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 Resources for Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA

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

76-100 of 10000 results

MORRISON VS CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA

The Court intends to rule as follows; To grant defendant's request for judicial notice. To sustain Defendant's demurrer to the first cause of action for dangerous condition of public property with leave to amend. Plaintiff has not alleged SCE or EIX is a public entity. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

CONS. OF VICTORIA RAJU

File a verified declaration to include current addresses of mother, father and siblings, and names and current addresses of maternal and paternal grandparents 3. Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court or file a verified declaration by petitioner showing diligent efforts made to identify, locate and serve each person. CRC 7.52 Notes: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DAVID ROSS, ET AL. VS JUSTIN MONEMPOUR, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE MARTEL TRUST,

Violation of the laws of FEHA Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ FEHA claim is barred by the statute of limitations and that their DFEH Complaints are improper on their face.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ERIC FISHER VS HILTON WORLWIDE HOLDINGS INC ET AL

In the 2nd cause of action for negligent provision of required safeguards, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a duty to abide by the laws of the state and maintain an injury and illness prevention program, provide him with proper ladders and/or fall arrest systems. (Id., ¶¶67-68.) In the 4th cause of action for premises liability, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent Plaintiff from exposure to an unreasonable risk of harm on their premises. (Id., ¶93.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO. VS. JERRY D. EASLEY

Easley as the only “Debtor” and section 9 to clarify the judgment is in rem as against Mr. Easley. The Court will grant the motion to amend the judgment. Here, there is no prejudice to the parties by Plaintiff clarifying the identity of the debtor as Mr. Easley only, as opposed to all the Defendants named in the action. As indicated by Plaintiff, it is unable to request the Clerk of the Court to issue a new writ of execution until the debtor is correctly identified until this correction has been made.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEE LEWIS VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (3) negligent repair; and (4) misrepresentation. Moving Defendant filed a demurrer to the third and fourth causes in the complaint, as well as a motion to strike. MEET AND CONFER The meet and confer requirement has been met. DEMURRER A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law. (Durell v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TURMEL WOODS VS CITY OF COMPTON, A MUNICIPALITY

If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to [email protected] stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELINTON GRAMAJO VS JOE'S PIZZA ON SUNSET INC ET AL

Plaintiff Elinton Gramajo (Plaintiff) filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc. and Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, LLC, alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages; (2) failure to provide rest periods and meal periods; (3) failure to pay wages due at time of termination; (4) failure to pay wages due at time of termination; (4) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (5) unfair business practices. An IDC was conducted on 10/1/2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROUSHAN BEGUM, MS. VS WEISS FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 24, 2020, alleging sixteen causes of action: FEHA disability discrimination FEHA disability harassment FEHA disability retaliation Failure to engage in good faith interactive process Failure to provide reasonable accommodations FEHA sex/gender harassment FEHA sex/gender discrimination FEHA sex/gender retaliation Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation Negligent hiring and retention Nonpayment of wages Failure to indemnify

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SUSHI CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR CASES

· Whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation This factor does not favor coordination. True, the Included Actions both seek PAGA penalties for Labor Code violations, including failure to pay all wages earned, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JON MAAS VS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

(b) [16 court days plus 10 calendar days for an address outside the State of California].) Based upon the date and method of service, the date of the hearing should have been set on or after January 25. Accordingly, the Court continues the motion to March 22, 2021, 8:30 A.M. in Department 32 for Counsel to give proper notice to Plaintiff. DATED: January 22, 2021 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ANC VEHICLE WASH SYSTEMS, INC. VS SHIMON COHEN, ET AL.

As to such motion, the Court GRANTS BCWI’s request for monetary sanctions and AWARDS BCWI reasonable monetary sanctions against Cross-Defendants only in the amount of $250.00. Monetary sanctions are to be paid by Cross-Defendants to BCWI within 20 days of the date of this order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ERIN K FERGUSON VS JAMES FROST, ET AL.

