Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA in California

What Is Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA?

There are several ways to deal with pregnancy disability.

Harassment Based on Pregnancy - California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

“[H]arassment focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee.” Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706.

In Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, the court noted that “Plaintiffs' claims for harassment... are founded on the provisions of FEHA and are based exclusively on that statutory scheme since FEHA is not a codification of preexisting common law. Accordingly, we apply the general rule that facts in support of each of the requirements of a statute upon which a cause of action is based must be specifically pled.” Fisher v. San Pedro Penin. Hosp. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604

Courts have analyzed the issue of what constitutes actionable harassment. “To be actionable, the sexual harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.” Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 142. “In determining what constitutes ‘sufficiently pervasive’ harassment, the courts have held that acts of harassment cannot be occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial, rather the plaintiff must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature.” Fisher v. San Pedro Penin. Hosp. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 610.

Note, before filing a civil action alleging FEHA violations, an employee must exhaust his or her administrative remedies with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 143, 153.

Failure to Grant Leave - California Family Rights Act (CFRA)

Plaintiff may allege that defendant violated the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) because the employer failed to grant leave and failing to guarantee her return to the same position after her return from leave. Gov. Code, § 12945.2; see also Gov. Code, § 12945(a)(1) (requiring employers to allow employees disabled by pregnancy or childbirth “to take a leave for a reasonable period of time not to exceed four months”); Code of Regulations, Title 2, § 11043(a) (“An employee who exercises her right to take pregnancy disability leave is guaranteed a right to return to the same position....”).

A plaintiff must allege that:

  1. the plaintiff was eligible for family care or medical leave;
  2. the plaintiff requested leave for the birth of the plaintiff’s child;
  3. the plaintiff provided reasonable notice to the defendant of her need for family care or medical leave, including its expected timing and length;
  4. the defendant refused to grant the plaintiff’s request for family care or medical leave;
  5. the plaintiff was harmed; and
  6. the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 2600. To state a claim for violation of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDL), a plaintiff must allege similar elements. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945(a)(1).

Discrimination Based on Pregnancy - Gov. Code, § 12940(a)

“It is... unlawful... [f]or an employer, because of the... medical condition... to... discharge the person from employment ....” Gov. Code, § 12940(a); see also Gov. Code, § 12926(r)(1)(A) (“sex” is defined to include “[p]regnancy or medical conditions related to pregnancy”).

The plaintiff can claim that the defendant discriminated based on her pregnancy, in violation of § 12940(a). The plaintiff must show:

  1. the defendant was an employer;
  2. the plaintiff was the defendant’s employee;
  3. the defendant knew the plaintiff had a physical disability that limited major life activity;
  4. the plaintiff was able to perform the essential job duties with reasonable accommodation for the plaintiff’s physical disability;
  5. the defendant discharged the plaintiff;
  6. the plaintiff’s physical disability was a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s decision to discharge the plaintiff;
  7. the plaintiff was harmed; and
  8. the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

CACI 2540.

Failure to Accommodate - Gov. Code, § 12940(m)

The plaintiff can argue that the defendant failed to reasonably accommodate her pregnancy and related conditions pursuant to Government Code § 12940(m). The FEHA requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee's known disability [in this case pregnancy], unless the employer demonstrates that the accommodation would produce “undue hardship ... to its operation.” Gov. Code, § 12940(m); Sanchez v. Swissport (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1337.

The elements of a reasonable accommodation cause of action are:

  1. the employee suffered a disability,
  2. the employee could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation, and
  3. the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee's disability.

Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 373.

A plaintiff need not specifically request reasonable accommodation because § 12940(m) does not specifically require that the employee request reasonable accommodation; it requires only that the employer know of the disability. See Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 950-51.

Failure to Engage in an Interactive Process - Gov. Code, § 12940(n)

Plaintiff can also that Defendant failed to engage in an interactive process as required by Government Code § 12940(n). The plaintiff must allege that:

  1. that the defendant was an employer;
  2. that the plaintiff was the defendant’s employee;
  3. that the plaintiff had a physical disability that was known to the defendant;
  4. that the plaintiff request that the defendant make reasonable accommodation for her physical disability so that she would be able to perform the essential job requirements;
  5. that the plaintiff was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made so that she would be able to perform the essential job requirements;
  6. that the defendant failed to participate in a timely good-faith interactive process with the plaintiff to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made;
  7. that the plaintiff was harmed; and
  8. that the defendant’s failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

CACI 2546.

