What is Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment?

Failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment is a “separate actionable tort enforceable upon the establishment of the usual tort elements of duty of care, breach of duty (a negligent act or omission), causation, and damages.” Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 1307, 1313.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Govt. Code § 12940(k); Scotch v. Art Inst. of California-Orange Cnty., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1003 (citing the old Govt. Code § 12940(h)). Reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination include prompt investigation of discrimination claims, establishment and promulgation of antidiscrimination policies, and implementation of effective procedures to handle discrimination complaints. Cal. Fair Employment and Housing Commission v. Gemini Alum. Corp. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1024-1025.

A claim of failure to prevent FEHA violations must be predicated on an actionable claim of those violations, such as discrimination or harassment. Trujillo v. N. Cty. Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 280, 289; Scotch v. Art Institute of Cal. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1021 (“the ‘Failure to Maintain’ cause of action can survive only if a ‘Retaliation’ cause of action survives.”). “There’s no logic that says an employee who has not been discriminated against can sue an employer for not preventing discrimination that didn’t happen, for not having a policy to prevent discrimination when no discrimination occurred. Employers should not be held liable to employees for failure to take necessary steps to prevent such conduct, except where the actions took place and were not prevented.” Trujillo v. N. Cty. Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289 (citations and quotation omitted).

The elements of a claim for failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. To succeed on this claim, plaintiff must prove that:

  1. she was an employee of defendant;
  2. she was subjected to harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in the course of employment;
  3. defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination, or retaliation;
  4. she was harmed; and
  5. defendant’s failure to take preventative steps was a substantial factor in causing the harm

CACI No. 2527; see also BAJI 12.11 (the elements of a cause of action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination are: (i) Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination; (ii) Defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination; and (iii) This failure caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm); Lelaind v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal. 2008) 576 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1103.

Useful Rulings on Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA

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.

At the conclusion of oral argument relating to that issue, the Court allowed the parties the opportunity to brief two additional questions: (1) whether under the terms of the lease Defendant SARVS is entitled to be compensated for the potential loss of goodwill under Section 13.2(f), and (2) whether the calculation of the fair market value of the 2.9 acres in question should take into consideration the existence of the SCE-SARVS lease pertaining to that property.

  • Hearing

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

“The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (Id.) 2. Evolution Evolution manages the operations of the hotel pursuant to a management agreement with T-12 and is a party plaintiff to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, and the Second Cause of Action for Negligence. Evolution is not a party to the express and implied warranty claims.

  • 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.

Plaintiff Francisco Velazquez’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kim D. Stephens, Gregory F. Coleman, Paul C. Peel, Jason T. Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Hernandez and Does 1-100 for: Breach of Contract Money Lent Account Stated On November 3, 2020, Hernandez’s default was entered. 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.

LINFIELD presiding in DEPT. 34 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. 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.

.;” 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. ANALYSIS Yes (10/16/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • 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.

On or about April 14, 2017, Plaintiff and SLG agreed to assign and amend the Lease, with Plaintiff’s consent, to New Diamond Trucking, Inc. (“New Diamond”). In or around April 17, 2017, New Diamond, with Plaintiff’s permission, subleased a portion of the subject property to Sweet & Cozy Furniture, Inc. (“Sweet & Cozy”). New Diamond breached the Lease by failing to pay rent.

  • Hearing

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Zhang is not alleged to have been a party to the underlying contract and there are no facts alleged as to S. Zhang’s involvement. Plaintiff does not provide the court with any documentary evidence in support of his claims. Plaintiff’s request for $300,000.00 in lost profit damages is unsupported. ANALYSIS Yes (11/9/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • 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.

LINFIELD presiding in DEPT. 34 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. 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

After filing the FACC, the Cross-Complainant did serve a Statement of Damages under CCP 425.115 to give notice that it seeks "$192,378.92" for administrative fees in addition to the actual damages of "$800,000" as requested in the FACC.

  • Hearing

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

Additionally, the promissory note attached as Exhibit 1 to Hutzenbiler’s Declaration reflects that Andiamo agreed to pay the loan in 12 monthly installments, with the first payment due on or before July 31, 2017 in the amount of $5,932.95, and with each subsequent monthly payment due on or before the 31st of each month, in an amount of $5,932.95. The entire remaining outstanding balance of principal was to be due on June 29, 2018.

  • Hearing

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

No further hearings are in Dept. 28, Spring StreetAFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

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

Defendants Zhibin Tan, Han Ye, Tian Lang Tan, and VPT Development LLC (collectively “Moving Defendants”) demurrer to all the causes of action in Plaintiffs Hai Ying Ruan, Jun Ruan, and Li Hui Huang’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failing to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

Submit Order Fixing Residence Outside the State of California Form GC-090 Note: Pursuant to court’s order dated 8/1/2018, Petitioners previously moved the ward to Nevada and were ordered to transfer the guardianship to Nevada within four months of the move. ARMANI JARED PICKARD SUMMER C SELLECK DIANA LYNN PICKARD MATTHEW ALLEN PICKARD Need appearances Need appearances

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

A transfer from Chase savings accounts of $43,590.35 was reported on 7-10-19. 12. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify ATM fees. Need clarification of payee and purpose of each. 13. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify whether conservatee owns a timeshare. Disbursements related to timeshare are reported; however, no timeshare appears in list of assets on hand at beginning of account. 14. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify purpose of payments to AAA Insurance.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF CHE ANDREA TRAVERS

RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE FILED BY CHE' TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Che Travers still must do the following: File a Proof of Publication of Order to Show Cause For Change of Name CHE ANDREA TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Meiasha Davis, mother, still must do the following: Have a copy of the Order to Show Cause personally served on each father and file a Proof of Service with the court or file a verified declaration

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE

Verified declaration to include Form ICWA-010(A) to confirm that you have questioned minor’s relatives as to whether minor has any Indian ancestry CRC 5.481 4. Parental Notification of Indian Status Form ICWA-020 filed 5. Proposed Order The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Report of Atty. Summer Selleck 2. Report of Atty. Robert O. Morris Need: 1. UCCJEA Form FL-105 verified. Verification is not dated. 2. Court Investigator’s Report Note: Form ICWA-030 was filed 11-18-2020.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FALISHA PORTER VS PHARMAVITE, LLC

Finally, the issue of whether every single page of her employment file should be open to discovery is also an issue. For instance, what if she had private conversations about health issues unrelated to the damages in this case. What if she was asked to be a witness in a claim against another co-employee? The court can envision many situations which are unrelated to issues of her damages in this case and her representations to this employer upon which it relied in hiring her.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Chen advised that Tissuesco and Chen have no assets to refund Plaintiff. On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chen, Tissuesco and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty On October 23, 2019, Chen’s default was entered. On September 1, 2020, Tissuesco’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for December 7, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HARRY TRAN VS ST GEORGE & ASSOCIATES

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Attorney Fees Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY INC ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

NEWPORT CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP II LLC VS SUSAN SCHWARTZ

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Vacate Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara 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.