Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA in California

for request for pregnancy disability leave Gov Code §12945(a); (9) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA; (10) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of public policy; (11-12) pregnancy harassment in violation of FEHA against employer; (13) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (14) disability discrimination in violation of public policy; (15) retaliation for requests for accommodation, complaints

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) pregnancy discrimination; (2) failure to prevent pregnancy discrimination; (3) disability discrimination; (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination; (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (6) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (7) retaliation; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (9) misclassification as independent contractor.

Background On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) disability discrimination in violation of public policy, (3) pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) pregnancy discrimination in violation of public policy, (5) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of public policy, (7) pregnancy harassment

Here, on January 19, 2016, Romero filed a verified complaint for sex and pregnancy discrimination against respondent with DFEH. Balderrama Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1. Such discrimination would violate the FEHA. The complaint alleges that Romero was “laid off” after providing a doctor’s note to respondent stating that Romero needed a week off for bed rest in connection with severe abdominal pain during pregnancy. Respondent then told Romero that she had been replaced and was being laid off.

FEHA bars discrimination on the basis of sex, including on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. (Gov. Code § 12940(a); see Williams v. MacFrugal's Bargains—Close–outs, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 479 [Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination].)

] (2) SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION [FEHA] (3) SEX/GENDER RETALIATION [FEHA] (4) VIOLATION OF PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE LAW, GOV.

Plaintiff also alleges that after she returned from pregnancy leave, defendant treated her "very poorly" and "often ignored" her. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) These allegations are insufficient to establish either discrimination or a constructive discharge. In Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1043-1044, the Supreme Court held: "In construing California's FEHA, this court has held that the hostile work environment form of sexual harassment is actionable only when the harassing behavior is pervasive or severe.

Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for discrimination based on gender/sex (pregnancy). Plaintiff does not have to show that her disability was a motivating factor for her termination under the first cause of action for discrimination based on her gender/sex (pregnancy). (See Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (r)(1)(A); see also Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355 (Guz) [elements of discrimination].)

Discussion 1st and 2nd Causes of Action for Pregnancy Discrimination and Wrongful Termination In employment discrimination cases under FEHA, plaintiffs can prove their cases by direct or circumstantial evidence. DeJung v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 533, 549. Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption. Id. at 550. Plaintiff cites to Preciado's testimony as direct evidence of discrimination.

The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on 9/2/15 and asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (2) FEHA disability discrimination, (3) FMLA interference, (4) CFRA interference, (5) Pregnancy Disability Leave Law interference, (6) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, (7) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (8) FEHA retaliation, and (9) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

Pregnancy-related disability may be a FEHA “physical disability” under that section. (Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1339-1340 [employee disabled by high risk pregnancy stated disability claim under FEHA, entitling her to leave in addition to that provided by Gov. Code § 12945, California's Pregnancy Disability Leave Law].)

First Cause of Action: Discrimination by Association Defendant demurs on grounds that Plaintiff does not allege he was subject to discrimination because of his wife’s pregnancy, or that he was discriminated against because of his gender. The California FEHA prohibits discrimination in employment based on, among other things, an employee’s sex, physical disability, mental disability or medical condition. (Gov. Code, § 12940(a).)

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Cindy Perez filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against Defendant Ideal Face & Body for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA retaliation, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) wrongful termination, (6) FEHA sex and pregnancy discrimination, (7) violation of pregnancy disability laws, (8) violation of the CFRA, and (9) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

Defendant cannot cure these defects in the reply, and as such, the motion is denied. 2nd Cause of Action – Pregnancy Discrimination Although perhaps stylized as a misnomer, “Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.” (Spaziano v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 106, 110.) However, a closer look at the 2nd cause of action actually demonstrates that Plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a violation of leave rights. (Complaint ¶20-22.)

BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs commenced this action on 10/4/16 against defendant for: (1) pregnancy and sex discrimination (FEHA); (2) discrimination (Cal. Constitution); (3) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that she was removed from her position after she took a leave of absence for pregnancy. ANALYSIS: Defendant seeks to strike plaintiff’s claim for and references to punitive damages.

