Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it an unlawful employment practice to terminate or otherwise discriminate against an employee because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person. Gov. Code, ยง 12940(a).
Section 12940(h) makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a person โbecause the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.โ
A prima facie case for retaliation requires a plaintiff to show that:
Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 380; Yanowitz v. LโOreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042.
The activity โprotectedโ by this statute is opposition to โpractices forbiddenโ by FEHA or the filing of a complaint, testimony, or the provision of assistance in any FEHA proceeding. Gov. Code, ยง 12940(h).
Whether an employee has suffered an adverse employment action is a required element. Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1380 (โCritical to an inquiry regarding a retaliation claim arising under FEHA is whether the plaintiff suffered an โadverse employment action.โโ)
โMinor or relatively trivial adverse actions or conduct by employers or fellow employees that, from an objective perspective, are reasonably likely to do no more than anger or upset an employee cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment and are not actionable, but adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to impair a reasonable employee's job performance or prospects for advancement or promotion falls within the reach of the antidiscrimination provisions of Government Code Section 12940, subdivision (a).โ Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 373 (citations omitted.)
A causal link โmay be established by an inference from circumstantial evidence, such as the employerโs knowledge that the employee engaged in protected activities and proximity in time between the protected action and allegedly retaliatory employment decision.โ Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 69 (citations omitted).
Non-employer individuals are not personally liable for their role in retaliation. Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1173.
Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and/or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940(k)) 7. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.) 8. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940, et seq.) 9. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 1102.5 10.
SANAH HAMAD VS PREZZEE, INC, ET AL.
23CHCV01873
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
As noted above, although she asserted four retaliation claims, each of the non-FEHA 21 retaliation claims was premised on alleged facts different from those that underlie her FEHA 22 retaliation case. This complicates the analysis of which parts of the case were intertwined 23 between her FEHA retaliation claim and her non-FEHA retaliation claims. The alleged protected 24 activities surely differed.
U NAM VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
34-2013-00138396-CU-WT-GDS
Mar 04, 2024
Sacramento County, CA
Davis for (1) violation of the FEHA โ gender discrimination; (2) violation of the FEHA โ gender harassment; (3) violation of the FEHA โ retaliation; (4) violation of the FEHA โ failure to accommodate; (5) violation of the FEHA โ failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) violation of the FEHA โ failure to investigate/prevent/correct FEHA violations; (7) wrongful retaliation in violation of public policy; (8) false promise/intentional misrepresentation; (9) violation of California Wage and Hour Law and
CHARLENE POWELL, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV01859
Apr 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Consequently, [u]nless the FEHA claim was frivolous, only those costs [that can be] properly allocated to non-FEHA claims may be recovered by the prevailing defendant. ( Id. at p. 1062.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs non-FEHA claim for retaliation under the Labor Code is intertwined and inseparable from his FEHA claim for retaliation such that apportionment is impractical.
KEVORK KAZANDJIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCV21241
Sep 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for (1) FEHA race discrimination, (2) FEHA religious discrimination, (3) FEHA disability discrimination, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations, (6) FEHA harassment, (7) FEHA retaliation, (8) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (9) wrongful termination, and (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress (โIIEDโ).
SHAHROKH JAVED VS RAYTHEON COMPANY ET AL
BC699287
Dec 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The court has considered the evidentiary basis of the Third cause of action for Whistleblower Retaliation with that of the First cause of action under FEHA for complaining of Racial Discrimination and Harassment and the Second cause of action under FEHA for Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation based on Race.
SHENETTA D TONEY VS. LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STK-CV-UOE-2015-0005208
Feb 20, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (โFACโ) on January 2, 2019 alleging six causes of action including: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) wrongful constructive termination in violation of FEHA; and (6) declaratory judgment.
JANE DOE VS DALE POE REAL ESTATE, INC., ET AL.
18STCV04337
Mar 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Ruffin asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA race discrimination, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (6) FEHA failure to accommodate, (7) FEHA failure to prevent, (8) whistleblower retaliation, and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff moves to consolidate this action with Elizabeth Handy v.
