Equal Pay Laws (FEHA and EPA) in California

As the statute originally mirrored the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (see 29 U.S.C. § 206, subd. (d)(1)), California courts rely on federal authorities construing the federal statute in interpreting the EPA. (See Green v.

Since the statute originally mirrored the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (see 29 U.S.C. § 206, subd. (d)(1)), California courts rely on federal authorities construing the federal statute to interpret the EPA. (See Green v.

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.

(MPA, p. 1:5-8 202(“But new evidence and new legal authority confirm that Plaintiffs’ ‘common evidence’ cannot prove the class claims under the California Equal Pay Act (“EPA Class”) or Unfair Competition Law (“UCL Class”)[, but i]nstead, individualized inquiries are required

Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action is for Violation of Labor Code § 1197.5 (California's Equal Pay Act). Defendants are individuals who worked for Defendant U.S. Legal Support, Inc. during the time relevant to the Complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-16.)

Background On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Staples LLC, asserting various causes of action including violation of Equal Pay Act, Sexual Harassment, Gender Discrimination, Failure to Prevent, FEHA Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination. On September 20, 2022, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial courts summary judgment order as to Plaintiffs cause of action against Defendant Staples LLC for Equal Pay Violation and remanded the matter to this Court.

GRANT These documents would be relevant to Plaintiff's Equal Pay Act Violation claim – 7th c/a. "'The [Equal Pay] Act,' for its part, 'necessarily requires a plaintiff to compare his skill, effort, responsibility and salary with a person who is or was similarly situated."

The Court understands that the current submission to the EPA is, at least in part, an effort to bring those wells into compliance with the exemption requirements. Assuming the EPA approves the request for exemption, what additional environmental review and/or permitting will occur with respect to those wells that are currently in operation?

1.DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT 2.MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT Demurrer to the 7th Cause of Action Defendants Adult Enrichment Center, Inc. and Pedro Perez’s (“Defendants” together) Demurrer to the 7th Cause of Action for Denial of Equal Pay is Sustained. Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended Complaint within 10 days of the hearing on this matter. “The [] reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.

This Court determined on September 13, 2022, that Plaintiffs 1 st (violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Labor Code §1197.5) , 2 nd (retaliation in violation of the EPA) , 5th ( retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 6 th (whistleblower retaliation Labor Code §1102.5) , 7 th (retaliation Labor Code §98.6), 8 th (failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation FEHA) , 11 th (wrongful termination in violation of public policy) , and 12th (violation of Business & Professions Code §17200)

EPA and ratification EPA was also named as Doe 2. In their demurrer, EPA argues that it is entitled to MICRA protection because it is a health care provider. This argument is related to facts outside of the complaint and is improper at the demurrer stage. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts as to EPA. Defendants note that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Maddock is an employee of EPA.

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.

Furthermore, Caltech submits a letter from NASA dated May 19, 2023, in which NASA represented that EPA had received additional information from Pasadena regarding the alleged contamination but that neither EPA nor NASA believed that the ongoing remedial efforts should be revised. (Carlin Decl., Ex. H.)

Cross-Defendants argue that Fromm cannot be liable in his personal capacity because the representations and warranties in the EPA were made solely by the Seller, or SMG Holdings. However, the EPA provides that Seller and Fromm , on a joint and several basis, agree to indemnify and defend each of the Buyer Indemnified Parties against losses resulting from, inter alia , breaches of any warranties made in the EPA. (EPA § 8.02.)

(EPA) and Leopoldo Robles (Robles) in the penal sum of $50,000.00. On October 23, 2013, a general indemnity agreement was made by EPA and Robles in Plaintiffs favor. Thereafter (i.e., [o]n or about April, 2021), several claims were made against the Bond. Plaintiff requested that EPA and Robles hold Plaintiff harmless and pay the claims, but they failed to do so. Plaintiff retained counsel who filed an interpleader action and paid the penal sum of the bond pursuant to an interpleader order.

giving the EPA a claims approval policyholder priority pursuant to Insurance Code section 1033 (par. 5); and (iv) the overall status of the liquidation proceedings.

(EPA, 2:4-8) Loeb’s EPA is denied as unnecessary as the court will explain here. The court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed order does go beyond what the court intended, but further finds that the proposed order is not inconsistent with the Ruling. Further, one order after hearing is preferable for purposes of completeness and achieving a more coherent order to the court’s Ruling granting the MSA.