She asserts 22 causes of action for: (1) Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Sex/Gender Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (3) Race/Color Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (4) Race/Color Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (5) National Origin Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (6) National Origin Discrimination; (7) Age Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (8) Age Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (9) Disability Harassment; (10) Failure to Provide Reasonable Disability Accommodation; (11) Failure

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Cindy Perez filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against Defendant Ideal Face & Body for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA retaliation, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) wrongful termination, (6) FEHA sex and pregnancy discrimination, (7) violation of pregnancy disability laws, (8) violation of the CFRA, and (9) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

“Opposing practices forbidden by FEHA includes seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; assisting or advising any person in seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; opposing employment practices the employee reasonably believes to exist and believes to be a violation of FEHA; participating in an activity perceived by the employer as opposition to discrimination; or contacting, communicating with, or participating in the proceeding of a local human rights or civil rights agency regarding employment discrimination

On April 17, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) disability discrimination in violation of public policy, (3) pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) pregnancy discrimination in violation of public policy, (5) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of public policy, (7) pregnancy harassment in violation

Code § 12940(a)); Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policies Against Discrimination, Discrimination/Retaliation Based Upon Exercise of Rights Under FEHA; Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination and Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) (Gov. Code § 12945(a)); Interference and Violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination and Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) (Gov.

There is no requirement under FEHA that supervisors or co-workers be friendly or kind to employees; FEHA is not a congeniality code. B. Count two, disability discrimination (pregnancy) in violation of the FEHA: Count two alleges plaintiff was subjected to disability discrimination (pregnancy) in violation of the FEHA. ROA 1, complaint, paragraphs 31-33.

By the time of the second interview, Plaintiff was visibly pregnant and alleges that comments and questions asked by the panel about her pregnancy made her uncomfortable. Plaintiff alleges that she was not hired because of her pregnancy, instead a less qualified male candidate was hired, and claims Discrimination and Failure to Hire Based on Gender/Pregnancy (Gov't Code § 12900, et seq.) and Failure to Prevent Discrimination (Cal. Gov't Code § 12900, et seq.).

Discrimination Based On Gender/Sex (Pregnancy) In Violation Of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(A) (FEHA); 2. Discrimination Based On Disability (Pregnancy) In Violation Of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(A) (FEHA); 3. Failure To Accommodate In Violation Of Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940, Et Seq. (FEHA); 4. Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process In Violation Of Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940, Et Seq. (FEHA); 5. Retaliation In Violation Of Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940, Et Seq. (FEHA); 6.

On 2/11/21, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging that defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment as a manager, including based on Plaintiff’s medical conditions related to pregnancy justifying reasonable accommodations. The causes of action are: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASES OF SEX, PREGNANCY, DISABILITY, ASSOCIATIONAL DISABILITY, CFRA LEAVE, REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV. CODE § 12900, ET SEQ.); (2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV.

On November 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) sexual harassment, (2) sex discrimination, (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation, (4) retaliation (gender), (5) pregnancy discrimination, (6) retaliation (pregnancy), (7) failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment (pregnancy), (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (10) violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on 6/1/20, alleging: 1) pregnancy/sex discrimination and wrongful termination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the Pregnancy Disability Law (“PDL”); 2) failure to make reasonable accommodation under PDL; 3) retaliation under FEHA; 4) disability discrimination under FEHA; 5) failure to make reasonable accommodation under FEHA; 6) violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 1030-1034, 1197.1 et. seq.; 7) wrongful termination; 8) failure to prevent and/or remedy discrimination

Plaintiff filed this action on September 21, 2021, alleging seven causes of action against defendant: (1) Sex-Based Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Pregnancy Disability Leave Law in Violation of Gov't Code § 12945; (5) Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §51; and (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy - Tamenv

Because California’s FEHA law is modeled on federal law (Title VII), California courts consider federal Title VII cases when applying FEHA, in discrimination and retaliation claims. Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354. The U.S. Supreme Court came up with a 3 stage burden shifting test for federal discrimination (or retaliation) cases, the so-called McDonnell Douglas test, which California courts have adopted for use in California discrimination (or retaliation) cases.

Third COA: FEHA Discrimination Claim This claim is analyzed under the McDonnell-Douglas test. (Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1379.) "The specific elements of a prima facie case [of discrimination] may vary depending on the particular facts. [Citations.]

First cause of action for pregnancy discrimination and second cause of action for discrimination based on sex “It is … unlawful … (f)or an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation or military and veteran status of any person, to … discharge the person from employment …” (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)

Plaintiff clearly alleges that defendant discriminated against her based on her pregnancy, which just happened to be a surrogate pregnancy. (FAC, ¶¶41-42.) For purposes of sex discrimination, “sex” includes pregnancy and conditions related thereto. Govt Code §12926. The fact that plaintiff’s pregnancy was a surrogate pregnancy is irrelevant to that issue. Defendant also claims that plaintiff can draw no nexus between her pregnancy and her termination.

