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

101-125 of 7613 results

KOLONE SMITH VS THERAPEUTIC HEALTH COLLECTIVE

BACKGROUND On May 15, 2020, plaintiff Kolone Smith filed a complaint against Therapeutic Health Collective for (1) race discrimination, (2) disability discrimination, (3) failure to accommodate disability, (4) failure to engage in an interactive process, (5) failure to prevent discrimination, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Trial is set for September 22, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CATHOLIC MEDICAL MISSION BOARD, INC. A 501(C)(3) CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

“[T]he pervasive use of racial epithets that has been judicially determined to violate the FEHA is not protected by the First Amendment, and such unlawful conduct may be enjoined.” Id. at 141-42. “[S]peech may be enjoined where a fair judicial process has determined that a repetitive pattern of speech is unprotected.” Id. at 142. The proper role of the state in preventing fraudulent solicitations was recognized by the California Supreme Court in Gospel Army v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FOOD FOR THE POOR, INC. VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

“[T]he pervasive use of racial epithets that has been judicially determined to violate the FEHA is not protected by the First Amendment, and such unlawful conduct may be enjoined.” Id. at 141-42. “[S]peech may be enjoined where a fair judicial process has determined that a repetitive pattern of speech is unprotected.” Id. at 142. The proper role of the state in preventing fraudulent solicitations was recognized by the California Supreme Court in Gospel Army v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

PATRICIA KOZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Plaintiff alleges that she suffered sexual discrimination and harassment by her manager/supervisor and suffered retaliation for complaining, causing her constructive termination. Defendant County of Los Angeles moves to compel responses to requests for production of documents. TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents appears to be MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ISLAND ENTERRPRISES INC ET AL VS CITY OF AVALON ET AL

Discrimination in Violation of the Express Mandatory Provisions of the State of California Tide Lands Grant to the City of Avalon Dated August 4, 1943 4. Violation of Gov’t Code §53803 5. Failure to Comply with CPUC Vessel Common Carrier Permit 6. Declaratory Relief 7. Injunctive Relief 8. Violation of the Avalon Municipal Code After hearing on demurrer, the Court struck the second cause of action for fraud. The other seven causes of action remain operative.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

MOLL V. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.

(Id. at ¶ 20.) 26 The Shoals court found the first circumstance was inapplicable because the plaintiff’s 27 claims relied on statutory anti-discrimination law, which was separate from the contract itself. 28 (Shoals v. Owens & Minor Distrib., Inc., supra, 2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 186729 at *21.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

ROMERO VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

By asserting claims against Defendant for violation of the FEHA, Plaintiff has placed into issue her protected characteristic based on her disability, her present ability to perform her job duties, and Defendant’s ongoing violations of the FEHA. Under Govt. Code § 12940(f)(2), Defendant is entitled to inquire into records which are job related and are necessary to determine whether violations are ongoing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

CRUZ VS BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR INC

Plaintiff also argues post-offer attorney fees are recoverable pursuant to FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FRANCISCO SALAS, ET AL. VS JOE FILETO, ET AL.

While Defendant argues that Moorpark is limited to the facts of a physical discrimination case, nothing in the plain language of the operative complaint renders the claim within the employment compensation bargain, thereby undermining the fundamental anti-discriminatory public policy provisions of the law. [T]he scope of workers' compensation exclusivity depends on the terms of the exclusive remedy provisions.” (Id. at p. 1143.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

LEGEND TEMPLETON VS UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP,, ET AL.

ALL DEFS] (1) RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN HARASSMENT (FEHA); (2) RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION (FEHA); (3) RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN RETALIATION (FEHA); (4) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCR, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION (FEHA); (5) NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION (6) MEAL-PERIOD LIABILITY (CAL. LABOR CODE § 226.7); (7) REST-BREAK LIABILITY (CAL.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PIETSZAK V. NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

Sixth Cause of Action: FEHA Harassment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

LAKISHA TRAYLOR VS ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES LP ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff Lakisha Traylor filed this action against Defendant Allied Barton Security Services, LP, Carlos Moreno, and Kristopher Lee (“Defendants”) alleging FEHA, Labor Code, and PAGA claims. On June 19, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. The Court granted the motion on July 26, 2018, ordered arbitration of all claims except for the PAGA claim, and stayed the action until the completion of the arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HECTOR MONTOYA V. KINGS OIL TOOLS, INC.