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.)

EPA approval, the 305(b) report is merely collected and transmitted to Congress. (33 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(2).) The EPA has issued guidance for the Clean Water Act's listing and reporting requirements. Given that both the 305(b) report and the 303(d) lists are due at the same time (April 1 of every even numbered year), EPA recommends that states combine them into a single "Integrated Report."

Because the EPA may make changes, a 303(d) list is only effective on EPA approval. (Respondents’ RJN, Exh. A, § 6.3 [p.26].) Once a state submits its 303(d) list, the EPA has 30 days to approve or disapprove “the waters identified and the loads established” in the list. (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2).) If the EPA approves such identification and load, the state must 4 The Act also requires states to identify waters not placed on the 303(d) list and to “estimate” TMDLs for pollutants in those waters.

EPA and ratification EPA was also named as Doe 2. In their demurrer, EPA argues that it is entitled to MICRA protection because it is a health care provider. This argument is related to facts outside of the complaint and is improper at the demurrer stage. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts as to EPA. Defendants note that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Maddock is an employee of EPA.

Any avenue of litigation towards an enforceable judgment requires eventual action by the EPA. There is no reason to believe that the EPA would be more receptive to a superior court judgment than Pasadenas previous attempts to have EPA amend its ROD. The public interest factors also weigh in favor of a stay or are, at best, neutral.

Further, like the fiscal year 2020 grant agreement, the court does not have evidence the application would be necessary or convenient to Commission’s duties, where the EPA chooses whether to award a grant to a Host Entity. The Commission later confirmed that the Foundation submitted the fiscal year 2021 NEP grant application to the EPA and that the EPA had approved it.

She also brings putative class and representative claims for violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and related causes of action, on behalf of other female software engineers at Apple. In an order filed on March 26, 2021, the Court sustained Apple’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s putative class and representative claims, as well as her individual claims for harassment and constructive wrongful termination, and granted its motion to strike her punitive damages allegations, all with leave to amend.

But, to the extent that Defendants’ expert relies on the 2017 and 2019 EPA studies, then lobbying of the EPA by Monsanto to influence those studies might be relevant. (Conversely, if Defendants are able to stipulate not to elicit evidence of the EPA study from their expert, then lobbying of the EPA does not appear probative during the causation phase.)

Central to the petition is the contention that the submission of the proposal to the EPA constituted an “approval” of a “project” as those terms are defined under CEQA. The proposed exemption is an expansion of the existing aquifer exemption area that was approved in 1983, in conjunction with the US EPA granting the State of California primacy for regulation of Class II injection.

Wirshing, Maddock, and EPA note that the amendments as to EPA are contained in paragraphs 17, 25, 28-36, 42, 48-50, 56 and 67 in the preliminary statement/parties/factual background/general allegations section of the proposed TAC and that these allegations are not solely related to the UCL claim. These allegations do not exceed the scope for leave to amend.

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS The Court is awaiting a status update re: the settlement agreement with the EPA.

Nature of Proceedings: Status of Settlement Continuance Requested by Peter Umoff to February 23, 2006 at 8:30am Dept 5 awaiting final approval by EPA.

Nature of Proceedings: Status of Settlement Continuance Requested by Peter Umoff to February 23, 2006 at 8:30am Dept 5 awaiting final approval by EPA.

In Dump Truck, the Ninth Circuit explained “[a]s a result [of this provision], invalidation of an EPA-approved SIP may only occur in the federal appellate courts on direct appeal from the [EPA] Administrator’s decision.” (Dump Truck, supra, 784 F.3d at 504, emphasis added, internal quotes omitted.)

Defendants MIL No. 4; Ford Motion Re EPA Gold Book And Publications Defendants move to exclude the EPA Gold Book. Ford filed an unnumbered motion in limine to exclude evidence of the EPA Gold Book and other unidentified publications. The EPA Gold Book could be relevant to notice of the dangers of asbestos. If Plaintiffs seek to use the document to show notice or knowledge, the documents may not be hearsay if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

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.)

