Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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:
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.
Government Code 12940, et seq.); (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and/or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940(k)); (7) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.); (8) Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.); (9) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 1102.5 and (10) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
SANAH HAMAD VS PREZZEE, INC, ET AL.
23CHCV01873
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Stratton reflects that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied as required by CCP § 430.41 Analysis 1, First Cause of Action (Discrimination In Violation of FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Discrimination In Violation of FEHA); Third Cause of Action (Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fifth Cause of Action (Harassment In Violation of FEHA); Sixth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Harassment In Violation of
HECTOR ALMAZAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCV14043
Sep 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Davis for (1) violation of the FEHA – gender discrimination; (2) violation of the FEHA – gender harassment; (3) violation of the FEHA – retaliation; (4) violation of the FEHA – failure to accommodate; (5) violation of the FEHA – failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) violation of the FEHA – failure to investigate/prevent/correct FEHA violations; (7) wrongful retaliation in violation of public policy; (8) false promise/intentional misrepresentation; (9) violation of California Wage and Hour Law and
CHARLENE POWELL, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV01859
Apr 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Ruffin asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA race discrimination, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) FEHA failure to accommodate, (7) FEHA failure to prevent, (8) whistleblower retaliation, and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff moves to consolidate this action with Elizabeth Handy v.
GODREY RUFFIN VS U S TELEPACIFIC CORP ET AL
BC621220
Aug 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Leave to amend should be granted if necessary. REPLY 3rd Cause of Action: Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Defendant cannot tell whether this is failure to prevent: (1) discrimination and harassment; (2) discrimination and retaliation; (3) discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
LANA MCLEOD VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
21STCV25597
Oct 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA; (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (8) failure to engage in the interactive process; (9) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of FEHA; (10) retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (11) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (13) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate
KYSA PAUL VS TARGET CORPORATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV25148
Feb 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff filed the operative third amended complaint on April 26, 2019, asserting nine causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment in violation of the FEHA; (6) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; (8) failure to engage
ERENI YOUSSEF VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPT
BC701973
Apr 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Jun 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Sep 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On 2/24/22, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant for: (1) Constructive Discharge; (2) Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (FEHA); (4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Race Discrimination; (6) Failure to Prevent Race-Based Discrimination; (7) Retaliation; (8) Medical Disability Discrimination; (9) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA and (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
DAVID GOMEZ VS THIBIANT INTERNATIONAL INC
22CHCV00122
Nov 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 2, 2019 alleging six causes of action including: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) wrongful constructive termination in violation of FEHA; and (6) declaratory judgment.
JANE DOE VS DALE POE REAL ESTATE, INC., ET AL.
18STCV04337
Mar 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) FEHA disability discrimination, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) violation of wage and hour laws—unpaid overtime wages, (9) violation of wage and hour laws—waiting time penalties, (10) failure to provide accurate wage statements
JOEL REYNOZO VS GH TRANSPORTATION INC
BC670537
Oct 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Jul 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Accommodate; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Investigate and Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Violation of California Labor Code §230(b); Failure
AGUSTIN SANCHEZ VS APRO LLC, ET AL.
19STCV18536
Feb 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Defendant seems to argue that the failure to prevent claim fails because there is no underlying discrimination claim. The FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Scotch v. Art Inst. of California-Orange Cnty., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1003 (citing Govt. Code § 12940(h)).
ASHENAFI BENTI VS FOX RENT A CAR INC
BC663022
Nov 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
(Defendant), alleging nine causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (7) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 6310 and 6311; and (9) retaliation
KENDRICK JONES VS WATTS LEARNING CENTER, INC.
23STCV15069
Feb 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Betty Hewitt commenced this action against Defendants Edge Roofing, Inc. and Garlan Powell for (1) age discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by the FEHA; (4) hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to do everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation from occurring in violation of the FEHA; (6) wrongful termination
BETTY HEWITT VS EDGE ROOFING, INC., ET AL.
