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

126-150 of 10000 results

IN RE THE THI JOHNSON FAMILY

You are encouraged to bring your own face covering to Court if you intend to appear in person. The Court may need to eliminate in-person appearances in the near future, so please plan accordingly. In order to expand access to justice and still maintain social distancing protocols in Department J6 and the courthouse, the Court has set up two ways to listen to court proceedings: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE MATTER OF THE MARIA A. RICO TRUST

You are encouraged to bring your own face covering to Court if you intend to appear in person. The Court may need to eliminate in-person appearances in the near future, so please plan accordingly. In order to expand access to justice and still maintain social distancing protocols in Department J6 and the courthouse, the Court has set up two ways to listen to court proceedings: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE TONY V. GREY AKA ANTONIO V. GREY

"Generally, 'the person possessing the right sued upon by reason of the substantive law is the real party in interest. (Iglesia Evangelica Latina, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Latin American Dist. Of the Assemblies of God (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 420, 445.) The real party in interest is the party who has title to the cause of action, i.e., the one who has the right to maintain the cause of action. (Vaughn v. Dame Construction Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 144, 147.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE ANNE G FRANKEN TESTAMENTRAY TRUST

You are encouraged to bring your own face covering to Court if you intend to appear in person. The Court may need to eliminate in-person appearances in the near future, so please plan accordingly. In order to expand access to justice and still maintain social distancing protocols in Department J6 and the courthouse, the Court has set up two ways to listen to court proceedings: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

MATTER OF KATHY GINSBERG SNT

Nature of Proceedings: 2nd Accounting & Report, Approve Periodic Payments, Compensation, Require Bond

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

MATTER OF RUSSEL HAROLD BEHM LIVING TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: 8th & Supplemental Accounting & Report

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

CONSERVATORSHIP OF KATHLEEN WEIR

Nature of Proceedings: Petition to Appoint Temporary Conservator of Person & Estate

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

MATTER OF ARTHUR J WALKER JR SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: Petition to Invalidate Trustee; Removal of Trustee; Accounting and Elder Abuse

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

RANDALL M CARPENTER VS. C W JOHNSON AND SONS INC

Responses to be served no later than February 4, 2021. Sanctions of $372.50 imposed against C.W. Johnson and Sons, Inc. dba Johnson Floor Covering. (Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280.) To grant Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Carpenter's motion to deem matters in requests for admission, set one, admitted. Sanctions of $372.50 imposed against C.W. Johnson and Sons, Inc. dba Johnson Floor Covering. (Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

RE: FIRST AND FINAL ACCT & RPT, PET’N FOR STLMT, COMMISSIONS, FEES, FINAL DIST

FILED ON 10/16/20 BY REGINA OWENS Need: Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify apparent intent to disinherit DeAndre Waters. AUSTIN WATERS REGINA OWENS DIANA REDDING Need: 1. 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? 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR PROABTE OF WILL & LTRS FOR TEST, W/IAEA

PrC § 8200 (or Certified copy of the Will if it was lodged in Washington) CLARE MEGAN WEBER CHRISTOPHER R. ABRAMS STEVEN ALEC WEBER Need: 1. Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 2. Verified declaration by petitioner to add deceased spouse with date of death to petition Item # 8. LR 7.151(d) 3. Proof of mailing Notice of Petition to Administer Estate and copy of petition to all heirs and beneficiaries. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) 4. Proposed Order JOHN DONAHOE CHERI E MICHAELIS THERESA ANN DONAHOE

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR ORDER DETERMINING TITLE TO DEFERRED COMP ACCT AND

OTHER ASSETS FILED ON 07/23/20 BY JUDITH NG Court will strike lines 16 through 19 (omnibus clause) from the revised proposed Order Need: Proposed Order JENNIFER L HING GEORGE A McNITT MATTHEW J PALSA Need appearance to report status of settlement Trial is set for 3-2-21 ALPHA HEATH ROGERS TRUST AKA B KENT B. ROGERS CHARLES A. TRIAY MARK H ROGERS SUZANNE C FARLEY NEIL L ROGERS SUZANNE C FARLEY

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR PROABTE OF WILL & LTRS FOR TEST

FILED ON 06/24/20 BY JOHN NIEDZIEJKO Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required BARBARA ELLEN SINGER JOHN NIEDZIEJKO Need: Proposed Order JAMES AUDLEY LIZ A BARSELL THE JIL PLUMMER LIVING TRUST,...