Rulings for Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA in California

The September 2015 letters also included Plaintiff’s unwillingness to take x-rays without protective gear during her pregnancy. Plaintiff was told that the decisions on her case were still pending well into her pregnancy. Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to support a cause of action for discrimination in violation of the FEHA.

  • Name

    ELLIOTT VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

  • Case No.

    BLC1800210

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2019

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

  • Name

    HILDELISA MEDINA VS ADERANS HAIR GOODS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC623203

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2018

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.

  • Name

    PATRICIA ALONZO ET AL VS JT LEGAL GROUP APC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC660165

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2017

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

  • Name

    SARA ELIAS VS JOURNEY OF FAITH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC645922

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2019

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].)

  • Name

    KIMBERLY HERNANDEZ VS SETTLERS JERKY INC

  • Case No.

    BC670772

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING VS PAYROLL STAFFIN

  • Case No.

    BS167267

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2017

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

  • Name

    DESIREE PRIETO VS ADAM DEBERRY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV08844

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH MEJIA VS. ANNIE HOANG DDS

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00443259-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2013

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].)

  • Name

    CASEY VS. FERRY INTERNATIONAL, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01112777-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2021

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.

  • Name

    YESENIA REYES VS. MAD ENGINE INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00010755-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

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.

  • Name

    KATHRYN STOCKS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC585399

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2017

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].)

  • Name

    KIMBERLY HERNANDEZ VS SETTLERS JERKY INC

  • Case No.

    BC670772

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

Plaintiff’s allegation of pregnancy establishes the first element of her pregnancy and gender and/or sex discrimination claims. (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1145.)

  • Name

    FCS059547 - HICKS, SHAWTIANA V MARATHON STAFFING, ET AL (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS059547

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2023

  • County

    Solano County, CA

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).)

  • Name

    ARTHUR SALAZAR VS CIRCLE WOOD SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV24471

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.

  • Name

    CINDY PEREZ VS IDEAL FACE & BODY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV33793

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    CASIAN VS BENNY ENTERPRISES INC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2101364

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2022

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.

  • Name

    CANDACE PINEDA VS PEARSON SALES COMPANY INC

  • Case No.

    BC636284

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2017

On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff Crisanta Serrano (Plaintiff) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, (2) FEHA harassment on the basis of pregnancy, (3) FEHA retaliation for complaining of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of pregnancy, (4) FEHA discrimination on the basis of taking CFRA leave, (5) FEHA harassment on the basis of taking CFRA leave, (6) FEHA retaliation for taking CFRA leave, and (7) FEHA harassment

  • Name

    CRISANTA SERRANO VS CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC665977

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

  • Name

    ALVARADO VS BPM SENIOR LIVING COMPANY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2101863

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2021

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

    CINDY PEREZ VS IDEAL FACE & BODY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV33793

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court declines to strike the first cause of action as previous iterations of complaints contain mentions of sex discrimination. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged discrimination based on her pregnancy. This supports attorneys fees and punitive damages. The Court agrees, however, that individual defendants may not be liable for retaliation. The motion to strike is GRANTED as to the claims for retaliation against the individual defendants only.

  • Name

    SOCORRO JACOBO SANDOVAL VS ATLANTIC SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV17034

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

“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

  • Name

    YESICA CORDON VS WINSYS LOGISTICS, INC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19PSCV00015

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Gloria White-Brown

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

  • Name

    SARA ELIAS VS JOURNEY OF FAITH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC645922

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

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.).

  • Name

    ALICIA RODARTE VS CITY OF COMMERCE, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE.

  • Case No.

    19STCV19810

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

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.

  • Name

    EVELYN BAKIC ET AL VS JMF DEVELOPMENT LLC

  • Case No.

    BC721553

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

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.

  • Name

    LUNGIN VS. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00058268-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

Background Plaintiff Miracle Davis sues Defendants Trader Joes Company and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a March 4, 2022 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Employment Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12940(a)), (2) Interference with Pregnancy Disability Leave Law in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12945(a)), (3) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA (Gov.

