Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in California

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

Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy (Labor Code § 1102.5, FEHA); and (13) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA.

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

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.

On October 10, 2019, defendant fired her under the pretext of having of too many absences. MOVING PARTY POSITION 3rd Cause of Action: Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment This is uncertain. The caption says failure to prevent discrimination and harassment but in the body the label adds retaliation. 4th Cause of Action: Violation of Whistleblowing Law Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5 Plaintiff does not allege any complaint of criminal conduct.

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

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

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

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (7) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation of FEHA. (9) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (7) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation of FEHA. (9) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of

BACKGROUND On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants, the City and Michael Girourad (Girourad), alleging causes of action for (1) Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Race Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (4) Perception of Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (6) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; (7) Violation

On January 16, 2024, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second and fifth causes of action, without leave to amend. Accordingly, the remaining causes of action at issue are: (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation in Violation of Whistleblower Protection; and (6) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in violation of FEHA.

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

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

The SAC alleges causes of action for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA, and (5) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA.

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.

On January 16, 2024, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second and fifth causes of action, without leave to amend. Accordingly, the remaining causes of action at issue are: (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation in Violation of Whistleblower Protection; and (6) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in violation of FEHA.

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

Though the Complaint alleges “sexual harassment, groping, sexual assault, sexual propositions, sexual advances, and sexual comments”, it is silent as to who committed the conduct, whether the sexual harassment was directed at Plaintiff or if it was done to others in Plaintiff’s presence. On the FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and FEHA failure to prevent harassment claims are insufficient for the same reasons stated above.

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

· 8 th Cause of Action: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public SUMMARY OF ACTION : On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Hostile Work Environment Harassment- Disability; 2. Disability Discrimination in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(a); 3. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation and Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; 5.

Failure to Prevent Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination under the FEHA fails because it is derivative of her underlying discrimination claims. A claim for failure to prevent discrimination requires a viable underlying claim of discrimination. Courts have held that if a plaintiff cannot adequately plead discrimination, then a failure to prevent claim necessarily fails as well. ( Dickson v. Burke Williams Inc. , 234 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1315-1316 (2015).)

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

The SAC alleges causes of action for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA, and (5) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA.

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)).

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

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Discrimination based on age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), (2) Discrimination based on disability in violation of FEHA, (3) Failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA, (5) Retaliation in violation of FEHA, (6) Failure to take all necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation

(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

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

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.

in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; 13; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code § 226; 15.

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.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (7) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation of FEHA. (9) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of

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.

in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (8) interference with CFRA leave; and (9) CFRA leave retaliation.

BACKGROUND On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the City, alleging causes of action for (1) Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; and (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Labor Code §§

[Feha]; 3. Failure To Accommodate In Violation Of Feha; 4. Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process In Violation Of Feha; 5. Retaliation In Violation Of Govt. Code Sections 12940, Et Seq.; 6. Sexual Harassment (Harassment Based On Sex In Violation Of Govt. Code Sections 12940, Et Seq. 7. Failure To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment And Retaliation In Violation Of Govt. Code Section 12940(K); 8. Discrimination Based On Gender In Violation Of Govt. Code Sections 12940, Et Seq.; 9.

BACKGROUND On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the City, alleging causes of action for (1) Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; and (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Labor Code §§

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; 13; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code § 226; 15.

in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; 13; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code § 226; 15.

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.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (7) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation of FEHA. (9) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of

(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

The SAC alleges causes of action for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA, and (5) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA. On December 3, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to each cause of action in the SAC.

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.

FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 4. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA ( AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 5. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 6. FAILURE TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 7. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE ( AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 8. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON COLOR IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 9.

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.

in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; 13; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code § 226; 15.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (7) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation of FEHA. (9) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of

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).)

Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; 3. Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA; 4. Failure to Prevent Retaliation, Discrimination, and/or Harassment in Violation of FEHA; 5. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 6. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; and 7. Failure to Engage in Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA. On February 3, 2026, Defendant filed this Demurrer to Plaintiffs complaint.

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.

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.

Racial Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 12940(h) 4. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress RULING : The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

On 7/17/2024 plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that makes clearer what conduct took place subsequent to 11/14/2022 and which forms the basis for the claims pursued in this action: 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.

· 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.

· 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.

In her Complaint, Arenas asserted causes of action for (1) discrimination, (2) failure to prevent discrimination, (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (5) retaliation, (6) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (7) harassment, and (8) failure to prevent harassment. SMC demurred to each of the causes of action in the Complaint.