Defendants demur to the fifth cause of action for harassment on the basis of pregnancy, sex, and/or disability arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege conduct that meets the definition of harassment under FEHA.

Defendants demur to the fifth cause of action for harassment on the basis of pregnancy, sex, and/or disability arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege conduct that meets the definition of harassment under FEHA.

However, in the instant action Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim was based on her pregnancy. Pregnancy can cause a temporary medical condition or disability (See Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12945)), impeding the ability to work.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) sexual discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (4) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to accommodate disability in violation of the FEHA; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.[

Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action in her complaint: (1) FEHA Discrimination based on sex discrimination; (2) FEHA violations based on pregnancy discrimination; (3) FEHA violations based upon disability discrimination; (4) FEHA violations based upon retaliation; (5) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5(c); (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code ¶ 17200 et. seq.; (7) Failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq.; (8) Failure to

The complaint asserts causes of action for (1-2) FEHA pregnancy discrimination, (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (4) FEHA failure to accommodate, (5) failure to provide pregnancy leave, (6) failure to provide CFRA leave, (7) FEHA retaliation, (8) CFRA interference, and (9) CFRA retaliation. Defendant moves for summary judgment or adjudication. Objections – Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s separate statement on the ground that it does not comply with CRC 3.1350(b).

First Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination, Fourth Cause of Action for Gender/Pregnancy/Fertility Discrimination, and Sixth Cause of Action for Retaliation. The District contends that each of these causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because plaintiff has not alleged that she suffered an adverse action.

Factual Background: Defendant seeks summary adjudication of the FEHA causes of action. The action itself alleges pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination. Effective August 2017, Susan Yeager, DPM (“Dr. Yeager”) purchased a podiatry center that would become known as Yeager Foot & Ankle Center, Inc. (“Yeager”). On or about August 4, 2017, plaintiff Joslin was hired and began working for defendant Yeager.

Plaintiff alleges she faced discrimination immediately after notifying Defendants of her pregnancy. (FAC ¶ 32.)

FAILURE TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE— SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Defendants argue that Chairez’s FEHA claims for failure to accommodate her pregnancy because the Complaint admits that Defendants gave her all requisite leave. (Demurrer at p. 3.) The FEHA prohibits discrimination in employment based on, inter alia, sex, physical disability, or medical condition. “Sex” is defined to include “[p]regnancy or medical conditions related to pregnancy.” ([Gov. Code] § 12926, subd. (q)(1).)

(See Plaintiff’s Disputed Facts at No. 33 [Plaintiff’s response is “Undisputed”].2) This concession is fatal to Plaintiff’s discrimination claim. Nevertheless, Plaintiff argues the timing of her termination raises an inference of discrimination and thus a causal link exists between her termination and her pregnancy. (See OPP at p. 15:13-23.)

July 20, 2023 On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff Joanna Hernandez filed this action against Defendants Rafie & Khoshbin Dental Corp. and Torrance Dental Center, alleging (1) discrimination based on sex/pregnancy; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination; and (4) wrongful termination based on public policy. On May 5, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.

Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation (4th cause of action) Under FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (k).) Defendant argues that no liability exists for failure to take steps necessary to prevent discrimination and retaliation if no discrimination or retaliation has been found to exist.

· Plaintiff has properly pleaded her case for discrimination based on her protected pregnancy status. Tentative Ruling The motion is denied. Twenty days to file an Answer. The Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendant deprived Plaintiff of her full three months of maternity leave, and provided no justification, which constitutes a conscious disregard for employee rights, beyond just wrongful termination (SAC ¶¶ 12 -14.)

Beyond these limited definitions, the FEHA does not define an employer, employee, or what constitutes employment. In order to recover under the discrimination [and retaliation] in employment provisions of the FEHA, the aggrieved plaintiff must be an employee.” [Citations.] . . .

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON PREGNANCY AND RELATED DISABILITIES IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; 2. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; 3. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; 4. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; 5. RETALITION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION; 7. NEGLIGENT HIRING/SUPERVISION; 8. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 9. DEFAMATION/SLANDER; 10.

