What is sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA?

Useful Rulings on Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Second Cause of Action: Violation of Government Code section 12940 (Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, and Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation) “[T]he [Fair Employment and Housing Act] FEHA provides that no complaint for any violation of its provisions may be filed with the Department ‘after the expiration of one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred,’ with an exception for delayed discovery” or for continuing violations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99); (2) violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; (3) retaliation – public policy (Penal Code § 422); (4) false evidence violations; (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and assault; and (6) public policy – religious discrimination (Cal. Const. art. I, § 8).

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

ALEXIS BULLOCK VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Some of plaintiffs’ causes of action arise under FEHA, and the court in Armendariz specifically held that by agreeing to arbitrate the FEHA claim, the employer has already impliedly consented to such discovery necessary for employees to vindicate their claims. (Id.) Therefore, plaintiff has failed to establish that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

The operative Complaint, filed April 7, 2019, sets forth claims against Everport for 1) interference with right to leave under CFRA; 2) actual/perceived disability discrimination (FEHA); 3) failure to engage in interactive process (FEHA); 4) failure to grant reasonable accommodations (FEHA); 5) retaliation (FEHA); and 6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KRISTEN JONES VS JL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (2) retaliation in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(k); (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (5) failure to engage in a good faith

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LUTTRINGER VS NOTRE DAME HIGH SCHOOL

Plaintiff is correct that Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 590 U.S. ___ (Bostock).) However, the causes of action here do not allege violations of Title VII; they allege violations of the FEHA. Bostock is inapplicable to the causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s claims fail under FEHA as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CRISTIAN DELGADO BARRERA VS ALBERTSON'S LLC

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to accommodate disability under the FEHA, (3) failure to engage in an interactive process under the FEHA, (4) “wrongful discharge for exercise of FEHA rights and retaliation”, (5) wrongful termination under the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

TIFFANY LEE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Disability Discrimination “The FEHA proscribes two types of disability discrimination: (1) discrimination arising from an employer's intentionally discriminatory act against an employee because of his or her disability (disparate treatment discrimination), and (2) discrimination resulting from an employer's facially neutral practice or policy that has a disproportionate effect on employees suffering from a disability (disparate impact discrimination).” (Scotch, supra., 173 Cal.App.4th at 1002.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CELIA ALEGRIA VS IN-N-OUT BURGERS ET AL

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (2) harassment in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(k); (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PEREYRA VS DESERT OPHTHALMOLOGY

The Harris case was a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) action and not, as here, a retaliation claim under Labor Code section 1201.5. The Harris court specifically rejected those non-FEHA cases in which a mixed-motive decision barred recovery. (Harris, supra, at p. 236.) The Harris court refused to apply such decisions in an FEHA action. This action is based on the Labor Code and not the FEHA. Plaintiff cites to no case which applies Harris to a non-FEHA action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ANDREW MAHONEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

OSCAR RUIZ VS PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff Oscar Ruiz (Plaintiff) filed suit against Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, KBS Staffing, Newhall Temporary Staffing Services, LLC dba Pirate Staffing #110, and Champion Windows alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) declaratory judgment; (8) failure to

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIEL SANCHEZ VS R & B SANCHEZ DBA MCDONALD'S STORE NO. 10920, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY

Issue 6: Associational Sex Discrimination under the FEHAFEHA provides a cause of action for associational disability discrimination, although it is a seldom-litigated cause of action.” (Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1036 (Castro).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AJA STEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS IHS GLOBAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (5) retaliation under FEHA, (6) wrongful termination, (7) failure to provide personnel files, and (8) failure to provide payroll files. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANTONIO GONZALEZ VS FOREST LAWN

ANALYSIS:Plaintiff Antonio Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendants Forest Law, a business form unknown, and Cherly Davis (“Defendant Davis”) (erroneously sued as Davis Chery, a business form unknown) on February 13, 2020. To date, no proof of service has been filed as to either Defendant. On March 30, 2020, Defendant Davis filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD VS. CITY OF COMPTON, ET. AL

Bradford’s gender discrimination claim. Ms. Bradford’s FEHA gender discrimination claim was closely intertwined with her FEHA retaliation claim: they were based on the same underlying events, meeting the Chavez standard. The Court likewise finds the workers’ compensation depositions compensable as the depositions were relevant to this action. The Court notes that Ms. Bradford’s August 20, 2018 workers’ compensation case was included in the Joint Exhibit List.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 2. Age Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 3. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (Gov. Code § 12940(m)) 4. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov. Code § 12940(n)) 5. Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) 6. Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination and Retaliation (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

These claims fail for the same reasons that the underlying due process and disability discrimination claims fail. 4. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Claim 8) As noted above, the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by business , establishments on the basis of "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, persons temporarily being housed in motel rooms.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

These claims fail for the same reasons that the underlying due process and disability discrimination claims fail. 4. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Claim 8) As noted above, the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by business establishments on the basis of “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.” (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JOSE SOTO V. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff Jose Soto also brings individual claims for harassment, discrimination, and related causes of action. The parties have reached a settlement of the class claims, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on December 17, 2019. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

AMETHOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS VS. WEST CONRA COSTA

Discrimination. Petitioner cites, as a sign of purported racial discrimination, the staff report’s stated concern that the John Henry charter school has not recruited a student body representative of the school district’s ethnic diversity — a concern that was apparently raised as far back as the initial charter review in 2014. (Staff Report, pp. 2-4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CARDOSO VS. DATA CLEAN CORPORATION

The Court is concerned that counsel and the representative plaintiffs appear to be signing away absent class members’ ability to bring FEHA and similar claims against Defendants. As to the Notice: 1.The Court requested changes to § 3.2 of the settlement agreement, which allows the parties to make changes to the notice without Court approval. Rather than making changes in the Amended Agreement, as the Court expressly requested, counsel made changes to the long-form notice. (ROA 100, ¶ 36.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LEE V. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

The FAC alleges seven causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination harassment, and retaliation in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k); (4) retaliation for disclosing violations of law (Lab. Code, § 1102.5); (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

STEVEN YEARWOOD VS NCWC DEALER SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff believes that this termination violated numerous laws including FEHA and the Unruh Act. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.) B. Course of Proceedings On February 10, 2020, the Court sustained USDS’s and Fox’s demurrer to the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court concluded that the Complaint was fatally uncertain and precluded USDS and Fox from effectively filing Answers. Discussion Defendants USDS and Fox (hereinafter, Defendants) demur to the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANDREW MAHONEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 269     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.