20STCV08471
Sep 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
First Cause of Action (Discrimination in Violation of FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Failure to Prevent Discrimination—FEHA); Third Cause of Action (Failure to Engage in a Timely Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation); Fifth Cause of Action (Retaliation in Violation of FEHA); Sixth Cause of Action (Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy); Seventh Cause of Action (Harassment in Violation of FEHA); Eighth Cause of Action
MICAH ABSHEAR VS NATIONAL CARRIER EXCHANGE INC
20STCV35697
Apr 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV10162
Apr 24, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, (6) FEHA disability discrimination, (7) violation of the CFRA, (8) FEHA retaliation, (9) FEHA failure to accommodate, (10) FEHA failure to engage in interactive process, (11) wrongful termination, (12) FEHA disability harassment, (13) failure to pay overtime wages, (14) violation of the UCL, and (15) fraud.
MELISSA LOYD VS WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.
21STCV02018
May 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Overruled as to the 1st cause of action (retaliation in violation of FEHA) and 6th cause of action (failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA); sustained with 20 days leave to amend as to all other causes of action. To withstand demurrer, a complaint “need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action, each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged. (C.A. v. William S.
WOLSIEFFER VS CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
PSC2001015
Jun 29, 2020
Riverside County, CA
This is an employment action filed on December 7, 2016; Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) violation of FEHA—disability discrimination, (2) violation of FEHA—retaliation, (3) violation of FEHA—failure to prevent, (4) violation of FEHA—failure to accommodate, (5) violation of FEHA—failure to engage in timely good faith, interactive process, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. On June 19, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
DAVID VALLEJO VS VERSA PRODUCTS ET AL
BC642970
May 31, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) CFRA violation, (3) CFRA interference, (4) FEHA disability discrimination, (5) FEHA failure to accommodate, (6) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (7) FEHA failure to prevent, (8) FEHA retaliation, and (9) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On 8/18/16, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
CARMEN ARRIAGA VS WILLIAM S HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC622692
Nov 03, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to prevent discrimination (FEHA); (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) harassment in violation of FEHA; and (7) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA.
JORDAN GOODSTEIN, ET AL. VS FOUR SEASONS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER, LP, ET AL.
18STCV09598
Jun 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
His First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges: (1) Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; (2) Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in the interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (7) Defamation; (8) Breach of Express Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment
GEOFFREY GEE VS INSPERITY, ET AL.
20STCV00135
Oct 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Sufficient facts are pled to state each of these causes of action. There is no demurrer to count 6 (retaliation in violation of FEHA). 1. The 1st cause of action of the SAC sufficiently pleads "stress disability" discrimination.
MARY ORLEANS V CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED
56-2011-00391878-CU-WT-SIM
Jan 13, 2012
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
1.DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff alleges the following seven c/a: Sex, Gender and Gender Expression Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA – Govt. Code § 12940 et seq. Failure to Prevent Sex, Gender and Gender Expression Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA – Govt. Code § 12940 et seq.
PODEROSO VS. NYX NIGHTLIFE GROUP, LLC
30-2016-00848296-CU-JR-CJC
Feb 03, 2017
Orange County, CA
Based on Gender and Race in Violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (5) Misclassification as an Independent Contractor, (6) Violation of Labor Code § 6310, (7) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5, (8) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6, (9) Failure to Pay Earned Wages in Violation of Labor Code § 204, (10) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 203, and (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
CHRISTOPHER DELOACH VS BOONDOCK, INC.
22STCV23490
Dec 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV10162
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, without sufficiently pleading the underlying claims for harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for failure to prevent such unlawful conduct. However, in the previous demurrer to the FAC, the Court overruled the demurrer in part to the extent Plaintiff alleged a claim for failure to prevent discrimination and sustained the demurrer in part to the extent it alleged a failure to prevent retaliation and harassment.
