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

176-200 of 7603 results

OSAMA ASSAAD VS STATE OF CA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

Plaintiffs allege that he has suffered retaliation due to having filed and litigated a FEHA discrimination lawsuit, which resulted in a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendant State of California, Department of Transportation moves to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint. TENTATIVE RULING Defendant State of California, Department of Transportation’s motion to strike Paragraph 20 (Page 5, Line 21 to Page 6, Line 1) is GRANTED without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GARCIA VS PALOMAR HEALTH

Plaintiff also asserts that Grennan's question to her asking if she wanted to work somewhere else constitutes direct evidence of discrimination. While this inquiry may have been upsetting to plaintiff, she does not explain how it relates to her age. See Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 295 (FEHA does not outlaw language or conduct that "merely offends"); see also Harris v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SPIVAK VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

App. 4th 947, 975, which stated: "Plaintiffs alleged that CSAA's conduct towards them was actionable under FEHA on three distinct theories: disparate treatment, disparate impact, and unlawful retaliation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ERWIN CERVANTES VS MAJESTIC ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC, ET AL.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Erwin Cervantes STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges discrimination based on race, ancestry, national origin, disability, association with a person with a disability, medical condition, age, association with a member of a protected class, and other bases. Plaintiff also alleges retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination, and various Labor Code violations.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOE J SERRANO VS STATER BROS MARKETS ET AL

In the operative Third1 Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Defendants for: (1) disability discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) discrimination based on religion under FEHA; (3) harassment based on medical condition under FEHA; (4) harassment based on religion under FEHA; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under FEHA; (7 but identified in the TAC as 8) declaratory judgment; and (8 but identified in

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

INSHAN ALI VS THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., ET AL.

On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging 13 causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) breach of oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause; (6) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID SHIELD SECURITY INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHARLES WHITE, ET AL.

On March 28, 2018, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a written arbitration agreement, which provides: “I, Charles White, agree that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to my employment with David Shield Security, or the termination of that employment (including, but not limited to, statutory rights related to discrimination, retaliation, harassment and/or wrongful termination), will be settled by binding arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

BALDWIN PACIFIC GROUP VS PFLUG

Problems arose between tenants and the landlord (Baldwin) not long after tenants moved in, and they filed their small claims complaint alleging "providing fraudulent legal document to secure land lease discrimination & harassment, rent adjustment" in late 2018. In March 2019, Baldwin filed its action seeking a judicial reference pursuant to CCP section 638 (and other relief). A motion brought in small claims court to consolidate the two Pflug cases was continued to Oct. 25, 2019 in Dept. 72. ROA 22.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

OLUTOYIN DALIA MOSES VS LAHAINA URBANO ARANETA

Nevertheless, the Court limits the scope of the subpoena to exclude Plaintiff’s OB/GYN records, including records related to her pregnancy. The Court has balanced the relevant criteria and finds that Plaintiff’s privacy interest in these records trumps any probative value associated with these records. The Court also limits the scope of the subpoena to January 1, 2013, to the present. Records before January 1, 2013 are too remote in time and therefore not relevant.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

JESSICA MAGEE VS CAST PARTS, INC., ET AL.

DEMURRER TO ANSWER MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jessica Magee RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Cast Parts, Inc. and Consolidated Precision Products Corporation STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants retaliated against her for reporting their discrimination and harassment of her based on race. She also alleges discrimination, harassment, Labor Code claims, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MEDINA VS MANCHA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 20, 2019, alleging various violations of the Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), as well as violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et. seq. (“UCL claim”). On November 15, 2019, the court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending arbitration. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff initiated arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

LAWRENCE JACKOWSKI VS BATTERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.

On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (3) Retaliation, (4) Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (5) Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation, (7) Violation of the California Family Rights Act, (8) California Family Rights Act Retaliation, (9) Violation

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NILOOFAR VAGHAR VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

In the context of summary judgment by the employer, however, the method of determining whether triable issues of fact defeat summary judgment of a FEHA discrimination claim differs somewhat from the sequence set forth in McDonnell Douglas.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARAM GHAZALEH VS BEST BEVERAGE CATERING, ET AL.

