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

26-50 of 7624 results

GEOFFREY GEE VS INSPERITY, ET AL.

., and Oncotherapeutics (collectively, the “Berensons”) for various FEHA and employment claims. In turn, the Berensons, who hired Gee as a consultant, executive director and chief operating officer, filed a cross-complaint, that Gee embezzled over $800,000. The Berensons allege causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4) Conversion; (5) Embezzlement; (6) Fraud; and (7) Negligent Misrepresentation. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE VS ZWEIBACK, FISET & COLEMAN LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

(f) Familiarizing salespersons with the requirements of federal and state laws relating to the prohibition of discrimination. (g) Regular and consistent reports of licensed activities of salespersons. The form and extent of such policies, rules, procedures and systems shall take into consideration the number of salespersons employed and the number and location of branch offices. A broker shall establish a system for monitoring compliance with such policies, rules, procedures and systems.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

BEE INVESTMENT, INC., A CORPORATION VS LYNN KIM

(f) Familiarizing salespersons with the requirements of federal and state laws relating to the prohibition of discrimination. (g) Regular and consistent reports of licensed activities of salespersons. The form and extent of such policies, rules, procedures and systems shall take into consideration the number of salespersons employed and the number and location of branch offices. A broker shall establish a system for monitoring compliance with such policies, rules, procedures and systems.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

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

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MA IRMA V. ALVARADO VS S.D.S. INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

and/or federal laws, including but not limited to wage and hour laws that Employee may assert against Employer, except as to any workers’ compensation claims, other than a workers’ compensation claim for discrimination and/or serious and willful misconduct claims because of application provisions of California law.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KENIA MARISOL GOMEZ VS FRAGRANT FOODS, A CALIFORNIA ENTITY UNKNOWN, ET AL.

The court found in favor of Plaintiff at trial on the causes of action for (1) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (FEHA); (2) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (FEHA); (3) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process (FEHA); (4) Violation of California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law; (5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (6) Wage and Hour Violations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • 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

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BRANDON SCHOR VS ATTENTION PARTNERS LLC ET AL

of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, and (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CATHIA ESPINOZA VS GOLDEN HIPPO, ET AL.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is an action for employment harassment and discrimination. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiffs Cathia Espinoza (“Espinoza”) and Jacqueline Valdovinos (“Valdovinos”) employed by Defendant Golden Hippo (“Hippo”) until wrongfully terminated on January 31, 2019 and February 28, 2019, respectively. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-3.) Plaintiffs allege a work culture where women are subjected to harassment and discrimination based on sex and gender, as well as sexual harassment (Compl. ¶¶ 17-19.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DALE SIMS VS QUANTECH SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

., Michael Welborn, Maryanne Cromwell (collectively “Defendants), Elaine Sersun, and Constandina Tsambunieris[1] alleging causes of action for Employment Discrimination under the Fair Employment Housing Act and under the American Disabilities Act, Retaliation, Harassment, Constructive Termination, and Violation of Labor code 1102.5 et seq. On February 24, 2020, Defendants propounded requests for admission on Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MELINA CAMERON, ET AL. VS US BANCORP, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; (3) violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act; (4) discrimination in business dealings; and (5) violation of Ralph Act. Moving Defendant filed an unopposed demurrer to the FAC; however, the notice of motion does not specifically set forth the causes of action to which the demurrer is applicable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ANI MIRZOYAN VS WEST COAST WOUND AND SKIN CARE INC.

