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

151-175 of 7651 results

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

ALBARRAN VS MCSPI, INC

As there is no underlying FEHA claim, there is no basis for IIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2020

ANNE KAROLINY SANTOS DOWNING, ET AL. VS THEO SWERISSEN, ET AL.

Santos was not able to complete one of the days of the modeling shoot and was not able to model for several months during her pregnancy, resulting in lost income. The Complaint alleges that thereafter, Ms. Santos allegedly terminated Mr. Swerissen’s services in December 2018, citing Mr. Swerissen’s behavior. After Ms. Santos terminated Mr. Swerissen’s services, the Complaint alleges that Mr. Swerissen and/or his counsel continued to engage in misconduct. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GLENN DIAZ VS NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC, ET AL.

in Violation of Public Policy; Loss of Consortium; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation; and Wrongful Death On October 19, 2020, Nestle filed the instant demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOHNSON VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Plaintiff’s complaint states no separate causes of action supported by any facts, but lists a variety of theories of recovery, including breach of contract, violation of due process, discrimination, slander, defamation, and obstruction of justice. Plaintiff argues the property was taken without just compensation and she is entitled to $1,800 per month until possession is returned.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

GOD is suing 4106 Rosewood Corporation over the grounds of Hatred and Discrimination against GOD. The Defendant sought to evict the plaintiff for the motive of renting out the property at a much higher rate than the rent controlled $1200 rent on a monthly basis. Bella Kay had tried to evict God and Masoumeh Mohajer on July 26, 2017 but the honorable MARK A. BORENSTEIN Case number 17U05576 ordered in favor of Mohajer defeating 4106 Rosewood Corporation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FRANCOIS VS SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE DISTRICT

A mere offensive utterance or a pattern of social slights by either the employer or co-employees cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions or privileges of employment for purposes of the FEHA. Id.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

GOD is suing 4106 Rosewood Corporation over the grounds of Hatred and Discrimination against GOD. The Defendant sought to evict the plaintiff for the motive of renting out the property at a much higher rate than the rent controlled $1200 rent on a monthly basis. Bella Kay had tried to evict God and Masoumeh Mohajer on July 26, 2017 but the honorable MARK A. BORENSTEIN Case number 17U05576 ordered in favor of Mohajer defeating 4106 Rosewood Corporation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FRANCOIS VS SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE DISTRICT

A mere offensive utterance or a pattern of social slights by either the employer or co-employees cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions or privileges of employment for purposes of the FEHA. Id.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FRANCOIS VS SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE DISTRICT

A mere offensive utterance or a pattern of social slights by either the employer or co-employees cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions or privileges of employment for purposes of the FEHA. Id.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FRANCOIS VS SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE DISTRICT

A mere offensive utterance or a pattern of social slights by either the employer or co-employees cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions or privileges of employment for purposes of the FEHA. Id.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SM VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Further, Plaintiff asserts an investigation of Plaintiff’s household as a result of the incident concluded that no members of Plaintiff’s family were responsible for the pregnancy, so the assault that resulted in the pregnancy could only have occurred while Plaintiff was under Defendants’ supervision. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests the motion be continued to allow Plaintiff to conduct further discovery pursuant to CCP § 437c(h). c.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA JOSE PANADERO VS CATE SCHOOL ET AL

This includes, without limitation, disputes concerning any or all of the following: wage and hour law(s), (federal, state and local), trade secrets, unfair competition, compensation, breaks and rest periods, uniform maintenance, training, termination, discrimination, harassment and claims arising under state and federal statutes and/or common law addressing the same or similar subject matters.” (Williams Dec., ¶ 4, Ex. A, p. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CHELSEA HERZOG VS NUSIL TECHNOLOGY LLC ET AL

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges eighteen causes of action, including claims for disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and constructive wrongful termination. Defendants deny the allegations. The complaint was filed on June 27, 2019. Defendant NuSil hired Baker Hostetler to conduct an independent investigation of plaintiff’s claims. In the course of doing so, it conducted witness interviews of various NuSil employees.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

In Flannery, the plaintiff brought a FEHA action against the California Highway Patrol for harassment, discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. (Flannery, p. 632). Although the lawsuit advanced the important right to be free from unlawful discrimination, the lawsuit's primary effect was to vindicate the plaintiff's own, personal rights and economic interest.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 307     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.