.  California Equal Pay Act The California Equal Pay Act (CEPA), at Labor Code section 1197.5, provides at subdivision (i) that a civil action to recover wages for unequal pay for the same work based on gender has a two-year limitations period, unless it is a willful violation, in which case the limitations period is three years.

o No. 5: Did the State Water Board actually and explicitly find that – in its opinion – the conditions set forth in the 401 Cert were necessary based on the new EPA Rule 2020? o No. 6: Did the State Water Board make sufficient Topanga findings to support its determination that – in its opinion – the conditions set forth in the 401 Cert were necessary based on the new EPA Rule 2020? o No. 7: Did the State Water Board have to conform its 401 Cert to the new EPA 2020 rule?

EPA, 8 F.4th 1075, 1091 (9th Cir. 2021); Bahr v. Regan, 6 F.4th 1059, 1072-1073 (9th Cir. 2021); United States v. Lucero, 993 F.3d 1088, 1104-1105 (9th Cir. 2021); American Mining Congress v. EPA, 965 F.2d 759, 769- 770 (9th Cir. 1992); Buckeye Power, Inc. v. EPA, 481 F.2d 162, 170-171 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. Mashni, 547 F.Supp.3d 496, 511-513 (D. So. Car. 2021); Gonzales v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 500 F.Supp.3d 1115, 1124-1126 (E.D.

(EPA, § 8.5(b).)

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of a 1986 document prepared by the EPA because it is hearsay. The contents of the document may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes that it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field.

The Court previously refused to admit the same EPA meeting minutes and the post-approval evidence in Petitioners Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

) [3] In reply, Petitioner suggests that the EPA representative lacked authority to speak for the EPA on this issue. (Reply 9.) Petitioner does not cite evidence that supports its position.

All the proceeds of the sale shall be kept in escrow until EPA liability issue is resolved. No disbursements except for sales commission of 5% shall be made. =(501/HD)

This matter is continued in order to provide the EPA with time to review necessary documents. To request oral argument on this matter, you must call the Court at (916)874-8243 (Department 44) by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and advise opposing counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. Local Rule 3.04.

pay.

Equal Pay Act An employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. (Lab. Code, § 1197.5(a).)

As discussed, the harassment, discrimination, and Equal Pay Act claims are predicated upon the same allegations by the same employees against the same supervisor. Moreover, the claim for failure to prevent discrimination/harassment is based upon the Regents failure to take any action against Dunne for all of the allegations in the second amended complaint.

Defendants MIL No. 17 Defendant Honeywell seeks to preclude a 1986 EPA document entitled Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics as irrelevant, hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. If Defendant contends it did not know about the hazards of asbestos by 1986, the document could be relevant to Defendants notice of the dangers of asbestos, a non-hearsay use.

In 2019, the EPA “investigated the source of contamination, including lead and TCE, found in drinking water production wells near the Site. TCE was detected at levels above the USEPA’s Regional Screening Level (RSLs) at multiple residential and commercial locations.

The Court recognizes the multiple considerations in defining the scope of Plaintiff and Defendant's respective rights and obligations at issue in Plaintiff's equal pay claim.The Court will HEAR on whether a discovery referee should be appointed to evaluate and make recommendations on the scope of permissible discovery on Plaintiff's equal pay claim.

Defendants MIL No. 30 Defendants Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd seek to exclude a December 2020 publication by the EPA entitled Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part I: Chrysotile Asbestos as hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. An expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury in general terms that he or she did so.

The complaint alleges that SMG Holdings and an individual named Andrew Fromm (the Sellers) entered into an Equity Purchase Agreement (EPA) with SMG Mountain (the Buyer). Under the EPA, SMG Mountain agreed to purchase all outstanding membership interests in SMG Holdings. As part of the transaction, the parties agreed to set aside $860,000 in an Indemnity Escrow Account. Under the EPA, the Sellers were required to indemnify the Buyer for covered losses related to the transaction.

MUSD claims that Enveniam, LLC cannot maintain its breach of contract cause of action, because the EPA identifies “Enveniam, Inc.” as the party with which it contracted.

A second amended complaint adding substantive state and federal equal pay claims was filed shortly before the motion for preliminary approval. The original version of the moving papers appeared to describe a PAGA-only settlement, not the classwide settlement reflected in the agreement.

VIDA CAPIITAL GROUP, LLC AND MALCOLM DURHAM’S MOTION TO VACATE THE REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT BY 1893 WOODLAND EPA, LLC AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEMURRER AS A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is continued to February 15, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department so as to bring it into compliance with CCP §1005. Defendants correctly point out that the motion was not served in compliance with the notice requirements of CCP §1005.