GODREY RUFFIN VS U S TELEPACIFIC CORP ET AL
BC621220
Aug 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 2, 2018, and filed the FAC on December 18, 2018, alleging 17 causes of action: FEHA Age Harassment FEHA Age Discrimination FEHA Age Retaliation FEHA National Origin Harassment FEHA National Origin Discrimination FEHA National Origin Retaliation FEHA Race Harassment FEHA Race Discrimination FEHA Race Retaliation FEHA Sex Harassment FEHA Sex Discrimination FEHA Sex Retaliation FEHA Religious Harassment FEHA Religious Discrimination FEHA
KEYVAN SHAHROUZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC723792
Apr 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Mooreโs holding, by its plain language, was limited to the FEHA version of retaliation. This conclusion is further supported by its reasoningโs closely tracking the FEHA retaliation language: โdischarge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.โ Govt. Code ยง 12940(h).
DAN WARREN VS ROWLAND WATER DISTRICT
BC659086
Sep 07, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria Larson filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC for (1) FEHA harassment, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, (5) adverse action in violation of public policy, and (6) whistleblower retaliation. Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC demurs to all causes of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.
VICTORIA LARSON VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV31537
May 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant contends that the flaw in the cause of action is that the conduct underlying her complaints was not conduct which was prohibited by FEHA. Since FEHA only forbids retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA, she cannot establish a claim for retaliation in violation of FEHA. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy The allegations do not identify any specific public policy.
QUIANA FOLEY VS SB BOOKS INC ET AL
15CV00589
Aug 04, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff Daniel La Mar filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (โSACโ) against Defendants Food LA, LLC and Judith Ornstein for (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest periods, (3) violations of the UCL, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA preemtive retaliation, and (6) failure to prevent retaliation, harassment, and discrimination.
DANIEL LA MAR VS FOOD LA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV41280
Jul 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Background On July 1, 2018, Plaintiff Arnette West sued the County of Los Angeles pursuant to a Complaint alleging six causes of action for Fair and Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) violations: (1) FEHA Discrimination (Age & Disability); (2) FEHA Harassment (Age & Disability); (3) FEHA Failure to Take All Steps Reasonably Necessary to Stop Discrimination and Harassment; (4) FEHA Retaliation; (5) FEHA Failure to Accommodate; and (6) FEHA Failure to Enter into the Interactive Process.
ARNETTE WEST VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC716104
Jun 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Defendant demurs to the Ninth Cause of Action for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA and the Eleventh Cause of Action for Retaliation Under Cal. Labor Code ยง 1012.5 1. Ninth Cause of Action Retaliation Under FEHA Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for Retaliation Under FEHA. (Motion at p. 3.)
SALVADOR OROZCO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV04799
Apr 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 31, 2018, asserting ten causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment in violation of the FEHA; (6) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (7) hostile work environment; (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; (9)
ERENI YOUSSEF VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPT
BC701973
Apr 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The declaration further provides that the only area of disagreement is whether the cause of action for retaliation under Labor Code ยง 1102.5 should be dismissed as either being preempted by the FEHA or as being redundant of Plaintiffโs FEHA retaliation claim. Determination of this issue is moot in that the parties have agreed that plaintiffโs claim for retaliation will be reflected in two separate causes of action.
MARTINSON VS BANNING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC2001066
Feb 25, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Discrimination under FEHA 2. Retaliation under FEHA 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation under FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under FEHA 5. Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process 6. Retaliation under Government Code section 12945.2 7. Declaratory Judgment 8.
KATHLEEN EUBANK VS BARRY & TAFFY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV46843
May 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (โSACโ) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to Plaintiffโs fourth cause of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.
NASARITA RANGEL VS MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL GROUP
BC692113
Jan 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
[FEHA]; 2) FOR HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVER}IMENT CODE 1294s.2 ET SEQ.
GARY GIBBS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV13949
Nov 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
First Cause of Action (Failure To Provide A Reasonable Accommodation In Violation of FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process In Violation of FEHA); Third Cause of Action (Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Hostile Work Environment In Violation of FEHA); Fifth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Harassment or Retaliation In Violation of FEHA).
