What is Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA?

Useful Rulings on Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

JENNIFER HERRINGTON V THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ET AL

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) “predicates potential ‘liability on the status of the defendant as an “employer.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] The fundamental foundation for liability is the ‘existence of an employment relationship between the one who discriminates against another and that other who finds himself the victim of that discrimination.’ [Citation.] FEHA requires ‘some connection with an employment relationship,’ although the connection ‘need not necessarily be direct.’ [Citation.]”

  • Hearing

DEANNE DWORETZKY VS BRENDA BUONORA, ET AL.

On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff Deanne Dworetzy (Plaintiff) filed suit against Buonora Development, Inc. and Brenda Buonora (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) retaliation (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (4) wrongful termination; (5) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) defamation; (8) failure to pay wages; (9) failure to provide wage statements; (10) failure to provide employment records; (11) violation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ERIKA COLMENARES VS LAS PALMITAS FRESH FRUIT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff Erika Colmenares commenced this action against Defendants Las Palmitas Fresh Fruit Inc. and Don Luis aka Luis Gil for (1) sexual harassment/hostile work environment; (2) discrimination based upon sex/gender; (3) discrimination based upon disability; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) retaliation; (7) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

In finding that a residential hotel conversion and demolition ordinance (HCO) is not subject to the Nollan/Dolan test, because the HCO does not provide City staff or administrative bodies with any discretion as to the imposition or size of a housing replacement fee, the City did not single out plaintiffs for payment of a housing replacement fee and the HCO is generally applicable legislation in that it applies, without discretion or discrimination, to every residential hotel in the city, an appellate court stated

  • Hearing

HARRIS V. THE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

Plaintiff agreed to limit the scope of this Interrogatory to the lawsuits relating to conduct by the same decision makers involved in Plaintiff’s termination and to civil actions filed against Defendant in the past ten years for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and federal and state retaliation and discrimination laws. (Decl. L. Robinson, ⁋⁋ 7, 9, Exhibit 5.) This is a reasonable compromise/proposal.

  • Hearing

ERICA AVILES V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

The Court was clearly stating that not all harassment is sex discrimination, which is far from stating that sexual harassment cannot be sex discrimination. Lyle and Accardi establish that evidence of sex discrimination is relevant to a sexual harassment claim in California. Scope of Discovery: Good Cause. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, in conjunction with the Declaration of Pamela Y.

  • Hearing

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES RAMIREZ VS PROLAND MANAGEMENT COMPANY L

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) sexual discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (6) failure to pay overtime wages, (7) failure to provide meal periods, (8) failure to provide rest periods, (9) failure to pay all wages earned, (10) failure to indemnify

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELISSA PERSON VS KENNETH D. MATHIS, ET AL.

.; (3) Discrimination (Government Code § 12940(k) et seq.; (4) Sexual Harassment (Civil Code § 51.9); (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED"); (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Labor Code § 1194); (7) Failure to Pay Wages Upon Termination (Labor Code § 203); (8) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Labor Code § 226(a)); (9) Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Labor Code § 226(a)); and (10) Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Labor Code § 226(a)).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CATHERINE BRUNI VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

Finally, Petitioner’s due process, discrimination, and retaliation claims fail and are not supported by the weight of the evidence for the same reasons discussed above for Charge 2. The weight of the evidence supports Commission’s findings for Charge 11. Penalty Petitioner appears to contend that discharge was an excessive penalty and a manifest abuse of discretion. (See OB 17 [discussing Skelly]; Reply 8-9.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

In Isbister, Plaintiffs, females, were excluded from the Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz on the grounds that they were female and brought an actual for sexual discrimination under the Unruh Act (Id. at 75.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOANNE SOSSMAN VS ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORP, A CORPORATE ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

.: 20STCV25821 Hearing Date: November 24, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Defendant’s motion to VACATE JUDGMENT under CCP § 473 Background On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff Joanne Sossman (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against defendant Atlamed Health Services Corp. alleging causes of action for (1) Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code §12940 et seq.; (2) Age Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code §12940 et seq.; (3) Failure to Accommodate in Violation of Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MOORE V. GATES

(AMF 43-49.) 5th cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and harassment based on age and/or disability (both Plaintiffs against City) FEHA prohibits an employer from failing to take all necessary and reasonable steps to prevent unlawful discrimination from occurring in the workplace. (Gov. Code § 12940(k).) The parties do not dispute that this claim is derivative of Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims. (See Scotch v.