Accordingly, Defendant met its burden to demonstrate a triable issue of fact exists as to its 38th affirmative defense of Equal Pay. Conclusion Plaintiffs motion for summary adjudication of Defendants 38th affirmative defense, Equal Pay, is denied. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: October _____, 2023 Hon. Daniel M. Crowley Judge of the Superior Court

On June 29, 2020 at 10:08 p.m., Defendant filed this motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel, seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs’ equal pay cause of action and attorney fees of $12,750.00. (Mintz Decl. ¶ 4.) On June 30, 2020 at 12:50 a.m., Plaintiffs informed Defendant that they would dismiss the equal pay claims. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs attempted to file a dismissal on June 30, 2020, but it was rejected for clerical reasons. (Gibson Decl. ¶ 4; see Proof of Service by Mail [filed June 30, 2020].)

Plaintiffs Motion further seeks discovery to show that she was legally entitled to the pay raise she requested and that she is subject to disparate pay, which relates solely to her underlying equal pay claim, not her retaliation claim. Plaintiff seeks to conduct discovery to prove her underlying equal pay claim, which is not at issue in the anti-SLAPP motion. ( See Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc.

Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. move to exclude a December 2020 publication by the EPA entitled Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part I: Chrysotile Asbestos as hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. This motion is duplicative of No. 23. An expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury in general terms that he or she did so.

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.

Costle (1977) 568 F.2d 1369, and the EPA was ordered to require NPDES permits for storm water runoff. When the EPA failed to adopt regulations implementing a permitting system for storm water runoff, Congress adopted the Water Quality Act of 1987, amending the Clean Water Act to impose NPDES permit requirements for storm water discharges.

Defendants MIL No. 14 Defendant Autozone West seeks to exclude evidence of a 1986 document prepared by the EPA referred to as the Gold Book because a 2007 EPA publication replaced it and it is hearsay. The document could be relevant to notice of the dangers of asbestos pre-2007. If Plaintiffs seek to use the document to show notice or knowledge, the documents may not be hearsay if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

In 2019, the EPA “investigated the source of contamination, including lead and TCE, found in drinking water production wells near the Site. TCE was detected at levels above the USEPA’s Regional Screening Level (RSLs) at multiple residential and commercial locations.

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ Updated Trial Plan, filed November 5, 2021 (“Trial Plan”), does not demonstrate the manageability of this EPA class action involving over 3,000 class members in 125 different job codes. (Wesson v.

"Title VII and the Equal Pay Act overlap because both make unlawful differentials in wages on the basis of a person's sex. It is not unusual or improper for a plaintiff seeking equal pay for equal work to allege a violation of both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. When a Title VII claimant contends that she has been denied equal pay for substantially equal work, as here, Equal Pay Act standards apply." Maxwell v. City of Tucson (9th Cir. 1986) 803 F. 2d 444, 446 (footnote and internal citations omitted).

Defendants contend the EPA updated its guidance in 2007 so the video is outdated. That too can be the subject of cross-examination. Defendants argue the videos references to an article and wives and children lack foundation. That section of the video is irrelevant because there is no claim in this case about injury to wives and children. Similarly, smoking does not seem to be an issue in this case.

Defendants MIL No. 7 Defendant Honeywell seeks to preclude a 1986 EPA document entitled Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics as irrelevant, hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. If Defendant contends it did not know about the hazards of asbestos by 1986, the document could be relevant to Defendants notice of the dangers of asbestos, a non-hearsay use.

Appx. 608, 609, in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district courts dismissal of a complaint, stating that California law does not recognize a cause of action for publicizing EPA fuel economy estimates and omitting explanation and that the manufacturer had no duty to disclose certain information known to it which conflicted with the EPA estimates.

Newly Discovered Evidence The defendants argue that certain “newly discovered evidence” regarding an EPA Certification of the contractor, Steve Patterson, that was building an additional rental unit on the property was authorized to do lead based paint work could not have been discovered before trial and was relevant to Patterson’s credibility.

Plaintiffs Demand Letter and DFEH Charges Did Not Provide Notice Required by the Act Next, Plaintiff argues that even if the Act applies, and even if Defendant did not waive the Acts requirements, Plaintiff nonetheless sent a demand letter to Defendant in 2011 providing notice that he had been denied equal pay. (Opp. 13: 15-17.)