  • Name

    MIRACLE DAVIS VS TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV08025

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    BRITNNEY MADRID VS FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV16720

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    NOUSHA JAVANMARDI VS JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV36367

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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).

  • Name

    REBECCA TAYLOR VS OWN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC640884

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2018

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).)

  • Name

    JONES V. GUARDADO

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01025238-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2019

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.]

  • Name

    ALVAREZ VS WAL-MART ASSOCIATES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2021-00021970-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

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

  • Name

    CASTILLO VS GRID ALTERNATIVES

  • Case No.

    RIC2002198

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2021

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

  • Name

    GILLMAN VS. SIERRA HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTERS

  • Case No.

    MSC21-01966

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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.

  • Name

    DENNIS V. SOLANO COALITION FOR BETTER HEALTH

  • Case No.

    FCS050619

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ZEPEDA VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00883824-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

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.

  • Name

    DIANA LANDAVERDE VS MOVADO GROUP, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV19286

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.

  • Name

    DIANA LANDAVERDE VS MOVADO GROUP, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV19286

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    TAN VS CCSAC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    RG20065936

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2022

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

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.[

  • Name

    SIAVASH GHARIB VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC656156

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

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).

  • Name

    KATRINA NEWMAN VS IMPERIAL WESTERN PRODUCTS INC

  • Case No.

    BC613729

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2017

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

  • Name

    LUNG VS TEMECULA PPF, LLC

  • Case No.

    MCC1900063

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

    HOLLOWAY VS. BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01142785

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

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.

  • Name

    JOSLIN VS. YEAGER FOOT & ANKLE CENTER, INC

  • Case No.

    SCRDCVCV18-0191124-000

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

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).)

  • Name

    MARIBEL CHAIREZ VS LIFOAM INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC629694

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Judge

    Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

  • Name

    GABRIELA ROBLES VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV44818

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 1145 [An employee cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination based on pregnancy under FEHA in the absence of evidence the employer knew the employee was pregnant.].)

  • Name

    VIVIAN ALECIO VS JET AVIATION FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV00792

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ELLIOTT VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

  • Case No.

    BLC1800210

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

(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.)

  • Name

    CATHERINE MARTINEZ V. QUALITY RESPITE AND HOME CARE, INC.

  • Case No.

    2017-CV-308304

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JOANNA HERNANDEZ VS RAFIE & KHOSHBIN DENTAL CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV31222

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

· 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.)

  • Name

    SU MIN LEE VS REFLEX

  • Case No.

    21STCV37648

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    CRYSTAL M ROSADO VS KB HOME INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC615167

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2017

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.] . . .

  • Name

    KRISTINA AVRAMOVA VS RECANA SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV09126

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

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.

  • Name

    GARCIA VS PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS LLC

  • Case No.

    MCC1801476

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

    GARCIA VS PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS LLC

  • Case No.

    MCC1801476

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

    GARCIA VS PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS LLC

  • Case No.

    MCC1801476

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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

  • Name

    RENUKA KAR VS NASIR TEJANI MD INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC572580

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2017

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.

  • Name

    NOUSHA JAVANMARDI VS JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV36367

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(Victory Products) and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to a July 19, 2023 First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging claims of (1) Pregnancy Discrimination (Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.), (2) Interference in Violation of Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.), (3) Disability Discrimination (Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.), (4) Retaliation (Govt. Code § 12940(h)), (5) Failure to Accommodate (Gov. Code § 12940(m)), (6) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Govt.

  • Name

    DIANA VILLAGOMEZ VS VICTORY PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS, INC.

  • Case No.

    23STCV08352

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    RICO VS. BRIGHT NEW DENTAL

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00878795-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2017

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.

  • Name

    ROXANNE OUSBEL VS. ACG FOODS, LLC, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC066526

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2017

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.

  • Name

    GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ GOMEZ VS. ANDRIGHETTO PRODUCE INC. A CALIFORNIA PRODUCE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC18564927

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

To the extent that Plaintiff’s cause of action for “pregnancy discrimination” alleges discrimination on the basis of a disability, with said disability being either pregnancy itself or resultant morning sickness, the same result obtains.