On 2/11/21, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging that defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment as a manager, including based on Plaintiff’s medical conditions related to pregnancy justifying reasonable accommodations. The causes of action are: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASES OF SEX, PREGNANCY, DISABILITY, ASSOCIATIONAL DISABILITY, CFRA LEAVE, REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV. CODE § 12900, ET SEQ.); (2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV.

On 5/19/15, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for: (1) gender and pregnancy discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) harassment; (4) violation of pregnancy disability leave law; (5) failure to accommodate disability; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process; (7) retaliation (FEHA); (8) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, retaliation; (9) failure to pay wages; (10) failure to page wages upon discharge; (11) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (12) misclassification

Pregnancy discrimination is also a form a disability discrimination (in addition to sex discrimination). (Spaziano v. Lucky Store, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at 110; Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1331.) Under Gov.

Pregnancy discrimination is also a form a disability discrimination (in addition to sex discrimination). (Spaziano v. Lucky Store, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at 110; Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1331.) Under Gov.

Pregnancy discrimination is also a form a disability discrimination (in addition to sex discrimination). (Spaziano v. Lucky Store, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at 110; Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1331.) Under Gov.

CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT: 1) Violation of Government Code section 12940 - Pregnancy Discrimination 2) Violation of Government Code section 12945 - Failure to Prevent Pregnancy Discrimination 3) Violation of Government Code section 12960 - Retaliation 4) Violation of Government Code section 12926 - Failure to Accommodate 5) Defamation 6) Failure to Provide Sick Leave 7) Retaliation/Discrimination for use of Paid Sick Leave RELIEF REQUESTED: Demurrer to each cause of action in Complaint.

In short, even assuming plaintiff’s evidence that she was replaced by a man (“Hugo,”) is not considered, defendant has not met its burden of proof as to the pregnancy discrimination claim. And, as this issue concerns both the sex discrimination and the pregnancy discrimination causes of action, it fails.

(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 479 [pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination].) In establishing her prima facie showing of discrimination under FEHA, a plaintiff has shown that she was (1) a member of protected classes (e.g. sex, gender, disability); (2) qualified for her job; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive. ( Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc.

Gomez's claims for violations of FEHA and CFRA, discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation and wrongful termination. The fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action adequately allege that Ms. Gomez was qualified to do her job and her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, pregnancy-related disability and gender. The fifth cause of action adequately alleges that Ms. Gomez was qualified to do her job and she requested reasonable accommodations which were ignored or denied.

in the Interactive Process, Fourth Cause of Action for Gender/Pregnancy/Fertility Discrimination, Fifth Cause of Action for Harassment, Sixth Cause of Action for Retaliation, and Seventh Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation.

“[T]o avoid summary judgment, an employee claiming discrimination must offer substantial evidence that the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination.” (Johnson v.

A discharge in violation of the FEHA may also give rise to a common law claim for wrongful discharge. Stevenson v. Superior Court (Huntington Mem. Hosp.) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 866 (claim based on age discrimination); City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (Dillon) (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143 (FEHA provides sufficient public policy against disability discrimination to support a public policy tort claim).

The motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for fraud and deceit (issue 1 – brought by Per Se, FLRC, KRM), second cause of action for sex discrimination in violation of FEHA (issue 7 – brought by Per Se, FLRC, and KRM), fifth cause of action for misrepresentation in violation of Labor Code section 970 (issues 3-6 – brought by all defendants1), and twelfth cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA (issue 15 – brought by Per Se, FLRC, and KRM) is DENIED.

There, the court of appeal held that that a maximum 4-month leave for pregnancy under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) does not displace the provisions of FEHA (Fair Employment & Housing Act, Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.) applicable to pregnancy-related disability and does not diminish an employer’s obligations to provide reasonable accommodations afforded to other disabled employees. (Id. at p. 1339.)

Plaintiff alleges that she suffered discrimination and retaliation based on her pregnancy in violation of the FEHA. Defendant County of Los Angeles moves to strike portions of the Complaint. TENTATIVE RULING Defendant County of Los Angeles’s motion to strike the portions of the Complaint is GRANTED without leave to amend as to ¶¶ 18a, 24a, 30a, 37a and Prayer Item No. 6 at Page 10:22 (prejudgment interest) and 20, 26, 31, 39 and Prayer Item No. 4 at Page 10:19 (punitive damages).