SONIA HOLGUIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC685997
Aug 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA; (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (8) failure to engage in the interactive process; (9) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of FEHA; (10) retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (11) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (13) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate
KYSA PAUL VS TARGET CORPORATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV25148
Feb 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Stratton reflects that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied as required by CCP ยง 430.41 Analysis 1, First Cause of Action (Discrimination In Violation of FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Discrimination In Violation of FEHA); Third Cause of Action (Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Retaliation In Violation of FEHA); Fifth Cause of Action (Harassment In Violation of FEHA); Sixth Cause of Action (Failure To Prevent Harassment In Violation of
HECTOR ALMAZAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCV14043
Sep 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Therefore, the retaliation claim is insufficient. Additionally, a failure to prevent claim cannot stand without allegations of actionable retaliation, harassment, or discrimination under FEHA. (Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289.) Plaintiffโs claims are solely based upon the alleged breach of a settlement agreement between the parties. Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiencies in his FEHA causes of action as the court pointed out in the prior demurrer.
OMAR A LOPEZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC626704
Feb 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Retaliation (3rd C/A) The third cause of action is titled "Retaliation in Violation of FEHA" and alleges in the substantive allegations violations under FEHA. (Compl. ยถ 69.)
MCCULLOUGH, ET AL. VS JOHN MUI
MSC21-01021
Jun 08, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
(Defendant), alleging nine causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (7) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 6310 and 6311; and (9) retaliation
KENDRICK JONES VS WATTS LEARNING CENTER, INC.
23STCV15069
Feb 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) FEHA disability discrimination, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) violation of wage and hour lawsโunpaid overtime wages, (9) violation of wage and hour lawsโwaiting time penalties, (10) failure to provide accurate wage statements
JOEL REYNOZO VS GH TRANSPORTATION INC
BC670537
Oct 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Based on Gender and Race in Violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (5) Misclassification as an Independent Contractor, (6) Violation of Labor Code ยง 6310, (7) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code ยง1102.5, (8) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code ยง 98.6, (9) Failure to Pay Earned Wages in Violation of Labor Code ยง 204, (10) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages in Violation of Labor Code ยงยง 201 and 203, and (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
CHRISTOPHER DELOACH VS BOONDOCK, INC.
22STCV23490
Dec 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยง12940(h), FOR TESTIFYING IN COWORKER S FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยง12940(a)(h)(i), RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION; 2. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยงยง12920, 12921, 12940(a), 12945.2(1), EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยง12940(h), 12945.2, ET SEQ. FOR EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 4.
GABRIEL FAJARDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV27886
Apr 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The jury was instructed that the plaintiff could establish retaliation under FEHA if he โ[refused] to participate in activities that would violate state, federal, or local statutes, rules, or regulations,โ or that would violate FEHA. (Id. at 723.) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that FEHA retaliation can only be established where the protected activity concerns conduct prohibited under FEHA. (Id. at 723; See also McKinney v. American Airlines, Inc. (C.D.
THOMAS BITZ ET AL. VS STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STK-CV-UOE-2017-0001701
Mar 17, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
D iscrimination in Violation of the FEHA 2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA 3. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 5. Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code ยง 1102.5) On March 12, 2022, Defendant Los Angeles Community College District (District or Defendant) filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike Plaintiffs SAC.
SHANE MOSHIRI VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.
21STCV22619
Jul 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent retaliation, (5) violation of Lab. Code ยง 1102.5, (6) violation of Lab. Code ยง 6310, and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties. (See Frag Decl., Exhibit A.)
DIEGO GARCIA VS PLATINUM SECURITY INC
BC682955
Jan 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The operative First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA sexual harassment, (2) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent retaliation, (5) CFRA retaliation, (6) negligent hiring & supervision, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and (9) defamation.
ANNAMARIA RALLO VS YUSEN LOGISTICS INC ET AL
BC624831
Oct 28, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
(CCP ยง438(c)(1)(B)(ii).) 1ST โ 3RD, 5TH, 7TH, AND 8TH CAUSES OF ACTION BASED ON THE FEHA Here, Defendant, Pfitzer, argues that because he was not Plaintiffโs employer, he is not a proper party to the FEHA claims (1st โ 3rd, 5th, 7th - 8th c/ac), except as to FEHA harassment (4th c/ac.) Under FEHA, non-employer individuals are not personally liable for their role in retaliation or discrimination. (see Jones v.
