relation Back Doctrine.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.