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department alleging causes of action for: (1) sex discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(a); and (2) pregnancy leave discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12945. Plaintiff alleges that she was discharged from her employment because she became pregnant and took pregnancy-related leave.

First Cause of Action for Discrimination on the Bases of Sex, Including Pregnancy and Breastfeeding, and Disability (Government Code § 12900, et seq.)

Given that the wrongful termination claim relies solely on the FEHA as the source of public policy, it is defective. Because the complaint is based on pregnancy discrimination, plaintiff has a possibility of remedying this defect. In Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1289, the Court of Appeal “conclude[d] that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under article I, section 8 of the California Constitution.

However, Plaintiff does allege she attempted to disclose and remedy Defendant Kim and Defendant Padilla’s harassment and discrimination by complaining about it to President/CEO of the company. (FAC ¶10d, 84.) Accordingly, the demurrer to the tenth cause of action is OVERRULED. Pregnancy Discrimination (11th COA) Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under the FEHA. (Williams v. MacFrugal’s Bargains-Close Outs, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 479, 481-482.)

Consequently, the court finds Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for discrimination. Second Cause of Action: Violation of PDL The Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, which is part of FEHA, requires employers to provide leave to an employee who is “disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition...” (Gov. Code, § 12945, subd. (a)(1).)

On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff Brison Hardin filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the County of Los Angeles for FEHA discrimination, FEHA retaliation, and FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. Defendant County of Los Angeles demurs to the entirety of the FAC for failure to state sufficient facts. Defendant mainly argues that Plaintiff failed to plead an adverse employment action.

Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a) prohibits discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department alleging causes of action for: (1) sex discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(a); and (2) pregnancy leave discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12945. At trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Defendant. Thereafter, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs.

Application to Facts Plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed SAC, which amends the operative pleading in the following respects: (1) adds causes of action for sex and pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA, violation of the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, violation of the California Family Rights Act, and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (2) supplements the facts with recently discovered facts; and (3) withdraws the cause of action for

In ruling on LAHF’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence that she was terminated due to her pregnancy, gender, or a purported disability based upon her pregnancy. The Court specifically stated that “Plaintiff has failed to come forth with evidence that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in her termination.”

Thus, when the “costs have not been increased by the inclusion of additional theories of liability to the primary FEHA claim asserted, the express public policy of [California Government Code section 12965(b)] controls.” Ibid. Unless the FEHA causes of action are frivolous, only costs properly allocated to non-FEHA claims may be recovered by a successful defendant. Ibid. All of Plaintiff’s claims were based on sex and pregnancy discrimination.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Associational Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Violation of the FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a) and 12926(o)); Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k)); Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940(h) and 12940(m)); and Failure to Indemnify (Labor Code § 2802).

Plaintiff essentially argues that Defendant didn't give her the day off, it fired her for taking the day off to seek medical attention for her pregnancy. A single failure to accommodate is sufficient to establish a claim under FEHA. See A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC (2009)178 Cal. App. 4th 455, 465. Whether that occurred in this case or not, again presents a triable issue of fact. Finally, Defendant asks for summary adjudication with respect to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

Trendwest Resorts, Inc . (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1435 ("A court can award Civil Code section 3294 punitive damages in an FEHA case."). [W]rongful termination, without more, will not sustain a finding of malice or oppression. Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 717. Cf . Turman v.

The Complaint contains FEHA causes of action for: (1) discrimination based on pregnancy; (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (3) harassment based on gender/sex; (4) failure to maintain a discrimination free environment; and (5) retaliation. Defendant now moves to strike Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

Discrimination Based on Gender/Sex (Pregnancy) in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(a) (FEHA) 2. Discrimination Based on Disability (Pregnancy) in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(a) 3. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(m) 4. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(n) 5. Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(h) 6.

“California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because of her sex.” (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1144.) “Sex within the meaning of the FEHA includes pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.” (Id.)

“California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because of her sex.” (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1144.) “Sex within the meaning of the FEHA includes pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.” (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that her disabilities were her pregnancy and complications from pregnancy. (3AC, ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges at ¶ 35(b) (g) of the 3AC: b) Plaintiff was denied her annual base salary of $230,000.00 plus incentives. c) In or around May 2013, Plaintiff took legally-protected leave due to pregnancy complications.