  • Name

    FCS056139 - SUITT, MELANNI V WINCO FOODS, LLC; ET AL (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS056139

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2024

  • County

    Solano County, CA

To the extent that Plaintiff’s cause of action for “pregnancy discrimination” alleges discrimination on the basis of a disability, with said disability being either pregnancy itself or resultant morning sickness, the same result obtains.

  • Name

    FCS056139 - SUITT, MELANNI V WINCO FOODS, LLC; ET AL (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS056139

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2024

  • County

    Solano County, CA

(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.

  • Name

    STELLA GUKASYAN VS ELEVATION HEALTH PARTNERS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV04328

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2021

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.

  • Name

    HOLLOWAY VS. BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01142785

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

“[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.

  • Name

    JITKA CICMIR VS. LEE AND LUM DENTAL, PC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16-CIV-01908

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2017

First Cause of Action for Pregnancy Paternal Discrimination (Cal. Govt. Code § 12945) Government Code section 12945 is the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law. It is part of the FEHA and requires employers to provide employees up to four months of leave for disability due to an employee's pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. (Chin & Wiseman, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 12:1420.)

  • Name

    JOANNE PAK VS JENNIFER O OH, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV36816

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    BARNES VS INLAND BUILDERS SUPPLY INC

  • Case No.

    BLC2000158

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2021

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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).

  • Name

    ASHENAFI BENTI VS FOX RENT A CAR INC

  • Case No.

    BC663022

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

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.

  • Name

    VANNESSA SCOTT-ALLEN V. KRM, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CV000854

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

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).

  • Name

    KEYONA BENJAMIN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELELS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV44533

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

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

  • Name

    SARA LOPEZ VS FIRST AMERICA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30241

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    VIOLA FARUKU VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC625383

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH DORFMAN VS ON TIME PLUMBING

  • Case No.

    BC670728

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    MARIA TEUTLA VS GI & DO INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC717676

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2019

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

  • Name

    THU NGUYET THI NICKI TRAN VS GOLDEN STATE FC LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC699931

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

OUHSD has met its initial burdens of production and persuasion as to this issue (legitimate business reason), but Neuson has met her burden of producing a material triable issue that this reason is a pretext for pregnancy and gender discrimination. (3) Third Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA The Third Cause of Action alleges failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA. This claim corresponds with Issue 5.

  • Name

    202100551143CUWT CHELSEA NEUSON VS. OXNARD UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    202100551143CUWT

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2024

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).)

  • Name

    RUTH SANKRATHI VS EL CAMINO HOSPITAL

  • Case No.

    18-CV-334546

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2021

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.

  • Name

    BRISON HARDIN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV33746

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    VIOLA FARUKU VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC625383

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2019

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

  • Name

    CINDY PEREZ VS IDEAL FACE & BODY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV33793

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.”

  • Name

    MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC715464

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MASTERS VS REHABCARE GROUP EAST, LLC

  • Case No.

    RIC1905767

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2022

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.

  • Name

    AMANDA LEE PAYNE VS. MRS GOOCH NATURAL FOOD MARKET INC

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00452544-CU-WT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2015

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).

  • Name

    EDWARD MAYO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TK1SC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV16874

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SU MIN LEE VS REFLEX

  • Case No.

    21STCV37648

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ADRIANA LEDEZMA VS MICRON ENVIRONMENTAL LABS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22PSCV00472

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    TARISHA FALLS VS GCA SERVICES GROUP OF CALIFORNIA INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC643866

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

“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.)

  • Name

    MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC715464

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

“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.)

  • Name

    MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC715464

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

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.”

  • Name

    ZOLIE BREELAND VS DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19NWCV00711

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ADRIANA LEDEZMA VS MICRON ENVIRONMENTAL LABS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22PSCV00472

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    DEIDRE LOGAN VS WATTS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    18STCV08324

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    NOUSHA JAVANMARDI VS JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV36367

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    PHILIP GARCIA VS WELLS FARGO BANK N A ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC617093

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2018

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

  • Name

    BREANNA CHAMBERS VS GARCIA FAMILY CONSULTING LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC681902

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

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.

  • Name

    STELLA GUKASYAN VS ELEVATION HEALTH PARTNERS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV04328

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

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.

  • Name

    DEIDRE LOGAN VS WATTS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    18STCV08324

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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.

  • Name

    VIANNEY RAMIREZ VS RADIANCE SURGERY CENTER, INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV01114

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope