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

7351-7375 of 7613 results

DIANA OSWALD VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Set for hearing on Friday, March 23, 2012, Line 13, DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - The motion for summary judgment is denied and the motion for summary adjudication is denied as to the age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action and granted as to the request for punitive damages. There is a triable whether defendant's reasons for the termination were pretextual.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2012

HOMES ON WHEELS ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

) (1) Disparate Impact Discrimination Plaintiffs’ first claim is that the City’s RV parking prohibition has a disparate impact upon disabled persons and is unlawful under Civil Code section 54 and under the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, 12132 [the “ADA”]).

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

BARRY G. INGRAM VS. 24HR FITNESS CENTERS ET AL

Overruled as to the discrimination cause of action, sustained with ten days leave to amend as to the breach of contract cause of action, and sustained without leave to amend as to the fraud cause of action. The discrimination cause of action is adequately alleged. As to the breach of contract cause of action, Plaintiff is given leave to allege whether the contract was written and what terms were violated.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2012

ROBERT DIAZ VS SB AUTOMOTICE LP ET AL

On November 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) charging defendant with age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). (Complaint, ¶ 23.) On November 10, 2011, the DFEH issued to plaintiff a “right to sue” notice. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2012

TRAMMELL, PHYLLIS ET AL VS. BALWANTSINH THASKOR ET AL

Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend to clear up the ambiguity regarding the occupancy time period, plead facts with particularity supporting the UCL claim, and plead facts supporting the alleged disability discrimination. The fourteenth cause of action is duplicative of the first cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2012

PAM SPRINGALL VS GEOFFREY WALLACE ET AL

When a state statute facially discriminates against nonresidents, the state may defend its position by demonstrating there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and the discrimination practiced against noresidents bears a substantial relationship to the State’s objectives. Lundling v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 298 (1998).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2012

CHARLES K LETTS VS. GRAY & PROUTY PLC

There is no FEHA liability for individuals as to discrimination and failure to accommodate claims. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640.) Once again, Plaintiff failed to allege Defendants were parties to the subject agreement, or that HBLH is the alter-ego of the Individual Defendants. Sixth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Inducement) The Individual Defendants' and HBLH's demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2012

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SHAWN TERRIS VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

There is no discussion of discrimination, retaliation or Labor Code violations. [Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit 5] Tentative Ruling: The court denies defendant County of Santa Barbara’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WOLFGANG SCHULZ ET AL VS TYLER FOURMY ET AL

Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1432-1434, the work history of thousands of members of the Screen Writers Guild was ordered disclosed because the information was found to be “directly relevant” and “essential to a fair determination” of the plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims. Likewise, in Morales v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 283, 288, a husband’s extramarital relations were found to be discoverable in a suit by the husband for his wife’s wrongful death.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JOSE ARREDONDO ET AL VS RICHARD RODRIGUEZ ET AL

Plaintiff filed her complaint asserting claims including discrimination because of her pregnancy. (Id. at p. 1383.) The defendant took the deposition of the plaintiff and asked plaintiff a number of questions relating to her relationship with her husband, which plaintiff refused to answer. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WALESKA PALOMINO VS. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Defendants' motion to change venue to the San Diego County Superior Court in this action for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2012

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CYNTHIA L OLSEN VS. SEA ROUNDER INC

A supervisor cannot be sued individually under FEHA for harassment by another employee, even where the plaintiff actually complains to the supervisor about the alleged harassment. (See Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325-1328.) But if the supervisor participates in the harassment or substantially assists or encourages continued harassment, the supervisor is personally liable under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2012

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROSEMARY BOSQUE ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A CALIFORNIA ET AL

On the second and third causes of action for disability discrimination and weight discrimination, defendant has met its burden that there is no discriminatory adverse employment action and plaintiff has not presented any evidence creating a triable issue. Plaintiff's evidence support claims for harassment, not discrimination. On the fourth cause of action for failure to prevent harassment there is a triable issue whether defendant responded appropriately.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2012

DOLORES OTTO-MORENO VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION

First Cause of Action (Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA) All Defendants demur to the first cause of action on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating gender discrimination under FEHA. Plaintiffs allege that they have been "wrongfully denied their due professional recognition and concomitant pay, benefits, opportunities and status by their EMPLOYER." (FAC ¶ 20.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2012