The parties propose to settle this matter for $900,000, an amount intended to cover claims under the California Fair Pay Act, the federal Equal Pay Act, and PAGA. Of this $900,000, $10,000 is allocated to the PAGA claim, with the remainder devoted to the substantive wage disparity claims.

Demurrer TENTATIVE RULING: The hearing on Defendants Vida Capital Group, LLC’s and Malcolm Durham’s Demurrer to Plaintiff 1893 Woodland EPA, LLC’s First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed 10-6-17, is continued to March 28, 2018 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer. See Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.41.

The claims for gender discrimination and equal pay violations are predicated upon the same factual allegations. Therefore, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that compliance with the Government Claims Act was not required for the claim for equal pay violations. The purpose of the Government Claims Act has been satisfied through the DFEH process. ( Krainock v. Superior Court (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1473, 1477; Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 701, 712.)

In 2019, the EPA “investigated the source of contamination, including lead and TCE, found in drinking water production wells near the Site. TCE was detected at levels above the USEPA’s Regional Screening Level (RSLs) at multiple residential and commercial locations.

The mere fact that hydroquinone is considered an existing chemical substance in U.S. commerce does not show that the chemical has been deemed unreasonably dangerous by the EPA. The FDA regulations cited by Plaintiff also do not show that hydroquinone has been designated by the EPA as dangerous under the Toxic Substance Control Act. Consequently, Plaintiff has not shown that either exception to Iowas fifteen-year statute of repose applies here.

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.

Defendant also argues OSHA and EPA reports are hearsay. This motion is too vague as Defendant did not identify any specific report to be excluded. If Plaintiffs ask to admit the reports for the truth of the matter asserted in them, Defendants can object at that time. However, an expert may rely on the reports even if they are hearsay. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiff’s DFEH claims were not timely asserted, plaintiff’s DFEH Complaint did not allege that the individual defendant committed any offending actions (or any actions occurring less than one year before plaintiff filed her DFEH Complaint), the Title IX and Equal Pay Act claims appear to be barred by the statute of limitations, and the Government Tort Claims Act bars some of plaintiff’s causes of action.

When petitioners first applied for a 401 Certification, the EPA guidelines in effect had remained relatively unchanged for 50 years. However, on 04/10/19, then-President Trump issued Executive Order 13868, requiring required the EPA to move the Dept. 2 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings for November 21, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

The demurrer to these causes of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 4th Cause of Action – Equal Pay Act The California Equal Pay Act prohibits paying employees at lower wage rates than rates paid to employees of the opposite sex or a different race or ethnicity for substantially similar work. (Lab. Code, § 1197.5(a), (b).)

On June 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed her operative first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendant alleging twelve causes of action: (1) violation of Equal Pay Act (Lab. Code §1197.5) ; (2) retaliation in violation of Equal Pay Act (Lab. Code §1197.5(k)); (3) sex discrimination (Gov. Code §12940(a) ); (4) race and/or ancestry discrimination (Gov. Code §12940(a)); (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12940(h); (6) whistleblower retaliation (Lab.

In the alternative, Defendant moves for summary adjudication of the 1 st (violation of Equal Pay Act, Labor Code §1197.5), 2 nd (retaliation in violation of Equal Pay Act), 3 rd (sex discrimination FEHA), 4 th (race and/or ancestry discrimination FEHA), 5 th (retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 6 th (whistleblower retaliation Labor Code §1102.5), 7 th (retaliation Labor Code §98.6), 8 th (failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation FEHA), 9 th (failure to pay earned wages Labor Code

Defendant then asserts that the only Labor Code provision at issue here is the Equal Pay Act, and that Dizon relies on the same protected activities in support of his EPA claim to support his Labor Code section 98.6 claim, such that Dizon cannot establish a prima facie case for violation of Labor Code section 98.6 .

Defendants No. 28 Defendant Ford Motor Company moves to exclude a December 2020 publication by the EPA entitled Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part I: Chrysotile Asbestos as hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. An expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury in general terms that he or she did so.

Defendants MIL No. 2 Defendant Honeywell seeks to preclude a 1986 EPA document entitled Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics as irrelevant, hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. If Defendant contends it did not know about the hazards of asbestos by 1986, the document could be relevant to Defendants notice of the dangers of asbestos, a non-hearsay use.

