Thank you
Someone from our team will get in touch with you shortly
Understanding Sexual Harassment in California
What Is Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment, under both California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constitutes unlawful discrimination based on sex. It includes quid pro quo harassment, where employment benefits are conditioned on submission to unwelcome sexual advances, and hostile work environment harassment, where pervasive or severe conduct creates an abusive workplace. To be actionable, the conduct must be unwelcome, based on sex, and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions. Employers may be liable if they knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action.
“In Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th at pages 1042-1043, the California Supreme Court recently restated the framework of sexual harassment law in California: Like federal law, California law prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace.” (See Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009); Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009).)
“Originally enacted in 1980, Government Code section 12940 is part of the FEHA. [Citation.] It defines an unlawful employment practice' as an employer's refusal to hire, employ, or select for a training program leading to employment, any person because of that person's race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation.” (See id.)
“Since 1985, the FEHA has prohibited sexual harassment of an employee. With respect to sexual harassment in the workplace [citation], the prohibited conduct ranges from expressly or impliedly conditioning employment benefits on submission to, or tolerance of, unwelcome sexual advances to the creation of a work environment that is hostile or abusive to employees because of their sex.” (See id.)
“Thus, similar to the federal law's Title VII [title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964], California's FEHA `recognize[s] two theories of liability for sexual harassment claims quid pro quo harassment, where a term of employment is conditioned upon submission to unwelcome sexual advances . . . [and] hostile work environment, where the harassment is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.” (See id.)
Title VII Sexual Harassment
“Enacted in 1964, Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) defines as an unlawful employment practice discrimination by an employer based on an applicant's or employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” (See Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1041 (Cal. 2009); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).)
“The prohibition covers employment decisions and conduct affecting compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. An employer violates Title VII by refusing to hire or promote someone solely because of that person's gender. Such conduct is sex discrimination.” (See id; Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (1991) 499 U.S. 187, 197 [113 L.Ed.2d 158, 111 S.Ct. 1196].)
“Title VII treats sexual harassment as another form of sex discrimination. Just as an employee who is subjected to the loss of some economic or tangible job benefit as the result of sex discrimination can sue under Title so can an employee who is subjected to [u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” (See Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1041 (Cal. 2009); Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) 477 U.S. 57, 64 [91 L.Ed.2d 49, 106 S.Ct. 2399;].)
Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment
“Federal law recognizes two forms of sexual harassment. One is a demand for sexual favors in return for a job benefit; this is known as quid pro quo harassment.” (See Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1042 (Cal. 2009); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742, 753 [141 L.Ed.2d 633, 118 S.Ct. 2257].)
“The other is sexually harassing conduct that, although not resulting in the loss of or denial of any job benefit, is so ‘severe or pervasive’ as to create a hostile work environment. The terms ‘quid pro quo’ and ‘hostile work environment’ are not in Title VII's text; they first turned up in academic literature, found their way into federal appellate decisions, and after their mention by the high court in, acquired their own [legal] significance.” (See id.)
“Under Title VII, sexual harassment is considered severe or pervasive only when it alter[s] the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create[s] an abusive working environment. Taken into account must be the surrounding circumstances, such as the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Thus, simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in employment conditions.” (See id at 271; Faragher v. Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775, 787-788 [141 L.Ed.2d 662, 118 S.Ct. 2275].)
Elements of Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo Claims
“The elements of a cause of action for hostile work environment harassment are:
- plaintiff belongs to a protected group;
- plaintiff was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment;
- the harassment complained of was based on sex;
- the harassment complained of was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment; and
- respondeat superior.”
(See Blanchard v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., No. A126243, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2010); Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 608.)
“A party alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment must show that a tangible employment action resulted from a refusal to submit to a supervisor's sexual demands.” (See Lohman v. City of Mountain View, No. H046681, at *15 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 7, 2022); Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1049 (Cal. 2009).)
Establishing a Hostile Work Environment Claim
“In construing California's FEHA, this court has held that the hostile work environment form of sexual harassment is actionable only when the harassing behavior is pervasive or severe.” (See Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1043 (Cal. 2009); Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446, 462 (Cal. 2005).)
“This limitation mirrors the federal courts' interpretation of Title VII. To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under California's FEHA, an employee must show that the harassing conduct was severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their sex. There is no recovery for harassment that is occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial.” (See id; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 130 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 980 P.2d 846].)