Garcia contends that he furnished evidence that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him after he shared his wife’s intent to sue Defendants for pregnancy discrimination, which overlapped with Garcia’s complaints about fraudulent activity at Wells Fargo. Garcia also contends that only costs properly allocated to non-FEHA claims may be recovered by a prevailing defendant, unless the FEHA claim was also frivolous. (Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1062.)

Defendants move for summary adjudication of the following issues: ISSUES 1-2, and 6 1 st – 2 nd CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY, SEX/PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION and 6 th C AUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION: FEHA prohibits an employer from taking any adverse action against a protected individual based on his or her... physical or mental disability, medical condition.”

On 2/11/21, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging that defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs employment as a manager, including based on Plaintiffs medical conditions related to pregnancy justifying reasonable accommodations. The causes of action are: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASES OF SEX, PREGNANCY, DISABILITY, ASSOCIATIONAL DISABILITY, CFRA LEAVE, REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV. CODE § 12900, ET SEQ.); (2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV.

Discrimination Based on Gender/Sex (Pregnancy) in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(a) (FEHA) 2. Discrimination Based on Disability (Pregnancy) in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(a) 3. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(m) 4. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(n) 5. Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(h) 6.

Inc., Joe Ray Jones, Paul De Flores, and Jason (last name unknown), alleging the following causes of action: (1) failure to provide reasonable disability accommodation in violation of the FEHA; (2) failure to engage in an interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (3) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (4) pregnancy harassment in violation of the FEHA; (5) pregnancy discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (6) failure to provide accommodations for pregnancy and related medical conditions

Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA 2. Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA 3. Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA and the PDLL 5. Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA 6. Medical Leave Retaliation in Violation of the CFRA 7.

FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against or harass any person based on race, sex, age or other enumerated characteristics, or to retaliate against any person for challenging conduct outlawed by the Act. (Gov. Code § 12940.) FEHA bars discrimination on the basis of sex, including on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. (Gov. Code § 12940(a); see Williams v.

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because of her sex. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) “ Sex” within the meaning of the FEHA includes “pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. ” (Id., § 12926, subd. (p).) FEHA provisions may provide the policy basis for a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Phillips v. St.

Each of the FEHA causes of action asserted against M.M.C. may only be asserted against an employer. (See Gov. Code §§ 12945 (pregnancy leave); 12940(a) (discrimination); 12940(m) (reasonable accommodation); 12940(n) (interactive process); 12940(k) (prevent discrimination); 12940(h) (retaliation).)

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy, (2) FEHA gender discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA gender harassment, (5) FEHA disability discrimination, (6) FEHA failure to accommodate, (7) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, and (8) failure to pay wages. On 9/28/16, the Court dismissed PLAS without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

Marralle (1994) 8 C4th 121, 135-13 (small employers exempt from FEHA bar against age discrimination are not subject to public policy against age discrimination derived from FEHA.] However, Article I, § 8 of the California Constitution provides an alternative source of public policy for these wrongful termination claims even if Defendant were exempt from the FEHA. See Badih v.

For example, a plaintiff sufficiently alleges claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in good faith interactive process under FEHA by alleging “that she was unable to work during her pregnancy, that she was denied reasonable accommodations for her pregnancy-related disability and terminated, and that the requested accommodations would not have imposed an undue hardship on Swissport.” (Sanchez, 213 Cal.

Plaintiffs retaliation causes of action are based on the following allegations: (1) the FEHA and Labor Code §1102.5 were both in effect and binding on Defendant; (2) the FEHA requires Defendant to refrain from retaliating against any employee making complaints or opposing discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, or otherwise engaging in activity protected by the FEHA, for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under FEHA and/or assisting and/or participating in an investigation, opposing Defendants failure

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: Disability and Gender Discrimination; Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment FEHA and Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.; Hostile Work Environment; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); Declaratory Relief. On August 5, 2020, Defendants filed this opposed a demurrer.

The Complaint alleges eight causes of action for: 1) discrimination based on sex/gender in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); 2) retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; 3) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 4) retaliation in violation of Lab.

FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any person based on race, sex, age or other enumerated characteristics. (Gov. Code § 12940.) FEHA bars discrimination on the basis of sex, including on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)

Plaintiff Crawford is bringing claims for gender discrimination and discrimination based upon her pregnancy. Plaintiff Ward's claims are based upon alleged retaliation in violation of public policy. Specifically her objection to various company practices she believed to be against public policy including the termination of plaintiff Crawford.