Defendant contends the EPA updated its guidance in 2007 so the video is outdated. That too can be the subject of cross-examination. Defendant argues the videos references to an article and wives and children lack foundation. That section of the video is irrelevant because there is no claim in this case about injury to wives and children.

Defendants MIL No. 2 Defendant Honeywell seeks to preclude a 1986 EPA document entitled Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics as irrelevant, hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. If Defendant contends it did not know about the hazards of asbestos by 1986, the document could be relevant to Defendants notice of the dangers of asbestos, a non-hearsay use.

Defendant's motion to bifurcate plaintiff's Private Attorney General Act claim from plaintiff's individual claims in this Equal Pay Act and unfair competition case is DENIED without prejudice to its reassertion before the trial judge. The court finds that the trial judge will be in the best position to determine the order in which issues are to be heard at trial.

Plaintiff asserts her rights of inequitable assignment of event overtime through the Equal Pay Act and FEHA. But the Equal Pay Act prohibits unequal rates of pay not number of hours. The court can find no California authority on the question of whether unequal overtime assignment can constitute a violation of the California Equal Pay Act. There is authority that it is not a violation of the federal Equal Pay Act.

Here, Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is not directed to Plaintiff's first cause of action for failure to provide equal pay. It is not clear why this discovery is necessary for Plaintiff to oppose the specific issues raised in Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. However, it is also not clear why the stay should apply to this discovery, given that the case will proceed on the first cause of action regardless of the outcome of the anti-SLAPP motion. The court will hear from counsel on both of these matters.

Defendants No. 28 Defendant Ford Motor Company moves to exclude a December 2020 publication by the EPA entitled Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part I: Chrysotile Asbestos as hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. An expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury in general terms that he or she did so.

Defendants MIL No. 2 Defendant Honeywell International seeks to preclude a 1986 EPA document entitled Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics as irrelevant, hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. If Defendant contends it did not know about the hazards of asbestos by 1986, the document could be relevant to Defendants notice of the dangers of asbestos, a non-hearsay use.

Defendants MIL No. 2 Defendants move to exclude evidence of a 1986 EPA guidance about asbestos as hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. The document could be relevant to Defendants notice of the dangers of asbestos, a non-hearsay use. Also, the contents of the document may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field.

In addition, Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants violated the California Equal Pay Act&by not paying [Plaintiffs] correct pay, as well not paying full pay check& (FAC at p. 5:19-20.) [Labor Code] Section 1197.5 is Californias equal pay law. (( Green v. Par Pools, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 620, 622 .)

Pay Act; (6) wrongful constructive termination; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

The proposed Third Amended Complaint seeks, at this late date, to add a wholly new cause of action for alleged violation of Labor Code §1197.5 (the California Equal Pay Act). Plaintiff’s supporting declaration does not fully and satisfactorily address any of the factors enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

In other words, Plaintiff fails to show that she or other females at ELD and LAWA did not receive equal pay for equal work as male employees despite practicing law for the same number of years and in the same relevant field for the same amount of time. Finally, Plaintiff fails to show that the fact she saw her male coworker, George Sami (Sami), DCA I parked at City Hall East (CHE), is evidence of a violation of the Equal Pay Act.

Case Number: 23STCV01373 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: 15 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE; MOTION TO BIFURCATE Defendants MIL No. 1 Defendants seek to exclude evidence of a 1986 document prepared by the EPA referred to as the Gold Book because a 2007 EPA publication replaced it and it is hearsay. The document could be relevant to notice of the dangers of asbestos pre-2007.

Plaintiffs Demand Letter and DFEH Charges Did Not Provide Notice Required by the Act Next, Plaintiff argues that even if the Act applies, and even if Defendant did not waive the Acts requirements, Plaintiff nonetheless sent a demand letter to Defendant in 2011 providing notice that he had been denied equal pay. (Opp. 13: 15-17.)

The EPA is required to review the SIP, which includes the Plan, and decide whether it intends to approve or disapprove it. 42 U.S.C. §7410(k)(3)-(4). The EPA’s decision then is the final agency action subject to judicial review. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7067(b)(1), 7604(a); 5 U.S.C. §704. The Complaint does not challenge any action by the EPA, and does not even mention whether the EPA has reviewed the Plan and SIP.