What is Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA?

Useful Resources for Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

226-250 of 7613 results

SHWON SASANI VS SO CAL PLUMBING HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC., ET AL.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 15th cause of action. 16th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or remedy discrimination/retaliation in violation of FEHA As stated above, the court finds that the allegations are sufficient to state the underlying claim for disability discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN TOSCANO, JR VS W.A. RASIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Complaint asserts causes of action under: (1) FEHA for disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate disability; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) violation of California Family Rights Act; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (10

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TIMOTHY TWYMAN VS NHBB INC., ET AL.

Nor has Plaintiff alleged that any Defendant gave substantial assistance to any other Defendant violating Plaintiff’s FEHA or CFRA rights and the assisting Defendant’s actions were themselves a violation of Plaintiff’s FEHA or CFRA rights. At most, Plaintiff has alleged individual instances of FEHA violations that were each accomplished by individual defendants without the assistance of the other Defendants who were also allegedly violating Plaintiff’s FEHA rights.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY

policy contained in FEHA; (7) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (8) interference with CFRA rights and retaliation for taking CFRA leave in violation of FEHA adverse employment action in violation of public policy; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (10) failure to do everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring in violation of FEHA; (11) common law assault; (12) common law battery; (13) negligent hiring and retention

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RICARDO ARMANDO NUNEZ VS SAN MARTIN DE PORRES MEDICAL CLINIC OF SOUTH GATE, INC., A CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ORGANIZATION

San Martin argues that Nunez has failed to allege a cause of action for discrimination under FEHA because Nunez alleges that Dr. Torreblanca did not have the authority to fire Nunez. (Compl., ¶ 17 [allegation that Dr. Torreblanca told Nunez that “if it were up to me, you would have been fired already because you’re old”].) But San Martin does not explain why Nunez must allege that Dr. Torreblanca had the authority to fire him.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JHENE GUTIERREZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MAGDALENA SANTANA, ET AL. VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

However, the allegations concern the care and treatment Plaintiffs received during the pregnancy and birth of Gutierrez. Moreover, Blumenthal argues the complaint is fatally uncertain because it does not distinguish between the alleged acts of each defendant, and there are no allegations as to how Blumenthal individually failed to exercise due care in caring for Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

PAUL A VS WCCUSD

In addition, the disability-based discrimination must either be intentional, or the school district must have been deliberately indifferent to the existence of the disability. (Duvall at 1138-39.) The crux of the School District’s argument in this regard is that the 3AC fails to allege either the third element, that Jacob was discriminated against solely because of his purported disability, or intentional discrimination/deliberate indifference.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

WU VS. WEST CONRA COSTA USD

At a minimum an “appropriate person” is an official who “has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the [assistance] recipient's behalf” to end the discrimination. (Id. at 601.) Gebser and Donovan distinguish the actual knowledge standard from the looser standard used in federal and state employment laws that prohibit discrimination, where liability can be imposed based on principles of constructive knowledge and respondeat superior.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ERIC MOREJON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Only once DHR has denied the appeal and the discharged probationary employee has been adversely affected by discrimination by DHR under Rule 25, will the Commission have jurisdiction to grant a hearing. Rule 4.01(A). ….[¶¶] Additionally, because Rule 12.05 was included in the Rules, it is clear that the Commission was never intended to have jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the extension of probationary periods.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAMES THOMAS VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

They frankly appear to be an attempt by the Plaintiff to resurrect his ill-fated claims of disability discrimination based upon a minor sprained ankle, once he (or his lawyer) realized that such a claim was legally specious. Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is DENIED. Moving party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 3, 2020 ___________________________________ Randolph M.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HIPOLITO PAUL CARRANZA VS SPEARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

BACKGROUND This is an action arising from Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, alleging the following causes of action: (1) racial discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to maintain an environment free from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) wrongful termination/constructive discharge.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GISELLE MAYA VS ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that, had Defendants administered such tests, her parents would have aborted the pregnancy. The case was originally assigned to the personal injury hub courts in the Spring Street Courthouse, but was transferred to the Long Beach Courthouse due to its complex nature. The transfer of the case and the ensuing pandemic led to lengthy delays in the hearing of the matters on calendar today. Demurrer by Defendant, Fred Adams, M.D.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FREEM VS. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

Plaintiff objects to these categories of documents on the ground the requests call for information that is neither relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Plaintiff’s disciplinary documents, if any, at his subsequent employer have no bearing on the current discrimination and harassment case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

DAHRED D HAGHVIRDI ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Plaintiffs were advised by staff at Children’s Hospital on or about 7/20/17 that Dareh Haghvirdi’s condition was observable in prenatal tests and scans that had been performed during Sevana Davidian’s pregnancy. On 1/11/18, Plaintiffs presented their Applications for Late Claim to Defendant County of Los Angeles (County). (Wetkowski Decl. ¶2, Ex.A).

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GONZALEZ VS TRANSDEV SERVICES INC

Veriflo Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 457, 464 ["in light of the parallel antidiscriminatory objectives, the California courts have been guided in their interpretations of FEHA by the federal court decisions interpreting Title VII"]. On similar facts in Alhozbur [t]his Court finds that rejecting a sexual advance does not amount to protected activity.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KEXIN HOU VS YYP ENTERTAINMENT, ET AL.

Periods in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and California Wage Order 10-2001, § 11 Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 and California Wage Order 10-2001, § 12 Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of California Labor Code § 226 and California Wage Order 10-2001, § 7 Waiting Time Penalty in Violation of California Labor Code § 203 Failure to Provide Personnel Records in Violation of California Labor Code § 1198.5 Employment Discrimination

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SIRISUP VS. MATSUNO

The first cause of action for IIED alleges that defendant’s conduct in physically abusing Ann during and soon after her pregnancy, and in verbally abusing her with defamatory statements is outrageous and that defendant intended to cause Ann severe emotional distress. (FAC, ¶¶ 33-34.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

EUN MI KANG ET AL VS JEONG HOON KIM ET AL

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on November 22, 2017, and asserts causes of action for various Labor Code violations (failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay wages, failure to reimburse expenses), for FEHA violations (discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and harassment), breach of contract, fraud, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and unfair business practices. Defendant George Xenakis DDS, P.C.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MAURICIO JACOBS, ET AL. VS ROYAL MOVING & STORAGE INC., ET AL.

; 16) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; 17) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 18) failure to prevent disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 19) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; 20) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff Joy Slagel (Plaintiff) filed suit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (LMIC), Ariam Alemseghed, and Leann Lo, alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) age harassment; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) discrimination on the basis of taking disability leave in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation for taking disability leave in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRYCE COUNTS VS AURORA CHARTER OAK - LOS ANGELES, LLC

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) discrimination based on disability, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and (6) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate all of her claims. Plaintiff opposes.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

    Dec 01, 2020

RUBI CASTRO VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FERMIN PALACIOS, ET AL. VS JHKE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on January 17, 2020 and asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940, (2) retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(k), (4) declaratory judgment, (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 98.6, (7) retaliation for disclosing violations of law in

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KATHERINE BIGELOW VS WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

In reply, Plaintiff asserts the information is discoverable given Plaintiff is alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate and that Defendant demoted her while on medical leave. (I-Reply, pg. 4.) The Court finds the information is discoverable and Defendant’s objection is without merit. Defendant’s privacy objections are without merit.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 305     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.