“Courts that have construed federal and California employment discrimination laws have held that an employee seeking to prove sexual harassment based on no more than a few isolated incidents of harassing conduct must show that the conduct was ‘severe in the extreme.’” (See Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1043 (Cal. 2009); Herberg v. California Institute of the Arts, 101 Cal.App.4th 142, 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002); Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 975 F.2d 588, 590 [isolated incidents of sexual horseplay over number of years held insufficient]; Saxton v. American Tel. Tel. Co. (7th Cir. 1993) 10 F.3d 526, 528, 534-535 [summary judgment for defendant upheld where defendant rubbed and kissed plaintiff on one occasion and groped her on another].)
“A single harassing incident involving ‘physical violence or the threat thereof’ may qualify as being severe in the extreme.” (See id; Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264, 284 (Cal. 2006).)
“Under California's FEHA, as under the federal law's Title VII, the existence of a hostile work environment depends upon the totality of the circumstances. We said in Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 284, that [t]o be actionable, `a sexually objectionable environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive. . . .' Therefore, a plaintiff who subjectively perceives the workplace as hostile or abusive will not prevail . . . if a reasonable person . . ., considering all the circumstances, would not share the same perception.” (See id.)
Burden of Proof and Standard of Review for Sexual Harassment Claims
“In a harassment/hostile work environment case, the focus is on the workplace environment as a whole. Accordingly, a hostile environment may exist even if some of the hostility is directed at other workers.” (See Bryant v. Sara Lee Corporation, No. A120084, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2009).)
“[A] plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.” (See Sepulveda v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. H038738, at *18 (Cal. Ct. App. July 11, 2016); Meritor Sav. Bank, FSBv. Vinson (1986) 477 U.S. 57, 65 (Vinson).)
“In short, [i]n order to survive summary judgment on a claim of hostile work environment harassment, a plaintiff must produce evidence that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” (See Trotman v. Southern California Edison Company, No. B215903, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. June 7, 2010); Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 570 (2d Cir. 2000); Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1052-1053 (Cal. 2005).)
“Thus, a vital component of a hostile work environment harassment claim under federal law is proof that the employer had knowledge of the existence of the hostile environment. In most cases, this is established by a showing that complaints about the harassment were lodged with the employer. The employer may defend by pointing to prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment." (See Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 126 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997); Katz v. Dole, supra,709 F.2d at p. 256.)
“[I]n employment discrimination cases, courts place the burden of proof on the employee to demonstrate an employer's discriminatory intent. If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer must offer a legitimate reason for his actions. . . However, the burden of persuasion never shifts to the employer; it remains at all times with the employee. . .If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the defendant bears only a burden of going forward with additional evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.” (See Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1672 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003); Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 149-150.)
“We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment on [plaintiff’s] causes of action for sexual harassment and retaliation de novo. Thus, we independently determine whether an issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We independently review the parties' papers supporting and opposing the motion, using the same method of analysis as the trial court. Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (See Lohman v. City of Mountain View, No. H046681, at *14-15 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 7, 2022); Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493-494.)
“We consider all of the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers, except the evidence to which objections were made and sustained, but we liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment, resolving doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (See id; Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1039 (Hughes).)
“We are not bound by the trial court's stated reasons or rationales. As we review the ruling, not the rationale, we are not concerned with the findings made by the trial court in support of its ruling.” (See id; (Castillo v. Glenair, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 262, 284-285 (Castillo), disapproved on another ground in Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center (2022) 13 Cal.5th 313, 332.)
Notable Decisions Discussing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
“With respect to sexual harassment in the workplace the prohibited conduct ranges from expressly or impliedly conditioning employment benefits on submission to, or tolerance of, unwelcome sexual advances to the creation of a work environment that is "hostile or abusive to employees because of their sex." (See Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1042-43 (Cal. 2009); Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(4)(C)), Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 462 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 115 P.3d 77] ( Miller).)
“Thus, similar to the federal law's Title VII, California's FEHA recognize[s] two theories of liability for sexual harassment claims . . . `. . . quid pro quo harassment, where a term of employment is conditioned upon submission to unwelcome sexual advances . . . [and] hostile work environment, where the harassment is sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.” (See id; Herberg v. California Institute of the Arts (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 142, 149 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 1], citations omitted (Herberg).)
“Although there are some differences in the wording of the federal law's Title VII and California's FEHA, these laws share the same antidiscriminatory goals and serve the same public policies.” (See id; Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264, 278 (Cal. 2006).)
“A hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff employee to show:
- he or she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, conduct or comments;
- the harassment was based on sex; and
- the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.”
(See Lewis v. City of Benicia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1524.)
“The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) makes it unlawful for an employer to “harass an employee because of the employee’s ‘sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,... [or] sexual orientation.’” Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1235-36 (quoting Govt. Code, § 12940(j)(1)).