On May 29, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer to the Discrimination Based on Sex/Gender – Disparate Treatment, Harassment Based on Sex/Gender, Retaliation for Opposing Violation of FEHA, Whistleblower Retaliation, Association Discrimination causes of action, and overruled the Failure to Prevent and Stop Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation, and Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policies causes of action.

On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) against The Regents for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA, (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, and (7) and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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.

On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC), alleging causes of action for (1) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5 et al., (2) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 98.6, (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (4) Discrimination on the Basis of Race, (5) Harassment in Violation of FEHA, and (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation and Harassment.

Since a triable issue of material fact exists with regard to whether harassment occurred in 2017-2018, there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether there was a failure to prevent harassment. Accordingly, the motion for Summary Adjudication with regard to the Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination or Harassment is DENIED.”

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.

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

violation of the FEHA and Government Code sections 12940, subdivision (a), 12926, subdivision (o); (5) associational race harassment in violation of the FEHA and Government Code sections 12940, subdivision (a), 12926, subdivision (o); (6) failure to investigate, failure to prevent racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation in violation of the FEHA and Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k); and (7) defamation.

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

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.

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.

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff eventually went on a medical leave due to the stress of the job and retaliation, discrimination and harassment described therein. Plaintiff filed her complaint and now FAC alleging causes of action for 1. Whistle Blower Retaliation Labor Code § 1102.5; 2. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Government Code § 12940; 3. Discrimination in Violation of FEHA and 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA.

in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; 13; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code § 226; 15.

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.

Plaintiff Lawrence Ambrosio (Plaintiff) filed suit against his employers, Defendant Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Torrance Imports Inc. for (1.) discrimination based on sexual orientation, (2.) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (3.) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4.) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5.) unpaid meal periods, (6.) failure to pay overtime, (7.) violation of Labor Code sections 226 and 1174, and (8.) unfair business practices.

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.

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.”

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

Race, Ancestry and/or National Origin in Violation of FEHA; (6) Retaliation for Complaining of Discrimination and/or Harassment on the Basis of Race, Ancestry, and/or National Origin in Violation of FEHA; (7) Discrimination For Retaking CFRA Leave in Violation of FEHA; (8) Retaliation For Requesting and/or Taking CFRA Leave In Violation of FEHA; (9) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (10) Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; and (11) Intentional Infliction of Emotional

BACKGROUND On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants, the City and Michael Girourad (Girourad), alleging causes of action for (1) Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Race Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (4) Perception of Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (6) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; (7) Violation

in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; 13; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code § 226; 15.

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.

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 Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 5. Wrongful Discharge of Employment in Violation of Public Policy; 6. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226 & 1198.5; 7. Failure To Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and 8. Failure To Maintain Required Records.

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.

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

Fredrick Smith (Plaintiff) brings causes of action against his former employer Clearpath Federal Credit Union (Defendant) for (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (2) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of FEHA, (3) Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (6) Failure to Timely Pay All Wages, and

TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (13) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION FEHA (14) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY.

Plaintiff also alleges a second cause of action for hostile work environment (harassment) under section 12940(j), a third cause of action for retaliation under section 12940(h), failure to prevent discrimination or harassment under section 12940(k), a fifth cause of action for harassment due to disability in violation of section 12940(a), a sixth cause of action for failure to accommodate physical disability in violation of section 12940(m), a seventh cause of action for failure to engage in a good faith interactive

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

Discrimination Based on Disability in Violation of the FEHA 2. Harassment Based on Disability in Violation of the FEHA 3. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA 5. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 8. Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods 9.

(h), et seq.; (4) associational race discrimination in violation of the FEHA and Government Code sections 12940, subdivision (a), 12926, subdivision (o); (5) associational race harassment in violation of the FEHA and Government Code sections 12940, subdivision (a), 12926, subdivision (o); (6) failure to investigate, failure to prevent racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation in violation of the FEHA and Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k); and (7) defamation.

of FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process; (7) violation of FEHA retaliation for engaging in protected activity; (8) violation of FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (9) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (11) fraud; (12) violation of the California Equal Pay Act; and (13) unfair and unlawful business practices.

The complaint sets forth nine causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA , (2) failure to prevent discrimination , (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA , (4) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy, (5) harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA, (7) Labor Code section 98.6, (8) Labor Code section 1102.6, and (9) Labor Code section 6310.

On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff Larry Whithorn (Plaintiff) filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants City of West Covina, Lloyd Johnson, Tony Wu, Glenn Kennedy, and David Carmany (collectively, Defendants), asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to provide accommodation; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and