DOMINGUEZ VS ZERO TO 60 DESIGNS LLC
CVRI2105133
Aug 24, 2023
Riverside County, CA
BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Betty Hewitt commenced this action against Defendants Edge Roofing, Inc. and Garlan Powell for (1) age discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by the FEHA; (4) hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to do everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation from occurring in violation of the FEHA; (6) wrongful termination
BETTY HEWITT VS EDGE ROOFING, INC., ET AL.
20STCV08471
Sep 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Reasonably construed, this prohibition of retaliation against โany person,โ includes former employees allegedly subjected to retaliation. To the knowledge of the court, no published California decision has considered whether this subdivision applies to retaliation against a former employee. โCalifornia courts often look to Title VII in interpreting the FEHA.โ State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040.
YVONNE EVANS VS. COUNTY OF NEVADA
CU0000608
Apr 19, 2024
Nevada County, CA
Reasonably construed, this prohibition of retaliation against โany person,โ includes former employees allegedly subjected to retaliation. To the knowledge of the court, no published California decision has considered whether this subdivision applies to retaliation against a former employee. โCalifornia courts often look to Title VII in interpreting the FEHA.โ State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040.
YVONNE EVANS VS. COUNTY OF NEVADA
CU0000608
Apr 12, 2024
Nevada County, CA
December 1, 2022 On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff Lucas Tapia filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles, alleging (1) discrimination (disparate treatment) in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) discrimination (disparate impact) in violation of FEHA; (3) harassment (sexual favoritism) in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; and (6) retaliation in violation of the Labor Code
LUCAS TAPIA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
20STCV48642
Dec 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV10162
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against all Defendants) Retaliation for complaining and/or harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Retaliation for taking CFRA leave
ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV05356
Jul 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
("CFRA"); 5) perceived and/or sex/gender harassment in violation FEHA; 6) perceived and/or sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; 7) perceived and/or sex/gender retaliation in violation of FEHA; 8) retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of FEHA; and 9) declaratory relief. The District demurs to each of the first eight causes of action.
WEI VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
56-2019-00536547-CU-OE-VTA
Nov 10, 2020
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
(FEHA); (5) Actual/Perceived Disability Retaliation, Violation of the FEHA; (6) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, Government Code 12940(n); (7) Failure to Accommodate, Government Code 12940(m); (8) Violation of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code 12945.2; (9) Sex/Gender Harassment, Violation of the FEHA; (10) Sex/Gender Discrimination, Violation of the FEHA; (11) Sex/Gender Retaliation, Violation of the FEHA; (12) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination or Retaliation, Violation
RITA BOGHOS VS OLIVE VIEW - UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
21CHCV00047
Jun 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
of FEHA; (5) retaliation on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (6) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (7) harassment on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (9) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (10) harassment on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (11) retaliation on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (12) retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of FEHA; (13) intentional
SUZANNE RUELAS VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, ET AL.
20STCV17682
Jul 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
of FEHA; (5) retaliation on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (6) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (7) harassment on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (9) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (10) harassment on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (11) retaliation on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (12) retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of FEHA; (13) intentional
SUZANNE RUELAS VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, ET AL.
20STCV17682
Jan 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria Larson filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC for (1) FEHA harassment, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, (5) adverse action in violation of public policy, and (6) whistleblower retaliation. Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC seeks to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to its requests for production, set one, nos. 5-6.
VICTORIA LARSON VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV31537
Jul 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The FAC filed a few months later alleged (1) Discrimination (FEHA); (2) Harassment (FEHA); (3) Retaliation (FEHA); (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (FEHA); (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment (FEHA); (7) Negligent Hiring; (8) Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (9) IIED; (10) Violation of CFRA; (11) Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, in which Garcia complained of retaliation for his whistleblower activities of reporting problems
ANTHONY EUGENE TALBERT VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
21STCV00694
Aug 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff Francisco Gallegos filed the operative Complaint against Defendant University of La Verne for (1) interference with CFRA leave, (2) retaliation for taking CFRA leave, (3) FEHA retaliation for taking medical leave, (4) FEHA disability discrimination, (5) FEHA failure to accommodate, (6) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (7) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (8) wrongful termination.