Code § 12940(M) ((against WCWSC); (9) Pregnancy Disability Leave Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12945) (against WCWSC); (10) Pregnancy Disability Leave Discrimination (Gov. Code § 12945) (against WCWSC); (11) Harassment Based On Race (Gov. Code § 12940) (against WCWSC and Alsa); (12) Failure to Prevent and Stop Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(J), (K)) (against WCWSC); (13) Retaliation For Opposing Violations of Gov. Code Part 2.8 (FEHA; Gov. Code §§ 12900-12996) (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANSON V. SHINALL

Casey, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at page 912, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 757, an employment discrimination case, the court found that intentional discrimination, coupled with an attempt to hide the illegal reason for the discrimination with a false explanation, was despicable. ¶ On the other hand, cases involving unintentional torts are far fewer and the courts have had to consider various factors in determining whether the defendant's conduct was despicable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

HAWKES V. CHANG

Casey, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at page 912, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 757, an employment discrimination case, the court found that intentional discrimination, coupled with an attempt to hide the illegal reason for the discrimination with a false explanation, was despicable. ¶ On the other hand, cases involving unintentional torts are far fewer and the courts have had to consider various factors in determining whether the defendant's conduct was despicable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MATTER OF SIMPSON AND TEDESCO

However, this discrimination is a result of express provisions of the statute, and carries out the legislative purpose of keeping the files secret from strangers, but not from the parties themselves. (189 C.A.2d 750.) ¶ Family C. 9200(a), incorporating language from Hubbard, provides that a judge may authorize inspection of the records “in exceptional circumstances and for good cause approaching the necessitous.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

KEITH KIRKALDY VS ELEVATOR BOUTIQUE, INC., ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT On June 2, 2020, Keith Kirkaldy filed this action alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SALAS V. AMECI PIZZA & PASTA, INC.

Disability-Based Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Second Cause of Action) “It is . . . unlawful . . .

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

TIFFANI HARCROW VS OMELET, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Regents U.C. (1989) 25 Cal.App.4th 77, 82, n.3 [the public policy claim was redundant of the statutory age discrimination claim] (Dubins).) Here, the fourth cause of action is duplicative of the first, second, and third causes of action, because it is based on the exact same conduct as the statutory violations alleged therein. (Complaint ¶¶ 60-62.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s public policy claims are redundant. (See Rodrigues v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RAUL ACEVES, ET AL. V. LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

With regard to arbitration, they provide: I agree that any claim, dispute, or controversy (including, but not limited to, any and all claims of discrimination and harassment) which would otherwise require or resort to any court or other governmental dispute resolution forum between myself and Legacy Partners … arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with my seeking employment with, employment by, or other association with, the Legacy Partners, whether based on tort, contract

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

GERALD ROBERTS VS. HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS

These allegations sufficiently state a claim for age discrimination, including wrongful termination under FEHA. (5) The elements of a sex or race discrimination claim are similar to those listed above in reference to an age discrimination claim, the only difference being that the adverse employment action was because of sex or race discrimination. Again, disparate treatment is a permissible means of creating an inference of invidious motive. (See Guz v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERALD ROBERTS VS. HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS

These allegations sufficiently state a claim for age discrimination, including wrongful termination under FEHA. (5) The elements of a sex or race discrimination claim are similar to those listed above in reference to an age discrimination claim, the only difference being that the adverse employment action was because of sex or race discrimination. Again, disparate treatment is a permissible means of creating an inference of invidious motive. (See Guz v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MAHER MEMARZADEH VS LOTTIE COHEN ET AL

Defendants also argue that the FAC fails to show why testimony as to the hiring practices of history departments was necessary to prevail in the underlying employment discrimination case or why Defendants’ failure to offer such testimony was below the standard of care.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MARIA BEATON VS AZUSA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Code §12965(b) authorizes attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant in a FEHA action if the Court determines that a plaintiff’s case was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after the case clearly because so.” Although not articulated in the Moving Papers or Reply, the Court notes that Defendant may also be entitled to attorney’s fees as to Plaintiff’s non-FEHA claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under the common-law “bad faith” exception.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARY GARDNER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS PROVIDENCE HEAL TH SYSTEM - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION

“Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawful factor.” (Morgan v. Regents of the University of California (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 67–68, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 652 (Morgan ).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GORJI ASHRAF VS KOLAH FARANGI INC ET AL

.), Mansour Simanian, Joseph Simanian, Robert Simanian, and Michael Simanian, alleging: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent FEHA violations; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) failure to pay minimum wages; (9) failure to pay overtime; (10) failure to pay

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 305     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.