, NIED, and violation of illegal charges are sustained without leave to amend on the ground that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PATRICIA JEANNE EBINER VS TRAVIS A HOLLAND, ET AL.

In fact, Sections 2 and 9 of the Retainer Agreement provide that neither Petition nor Claimant will be assessed for services provided by attorneys other than Mr. Amendt absent “a separate and distinct agreement.” Currently, the Court is unaware if such an agreement exists. Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on the Petition to March 22, 2021, 8:30 A.M. in Department 32. Petitioner is to give notice of this order, and file proof of service of such.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEHROUZ ALIPANAHI VS GINA HARRIS REY

In determining whether to re-open discovery, the Court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to re-open discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

RICHARD OXNER VS CRUISE AMERICA RV RENTALS

Accordingly, the Court continues the motion to March 8, 2021, 8:30 A.M. in Department 32 for Counsel to give proper notice to Plaintiff. DATED: January 22, 2020 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GARCIA VS. LEE

The moving parties should be in possession of all information that would enable them to know how much in attorneys’ fees and costs they have incurred in defending this action, enabling them to file a summary judgment motion and go to trial. The moving parties are ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

KAM LP, ET AL. VS YGRENE, INC, ET AL.

On January 11, 2021, 23830 Hatteras filed opposition briefs, stating that the demurrer and motion to strike were now moot in light of the filing of the SAXC. In light of the filing of the SAXC, the Court takes the demurrer and motion portions of the FAXC to strike off-calendar. The Court notes that Anchor IRA Fund, LLC filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the SAXC on January 6, 2021, which is scheduled to be heard on March 26, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTONIO CUEVAS VS MONTEREY PARK HOSPITAL, ET AL.

(2) As used in this subdivision, “putative spouse” means the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid. (c) A minor, whether or not qualified under subdivision (a) or (b), if, at the time of the decedent's death, the minor resided for the previous 180 days in the decedent's household and was dependent on the decedent for one-half or more of the minor's support. (CCP § 377.60(a)-(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MANUEL KAZANJIAN VS. ADRIEN VINCENT SEVERO, ET AL.

The parties agreed to resolve the matter in exchange for Menco’s payment of $2,500, the receipt of which is to be provided to Severo/Cal Structure’s counsel within 30 days of execution of the agreement. (Settlement Agreement at p.2, §1.) The Agreement states that it shall be interpreted and enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of California and if any suit is brought for breach of or to enforce the agreement, each party consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the County of Los Angeles.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS NATIONAL PROGRESSIVE INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

(d) In the case of a defendant described in subdivision (c), community property of a type described in subdivision (c) is subject to attachment if the community property would be subject to enforcement of the judgment obtained in the action in which the attachment is sought. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 487.010.) “Item “9c” must be checked if the action is against a natural person. In addition, the property to be attached. . . must be described. [CCP § 484.020(e)].”See Ahart, CAL. PRAC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff Hudson’s Motion to Tax Costs is similarly CONTINUED. Moving Defendants to file supplemental documentation exclusively as to attorneys’ fees specific to Bachsian in connection with the November 8, 2018 hearing by February 3, 2021. Plaintiff to file Opposition by February 17, 2021. Factual Background The factual background relating to this motion is fully set forth in the Final Statement of Decision re Phase II of Trial issued by the Court on March 2, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY SHEDD

A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols. Face coverings (masks, etc.) are required at all times to enter the courthouse and Department J6, and appropriate social distancing in the courtroom and inside the courthouse shall be maintained at all times. You are encouraged to bring your own face covering to Court if you intend to appear in person.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF SIMON D FLORES

Petitioner to address Probate Code §8221 and to file the Amended Notice of Petition to Administer Estate (DE-121). __________________ As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, we need to be even more vigilant. Please avoid coming into the courthouse in person for any reason for the foreseeable future. Presently, there is almost no situation that requires a personal appearance in court. The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  « first    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.