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

151-175 of 10000 results

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

ESTRADA V. SILVERMAN

The defendant filed a motion to compel the deposition of the plaintiff’s non-retained doctor. It does not appear the deponent was personally served with the amended motion, and no opposition has been filed by anyone. Without proof of personal service, it appears the motion must be denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

TODESCO-SAENZ V. GOMEZ

The motion of the defendant to strike the punitive damage allegations in the complaint is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend. The allegations, as currently pled, are far too conclusory under applicable case law. The defendant shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

CHUNG V. CITY OF BREA

On the court’s own motion, and for good cause, the motion for summary judgment brought by defendants Brian Lumsden and Brett Lumsden is CONTINUED to February 11, 2021, at 1:30 pm, to be heard in conjunction with the other motions on calendar that day. The continuance fee is waived. The moving parties shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

NDS, LLC V. YANG

The motion of the defendant to require the plaintiff to provide a further bill of particulars pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 454 is DENIED. The plaintiff provided an “account” as required by the statute. The other matters are subject to discovery and proof at trial. The plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

STEVE CANCHOLA, ET AL. V. MERRILL & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE, ET AL.

In light of the fact that the Strouds have produced the requested documents, the motion to compel is moot. Thus, the only question before the Court is whether to impose sanctions. Kleck seeks $3,310.25 in sanctions (Connell Reply Decl., ¶ 4) under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 [misuse of discovery process], 1987.2, 2025.480, and 2020.240 [contempt].

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

DIANA ANGUS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS WILLIAM J. MCLAUGHLIN III, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

REBECCA CASTILLO VS FB GOES WEST LLC

On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq. On June 16, 2020, Defendant’s default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for January 21, 2021. Discussion Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JENNY MARCHICK VS KENYA REEVES-COSTA, ET AL.

. § 436(a) allows a court to strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b) allows a court to strike out all or any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AVEDIS ALADZHYAN VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

Without copies of the discovery responses, the Court cannot assess the merits of the purported opposition to Defendant’s motions. Defendant seeks sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JAIME MANIPIS VS ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY

Now, Petitioner petitions this Court to compel Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (Respondent) to: (1) submit to arbitration; (2) to agree and select a neutral arbitrator from the list of Petitioner’s proposed arbitrators within 30 days, and (3) to set an arbitration date. In opposition, Respondent agrees to arbitration and does not object to the Court setting an arbitration date.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JESUS HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

‘[A] defendant's settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability to be.’ The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GEORGE SANTOPIETRO VS JAMES HARDEN, ET AL.

On the same day, Wiseman and Solimar (“Cross-Complainants”) also filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC1”) against Santopietro, alleging two causes of action: Abuse of Process in Violation of B&P Code section 6128 Return of Deposit with Statutory Damages On July 20, 2020, this Court granted Santopietro’s Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) the Cross-Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AUTOMATED PARKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN AEROSPACE INTERNATIONAL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

“The averment of an indebtedness not by stating the actual ultimate facts in each particular case, but by using one of a series of generalized forms consisting in part of legal conclusions, is directly opposed to a basic principle of code pleading. Nevertheless, when the codes were adopted the familiarity of lawyers with the form, and its simplicity and convenience, were sufficient to overcome this objection.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JASON PAPICH V. ALLIANCE READY MIX

Defendant cites no legal authority in support of its motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435 more recent than 1958. Plaintiffs’ complaint is not on its face irrelevant, false, improper, or not filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 436, 437.) The Court denies Defendant’s motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

BOONE V. ELITE INTEGRITY, LLC

However, it does not appear that the parties are pursuing/defending them in light of the informal discovery conference. The matter is OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

MAYNARD V. CRANE

Motion to Strike The motion of the defendant to strike portions of the first amended complaint is GRANTED as to paragraph 45, the claim for attorney fees. There is no showing of a legal basis for awarding them here. The motion to strike is in all other respects MOOT. Notice The defendant shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

STEELE TILE, INC. V. TAJ FLOORING, INC.

However, the plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with this court’s order of November 13, 2020, with in 15 days. Attorney William J. King and the plaintiff are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions of $828 in total to TAJ Flooring, Inc. within 30 days. The plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order may result in the termination of the action as to this defendant. The defendant shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

DIANA ANGUS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS WILLIAM J. MCLAUGHLIN III, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

BILLY RAY GALLION VS MARK G. RINGO, ET AL.,

The SAC is deemed filed as of January 21, 2020. Demurrers to the FAC complaint are MOOT. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JASON CRAIG DAVIS, ET AL., VS REGENT OF THE UNI.OF CALIF.

(d) The director's claim for reimbursement of the benefits provided to the beneficiary shall be limited to the amount of the director's lien, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 14124.70.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $500 for each motion. Defense counsel bills at the rate of $100 per hour. The court awards Defendant one hour for preparing each form motion to compel and one hour to appear at the hearing- but awards this time only once- all at the requested rate of $100 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $500. The court also awards four filing fees of $60 each, or $240 in costs. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff, who is in pro per.

  • 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

  « 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.