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

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Second Cause of Action: Violation of Government Code section 12940 (Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, and Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation) “[T]he [Fair Employment and Housing Act] FEHA provides that no complaint for any violation of its provisions may be filed with the Department ‘after the expiration of one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred,’ with an exception for delayed discovery” or for continuing violations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99); (2) violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; (3) retaliation – public policy (Penal Code § 422); (4) false evidence violations; (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and assault; and (6) public policy – religious discrimination (Cal. Const. art. I, § 8).

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

The operative Complaint, filed April 7, 2019, sets forth claims against Everport for 1) interference with right to leave under CFRA; 2) actual/perceived disability discrimination (FEHA); 3) failure to engage in interactive process (FEHA); 4) failure to grant reasonable accommodations (FEHA); 5) retaliation (FEHA); and 6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANDREW MAHONEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(m)); Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.); Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.); and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.). Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with Defendant’s Demand for Physical Examination by a neurologist, Martin Levine, M.D.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

OSCAR RUIZ VS PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff Oscar Ruiz (Plaintiff) filed suit against Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, KBS Staffing, Newhall Temporary Staffing Services, LLC dba Pirate Staffing #110, and Champion Windows alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) declaratory judgment; (8) failure to

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 2. Age Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 3. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (Gov. Code § 12940(m)) 4. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov. Code § 12940(n)) 5. Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) 6. Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination and Retaliation (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

, and other public places;” • The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by business establishments; 14 and • Government Code section 11135, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities conducted, operated, administered, or funded by the state.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JOSE SOTO V. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff Jose Soto also brings individual claims for harassment, discrimination, and related causes of action. The parties have reached a settlement of the class claims, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on December 17, 2019. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

AMETHOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS VS. WEST CONRA COSTA

Discrimination. Petitioner cites, as a sign of purported racial discrimination, the staff report’s stated concern that the John Henry charter school has not recruited a student body representative of the school district’s ethnic diversity — a concern that was apparently raised as far back as the initial charter review in 2014. (Staff Report, pp. 2-4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CARDOSO VS. DATA CLEAN CORPORATION

The Court is concerned that counsel and the representative plaintiffs appear to be signing away absent class members’ ability to bring FEHA and similar claims against Defendants. As to the Notice: 1.The Court requested changes to § 3.2 of the settlement agreement, which allows the parties to make changes to the notice without Court approval. Rather than making changes in the Amended Agreement, as the Court expressly requested, counsel made changes to the long-form notice. (ROA 100, ¶ 36.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LEE V. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

The FAC alleges seven causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination harassment, and retaliation in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k); (4) retaliation for disclosing violations of law (Lab. Code, § 1102.5); (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

STEVEN YEARWOOD VS NCWC DEALER SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff believes that this termination violated numerous laws including FEHA and the Unruh Act. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.) B. Course of Proceedings On February 10, 2020, the Court sustained USDS’s and Fox’s demurrer to the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court concluded that the Complaint was fatally uncertain and precluded USDS and Fox from effectively filing Answers. Discussion Defendants USDS and Fox (hereinafter, Defendants) demur to the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANDREW MAHONEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(m)); Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.); Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.); and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.). Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with Defendant’s Demand for Physical Examination by a neurologist, Martin Levine, M.D.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JANE BETTS VS PAULA KANE

If personnel management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for discrimination.” (Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 64.) Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not rise to the level at which these personnel decisions or activities could form the basis of an emotional distress claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHAWONDA WASHINGTON VS DAVITA, INC. ET AL

As used in this chapter, “health facility” means a facility, place, or building that is organized, maintained, and operated for the diagnosis, care, prevention, and treatment of human illness, physical or mental, including convalescence and rehabilitation and including care during and after pregnancy, or for any one or more of these purposes, for one or more persons, to which the persons are admitted for a 24-hour stay or longer (Health & Saf. Code, §1250; emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SARAH THOMAS VS WILLIAM DUNCAN ET AL

Plaintiff filed this complaint on [insert date from complaint].61 The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) employment discrimination (gender) — hostile environment; (2) employment discrimination (gender) — disparate treatment; (3) employment discrimination (unlawful sexual harassment); (4) employment discrimination (unlawful harassment); (5) employment discrimination (retaliation); (6) employment discrimination (disability); (7) Violation 0f Labor Code Section 1102 (whistleblower); (8) failure to

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ART HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.

These files are also relevant to prove the Defendants’ discrimination, harassment, and hostile acts toward Plaintiffs, including those leading to Plaintiffs’ emotional distress, and the County’s notice and failure to take reasonable steps, and to Plaintiffs’ allegations of assault and battery. They may also help prove negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ESTHER ISAAC, ET AL. VS ELWYN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Both Plaintiffs[1] Isaac and Usman allege racial harassment and discrimination against them. Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. After the original motion was filed and opposed, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for leave. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs’ amended motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will not hear any oral testimony in support of this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE VS. BECERRA

And a plaintiff cannot establish invidious discrimination by merely alleging that a legislature responded to such efforts. Under rational basis review, “[a]ccommodating one interest group is not equivalent to intentionally harming another.” (Gallinger v. Becerra (9th Cir. 2018) 898 F.3d 1012, 1021.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

LAWRENCE CHIBUEZE, ET AL. VS TELOPS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

“[W]hile discrimination may be carried out by means of speech, such as a written notice of termination, and an illicit animus may be evidence by speech, neither circumstance transforms a discrimination suit to one arising from speech. What gives rise to liability is not that the defendant spoke, but that the defendant denied the plaintiff a benefit, or subjected the plaintiff to a burden, on account of a discriminatory or retaliatory consideration.” (Park v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHELLE VEGA VS KIPP LA SCHOOLS

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION Kipp argues that Vega cannot prevail on her claim for pregnancy discrimination based on the same reasons discussed above, but puts forward an additional reason why a finding of discrimination cannot be made: Vega never told any of her supervisors that she was pregnant. (Marchlewski Decl. Exh. 36 at pp. 17–26.) Vega instead assumes that one of her supervisors learned she was pregnant as she was sitting nearby when she told another co-worker. (Id. at pp. 24–25.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID BRONSON VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION [Gov. Code § 12940(a)]; 2. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY [Gov. Code § 12940(m)]; 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS [Gov. Code § 12940(n)]; 4. RETALIATION FOR REQUESTING ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940(m)]; 5. HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY [Gov. Code §12940(j)]; 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, & HARASSMENT [Gov. Code §12940(k)]; 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 8.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PENNINGTON VS SURFSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL APC

As noted, FEHA rights are unwaivable. Furthermore, under the FEHA, private civil actions by employees are the primary means of enforcing employees' rights to be free of unlawful discrimination, once the Department of Fair Employment and Housing determines it will not file a complaint against the employer. (Gov.Code, § 12965, subd. (b).) The statute further provides that '[t]he superior, municipal, and justice courts of the State of California shall have jurisdiction of such actions.' {Citation.}

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL

Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to his FEHA age discrimination claim, and Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to the second cause of action is granted. 2. Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case for disability discrimination?

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NUNEZ VS. CAPPO MANAGEMENT XLVIII, LLC

For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Dispute” means any claim, dispute, difference, or controversy, whether or not related to or arising out of the employment relationship, and includes any claim, dispute difference, or controversy (i) arising under any federal, state or local statute or ordinance (including but not limited to claims of discrimination or harassment); (ii) based on any common-law rule or practice, including breach of contract or fraud; (iii) involving the validity or interpretation of this

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 258     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.