  • Hearing

KIARA JONES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Kiara Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) alleging seven causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”): (1) discrimination; (2) failure to prevent discrimination; (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process; (4) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (5) retaliation; (6) harassment; and (7) failure to prevent harassment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BRYAN NAVARRO ET AL. VS BARONHR WEST, INC., A CORPORATION ET AL.

The Complaint asserts seven causes of action: 1) harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) by Bryan Navarro; 2) violation of the FEHA by Dania Navarro; 3) violation of FEHA by Irma Cardenas; 4) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 5) violation of Labor Code § 98.6; 6) violation of public policy; and 7) Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) Claims.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

WILLIAMS V WEST COAST HOSPITALS, INC. DBA VALLEY CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

However, this case is factually distinguishabl from Abramson, in which an employee alleging FEHA violations was required by an arbitratio agreement in a “take it or leave it” employment contract to pay half the costs of arbitration i order to assert rights statutorily guaranteed to him. Barring claims that arise before arbitratio but which are not asserted in arbitration does not shock the conscious.

  • Hearing

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies The 3rd cause of action for FMLA violations and 4th cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of the ADA are also barred because plaintiff did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies under FEHA or the ADA.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

COLOREDGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, VS EDIE GELARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

Code §17200; (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); (10) Sexual Discrimination; and (11) Accounting. PRESENTATION: Duggal and Gelardi (together, "Duggal Defendants") filed the instant motion on October 26, 2020. Plaintiff and Final Film each filed an opposition on November 04, 2020, and Duggal Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff and a reply to Final Film on November 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

YADIRA VELASQUEZ VS NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff Yadira Velasquez commenced this FEHA action against Defendants Northgate Gonzalez Markets, Inc., Northgate Gonzalez, Inc., and Jose Garcia for (1) discrimination in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (2) harassment in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LEE ROSSUM VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Any documents pertaining to complaints of conducting occurring prior to January 2011 will be excluded from disclosure (January 2016 being the first factual allegation relevant to Plaintiff’s FEHA claims against Defendant.) (Compl. ¶ 13.) Conclusion In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion is granted. The court will schedule a date to conduct in camera review of the documents sought. (Evid. Code § 1045(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FRANK DEPTO VS ST PAUL THE APOSTLE CHURCH ET AL

If personnel management activity is alleged to be motivated by discrimination, “the remedy is a suit against the employer for discrimination” and not a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Ibid.) In its May 30, 2019 order, the court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the sixth cause of action for IIED in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint because the Second Amended Complaint failed to allege extreme or outrageous conduct sufficient to state an IIED claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AIDA OGANESIAN, ET AL. VS CAH-2014-1 BORROWER, LLC, ET AL.

(a); (9) Violation of FEHA § 12955, subd. (a), Failure to Engage in Interactive Process; and (10) Violation of Civil Code § 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act. PRESENTATION: Defendants filed all three motions on October 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to all motions on November 06, 2020, and Defendants filed replies to all motions on November 12, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NOYEMI KAROYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HYUNDAI OF GLENDALE, LLC A BUSINESS ENTITY EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff Noyemi Karoyan commenced this action against Defendants Hyundai of Glendale, LLC and Jae Park for (1) sexual harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual harassment (quid pro quo) in violation of FEHA; (3) discrimination based on sex in violation of FEHA; (4) sexual battery; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (7) failure to pay all vacation wages due in violation of Labor Code §

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YADIRA VELASQUEZ VS NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff Yadira Velasquez commenced this FEHA action against Defendants Northgate Gonzalez Markets, Inc., Northgate Gonzalez, Inc., and Jose Garcia for (1) discrimination in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (2) harassment in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARY CRUZ CRESPO VS NORA FLORES, ET AL.

., Employers HR, LLC, and Nora Flores for (1) employment discrimination on the basis of actual and perceived disability and medical condition; (2) harassment on the basis of actual and perceived disability; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) retaliation for exercising rights under FEHA; (6) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) declaratory relief; and (9) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALFRED LAX V. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, ET AL.

The Court has reviewed the settlement agreement resolving plaintiff’s individual action for discrimination and harassment against defendant, Alfred Lax v. Roto-Rooter Services Company (Super. Ct. Santa Clara County, conclude that it renders the settlement of this case unfair to those affected. The Court retains an independent right and responsibility to review the requested attorney fees and award only so much as it determines to be reasonable. (See Garabedian v.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 295     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.