Footnote 1: The Motion also reports that Plaintiff contends he has an individual claim for medical disability discrimination based on his termination. He has not filed a suit on that claim and settled his individual claim in a separate confidential settlement agreement with Defendant. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 269 [unnamed class member’s right to appeal].) “[P]re-certification settlements are routinely approved if found to be fair and reasonable.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

ANDREW MAHONEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(m)); Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.); Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.); and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.). Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with Defendant’s Demand for Physical Examination by a neurologist, Dr. Peter-Brian Andersson.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JHOANA ALMACHE VS LAC USC MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

The complaint asserts claims for: (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in an Interactive Process; (4) Unlawful Retaliation; (5) Harassment; (6) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and/or Retaliation; (7) Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5; (8) Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) Wrongful Adverse Employment Actions in Violation of Public Policy; and (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.[2] On September 9, 2020, Defendants filed the instant

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERIKA COLMENARES VS LAS PALMITAS FRESH FRUIT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff Erika Colmenares commenced this action against Defendants Las Palmitas Fresh Fruit Inc. and Don Luis aka Luis Gil for (1) sexual harassment/hostile work environment; (2) discrimination based upon sex/gender; (3) discrimination based upon disability; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) retaliation; (7) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ASTINE SULEIMANYAN VS UTLA DBA UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA ORGANIZATION, ET AL.

The FAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy/constructive discharge against UTLA only, (2) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code §§ 1102.5, 98.6, 6310 and the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”) against UTLA only, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of the FEHA against UTLA only, (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) sexual harassment, (6) violation of the Bane Act (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BAKER VS MORALES MD

Baker was at high risk for uterine rupture due to a "thinning c-section scar and pregnancy risks associated with a lower uterine segment (LUS) thinning of less than 1 mm." They allege the risks should have been disclosed to them before they underwent the expensive testing and treatment. The complaint was filed in July 2020. It was superseded by the FAC in September of 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DACHA VS COLUMBIA RIVERSIDE, INC.

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a cause of action for discrimination under the FEHA, and a general demurrer is overruled. Defendants also specially demur on the ground that the Complaint is uncertain and ambiguous in that the two protected characteristics on which the discrimination claim is based should be alleged as separate causes of action, as they are separate violations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

SMITH VS. KVC GROUP, LLC.

Because Plaintiff does not have a private right of action under § 226.8, the demurrer to the 3rd cause of action which is pled only against Defendant NCP is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. 4th cause of action for Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code, § 19240(a)). Defendants demur to the 4th cause of action on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts and is uncertain.

  • Hearing

    Jan 01, 2021

JANE NA DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

In Isbister, Plaintiffs, females, were excluded from the Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz on the grounds that they were female and brought an actual for sexual discrimination under the Unruh Act (Id. at 75.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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: The Court received the Motion to Compel Attendance of Edie Gelardi, Motion to Compel PMK of Duggal Visual Solutions, Inc., and Motion to Compel Attendance of Michael Duggal, each filed by Plaintiff, on December 03, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALEJANDRO ARZOLA VS BETTY GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability harassment in violation of the FEHA, (2) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to provide reasonable disability accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to engage in an interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (5) retaliation for requests for accommodation, complaints of discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (6) unlawful violation of the California Family Rights Act, (7) unlawful retaliation

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LETICIA FRANCO VS DANISH ENVIRONMENT, INC.

In support of her wrongful termination claim under FEHA, Plaintiff pleads that Defendant terminated her employment in retaliation for exercising her rights to notify Defendant of her work-related injuries, seeking medical treatment for these injuries, and requesting reasonable accommodations. (Complaint, ¶ 57.) Plaintiff continues by pleading that Defendant’s oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct were either carried out or ratified by a managing agent of Defendant. (Id., ¶ 58.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PRESCOTT VS. LOS ROBLES

Under FEHA "a single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile work environment if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment." Gov. Code §12923. Plaintiff has arguably alleged harassing acts by the defendants that were not "necessary to carry out the duties of business and personnel management."

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2020

  • 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.