WASSMER VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1906169
Jan 20, 2021
Riverside County, CA
(FEHA); (5) Actual/Perceived Disability Retaliation, Violation of the FEHA; (6) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, Government Code 12940(n); (7) Failure to Accommodate, Government Code 12940(m); (8) Violation of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code 12945.2; (9) Sex/Gender Harassment, Violation of the FEHA; (10) Sex/Gender Discrimination, Violation of the FEHA; (11) Sex/Gender Retaliation, Violation of the FEHA; (12) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination or Retaliation, Violation
RITA BOGHOS VS OLIVE VIEW - UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
21CHCV00047
Jun 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
As such, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the 7th cause of action for retaliation. Issue No. 7: 8th Cause of Action for failure to maintain an environment free from discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA.
COTA VS. SOUTH COAST OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER
30-2018-00988156
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
Motion: Motion to Compel Arbitration Moving Party: Defendant Platinum Security, Inc. Opposing Party: Unopposed Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted. This is an action arising from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant. On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent retaliation, (5) violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5, (6) violation of Lab.
DIEGO GARCIA VS PLATINUM SECURITY INC
BC682955
Jan 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on March 15, 2023, asserting causes of action for (1) racial harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of FEHA, (2) racial discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
VINCENT SMITH VS PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
22STCV16695
Aug 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to prevent discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in interactive process; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of the CFRA; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. DISCUSSION Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civil Code § 3294(a).)
DESERAE CORBIN VS PHOENIX HOUSE OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC669066
Oct 04, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Demurrer filed by Defendants TENTATIVE RULING Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint is sustained in its entirety with leave to amend. With respect to the first cause of action for discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the demurrer is sustained for failure to plead sufficient facts.
SILVA V. VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
FCS051224
May 28, 2019
Solano County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k) , prohibits an employer from failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
LEYLA ARENAS VS SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
20STCV00449
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
· The new FEHA violations revive the 1 st cause of action for race and age discrimination in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge; 3 rd cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge based on retaliation stemming from filing this action; and 6 th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or correct in violation of FEHA, including allowing the constructive discharge.
RODERICK CORPRUE VS CITY OF LAWNDALE, A CORPORATION , ET AL.
20STCV14617
Aug 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
· The new FEHA violations revive the 1 st cause of action for race and age discrimination in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge; 3 rd cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge based on retaliation stemming from filing this action; and 6 th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or correct in violation of FEHA, including allowing the constructive discharge.
RODERICK CORPRUE VS CITY OF LAWNDALE, A CORPORATION , ET AL.
20STCV14617
Sep 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff Discrimination Based on Sex/Gender – Disparate Treatment, Harassment Based on Sex/Gender, Retaliation for Opposing Violation of FEHA, Whistleblower Retaliation, Association Discrimination, Failure to Prevent and Stop Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation, and Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policies.
OLIVIA BARROWS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAMES IVEY,AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19CHCV00245
Jan 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq.; (9) Failure to prevent discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq.; and (10) Wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
LUNG VS TEMECULA PPF, LLC
MCC1900063
Nov 23, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Explanation: This motion arises out of a complaint for 1) Disability-Based Discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); 2) Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA; 3) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; 4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 5) Associational
BEATRIZ RAMOS VS. CLEVENGER MERCANTILE, LLC
21CECG02853
Dec 08, 2022
Fresno County, CA
The instant motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings on the grounds that “The Fourth Cause of Action for failure to prevent harassment in violation of the FEHA, to wit, California Government Code section 12940(k) does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant because there are no underlying FEHA claims” essentially seeks reconsideration of the above quoted order without any
JESSICA SCHINDLER VS DIGNITY HEALTH
21CV-02878
Aug 05, 2022
Merced County, CA
Defendant County’s General Demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is overruled in part only to the extent the claim alleges a failure to prevent discrimination in Violation of FEHA and sustained in part with leave to amend as to the remainder of the claim alleging a failure to prevent harassment and retaliation.
WASSMER VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1906169
Oct 05, 2020
Riverside County, CA
The Complaint alleges the following six causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent FEHA violations; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Defendants now demur to each cause of action of the Complaint.