Rulings for Sexual Harassment in California
Background On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed his operative Complaint (FAC) against Defendants asserting twelve causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) hostile work environment; (3) retaliation in violation of 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, or retaliation in violation of FEHA; (7) breach of express oral contract not to
-
Name
JULIAN PADILLA VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV28758
-
Hearing
May 08, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Background On May 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant, asserting nine causes of action: (1) discrimination and harassment based on sex/gender and race in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to take appropriate corrective action in violation of FEHA; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligence infliction of emotional distress; (7) breach
-
Name
CAMYLE MEIER VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION
-
Case No.
25STCV13289
-
Hearing
Dec 23, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants, asserting twelve causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause; (6) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment
-
Name
SILVA AGASYAN VS GOLDEN STATE BANK, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV00725
-
Hearing
Aug 29, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint alleges the following nine causes of action: (1) Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA, (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA, (6) Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (7) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (8) Interference with CFRA Rights, and (9) Wrongful
-
Name
MARIA COLEMAN VS ADVANTAGE SALES AND MARKETING GROUP, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24CHCV03151
-
Hearing
Mar 05, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Her complaint asserts the following eleven causes of action: (1) sex/gender discrimination in violation of Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (2) sex/gender harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) age discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (4) age harassment in violation of the FEHA; (5) hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment in violation of the
-
Name
CATHERINE SPARKMAN VS JASON J. EMER, MD, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
-
Case No.
23STCV01347
-
Hearing
May 01, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Second and Third Causes of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy (sexual harassment) and the third cause of action alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy (retaliation).
-
Name
VEGA VS. REED
-
Case No.
30-2016-00861087-CU-WT-CJC
-
Hearing
Mar 13, 2017
-
Judge
Hon. Martha K. GOODING
-
County
Orange 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
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Apr 24, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The EFAA defines a sexual harassment dispute as dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law. ( Id. § 401.) The EFAA applies here on account of Guardados claim in the FAC against NVA Overland and Moraskie for harassment on the basis of her sex and gender in violation of FEHA.
-
Case No.
25STCV106540
-
Hearing
Oct 29, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On 1/26/2017, Plaintiff Joy Slagel (Plaintiff) filed suit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Ariam Alemseghed, and Leann Lo, alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) age harassment; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) discrimination on the basis of taking disability leave in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation for taking disability leave in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (
-
Name
JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
-
Case No.
BC648246
-
Hearing
May 26, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (FAC) which alleges: (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination (FEHA); (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation (FEHA); (6) Sexual Harassment (FEHA); (7) Labor Code § 98.6; (8) Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) Labor Code § 6310; (10
-
Name
BRIGITT GOLDMAN VS NORDSTROM, INC.
-
Case No.
25STCV20165
-
Hearing
Jun 08, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation
-
Name
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
-
Case No.
BC724039
-
Hearing
Jun 28, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Michael P. Linfield
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
DISCUSSION Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to add additional causes of action for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) discrimination on the basis of race and/or national origin in violation of FEHA; and (4) harassment on the basis of race and/or national origin in violation of FEHA. In support of her motion, Plaintiff submits a red-lined proposed amended pleading.
-
Name
ERIKA SACA-SCHADER VS WALTON ISAACSON, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV17025
-
Hearing
Nov 24, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint puts forth four causes of action surrounding violations of the Federal Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): 1. Sexual Harassment (Hostile Work Environment) in Violation of FEHA (as to all Defendants); 2. Sexual Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (as to Entity Defendants); 3. Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity in Violation of FEHA (as to Entity Defendants); and 4. Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy.
-
Name
WESTSIDE VALLEY VENTURE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SUN YUEN LIU, AS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SUN YUEN LIU IRA SERVICES, CUSTODIAN FBO: SUN YUEN LIU, IRA, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV05551
-
Hearing
Aug 15, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of FEHA, (2) sexual harassment (quid pro quo) in violation of FEHA, (3) sex discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to investigate in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to permit meal breaks, (7) failure to provide rest breaks, (8) unfair business practices, and (9) conversion.