FRANCISCO GALLEGOS VS UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION
20STCV29478
Oct 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(See, e.g., Reply, 4:24-5:8 [arguing FEHA Discrimination and Retaliation have same underpinnings and thus implying no further need for discovery as to the Retaliation claims advanced in the proposed amendments].) The Motion is DENIED.
RUBI CASTRO VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV23741
Nov 21, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant argues it is unclear whether plaintiff alleges: (1) discrimination and harassment; (2) discrimination and retaliation; or (3) discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The complaints first cause of action is for sex discrimination in violation of FEHA. The second cause of action is for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA. Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action for retaliation under FEHA. The complaint is clear enough.
LANA MCLEOD VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
21STCV25597
Oct 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant further argues that a general FEHA claim is improper, as FEHA encompasses several different causes of action, including discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation, all with different elements. (Gov. Code, ยง 12940 et seq.)
RANDY WATKINS V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
18CV-0646
Jan 24, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Third Cause of Action: FEHA Retaliation The retaliation provision of FEHA forbids an employer โto discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden underโ FEHA. Govโt Code, ยง 12940(h).
TRACY STEWART VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV49136
Sep 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
On 5/11/2020, Plaintiff Claudia Iwamasa (Plaintiff) filed suit against Optumcare Management, LLC (Defendant), alleging: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to prevent; (6) retaliation in violation of the CFRA; (8) violation of California Labor Code section 98.6 and 1102.5, et seq. ; and (9) wrongful termination.
CLAUDIA IWAMASA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS OPTUMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV17866
Jul 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As discussed below, plaintiffโs FEHA retaliation claim is defective without possibility of cure by amendment. Therefore, plaintiff has no possibility of pleading an underlying FEHA violation, and his derivative failure to prevent claim is fatally defective. Third COA: Retaliation (FEHA): The motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for the sole purpose of pleading the CFRA as the basis for the alleged retaliation instead of the other law cited.
ASHENAFI BENTI VS FOX RENT A CAR INC
BC663022
Nov 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
In it, Plaintiff alleged failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), retaliation in Violation of FEHA, whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and wrongful termination in violation of FEHA.
SAMUEL TAPIA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY
22STCV14854
Apr 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
ยท The new FEHA violations revive the 1 st cause of action for race and age discrimination in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge; 3 rd cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge based on retaliation stemming from filing this action; and 6 th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or correct in violation of FEHA, including allowing the constructive discharge.
RODERICK CORPRUE VS CITY OF LAWNDALE, A CORPORATION , ET AL.
20STCV14617
Sep 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
ยท The new FEHA violations revive the 1 st cause of action for race and age discrimination in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge; 3 rd cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA, including the constructive discharge based on retaliation stemming from filing this action; and 6 th cause of action for failure to prevent and/or correct in violation of FEHA, including allowing the constructive discharge.
RODERICK CORPRUE VS CITY OF LAWNDALE, A CORPORATION , ET AL.
20STCV14617
Aug 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
It appears that Plaintiff alleges FEHA discrimination and retaliation associated with reporting work place conditions and treatment of special needs students, not based upon actions giving rise to a cause of action under FEHA. As to the second cause of action for harassment in violation of the FEHA, the demurrer is sustained for failure to plead sufficient facts. The complaint alleges that Defendants harassed Plaintiff because she reported her workplace injuries and her safety concerns.
SILVA V. VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
FCS051224
May 28, 2019
Solano County, CA
On 11/21/16, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint which asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA race discrimination, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA race harassment, and (6) FEHA failure to prevent harassment. Status conference, mediation setting conference, and OSC re: dismissal of unnamed and unserved defendants for 2/22/17.
DENNIS CHU VS COMMERCE HYUNDAI ET AL
BC633242
Feb 22, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code ยง12940, et seq.) 5. Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code ยง12940, et seq.) 6. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code ยง12940, et seq.) 7. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 8. Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code ยง 17200) 9. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code ยง 1102.5 On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.