MARTHA QUIROZ VS I A T S E LOCAL 44 ET AL
BC644141
Jun 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiffs collectively allege causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) age discrimination in violation of FEHA; (6) race discrimination in violation of FEHA; (7) harassment on the basis of disability, gender, and rack in violation of FEHA; (8) harassment on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (9) failure
VALERY VACA, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
22STCV11471
Apr 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs original Complaint alleged five causes of action for (1) religious discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; and (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging identical causes of action.
DOUGLAS SMITH VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
23STCV02429
Nov 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in his claim for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation fin violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
FRANK RAMIREZ VS PARKS COFFEE CALIFORNIA, INC.
21STCV02034
May 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria Larson filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC for (1) FEHA harassment, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, (5) adverse action in violation of public policy, and (6) whistleblower retaliation. Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC demurs to all causes of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.
VICTORIA LARSON VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV31537
May 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k)) Section 12940(k) provides that “[i]t is an unlawful employment practice . . . [f]or an employer . . . to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.”
EDWARD MAYO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TK1SC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV16874
Nov 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against all Defendants) Retaliation for complaining and/or harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Retaliation for taking CFRA leave
ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV05356
Mar 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.
NASARITA RANGEL VS MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL GROUP
BC692113
Jan 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to Plaintiff’ first cause of action for disability discrimination for failure to accommodate, second cause of action for disability discrimination for failure to engage in the interactive process, third cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, fourth cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, seventh cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA, and eighth cause of action
MATTINGLY-VIERS VS. COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
30-2015-00819631-CU-WT-CJC
Oct 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
and Retention; (10) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment in Violation of FEHA and (11) Negligence/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
GERALDINE PARKER VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
23CHCV01435
Nov 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (13) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION FEHA (14) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY.
MARIA BERETTA VS LAKESIDE RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, ET AL.
19STCV23318
May 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On August 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Alvaro Arevalo, Javier Arevalo and Elzy Erazo filed the operative first amended complaint against U Work Personnel, Inc. and Arms Trans, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (5) failure to permit inspection of personnel and
ALVARO AREVALO, ET AL. VS U WORK PERSONNEL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV46195
Apr 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Explanation: In the case at bar, plaintiff alleges six causes of action: (1) discrimination on the basis of race/nationality and disability in violation of the FEHA; (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodations [FEHA]; (3) failure to engage in interactive process [FEHA]; (4) failure to take all reasonable measure to prevent discrimination [FEHA]; (5) retaliation for asserting FEHA rights; and (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
GURDIP KAUR V. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS
17CECG03360
Mar 18, 2020
Fresno County, CA
The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserts causes of action for discrimination in violation of FEHA (based on age, gender, and race), retaliation in violation of FEHA, failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, and discrimination against public policy (based on age, gender, and race) stemming from his alleged demotion from a Special Investigations Unit Zone Manager. FIE and defendant Farmers Group, Inc.
MICHAEL AMBROSIO VS FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP INC ET AL
BC683537
Apr 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The causes of action are: (1) RESCISSION; (2) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 16600; (3) FRAUD/DECEIT; (4) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (5) FAILURE TO HIRE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (6) HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (7) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION; (8) FAILURE TO PRODUCE PERSONNEL FILE IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1198.5; (9) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; (10) NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, AND SUPERVISION; (11) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
GIANCARLO INCALZA VS PORSCHE DESIGN STUDIO NORTH AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV42875
Mar 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
of Labor Code § 203 C/A 4: Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA C/A 5: Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA C/A 6: Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA C/A 7: Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Gov.
JOLANDA JOSSERAND VS FLYING FOOD GROUP, LLC, ET AL.
21STCV03046
Apr 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Practices Forbidden by FEHA and For Requesting Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (7) Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (8) Failure to Do Everything Reasonably Necessary to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation from Occurring in Violation of FEHA; (9) Wrongful Termination/Adverse Employment Action in Violation of Public Policy; (10) Non-payment of Wages, Including Overtime, in Violation of DLSE, Labor Code, et seq.; (11) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks in Violation
JOSE ABEL JUAREZ PEREZ VS TOP SPEED TRUCKING INC ET AL
BC622343
Jan 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff alleges (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA; and (5) Violation of California Whistleblower Statute Cal. Labor Code §1102.5 ANALYSIS A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v.
