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

176-200 of 10000 results

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

MEDARDO TORRES VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 7, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Violation of Song Beverly Action section 1793.2(d) Violation of Song Beverly Action section 1793.2(b) Violation of Song Beverly Action section 1793.2(A)(3) Breach of express warranty Breach of implied warranty Fraudulent inducement Defendants FCA USA, LLC (“FCA”) and Champion Dodge, LLC (“Champion”) each filed an Answer on February 11, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

CHI LAM M.D. TARGET BENEFIT PLAN VS JOHN R. EDWARDS, ET AL.

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 21, 2021

ANTONIO RESENDIZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.

For example, in Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not err in refusing to exclude evidence with respect to vehicles other than Plaintiff’s vehicle because Plaintiff’s expert testimony was properly limited to the same type of transmission involved in Plaintiff’s vehicle as well as the other vehicles at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

DOCIRCLE, INC. V. DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC

If there are no appearances, that will be the order of the court. The bankruptcy stay does not appear to affect these parties.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

RASHYN REYNOLDS, ET AL. VS AHM RESICOM LLC

AS TO RASHYN REYNOLDS: Motion to compel response to form interrogatories set one and two, Motion to compel response to request for production of documents set one: BOTH MOTIONS ARE GRANTED. Written answers to interrogatories, Code compliant verified response without objections to request for production of documents and production of documents are all ordered to be served by plaintiff Alain Cook with 20 days. Motion to deem request for admissions admitted: GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

Cross-Complainant needed to obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint, but failed to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c). However, “leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Ibid.)]

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERT PENNER VS ALAN NITZBERG, AN INDVIDUAL DBA ALAN NITZBERG CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, ET AL.

Here, the interest of justice supports granting leave to file the Cross-Complaint in order to allow all disputes between the parties to be adjudicated in one action. There is no showing that moving Defendant acted in bad faith in making this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

REBECCA COOPER VS KENNETH GRAY, ET AL.

., and 21st Century Wellness, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for (1) material misrepresentation in securities transaction; (2) breach of contract; (3) rescission; (4) conversion; (5) breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud negligent misrepresentation; (6) fraud; and (7) violation of Penal Code section 496(c). On June 21, 2019, Kenneth Gray, Mowgly Unlimited, Inc., and KAG Consulting, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS ANGAD SING CHHINA

Because the subject discovery was served on Plaintiff’s prior to their current counsel substituting into the action, sanctions are imposed on Plaintiff Edwin only. Edwin is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $361.65, within twenty days. Similarly, as to Roberto, Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $461.65 for each motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

SLAWOMIR KIELBASINSKI ET AL VS TOTAL SAFETY U S INC ET AL

If the settlement is approved, $2,960.02 will be used for medical expenses, $9,429,20 for attorneys’ fees, and $2,610.78 for costs of suit; the remaining balance of $30,000 will be placed in a blocked account. The court has reviewed the settlement and finds it fair and reasonable. The court also finds the attorney’s fees fair and reasonable in that they amount to about 20.9% of the minor’s settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

UNIFUND CCR LLC V. DARREN MULDER

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant on June 18, 2020, demanding responses without objection, but no response was received from Defendant. (Burrows Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. B.) Plaintiff now moves to have the requests deemed admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff served its motion on Defendant, but no opposition was filed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

M S INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. N & F GRANITE AND FINE FLOORING, INC.

The unopposed motion of the plaintiff for terminating sanctions as to defendants N & F Granite and Fine Flooring, Inc., and Francisco DaSilva is GRANTED, and the answer of both is STRICKEN. The plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

CITY PARK AT SUNNYVALE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION V. TOLL BROS., INC., ET AL.

(Plaintiff’s Opposition to 12 Motion to Strike, at 1:25-26.). 13 The FAC, filed on July 20, 2018, sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Violation 14 of Civil Code Section 895, et seq.; (2) Violations and Enforcement of Governing Documents; 15 (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Breach of Construction Contracts; (5) Strict Liability; 16 (6) Negligence; and (7) Breach of Implied Warranty.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

ORR V. PETVET CARE CENTERS (CALIFORNIA), INC., ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint, filed on February 5, 2020, sets forth 28 the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Wages 1 and Overtime Under Labor Code § 510; (3) Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7; 2 (4) Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7; (5) Failure to Reimburse Necessary 3 Business Expenditures Under Labor Code § 2802; (6) Violation of Labor Code § 226(a); 4 (7) Violation of Labor Code § 221; (8) Violation of Labor Code § 204; (9) Violation

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

IN RE MARQUEZ FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST

OSC re Removal for Failure to File Account & Report 2. OSC re Contempt re Failure to File Accounting by 12/6/19 *********************** At the hearing on 10/7/20, the Court suspended Roger Williams as the trustee but did not yet appoint a successor trustee. A motion to continue by Attorney Thomas Olson has been granted twice. What is the status of the case? __________________ As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, we need to be even more vigilant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN THE MATTER OF JON MICHAEL REED

Approve $15,166.20 in statutory attorney fees to Petitioner's counsel. Petitioner waives his fees. The proposed final distribution of the estate to the decedent's mother is consistent with the laws of intestate succession. __________________ 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC OTA

Approve $9,165.82 in statutory fees to Petitioner's counsel. Petitioner waives his fees. The proposed final distribution of the estate to Petitioner is consistent with the laws of intestate succession. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF MARJORIE JANE HOOPER

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 20, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE JAMES Y NAKAMURA 1994 REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST

Division of a trust may be appropriate, for example, in a situation where different members of a family desire their own separate trusts because of a disagreement or where a beneficiary has moved to a different part of the country. [Law Revision Commission Comments to Prob. Code, § 15412] The requested "division" of this trust is at its most basic definition a division, but what it really is, is a request for a "modification" of the trust.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE CONROY FAMILY TRUST

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 20, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

CONSERVATORSHIP OF JUDITH SIMON

Nature of Proceedings: Conservatorship Compliance Hearing No appearances required. Compliance achieved.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

MATTER OF WOODROW AND NORA WILSON TRUST

To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field – BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ).

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

CONSERVATORSHIP OF RITA LAVERNE MARTINS

in which the proposed conservatee was physically present, including any period of temporary absence, for at least six consecutive months ending within the six months prior to the filing of the petition.”] 4) Order Appointing Temporary Conservator (GC-141).

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF JUDITH SIMON

Nature of Proceedings: Conservatorship Compliance Hearing Appearances required. The following must be submitted: 1) Inventory & Appraisal (Form GC-040) (Prob. Code, § 2610) 2) Proof of Service – Notice of How to File Objection to I & A (GC-042) (Prob. Code, § 2610). Proof of Service must be mailed to the conservatee, the conservatee’s spouse, and the conservatee’s parents and adult children or mailing excused by court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 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.