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

76-100 of 7646 results

SALVADOR CISNEROS VS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant now demurs to the entire First Amended Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any of his five causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) because Plaintiff has not alleged the timely filing of an administrative complaint which is a prerequisite to the bringing of a civil action for damages under the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SAYDA GONZALEZ Y GONZALEZ VS LONG BEACH PANCAKES INC.

Plaintiff alleges that she was harassed and terminated on the basis of her pregnancy. Plaintiff also brings wage and hour claims. Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Sayda Gonzalez Y Gonzalez’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone Second Amended Complaint within 5 days. The Second Amended Complaint is deemed to be served as of the date of this Order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAIJI HAMAZAKI VS MARUWA AMERICA CORP.

Tenth Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t. Code § 12940, et seq.) Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SHERYL TOMPKINS VS STEPHEN MAYER, ET AL.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a wage & hour and employment discrimination action. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Sheryl Tompkins (“Tompkins”) was a 61-year-old female hostess at a bar/restaurant owned by Defendants S.M. Inc. and Stephen Mayer (“Mayer”) called Prince O’Whales. (FAC ¶¶ 13-14.) Defendants discriminated against Tompkins due to her age/gender and violated various wage/hour Labor Code sections. (FAC ¶¶ 15-19.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CIPRIANO RIOS VS ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Plaintiff’s first through fifth and seventh causes of action are FEHA claims and a wrongful termination claim in violation of public policy, and those are arbitrable, as is the sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See, e.g., Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 390, 397 [“Cruise’s statutory causes of action against Kroger pursuant to FEHA (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KARLA GOMEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ANDOVER MAINTENANCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA COMPANY; SPECIALTY SERVICES, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, subjecting Plaintiff to severe emotional distress. (FAC ¶¶ 69-72.) An employee may bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from an employer’s illegal discrimination practices. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288.) However, the alleged facts of the illegal discrimination practices must also show extreme and outrageous conduct by Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MOULTRIC MARTIN VS DARDEN, INC., ET AL.

On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants and other named defendants for causes of action of (1) retaliation, (2) race-based harassment, (3) failure to prevent retaliation discrimination, and harassment, (4) race-based discrimination, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on the events leading up to the January 9, 2020 termination of Plaintiff’s employment as a host at Darden’s Olive Garden restaurant in Rialto (“Restaurant”). (Complaint ¶¶11-66.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

QUEPONDS VS. ORDWAY CORPORATION

The Court in Light explained it’s ruling as follows: “In sum, absent further guidance from our Supreme Court, we are unwilling to abandon the long-standing view that unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA falls outside the compensation bargain and therefore claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on such discrimination and retaliation are not subject to workers’ compensation exclusivity.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

MARIA DODOS VS CHUCK AND JACKIE WEISSMAN, DOES 1-25

As to the 8th cause of action under FEHA, Weissman does not allege an act that qualifies for “discrimination” under Gov. Code §12955. Further, as to the 9th cause of action under FHA, the act of denying use of the common area as a dog run does not constitute a violation of the FHA because discrimination must affect plaintiff’s ability to use a “dwelling.” She further argues that she would be unfairly prejudiced and that Weissman has been dilatory.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

JOSE DE ANDA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Pursuant to a recent statutory amendment, an employee must file a complaint with the DFEH for FEHA violations within “three years from the date upon which the unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred.” (Gov. Code § 12960(e).) However, this amendment “shall not be interpreted to revive lapsed claims.” (LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT—DISCRIMINATION—COMPLAINT—TIME, 2019 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 709 (A.B. 9) (WEST).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TRANSCON FINANCIAL, INC. VS REID & HELLYER, APC

Plaintiff’s claims are not based on FEHA and do not involve unwaivable statutory rights or broad issues of public policy like anti-discrimination claims. Plaintiff’s claims involve breach of the Employment Agreements bonus pay and profit-sharing provision. As such, it does not appear that the Armendariz rule applies is this case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

JORGE ORTIZ VS SMART & FINAL STORES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff, by bringing a disability discrimination claim and alleging physical disability, has tendered this issue in the case, making discovery available.[2] Defendants finally contend that medical records produced in the workers compensation action show Plaintiff, in response to questionnaires, indicating that he suffered from mild to moderate depression. (Opposition at pp. 7–8.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KRAB QUEENZ LA, LLC, ET AL. VS PSP INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC

Defendant argues that this statute protects individuals, not businesses or corporate forms, and that individuals cannot sue to redress discrimination suffered by their business, much as Burton sues to redress the contractual discrimination allegedly suffered by KQ, the tenant. (Demurrer at pp. 4–5.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MEENA ZAREH M D VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code, § 1708.5, sexual battery against Cortes; (2) harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) against all Defendants; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA against all Defendants; (4) violation of Labor Codes, §§ 1102.5 and 98.6 against Defendants the County and USC; (5) violation of Civil Code, §§ 51.9 and 52 against all Defendants; (6) violation of the California Equity in Higher Education