ERIC ROBINSON VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC714394
Nov 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiff asserts 16 causes of action for: (1) discrimination on the basis of race/national origin in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment on the basis of race/national origin in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA; (4) aiding/abetting acts forbidden by FEHA; (5) whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code §§ 102.5 and 6310; (6) failure to prevent, investigate, and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public
PONCE VS UNITED NATURAL FOODS INC
RIC1901589
Nov 04, 2021
Riverside County, CA
(Reliant) for 1) disability discrimination; 2) failure to reasonably accommodate; 3) failure to engage in the interactive process; 4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; 5) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation; 6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 7) aiding and abetting in violation of FEHA; 8) unlawful medical inquiry in violation of FEHA; 9) violation of Labor Code section 432.6; 10) violation of constitutional right to privacy; and 11) failure to rehire
JASSON REYES LOPEZ VS JOBSOURCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV27744
Mar 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint are: (1) FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (2) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA (3) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA (4) DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (5) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 98.5 (6) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA (7) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC POLICY (8) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF
IN SOOK LIM VS YELLOW HOUSE GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV20970
Aug 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
FAILURE TO PREVENT FEHA DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE § l2940(k); 13. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5(a), (b), (d); 14. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §1102.5(a), (b), (d), PREEMPTORY WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION; 15. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5(c), (1); AND 16.
GABRIEL FAJARDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV27886
Apr 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA 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.)
ANTHONY MELCHIONNE VS FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP INC ET AL
BC683538
Aug 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
FAILURE TO PREVENT FEHA DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE § l2940(k); 13. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5(a), (b), (d); 14. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §1102.5(a), (b), (d), PREEMPTORY WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION; 15. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5(c), (1); AND 16.
GABRIEL FAJARDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV27886
May 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants demur to the Complaint’s fifth through tenth causes of action with respect to the Individual Defendants only: • Fifth Cause of Action: Discrimination based upon disability in violation of FEHA; • Sixth Cause of Action: Failure to prevent unlawful discrimination in violation of FEHA; • Seventh Cause of Action: Retaliation in violation of FEHA; • Eighth Cause of Action: Failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA; • Ninth Cause of Action: Failure to engage in the interactive process in violation
DEFINA MENDOZA VS. QUEST NUTRITION, LLC ET AL.
TC028656
Apr 11, 2017
Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 12/05/17 against defendant for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination based on sex/gender in violation of FEHA; and (6) retaliation in violation of FEHA.
TINA MADATIAN VS MANAGEMENT SUCCESS INC
BC685746
Apr 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Southwest”) and Uate Uele (“Uele”) (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) failure to prevent discrimination, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent retaliation, (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (6) harassment in violation of FEHA, and (7) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA.
SHAMEREAL JOHNSON VS SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., ET AL.
20STCV01048
Aug 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
of Public Policy, (12) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (13) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA, and (14) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA.
JANE DOE, ET AL. VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC ET AL.
19STCV31358
May 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Code § 12940(h)); Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §§ 12940(j), (k)); Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(m)); Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(n)); Associational Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov.
EVELYN BAKIC ET AL VS JMF DEVELOPMENT LLC
BC721553
Nov 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
and Associational Disability in Violation of FEHA against all Defendants; Retaliation for Complaining of Discrimination and/or Harassment on the Basis of Disability and Associations Disability in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Retaliation for Taking CFRA Leave in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Engage in Interactive Process
ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV05356
Dec 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 6. AIDING AND ABETTING 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H) 8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.
ERIKA VALADEZ ET AL VS IN N OUT BURGERS ET AL
BC675696
Jan 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (3) Failure to Prevent in Violation of the FEHA; and (4) Discrimination Against Public Policy. DISCUSSION A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)
JASON WHITMER VS FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP INC ET AL
BC684610
Apr 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The currently operative second amended complaint (the SAC) alleges: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; and (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA. In relevant part, the SAC alleges: Plaintiff began working for Moving Defendant in 1995. (SAC ¶ 8.)
