What is failure to prevent disability discrimination?

Required Elements for Discrimination

FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any person because of a physical or mental disability. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a). 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.

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317 at 355; Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 78, 84; Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1246.

Motion Practice and Burden Shifting

“On a motion for summary judgment brought against such a cause of action the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination based upon physical disability, and the burden then shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” (Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 44.) “Once the employer has done so the plaintiff must offer evidence that the employer’s stated reason is either false or pretextual, or evidence that the employer acted with discriminatory animus, or evidence of each which would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude the employer intentionally discriminated.” (Id.)

Required Elements for Failure to Prevent

In order for plaintiff to allege a valid claim for failure to prevent disability discrimination, he must allege

  1. an actionable discrimination claim against the Defendant and
  2. that the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the alleged discrimination against plaintiff.

See, CACI 2527; Northrop Grumman Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1021, 1035.

“Where Plaintiff’s failure to prevent claim is their contention that there was no discrimination or harassment... as a consequence the failure to prevent claim fails.” (Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289 stating there can be no violation of § 12940(k) where there has been no discrimination.)

Useful Rulings on Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination

Recent Rulings on Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

As an initial matter, the City agrees that it will not enforce AMC § 4.05.100.0115, which requires immediate warrantless access to a STR; will not issue citations for failure to grant immediate access pending a trial in this case, pursuant to AMC § 4.05.140.020.0201(6); and will offer the City Council amendments to remove language providing for the issuance of citations for failure to grant immediate access.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

With respect to the first question, the Court concludes that Section 13.2(f) does not preclude SARVS from attempting to obtain compensation for any alleged loss of goodwill. Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The Court finds Turner’s failure to include in its Separate Statement the ultimate material facts on this issue as to each separate plaintiff is grounds alone to deny the motion as to the negligence claim. Turner relies in its motion on the economic loss doctrine, which states that in “actions for negligence, a manufacturer's liability is limited to damages for physical injuries; no recovery is allowed for economic loss alone.” (Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 640.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075, which is remanded to you for reconsideration in light of the Decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. Nothing herein shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in you. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to file with this Court a return to this writ on or before (90 plus 30 days as per Respondents’ request) stating what you have done to comply.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

The hearings on the applications are continued to 7/19/19 to allow the applicants to provide supplemental information regarding the foregoing factors. The supplemental information should be submitted by 7/12/19. No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for July 2, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: This instant case pertains to 16010 Phoenix Drive, City of Industry, CA, 91745 only. Plaintiff’s authorized agent, Michael Tang (“Tang”), attests that the monthly rental amount was $43,153.00, which was subsequently increased to $44,447.59 effective May 1, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

Plaintiff has not provided the court with an explanation regarding why this was done or provided the court with any information regarding Zaragoza’s ability to read and/or speak English. The first loan agreement to Zaragoza is undated. Plaintiff is requested to attach and authenticate the checks attached to the complaint to any future declaration, with any handwritten notes in Spanish translated.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

After the checks had been sent to Round Table, Plaintiff learned that the vehicle price was to be paid directly to the selling dealer, and that only the broker fee was to be paid directly to Round Table. Round Table cashed the checks and refuse to return the monies to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

DANIEL GINZBURG, ET AL. VS 15025 SATICOY STREET, INC., ET AL.

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all Parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

The Loan was subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. Lopez has defaulted on the Loan by failing to make all required payments due thereunder. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lopez and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Contract On January 16, 2020, Lopez’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for March 23, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

(“Hummingbird”) failed to provide him with rest and meal breaks, failed to pay him all wages due, including overtime, and failed to provide him with accurate wage statements. On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Hummingbird and Does 1-50 for: Failure to Provide Rest Periods—Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 Failure to Provide Meal Periods—Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 Failure to Pay Minimum Wage—Cal. Labor Code § 1197 Failure to Pay Overtime—Cal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for August 12, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED. ANALYSIS Yes (7/6/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

In any event, as Emanate points out, Plaintiff fails to identify any determinable legal standard that Kalkat’s purported failureto get back to” Beharie may violate.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Yoo, CJME and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Oral Contract Intentional Misrepresentation Defamation Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment Conspiracy to Defraud On May 23, 2019, E. Yoo’s, S. Yoo’s and CJME’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for August 6, 2020 Discussion Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Chen advised Plaintiff that he had been operating a successful business, Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), for many years and could assist Plaintiff to open a business and obtain a visa. On or around March 24, 2018, the parties signed a contract, in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $120,000.00 to Tissuesco and, in return, Tissuesco would open, operate and manage a company for Plaintiff and assist Plaintiff in applying for an L-1 visa.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 618. As such, the default judgment is procedurally defective and lacks admissible evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Board of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners move for an order granting leave to file their FACC, explaining that “this additional cause of action merely clarifies that, in the unlikely event that the Board were to lose title to the Parking Lot after trial, the Board would nonetheless be entitled to an equitable lien based upon its payoff of a prior loan that Chino Americana took out in connection to the Parking Lot.” (Id. at p. 4:8-11.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, ET AL.

A Case Management Conference and an Order too Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for July 29, 2020. Discussion Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: Plaintiffs’ Judicial Council Request for Entry of Default Form CIV-100 states that the “[d]emand of complaint” is $76,476.15.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.