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

JOSE ESTRADA VS HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,INC.A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Finally, Defendant contends Plaintiff cannot prove intentional discrimination as required to make a claim under the Unruh Act. (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 668-670 [holding that the intentional discrimination requirement of the Unruh Act does not apply if the accessibility violation is also a violation of the ADA].) Defendant relies on the existence of the lower returns counter to show it never intentionally discriminated against persons with physical disabilities.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BIANCA ENRIQUEZ VS PROVIDENCE HOLY CROSS MEDICAL CENTER ET A

On February 13, 2019, Plaintiff Bianca Enrique filed suit against Providence Health System Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (Providence), Heidi Lennartz, and Susana Lopez Sanchez, alleging: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) age discrimination; (3) hostile work environment –age discrimination; (4) a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); (5) disability discrimination; (6) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process;

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DEVRA ALLEN VS AMAZON.COM.INC, ET AL.

(Amazon), Golden State FC LLC, and Roy Cripps, setting forth claims for 1) violation of FEHA; 2) negligence; 3) negligence per se; 4) vicarious liability – assault; and 5) vicarious liability – battery. Defendants have clarified that Amazon.com Inc and Golden State FC LLC are in fact one entity, Amazon.com Services, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon now moves for terminating sanctions and/or monetary sanctions given Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with this Court’s order concerning Plaintiff’s deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CHRISTIAN DUNGEY V. SANTA BARBARA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

In 1893 and 1897, the Legislature had enacted what eventually became Civil Code §§ 51-54, prohibiting discrimination by private operators of places of public accommodation, amusement, and entertainment. Id. at 324. The court concluded that “nothing in the historical context from which the Unruh Act emerged suggests the state’s earlier public accommodation statutes were enacted to reach ‘state action.’” Id.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

TORRES V. DIVINE MERCY INC.

The extrinsic evidence in that case clarified that the parties reasonably understood their release agreement had resolved and settled only the altercation grievance, but not the plaintiff Butler's civil suit alleging employment harassment and discrimination claims. The court determined that it was a triable question of fact whether the plaintiff and his employer had agreed that the scope of his section 1542 waiver extended, or did not extend, to his separate harassment and discrimination claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

INGRI DURAN VS ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATS INC ET

BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1059-1062 to support her position that when costs incurred in relation to both FEHA-based and non-FEHA-based claims are intertwined, the costs cannot be awarded absent a showing that the FEHA action was pursued objectively without foundation. The Court has read and considered Roman.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSAF SANDOVAL VS TACO NAZO, ET AL.

On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff Josaf Sandoval filed the instant employment discrimination suit against his former employers Taco Nazo, El Taco Nazo Inc., Taco Nazo Corp., Taqueria Taco Nazo Inc., Omar Romero Inc., and Omar Romero. The complaint alleges nine causes of action for: 1. Employment Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12940(a)); 2. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §12940(m)); 3.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LEEANN GAGOLA VS S.N. DESIGN REMODELING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 428, 432, the Court found CCP 425.11 applied to a housing discrimination case involving a deaf applicant, noting emotional distress "lie[d] at the heart of their action" where Plaintiffs prayed, in part, for "damages for mental and emotional distress" according to proof. Here, Plaintiff's harassment, privacy, and IIED claims, as well as the majority of the damages claimed in the default prove up, are based on emotional distress damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALEXANDAR CVETKOVICH VS CROSS CREEK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code 12900, et seq) & Unruh Civil Right Act (CC 51, 52.1) 6. RICO Conspiracy 7. Unfair Debt Collection Practice (Rosenthal FDCPA/FDCPA) 8. Fraud 9. Negligence 10. Public and Private Nuisance 11. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 12. Injunctive Relief 13. Declaratory Relief 14. Malicious Prosecution 15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

BRANDIN HARRIS VS PUFFY DELIVERY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

In the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action: (1) violation of the California Equal Pay Act; (2) sex discrimination; (3) race discrimination; (4) hostile work environment harassment; (5) failure to prevent harassment or discrimination; (6) wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy; (7) promissory fraud; (8) violation of Labor Code § 970; and (9) failure to reimburse business expenses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AHMAD AMMAR VS BIENVENIDOS CHILDREN'S CENTER INC., ET AL.

The court sustains Bienvenidos and Hillsides’s special demurrer based on uncertainty as to the third cause of action for “failure to investigate and remove discrimination, and hostile work environment” and the fourth cause of action for “unsafe workplace.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 306     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.