ELVIS ARNWINE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
22STCV28299
Jul 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Issue No. 9: Plaintiffs second cause of action for Violation of FEHA Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (Cal. Govt Code § 12940(k)) fails as a matter of law as to FCC because FCC never employed Plaintiff. Issue No. 10: Plaintiffs second cause of action for Violation of FEHA Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (Cal.
MARKLAND WATSON VS FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC ET AL
BC719042
May 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination from Occurring In Violation of FEHA, Govt.
KELLY BRACKEN VS BOBIT BUSINESS MEDIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA COMPANY
21STCV08204
Jan 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleged causes of action for disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, failure to reasonably accommodate in violation of the FEHA, failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA, harassment in violation of the FEHA, retaliation in violation of the FEHA, and failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in violation of the FEHA.
SERGIO DELGADILLO VS AIDS PROJECT LOS ANGELES, APLA HEALTH & WELLNESS, DOING BUSINESS AS APLA HEALTH
19STCV37267
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The FAC filed a few months later alleged (1) Discrimination (FEHA); (2) Harassment (FEHA); (3) Retaliation (FEHA); (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (FEHA); (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment (FEHA); (7) Negligent Hiring; (8) Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (9) IIED; (10) Violation of CFRA; (11) Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, in which Garcia complained of retaliation for his whistleblower activities of reporting problems
ANTHONY EUGENE TALBERT VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
21STCV00694
Aug 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
against Defendants HeyTutor, Inc., Skyler Lucci, and Ryan Neman for (1) harassment in violation of FEHA – hostile work environment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; (4) sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.5; (5) sex discrimination; (6) disability discrimination; (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) violation of Government Code § 12964.5; (10) wrongful termination
JANE DOE VS SKYLER LUCCI, ET AL.
19STCV41441
Sep 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Los Angeles (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1402. 3. Discussion and Ruling. The demurrer to the FAC is overruled. Defendants OSA and Ha have 10 days to file an answer. The FAC adequately pleads claims against defendants OSA and Ha for: (1) FEHA gender discrimination; (2) FEHA age discrimination; (3) FEHA age and gender harassment; (4) FEHA retaliation; (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and (6) wrongful termination.
CHOI VS ORIENT PRECISION AMERICA INC
37-2018-00011318-CU-OE-CTL
Nov 09, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The third cause of action for failure to prevent or correct harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA and the eleventh cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy are overruled. The fifth and seventh causes of action for age and gender discrimination are overruled. The twelfth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is sustained without leave to amend.
TRACY TUENS VS. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL
CGC20583302
May 27, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against all Defendants) Retaliation for complaining and/or harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Retaliation for taking CFRA leave
ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV05356
Jul 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action based on the allegations of the FAC: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5(b); (3) Race Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Age Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; (5) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; (7) Failure to Prevent Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (8) Negligent Supervision and Training; and (9) "Vicarious Liability
HOLT VS CITY OF OAKLAND
RG19042198
Feb 02, 2021
Alameda County, CA
On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff Julio Sandoval (Plaintiff) filed suit against SL Towing, Stone Shop Designs, SL Towing Services, and Saul Lopez, alleging: (1) nonpayment of minimum wages; (2) nonpayment of wages; (3) nonpayment of overtime wages; (4) failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (5) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to reasonably accommodate; (7) failure to engage in an interactive process; (8) retaliation in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (9) failure to prevent
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
19STCV686078
Jun 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the 2nd cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, 3rd cause of action for retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, and 4th cause of action for wrongful termination, these causes of action are not sufficiently pled as they are derivative of the unlawful discrimination cause of action. As to the 5th cause of action for failure to pay accurate itemized wage statements, this cause of action is sufficiently pled.
ALI VS. GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES
30-2021-01196505
Aug 16, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff filed the FAC against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination based on age, medical condition, and disability in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (6) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
SHARON BRUMNETT VS R. F. WICALL TRUCKING, INC. DBA WEST VALLEY HORSE CENTER, ET AL.