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DOLORES OTTO-MORENO VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION

First Cause of Action (Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA) All Defendants demur to the first cause of action on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating gender discrimination under FEHA. Plaintiffs allege that they have been "wrongfully denied their due professional recognition and concomitant pay, benefits, opportunities and status by their EMPLOYER." (FAC ¶ 20.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2012

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARY ORLEANS V CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED

Tentative Ruling Re: Defendant Conejo Valley Unified School District's demurrer to Plaintiff Mary Orleans' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") Overrule Defendant Conejo Valley Unified School District's demurrer to Plaintiff Mary Orleans" second amended complaint ("SAC"), causes of action 1("stress disability" discrimination); 2 (harassment); 3 (failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA); 4 (failure to accomodate); 5 (failure to engage in interactive process); and 7 (wrongful constructive discharge).

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2012

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CASEY BRESLIN VS. RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC

First Cause of Action (Racial Discrimination/Harassment): Sustained with leave to amend. The facts alleged are insufficient to state a cause of action for race based discrimination or harassment. The present allegations fail to identify the time period of plaintiff's employment with defendant. The allegation do not provide the dates surrounding the "right-to-sue" letter obtained by plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2012

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LAURENCE PARSONS VS W2 ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP ET AL

Moreover, while alter ego status does not make Kelley an employer with direct liability under FEHA, alter ego status can make Kelley liable for W2’s corporate liability under FEHA. (Leek v. Cooper, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.) Plaintiff has alleged Kelley is the alter ego of W2. (FAC, ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendants’ demurrer to these causes of action will be overruled. Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action is for violation of Labor Code section 970.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2011

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, BY AND THROUGH VS. NEXT SEAFOOD COMPANY, INC. ET AL

The Court denies as to third defense (Burton Act), fourth defense (discrimination), and fourth cause of action for civil rights violations. The record is unclear whether the issues regarding the Burton Act and the alleged discrimination were actually litigated in the unlawful detainer given that Judge Busch struck those issues from his order. See Vella v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2011

LANIE BRADFIELD VS. MACYS WEST STORES INC

., and Karen Clark's petition to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Lanie Bradfield's wrongful termination and FEHA claims. The action as to the arbitrating parties is hereby stayed pending completion of arbitration proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Plaintiff had sufficient notice of the arbitration program and had reasonable opportunity to opt-out.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KARLA GARCIA VS. TACTICOM USA

Government Code § 12965 authorizes an award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in any action brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). That section provides in pertinent part: "In actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs except where such action is filed by a public agency or a public official, acting in an official capacity."

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SANDRA KNOTT VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

These two actions are brought by a long term employee of CDCR for disability discrimination and failure to engage in the interactive process among other things. As plaintiff Knott previously filed bankruptcy, the first action is being prosecuted by the bankruptcy trustee Susan Smith. The second action is being prosecuted by Sandra Knott herself.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TERESA MENCHACA VS FIGHTING BACK SANTA MARIA VALLEY ET AL

Background: Defendant Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley (“FBSMV”) is a California non-profit public benefit corporation whose mission statement is to make a difference by offering a variety of prevention services to the Northern Santa Barbara community addressing problems and risks associated with alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, violence, teen pregnancy, abuse, crime, school dropout, and other related social issues. (Patino decl., ¶¶ 1, 3.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2011

STEPHANIE CRAWFORD VS. GOLDEN STATE COLLISION CENTERS INC

Plaintiff Crawford is bringing claims for gender discrimination and discrimination based upon her pregnancy. Plaintiff Ward's claims are based upon alleged retaliation in violation of public policy. Specifically her objection to various company practices she believed to be against public policy including the termination of plaintiff Crawford.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ADREENA C ISLAND VS. ERICA GONZALES

Plaintiff fails to address this argument in opposition, instead arguing that these common law claims are based upon acts demonstrating unlawful discrimination in violation of FEHA. (Oppo. 2:22-25-3:1-6.) This argument is non-responsive and fails to address Plaintiff's failure to allege a statutory basis for the DMV's liability.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « first    1 ... 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.