JORGE AVALOS VS WIRING CONNECTION, INC.
23STCV04234
Apr 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Discrimination under FEHA 2. Retaliation under FEHA 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation under FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under FEHA 5. Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process 6. Retaliation under Government Code section 12945.2 7. Declaratory Judgment 8.
KATHLEEN EUBANK VS BARRY & TAFFY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV46843
Jul 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The only references to retaliation are in paragraph 24, a background paragraph providing the scope of FEHA, paragraph 32 which refers to wrongful termination โin retaliation for Plaintiffโs whistleblowingโ and paragraph 83, alleging โpretext for the retaliation in terminating Plaintiff,โ which is in the Fifth Cause of Action for Violation of Whistleblower Statute.โ
BARBIE BARRETT, MD.,MS, VS. SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS, DBA MILLS-PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL
21-CIV-04228
Aug 07, 2022
San Mateo County, CA
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยง12940(h), FOR TESTIFYING IN COWORKER S FEHA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยง12940(a)(h)(i), RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION; 2. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยงยง12920, 12921, 12940(a), 12945.2(1), EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CFRA AND GOVERNMENT CODE ยง12940(h), 12945.2, ET SEQ. FOR EXERCISING CFRA RIGHTS; 4.
GABRIEL FAJARDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV27886
May 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Retaliation (2 nd COA) As discussed above, the 2 nd cause of action is uncertain given Plaintiffs failure to allege the statutory basis for retaliation. However, Plaintiffs opposition suggests the cause of action is based on Defendants violation of the FEHA given Plaintiffs DFEH Complaint is based on Healthworks being an employer subject to the FEHA.
AMIR HRAD VS U.S. HEALTHWORKS GROUP, ET AL.
20STCV18285
Jan 03, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has also pleaded sufficient facts to support her third cause of action for retaliation in violation of the FEHA. Employees may establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under the FEHA by showing that (1) they engaged in activities protected by the FEHA, (2) their employers subsequently took adverse employment action against them, and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. (Miller v.
ELLIOTT VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
BLC1800210
Sep 04, 2019
Riverside County, CA
CODE ยง12945(a)); (5) RETALIATION FOR TAKING CFRA LEAVE; (6) INTERFERENCE WITH CFRA LEAVE; (7) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV. CODE ยงยง12940(a), (i), (m), (n), 12945(a)); (8) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV. CODE ยงยง 12940(a), (i), (m), (n), 12945(a)); (9) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND/OR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (GOV.
NOUSHA JAVANMARDI VS JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE, ET AL.
20STCV36367
Jun 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
and Associational Disability in Violation of FEHA against all Defendants; Retaliation for Complaining of Discrimination and/or Harassment on the Basis of Disability and Associations Disability in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Retaliation for Taking CFRA Leave in Violation of FEHA against BHUSD; Failure to Engage in Interactive Process
ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV05356
Dec 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code ยง 1102.5 and FEHA Defendant asserts Plaintiffs claims for retaliation fail because Defendant did not subject Plaintiff to an adverse employment action.
MARIO CARDONA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
22STCV17208
Sep 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) FEHA failure to prevent, (5) FEHA retaliation, whistleblower retaliation pursuant to (6) Labor Code ยง 1102.5 and (7) Labor Code ยง 98.6, (8) inaccurate wage statements, and (9) failure to pay wages. Trial is set for 11/27/17; FSC for 11/16/17; all-purpose status conference and OSC re: dismissal of unnamed and unserved defendants for 3/6/17.
BANDANA SINGH VS WESTSIDE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING INC
BC638554
Mar 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Disability discrimination under FEHA 2. Violation of CFRA 3. Harassment based upon disability under FEHA 4. Failure to accommodate a disability under FEHA 5. Failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA 6. Failure to prevent discrimination and harassment under FEHA 7. Retaliation under FEHA 8.
RICKY MONTES VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV07354
Feb 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff Tu Ly filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendant City of Los Angeles for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to accomodate, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA retaliation, and (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. Defendant City of Los Angeles moves for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of all causes of action.