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against BBC, Verdugo and Does 1-50 for: Sex Harassment in Violation of FEHA Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Wrongful Termination Failure to Furnish Complaint Wage Statements Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Period Premiums Waiting Time Penalties A Case Management Conference is set for December 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JORGE AGUILAR, JR. VS UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC., ET AL.

The terms of the written, verbal, and implied contract appear the same: among other things, Plaintiff waived liability for previous injuries; Plaintiff would receive fair employment; USS would implement fair procedures, would not engage in discrimination or harassment or retaliation; Plaintiff could obtain workers’ compensation and accommodations; and Plaintiff would receive wages and benefits. FAC, ¶¶ 34-36, 42-45, 52-53.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANTONIO ARMENTA VS DESIGN MASONRY INC., ET AL.

On June 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Wage and Hour Violations, Race Based Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, Wrongful Termination, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Breach of Contract. RULING Demurrer: Overruled. 4th Cause of Action: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Defendant contends that without a copy of the operative contract, Plaintiff cannot allege bad faith (see below).

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JACOB BLALOCK ET AL VS HALT GOLD GROUP LLC ET AL

On October 20, 2017, Patriot filed a Cross-Complaint in the FEHA Action against Blalock, Novak, and cross-defendant Orion Precious Metals, Inc. (“Orion”). On December 12, 2018, Patriot and Celano filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint against Blalock, Novak, and Orion (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) breach of contract, and (3) defamation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROCIO GARCIA VS UCLA

The caption also fails to specifically identify the causes of action alleged by Plaintiff, describing them as “discrimination Sex, age, and National Origin Harassment & Retaliation.” “[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment.” Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TIBOR MARTON VS LOGIX EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Background Plaintiff Tibor Marton (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint against Defendant Logix Employment Services (“Defendant”) on February 10, 2020, asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination based on age, (2) discrimination based on disability, (3) failure to prevent discrimination, (4) wrongful termination, (5) failure to reimburse business expenses, (6) unfair business practices, and (7) a PAGA claim for civil penalties.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RHONDA CLARK VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

These actions may retrospectively be found discriminatory if based on improper motives, but in that event the remedies provided by the FEHA are those for discrimination, not harassment. Harassment, by contrast, consists of actions outside the scope of job duties which are not of a type necessary to business and personnel management. This significant distinction underlies the differential treatment of harassment and discrimination in the FEHA. (Janken, v. GM Hughes Elecs. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 63-65.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

The County argues that “a large portion” of the County’s population consists of people of all ages with underlying medical conditions -- medical conditions include cancer, heart conditions, obesity, diabetes, smoking, and even pregnancy -- that pose an increased risk of severe illness and death as a result of contracting COVID. See RJN Ex. 10. People with pre-existing conditions should not be left to die prematurely when the County can proactively try to stop the spread of the virus.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARK'S ENGINE COMPANY NO. 28 RESTAURANT, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

The County argues that “a large portion” of the County’s population consists of people of all ages with underlying medical conditions -- medical conditions include cancer, heart conditions, obesity, diabetes, smoking, and even pregnancy -- that pose an increased risk of severe illness and death as a result of contracting COVID. See RJN Ex. 10. People with pre-existing conditions should not be left to die prematurely when the County can proactively try to stop the spread of the virus.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

APRIL VAN DYKE VS OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Thus, the demurrer to the 5th cause of action is also sustained, with leave to amend. 6th cause of action - FEHA Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Government Code, section 12940((k) creates a duty “[f]or an employer, … to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” To state a cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, a plaintiff must sufficiently state the discrimination and/or harassment cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

ALDO CECENA VS. VONS COMPANIES INC

Plaintiff has pled failure of Unified to handle situations involving disabled customers and service dogs, and resulting discrimination on the part of the security guard.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

CUA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

This cause of action is premised on Health & Safety Code section 1278.5, which prohibits discrimination and retaliation against nurses, members of the medical staff, and other health care workers who present an internal complaint of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions. An aggrieved employee is entitled to reinstatement, reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits, and legal costs. Id. at (g).

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 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.