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

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

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

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

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

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for February 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.PLAINTIFF SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD.

  • Hearing

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The following defects are noted: Plaintiff is “Cemex USA, Inc.;” however, the “Credit Application and Agreement” attached as Exhibit A to the complaint and as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Glen Hansen (“Hansen”) references “CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” at the top of Page 1 and does not appear to make any reference to Cemex USA, Inc. Hansen’s declaration also refers to “Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” as Plaintiff. It would appear that a substitution of plaintiff is needed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for January 15, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for January 12, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: S. Zhang’s liability remains unclear. Plaintiff states, without more, only that “Defendants Xuefan Liu and Lina Zhang sought the assistance of Defendant Shi Qiang Zhang in the wiring of the funds, and Defendant Shi Qiang Zhang made the representations alleged.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.PLAINTIFF SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD.

  • Hearing

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

The Court informed counsel that it would further review the documents in support of the default judgment and let her know if there were any other issues that would need to be addressed and then continued the matter to December 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment and a Case Management Conference are set for December 18, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: Plaintiff alleged that Andiamo “on or about 08/30/2017, Defendants . . . defaulted under the terms of the CONTRACT by failing to pay the entire balance of money due to the Plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶9.) Plaintiff’s Chief Financial Officer, J.J.

  • Hearing

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

The following order was made on 10-20-20 and sent to Plaintiff's counsel.

  • Hearing

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

RE: VISITATION SET BY D30 ON 2/24/20 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Notes: 1. Letters of Guardianship of Person issued to paternal grandmother, Barbara Scott 8-12- 16. 2. Parties entered into a mediated settlement agreement on 1/31/2020. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Lutricia Randolph, maternal aunt, still needs to do the following: 1. Appear at the hearing 2.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

As currently pled, the four causes of action named against fail to state sufficient facts against Moving Defendants. Demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Motion to Strike Based upon the recommendation made on the demurrer, Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the complaint is MOOT.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RE: FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF CO-EXECUTORS ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNT

ANDERSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 1 Need appearances to report status, including 9-1-2020 order to meet and confer Note: Objection filed by John Martini, Richard Martini and David Martini 10-15-2019. DAVID MARTINI JOHN MARTINI KEVIN RODRIGUEZ RICHARD MARTINI KEVIN RODRIGUEZ THE MARTINI FAMILY TRUST DTD 9 TIMOTHY MARTINI DANIEL B NEWBOLD

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF TRAVEON C GAINS

GAINS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Traveon Gaines still must do the following: Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 The Court is waiting for these items: CLETS Report from Sheriff’s Office with last name spelled correctly and AKA listed TRAVEON C.K. GAINS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Continue to 2-18-2021, at request of counsel When to proceed, will Need: 1. Proof of mailing to Atty.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO COMPEL TIMOTHY MARTINI TO ACCT; RPT ACTS COMPEL

DISTRUBUTION FILED ON 12/19/18 BY JOHN MARTINI, RICHARD MARTINI, DAVID MARTINI PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-1-2020 order to meet and confer Notes: A. Per 3-19-19 minute order, court ordered Timothy Martini to file an accounting by 7- 19-19, and ordered distribution by 6-28-19. B. Stipulation to Continue Compliance Date for Accounting to 9-17-19 filed 7-16-19.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST STATUS REPORT OF THE EXECUTOR'S ADMINISTRATION

THOMPSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Corrected proof of mailing to complete Item # 3 which is incomplete on Proof of Service attached to Notice filed 9-2-2020. 2. Proof of mailing to Consular of Mexico. PrC § 8113 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to state whether notice was given, or needed, to Dept. of Health Care Services as to predeceased spouse. PrC § 215, 9202(a); i.e., did predeceased spouse receive Medi-Cal benefits? 4.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF ETHEL MAE HARTS

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FILED ON 08/19/20 BY DELPHIA LANCASTER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Petition verified. Petition verification was not dated by petitioner. (CCP § 2015.5) DELPHIA LANCASTER JASON JM ROSS ETHEL MAE HARTS

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST INSTRUMENT & CONFIRMATION

Lara Heisler was ordered to appear 9-2-2020. Atty. Heisler failed to appear 9-2-2020. ALEXANDREA QUIMSON LARA J HEISLER ALISON JAYNE QUIMSON SAN PEDRO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petitioners, maternal grandparents, still need to do the following: 1. Appear at the hearing 2. File proof of mailing to mother Christine Pickard or her consent and waiver 3.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

THOMPSON KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS MYRNA K CASSADY KONSTATINE A DEMIRIS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE TR continued at next page. Need: 1. Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice so court can confirm mailing. LR 7.112 2. Proof of mailing to conservatee or waiver by counsel. PrC § 1460 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify payments to AT&T.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF CHE ANDREA TRAVERS

by petitioner showing diligent efforts made to locate and serve them.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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 load this page.