TU LY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY
19STCV33791
Jan 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff asks for leave to add a seventh cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code ยง 1102.5, an eighth cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, additional paragraphs under the existing FEHA retaliation, and a prayer for injunctive relief preventing Defendant from engaging in discriminatory or retaliatory conduct.
MICHELLE VEGA VS KIPP LA SCHOOLS
18STCV04246
Feb 25, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Third Cause of Action for FEHA Retaliation Defendant demurs to the third cause of action for retaliation on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege a protected activity. FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to retaliate against persons who participate in FEHA proceedings or oppose conduct that FEHA proscribes. (Gov. Code ยง 12940.)
KRISTINE SALAZAR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCV45369
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Discussion Factual and procedural background On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff Fred Dailey filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (โLAUSDโ), alleging the following causes of action: C/A 1: for Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Govโt Code ยงยง 12940 et seq) C/A 2: for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Govโt Code ยงยง 12940 et seq) C/A 3: for Failure to Prevent Discrimination/Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Govโt Code ยง 12940(k)) C/A 4: for Retaliation in Violation of CFRA
FRED DAILEY VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
19STCV42465
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The So-Called "New" FEHA Claims CDCR argues leave to amend should be denied because Laidley is attempting to "sneak" new time-barred FEHA claims into the SAC. CDCR's argument regarding the timeliness of the FEHA claims is not entirely clear. The FAC contains three FEHA claims (for retaliation, . discrimination, and failure to engage in the interactive process), and the SAC seeks to add only one additional FEHA claim for failure to accommodate.
LAIDLEY VS CDCR
34-2014-80001774-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 05, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
ISSUE NO. 7: Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation under FEHA fails as a matter of law because the undisputed material facts show that Plaintiffs underlying FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims or not cognizable.
SAJITH WEERASINGHE VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
22STCV35760
Apr 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of Cal.
SAJITH WEERASINGHE VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
22STCV35760
Apr 18, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff Brenda Baca commenced this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles for (1) sex/gender harassment โ hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA. On July 31, 2020, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant demurrer to the retaliation claim on the grounds that it fails to set forth facts to constitute a cause of action.
BRENDA BACA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
20STCV23817
Aug 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
His First Amended Complaint (โFACโ) alleges: (1) Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; (2) Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in the interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (7) Defamation; (8) Breach of Express Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment
GEOFFREY GEE VS INSPERITY, ET AL.
20STCV00135
Oct 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffโs FEHA retaliation claim and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim were sufficiently related that the inclusion of the latter claim did not increase Defendantโs basic costs of litigation. The motion is GRANTED. Defendantโs memorandum of costs is stricken in its entirety.
NEIL PAGE VS KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC
BC571684
Jan 04, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
against the City; 9) constructive discharge in violation of public policy under FEHA against the City; 10) retaliation for complaining about discrimination and/or harassment against the City; and 11) failure to prevent harassment, retaliation, and discrimination against the City.
JACQUELINE JONES VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS , ET AL.
20STCV10644
Jun 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
BACKGROUND On August 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Alvaro Arevalo, Javier Arevalo and Elzy Erazo filed the operative first amended complaint against U Work Personnel, Inc. and Arms Trans, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (5) failure to permit inspection of personnel and
ALVARO AREVALO, ET AL. VS U WORK PERSONNEL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV46195
Apr 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Accordingly, Moving Defendantโs motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as to the FEHA causes of actions. Fifth Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy Moving Defendant contends that the common law claim for Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy does not state a cause of action as there is no common law cause of action for retaliation. The Court agrees.
DANIEL MARSHALL VS FILMON.TV NETWORKS INC ET AL
BC689248
Feb 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff Durant McLeod filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against Defendants California Physicians Service, Arshad Haqib, and Sandra Griffin for (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (5) whistleblower retaliation, (6) wrongful termination, and (7) whistleblower retaliation.
DURANT MCLEOD VS CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE, ET AL.
23STCV14848
Mar 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Durant McLeod filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants California Physicians Service, Arshad Haqib, and Sandra Griffin for (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (5) whistleblower retaliation, (6) wrongful termination, and (7) whistleblower retaliation.
