Equal Pay Laws - FEHA, EPA

Useful Rulings on Equal Pay (FEHA, EPA)

Recent Rulings on Equal Pay (FEHA, EPA)

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC VS INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.

(“Integrated”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action of (1) breach of Equipment Finance Agreement (“EFA”) [against Integrated], (2) breach of EPA guaranty [against Cross-Complainant], and (3) claim and delivery of EFA collateral [asserted against Defendants] in connection with Integrated’s alleged failure to pay, and Cross-Complainant’s failure to guarantee, amounts due to Ascentium under the EFA. (Complaint ¶¶8-18.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

WELCH V. CENTRAL VALLEY CHILDREN’S SERVICES NETWORK

It also provides at subdivision (k) that an action for discrimination or retaliation against an employee who takes action to invoke or assist in enforcing the EPA has a one-year limitations period. These limitations periods all run from the date the cause of action accrues, as opposed to the date a right-to-sue notice is issued, so any cause of action clearly accrued no later than the date of plaintiff’s termination on September 29, 2016.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BUTLER AMERICA LLC VS BALLARD SPAHR LLP

(EPA, § 8.5(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

occurs on or after” the December 4, 1978 effective date of the 1978 Settlement Agreement (Id. at ¶ 8); (4) Plaintiff leased the Hewitt Site from Defendant and operated a landfill on the Hewitt Site from 1962 to 1975 (Id. at ¶ 6); (5) the 1978 Settlement Agreement contains an attorneys’ fees provision which is set forth in Section 16 of the agreement (Id. at ¶ 9); (6) the Hewitt Site is located in a geographic area of environmentally impacted groundwater and was listed as part of a larger Superfund site by the EPA

  • Hearing

LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER VS CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCE

Whitman, (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F.3d 898, plaintiffs argued that the statute mandated that EPA pursue enforcement actions against a permittee when there was incontrovertible evidence of a permit violation. Id. at pp. 900-01. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that the EPA had the discretion not to take enforcement action, notwithstanding the fact that the statute provides that EPA “shall bring a civil action ....” Id. at 901.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STOP TOXIC HOUSING IN PASADENA, INC. VS DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ET AL.

Petitioner contends that this remediation option is inadequate because it does not accord with relevant EPA guidelines.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PIERRE RICHARD VS JAMES A FRIEDEN, ET AL.

Trust DTD 03/30/01 (“Bennett Trust”) for causes of action relating to the sale of an EPA Superfund Site located at 9648 Santa Fe Road, Santa Fe Springs, California (“the Property”) which had been jointly owned by the Bennett Trust and the Pitts Trust (collectively, “the Trusts”) (the “Underlying Action”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MEILANIE ADILENE CONTRERAS-JARA,A MINOR,BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM,GLADYS JULIANA VS CARLOS E. CACERES,AN INDIVIDUAL

Petitioner contends that this remediation option is inadequate because it does not accord with relevant EPA guidelines.

  • Hearing

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

EPA standards to close access to those drinking water sources, provide alternative drinking water sources if the school did not have the minimum number of drinking fountains required by law, and provide access to free, fresh, and clean drinking water during meal times. (AR 46.) Then-Governor Brown vetoed SB 333 stating “I agree that all California students should have access to safe drinking water but this bill creates a state mandate of uncertain but possibly very large magnitude.”

  • Hearing

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

EPA standards to close access to those drinking water sources, provide altemative drinking water sources if the school did not have the minimum number of drinking fountains required by law, and provide access tofi-ee,fresh, and clean drinking water during meal times. (AR 46.) Then-Govemor Brown vetoed SB 333 stating " I agree that all Califomia students should have access to safe drinking water but this bill creates a state mandate of uncertain but possibly very large magnitude."

  • Hearing

BARRY CASSILLY, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

County of Santa Barbara, (2013) 213 Cal.App.3d 1059, 1069 (agency’s expert report on hydrological impact provided substantial evidence even where EPA and petitioner’s expert disagreed). Opp. at 15.[9] Petitioners argue that the City’s determination that Cassilly’s Property is a discretionary historic resource is not supported by substantial evidence.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EDDIE URQUIZA VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

BMW NA warrants to the original purchaser and each subsequent owner that the vehicle is: a. designed, built and equipped so as to conform with the applicable California Air Resources Board emission standards. b. free from defects in materials and workmanship which cause any part that can affect emissions to fail to conform with applicable requirements or to fail a California Smog Check test or EPA approved short test for a period of 15 years or 150,000, whichever occurs first. c. free from defects in materials

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

BMW NA warrants to the original purchaser and each subsequent owner that the vehicle is: a. designed, built and equipped so as to conform with the applicable California Air Resources Board emission standards. b. free from defects in materials and workmanship which cause any part that can affect emissions to fail to conform with applicable requirements or to fail a California Smog Check test or EPA approved short test for a period of 15 years or 150,000, whichever occurs first. c. free from defects in materials

  • Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.