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

201-225 of 7651 results

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 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CATHERINE CLARK-PERKINS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

First Cause of Action, Wrongful Termination in Violation of the FEHA: SUSTAINED Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s FEHA claim is time barred. A DFEH complaint must be filed within one year of the alleged wrongs. (2019 Gov. Code § 12960(d).) The Court finds that the FEHA claim is untimely because Plaintiff was terminated on January 3, 2018 but she did not file her DFEH complaint until August 1, 2019. (Complaint, ¶ 32.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RAYMOND PELOSO V. ARCIERO & SONS, INC. ET AL.

opposing violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (10) failure to prevent and stop harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; (11) misclassification of employee as an independent contractor; and (12) whistleblower retaliation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

BARRY KELLMAN VS TITLE RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

The Court sustained Defendants’ demurrers to the 2nd (offering withdrawn units for rent within two years) and 3rd (violation of the FEHA – disparate impact discrimination) causes of action without leave to amend. As such, the operative SAC only includes Plaintiff’s wrongful eviction cause of action against Defendants. Plaintiff served the discovery requests on December 13, 2019. (Decl. of Belisle ¶2.) Defendants served responses on February 26, 2020. (Decl. of Boone ¶¶3-4, Exh.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

IRENE MORENO VS CIRRUS ASSET MANAGEMENT INC

“Under the FEHA, the employee must exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the statute by filing a complaint with the [Department] and must obtain from the Department a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil action in court based on violations of the FEHA. [Citations.] The timely filing of an administrative complaint is a prerequisite to the bringing of a civil action for damages under the FEHA.” (Medix Ambulance Service, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ENIS GONZALEZ VS BOCCHI LABORATORIES, ET AL.

Gomez asserts the following claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate disability; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) failure to prevent discrimination; and (5) pregnancy harassment. These claims clearly fall within the scope of the agreement. Plaintiff argues that the agreement lacks mutual assent. Plaintiff fails to substantiate these arguments with admissible evidence.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RAMON ENCH VS INTERNATIONAL BUS LINES, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint states fourteen causes of action, including various Labor Code violations, FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims, and emotional distress torts. On November 9, 2020, Defendants’ counsel Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel. No opposition was filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALLAN GUMARANG VS BRAEMAR ON RAYMOND, LLC., ET AL.

MTS (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256 (allegations of secret rebates, locality discrimination, sale below cost, and loss leaders; complaint was sufficient); Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 (citing 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008), Pleading, § 779, p. 196 stating “demurrer was properly sustained; complaint identified no particular statutory section that was violated and failed to describe with reasonable particularity facts supporting violation . . .”).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

BERNARDO ORDAZ VS 665 INC., ET AL.

Here, Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated his cause(s) of action for FEHA violations, as discussed above. Accordingly, the demurrer is also SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the sixth cause of action for unfair competition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON STEGER VS CSJ PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER ET A

For example, a third amended complaint alleging a cause of action for age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.) did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint because the wrongful conduct described in the discrimination claim did not arise out of the same set of facts alleged in the original complaint to support claims of breach of contract and Labor Code violations. (Kim v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

.; (6) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (7) retaliation in violation of the FEHA[1]. Defendants filed a demurrer to the fourth through seventh causes of action in the complaint. The demurrer is unopposed. Due to the lack of opposition, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the fourth through seventh causes of action with 20 days leave to amend. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SUJEY TINOCO VS TERESA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts 15 causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the FEHA, (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (6) violation of Government Code § 12945 (pregnancy disability leave), (7) violation of the California

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

51.7) against all defendants, (7) false imprisonment against all defendants, (8) battery against all defendants, (9) assault against all defendants, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants, (11) negligent supervision against all defendants, (12) negligence per se, violation of Education Code § 49001(b) against all defendants, (13) negligence- breach of duty of care arising under special relationship against LAUSD, (14) negligence against all defendants, and (15) disability discrimination

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA GONZALEZ VS TYSON FOODS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed September 24, 2020, alleges the following causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) disability harassment, (3)perceived disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to reasonably accommodate, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (7) age discrimination, (8) wrongful termination in violation of public

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WAUGH VS EL DORADO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

"Section 12965, subdivision (b) affords a wide choice of venue to persons who bring actions under the FEHA. This choice maximizes the ability of persons aggrieved by employment discrimination to seek relief from the courts, and it facilitates the enforcement of the FEHA." Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 486. THEREFORE, the motion for change of venue is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. The motion was made in good faith, given the facts and law.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELIZABETH MUNANA VS LEMUS, MEDICAL INC.

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Defendant: disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; failure to accommodate in violation of the FEHA; failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the work place in violation of the FEHA; retaliation in violation of the FEHA; wrongful termination in violation of public policy and the FEHA; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALONZO VS CCS SERVICES INC

Pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy (8th and 9th COA) Defendants argue and provide evidence to support that Sabatini did not know of plaintiff's pregnancy until after her employment was terminated (Sabatini Decl. ¶ 60), such that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination and cannot show wrongful termination.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JAMES BRUCE HENDERSON VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Discussion Age Discrimination under the FEHA (1st Cause of Action) Plaintiff alleges his age was a substantial motivating reason for defendant's decision to terminate his employment. FAC ¶ 32. Defendant moves for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff cannot prove the fourth prong of a prima facie case; namely, that he was replaced by a younger employee or some other circumstance indicates a discriminatory motive.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JANE DOE VS HENDERSON WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

(Id. at 1056) Like the plaintiff in Capital Cities, Plaintiff is alleging FEHA claims for sex discrimination and harassment, as well as a claim for sexual battery. (SAC ¶¶ 68-75.) In reply, Defendants argue only that “the Court in Capital Cities had no occasion to consider whether the Doe pleading was appropriate because the parties never raised the issue. Furthermore, the allegations in this case are a far cry from those in Capital Cities.” (Reply 4:2-5.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SHAWN JONES VS INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA, LLC

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 13, 2020, alleging one cause of action for racial discrimination in violation of the Unruh Act. Defendant filed its Answer on May 15, 2020. Plaintiff now demurs to Defendant’s first, second, third, fifth, and seventh affirmative defenses and request for judgment on the grounds that Defendant does not state sufficient facts to plead those defenses and that these defenses are uncertain or unintelligible. Defendant opposes the demurrer. Demurrers I.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

WILLIAM T. WATERS, JR. VS AT&T SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Claims to Be Arbitrated Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action: (1) FEHA employment discrimination (Gov’t Code § 12940(a)); (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(m)); (3) failure to engage in a timely and good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(n)); (4) FEHA harassment (Gov’t Code § 12940(j)); (5) FEHA retaliation (Gov’t Code § 12940(h), (m)); (6) FEHA failure to prevent/remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation (Gov’t Code § 12940(k));

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

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

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

  « 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.