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: STATUS CONF RE: PET'N FOR APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS OF TRUSTEE

Bond in the amount of $676,000 Notes: A. Objection filed by Aileen Bias, sister of decedent on 10/15/2020 B. Aileen Bias was appointed administrator of this estate 2/6/2020 C. Petition of Victor Wanko to remove Aileen Bias as pers. Rep. was denied on 2/6/2020 pursuant to minute order of that date AILEEN BIAS JAMES DALE BIAS VICTOR WANKO STEFFANIE STELNICK Proposed Order AZARIA ANGELIC WILSON BERNADETTE THOMAS-WILSON TERESA L GREEN MICHAEL WILSON

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL RPT OF EXEC, PET’N FOR ITS SETTLEMENT FNL DIST, FEES

FILED ON 10/19/20 BY GREGORY H TILLES Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required EVELYN ROSE DOZIER GREGORY H TILLES JAMES L KALLER Need: Verified declaration by petitioner to state name and date of death of decedent’s predeceased spouse Note: Objection filed by trustee James Slezak on 9/21/2020, who alleges that decedent was a resident of San Francisco County at the time of her death CARL BAUMANN NATHAN D. PASTOR JAMES SLEZAK DAVID J HILL MABEL THOMPSON

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR LTRS OF ADMIN & W/IAEA

Verified declaration by petitioner to include predeceased parents and/or predeceased siblings with date of death, and issue of predeceased siblings in Item # 8. PrC § 8002; LR 7.151(d) 4. Proof of mailing Notice of Petition to Administer Estate and copy of petition to all heirs and beneficiaries. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) 5. Waiver of Bond by Heir or Beneficiary on mandatory Judicial Council Form DE-142. PrC § 8481 Notes: 1. Letters of Special Administration issued to petitioner 11-26-19. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

LORENA L. SALAZAR, ET AL. VS JOSHUA CABRYON JOHNSON, ET AL.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendants’ motion to consolidate this case with Castania, et al. v. Mujo, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2019, No. 19STCV33415) is granted. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. All pending hearing dates in Castania, et al. v. Mujo, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2019, No. 19STCV33415), including the final status conference and trial dates, are advanced to this date and vacated. Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order, and to file a proof of service of same.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ARACELI MONTES VS FIRST IMAGE NURSERY LLC ET AL

Discussion On October 2, 2020, the Court ordered Defendant to appear for deposition within 45 days of notice of the order. Plaintiff served Defendant with notice of the ruling by mail on that date. Defendant thus had until November 23, 2020 to appear for deposition in compliance with the Court’s order. As of the date Plaintiff filed this motion, Defendant has not appeared for deposition in violation of the Court’s order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRITTNI JORDAN VS PETER DAVID GOODE, ET AL.

YB states that they had no reason to know the prior tenants were seating diners in violation of the permit and also had no reason to know the Fish Spot was seating diners in violation of the permit. Goode argues that the motion is premature because he only formally appeared in the action on October 28, 2020. Goode states that Plaintiff has not conducted discovery as to the appropriateness of the design of the restaurant’s exterior or whether the installation of concrete bollards was feasible.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

GOLDEN STATE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., ET AL. VS ANGELES-IPA, A MEDICAL CORPORATION

They contend that on June 26, 2020, they provided Defendant Angeles “with a supplemental list of claims on which Plaintiffs had not been fully paid,” which included claims through February 29, 2020. (Motion at p. 2.) In Opposition, Angeles argues that these changes “seek[] to add what are in essence new causes of action.” (Oppo. at p. 3.) The Court disagrees. The contents of the allegations remain unchanged.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ROBERT AMES VS JOHNSON CONTROLS INC ET AL

Rather, defendant is now seeking to quash service of summons on Interstate (IABCLA). One must wonder why defendant is going to all this trouble to protect an entity which it also claims does not exist. If it does not exist, then the service of summons is indeed ineffective but there is no standing to move to quash service of summons. In the alternative, Defendant is the party in interest and seeks to quash service of summons against itself (erroneously sued as Interstate).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

DAVID HARNER VS. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET. AL.

The Commission is only requesting $2,168,400, in order to “promote a timely resolution.” Based on Harner’s failure to submit a valid removal plan, the Court grants the Commissions’ motion. Harner is ordered to comply with the judgment and to pay a penalty in the amount of $2,168,400 within 30 days of the order being issued. Conclusion: The motion to enforce the judgment is GRANTED. The Commission’s counsel is to draft the order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CRISTINA MAGANA VS SN SERVICING CORPORATION

List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; B. Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and C. Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

RASHYN REYNOLDS, ET AL. VS AHM RESICOM LLC

However, as reviewed above, the TAC sufficiently alleges facts showing the element of knowledge of the falsity. Further, the basis of the general negligence COA is for retaliatory eviction – violation of CC §1942.5 and failure to follow rent control ordinances or notices (See TAC ¿GN-1.). The retaliatory eviction is alleged to have caused Plaintiffs damages in increased utility bills, relocation costs and emotional distress. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

GEORGE CASTRO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a fifth amended complaint (5AC) alleging: (1) disability discrimination based on failure to grant a reasonable accommodation and (2) disability discrimination: failure to engage in interactive process. On July 28, 2020, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to strike without leave to amend. Now, Plaintiff moves for relief under CCP section 473, subd. (b).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « 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.