DURANT MCLEOD VS CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE, ET AL.
23STCV14848
Dec 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; 2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; 3. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA; 5. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 7. CFRA Leave Retaliation; 8.
HERMAN MORALES VS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, ET AL.
22STCV04401
Aug 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; 2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; 3. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA; 5. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 7. CFRA Leave Retaliation; 8.
HERMAN MORALES VS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, ET AL.
22STCV04401
Aug 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against all Defendants) Retaliation for complaining and/or harassment on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA (against BHUSD) Retaliation for taking CFRA leave
ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV05356
Sep 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Consequently, the Complaint reveals that Plaintiffโs claim under Labor Code section 1102.5 alleged retaliation, based on Plaintiff having complained of related FEHA violations.
LENARD VS ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
30-2013-00690455-CU-OE-CJC
Feb 28, 2017
Orange County, CA
This is insufficient to state any of the asserted FEHA claims. Thus, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the FEHA claims for discrimination, retaliation, harassment, failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation/harassment, failure to accommodate disability, and failure to engage in the interactive process.
JOSE GERARDO CALDERON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS 3MB RESTAURANTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV39213
Apr 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Although nonrenewal of an employment contract can form the basis for a FEHA retaliation claim, Defendant argues that the retaliation causes of action must fail because Abrams has failed to allege that she engaged in any protected activity. However, Abrams alleges that she โcomplained about the aforementioned discrimination, and harassment.โ (FAC, ยถยถ 8d, 22e.) Protected activity under FEHA includes โoppos[ing] any practices forbidden under [FEHA].โ (Gov. Code, ยง 12940(h).)
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
BC706862
Feb 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (โFACโ) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
NASARITA RANGEL VS MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL GROUP
BC692113
Aug 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
As to defendant's workers exclusivity argument, 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. Light v. California Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 101. The Court denies plaintiff's invitation for the Court to impose sanctions sua sponte under CCP 128.7.
HANTASH VS. INTERTEK USA INC
37-2017-00015893-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 18, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Fourth Cause of Action: Retaliation To make a case for FEHA retaliation, Plaintiff must allege facts to show that (1) he engaged in activity protected by FEHA, (2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (3) there is some other circumstance which suggests a causal link between the two. Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4 th 52, 69-70.
GERALD CORN VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
22STCV12911
Dec 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Retaliation FEHA requires an employer to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee. (Gov. Code, ยง 12940(m)(1).) Additionally, FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate or retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation. ( Id. , subd. (m)(2).) Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated for requesting leave to care for her daughter. (Compl. ยถ 13.)
LAURA WILDMANN VS PACIFIC MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS,
22STCV31590
Feb 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(โMetrolabโ), Teresa Izaguirre (โIzaguirreโ), and Behrouz Tavakoli (โTavakoliโ) (collectively โDefendantsโ) demur to the 1st (disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA), 2nd (disability harassment in violation of the FEHA), 3rd (retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 4th (failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 5th (failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA), 6th (failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation
VANESSA HERRERA VS METROLAB INC ET AL
BC685771
Jul 31, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
To state a claim for retaliation under FEHA, Plaintiff must allege retaliation for an act protected by FEHA. (See Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 653.) Here, Plaintiff seemingly alleges that he was terminated as a result of requests for accommodations that he made from Defendant.
ALBERTO MARTINEZ VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-DEPT STATE HOSPITAL
VC065910
Mar 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
) (1) FEHA Foleyโs first cause of action is for violation of FEHAโs prohibition against retaliation.
QUIANA FOLEY VS SB BOOKS INC ET AL
15CV00589
Oct 27, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiffs operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (FEHA), (2) harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to provide reasonable accommo-dations in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA, (7) whistleblower retaliation in
VJ HIRSCH VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY
22STCV19061
Oct 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of the FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (7) Violation of California Family Rights Act (CFRA); and (8) CFRA Leave Retaliation.
BLANCA LETICIA REYES VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
23STCV17059
Jan 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
However, a request for reasonable accommodation is not โprotected activityโ under the retaliation provision of FEHA. (Nealy v. Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 258, 381.)
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
19STCV686078
Jun 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.