19STCV45475
Aug 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Saleh's claimed yelling, berating etc. were continuous; and how a pattern of harassment by Saleh continued if, as plaintiff alleges, she no longer worked under Saleh in 2008, after she had a change in supervisors [to Cosaro] and in 2009 when she had another supervisor[Boyan]. 3. Defendant Conejo's Demurrer to Plaintiff Ms. Orelans' 3rd cause of action (for failure to prevent discrimination under the FEHA) is sustained, with leave to amend.
MARY ORLEANS V CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED
56-2011-00391878-CU-WT-SIM
Sep 12, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On 7/12/22, the Court heard Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, which he filed on 12/28/21. The FAC included causes of action for: · Wrongful Demotion in Violation of FEHA; · Discrimination on the Basis of Race FEHA; · Harassment FEHA; · Retaliation FEHA; · Failure to Investigate FEHA; · Failure to Prevent FEHA. The Court issued a detailed ruling sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend.
ANICIA CLAY VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
22LBCV00555
Feb 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(KF, Inc.), Mansour Simanian, Joseph Simanian, Robert Simanian, and Michael Simanian, alleging: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent FEHA violations; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) failure to pay minimum wages; (9) failure to pay overtime; (10) failure
GORJI ASHRAF VS KOLAH FARANGI INC ET AL
BC716696
Jun 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(KF, Inc.), Mansour Simanian, Joseph Simanian, Robert Simanian, and Michael Simanian, alleging: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent FEHA violations; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) failure to pay minimum wages; (9) failure to pay overtime; (10) failure
PAUL BERG VS AMERICAN EXPRESS TAX & BUSINESS SVCS INC ET AL
BC176696
Jun 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) FEHA disability harassment, (7) FEHA failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (9) CFRA discrimination and retaliation. The case has been at issue since December 28, 2015, more than a year ago.
SARAH OCHOA VS SEIU LOCAL 99 ET AL
BC600693
Jan 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of FEHA, (2) sexual harassment (quid pro quo) in violation of FEHA, (3) sex discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to investigate in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to permit meal breaks, (7) failure to provide rest breaks, (8) unfair business practices, and (9) conversion.
ROXANA FLORES CASTILLO VS IZOTE ENTERPRISES, INC, ET AL.
18STCV00498
Jan 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Housing Act (“FEHA”): C/A 1: Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code §226.7 C/A 2: Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code §226 C/A 3: Failure to Pay Compensation due Upon Separation in Violation of Labor Code § 203 C/A 4: Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA C/A 5: Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA C/A 6: Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA C/A 7: Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination
JOLANDA JOSSERAND VS FLYING FOOD GROUP, LLC, ET AL.
21STCV03046
Jul 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
(Defendant) asserting the following causes of action: 1. Discrimination under FEHA 2. Retaliation under FEHA 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation under FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under FEHA 5. Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process 6.
KATHLEEN EUBANK VS BARRY & TAFFY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV46843
Jul 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (2) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (4) discrimination based on perceived disability in violation of the FEHA, and (5) failure to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA. Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the Complaint.
PHILIP G PONS VS PHILLIPS GRADUATE UNIVERSITY ET AL
BC653482
Nov 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On May 26, 2022, Plaintiffs John Alvarez, Jonathan Sibrian, and Ardeshir Zandian filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Kay & James, Inc. for (1) FEHA gender/race discrimination, (2) FEHA retaliation, (3) whistleblower retaliation, (4) FEHA harassment, (5) FEHA failure to prevent misconduct, (6) wrongful termination, (7) FEHA age discrimination, (8) violation of the UCL, and (9) unpaid overtime and wages.
JOHN ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS KAY& JAMES, INC.
22STCV17467
Oct 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Milner filed the FAC on September 16, 2019, alleging fifteen causes of action: FEHA age discrimination FEHA associational discrimination FEHA hostile work environment harassment FEHA retaliation FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation Wrongful termination in violation of public policies Breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause Breach of implied-in-fact oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause Breach of the implied
DUNCAN MILNER VS TBWA WORLDWIDE, INC., ET AL.
19STCV29137
Jul 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.