-
Name
ROXANA FLORES CASTILLO VS IZOTE ENTERPRISES, INC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
18STCV00498
-
Hearing
Jan 08, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Daniel S. Murphy
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
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 of
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Aug 07, 2024
-
County
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
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Feb 01, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
(FEHA), (2) Sex and Gender Discrimination (FEHA); (3) Disability Discrimination (FEHA); (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations (FEHA); (5) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process (FEHA); (6) Retaliation (FEHA) (7) Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment (FEHA); (8) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation (FEHA); (9) Violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §51.7; (10) Violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §52.1; (11) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention
-
Name
JESUS MAGDALENA SANCHEZ ALTAMIRANO VS PETERSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV21259
-
Hearing
Nov 05, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Sher Gelb, Heerdt (collectively Defendants), and Does 1 through 50, asserting eight causes of action: (1) Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (2) Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (3) Discrimination on the Basis of Sex/Gender in Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation
-
Name
AMELIA AVITIA VS KEITH HEERDT, ET AL.
-
Case No.
22VECV00827
-
Hearing
Aug 26, 2022
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation
-
Name
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
-
Case No.
BC724039
-
Hearing
Sep 11, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Michael P. Linfield
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
in violation of the FEHA (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy RULING : Granted.
-
Name
KRISTEN BLAKE VS ACEVOX, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV11947
-
Hearing
Mar 03, 2025
-
County
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
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Jan 16, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Background On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant, asserting four causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) age discrimination in violation of FEHA; and (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA in connection with Plaintiffs employment by Defendant in the deli department located in store number 127. ( See Complaint ¶8.)
-
Name
KENYA SCURLOCK, AN INDIVIDUAL VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
-
Case No.
24STCV12655
-
Hearing
Nov 12, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs FEHA allegations and tort allegations are based on the same factual allegations Coronado Brewings alleged failure to take adequate corrective action to protect Plaintiff from sexual harassment. Thus, the FEHA venue statute controls and venue is proper in Los Angeles County where the alleged incidents of sexual harassment occurred. (Gov. Code, § 12965 subd. (c)(3).
-
Name
JANE DOE VS CORONADO BREWING COMPANY, INC.,, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV27082
-
Hearing
Jan 24, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA Retaliation 3. Labor Code § 112.5 Retaliation 4. FEHA Discrimination 5. FEHA Harassment 6. Wrongful Termination 7. Lab. Code § 1198.5 8. Lab. Code § 226 9. Meal Break Violation 10. Rest Break Violation 11. Failure to Indemnify Work Expenses 12. Deduction of Wages 13. Overtime Violation 14. Failure to Pay Wages Due on Termination 15. Inaccurate Wage Statements 16.
-
Name
JORGE OBYRD VS MISSION HILLS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV05390
-
Hearing
Mar 13, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
This action for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) constructive termination in violation of public policy, (4) sexual battery, (5) creation of hostile work environment in violation of FEHA and (6) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in violation of FEHA is brought by Plaintiff (“P”) Terri Webb a former employee of Defendant (“D”) Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc. based upon alleged verbal and physical harassment and retaliation
-
Case No.
PSC 1505991
-
Hearing
Feb 21, 2017
-
Judge
Hon. James T. Latting
-
County
Riverside 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
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Jun 13, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On April 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination (FEHA); (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (6) Labor Code, § 98.6; (7) Labor Code, § 1102.5; (8) Labor Code, § 6310; and (9) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
-
Name
CARLOS PEREZ VS SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV29212
-
Hearing
Jul 15, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
It also had to decide in that case whether a violation of FEHA could serve as a basis for a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. ( Id. ) Thus, we still must decide whether a violation of section 132a can form the basis of a common law action for wrongful termination in violation of public policyan issue City of Moorpark did not address.
-
Name
ANNA MICHELLE HAGEVOORT VS CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
20STCV46790
-
Hearing
Jun 13, 2023
-
Judge
day s
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the first cause of action for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, the Demurrer is sustained as to Defendant Tarantino with leave to amend to allege, if Plaintiff can in good faith, Defendant Tarantino's status as an employer. If Tarantino is an employee of Defendant Archbishop of San Francisco ("ASF"), the exclusion for religious corporations in Gov. Code section 12940(j)(4)(B) applies to exclude ASF's employees from FEHA liability as a matter of law. (Gov. Code section 12940(j)(3).)
-
Name
JHONA MATHEWS VS. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ET AL
-
Case No.
CGC14537040
-
Hearing
Aug 18, 2014
-
Judge
Hon. MARLA J. MILLER
-
County
San Francisco 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
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Jun 11, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination
-
Name
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
-
Case No.
BC724039
-
Hearing
Jul 30, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Michael P. Linfield
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
This is not related to the sexual harassment claim. The third and fourth causes of action for failure to prevent harassment in violation of the FEHA and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, respectively, are based on his claim of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. They fall, at least in part, within the ambit of EFAA.
-
Name
ANDREW LUBER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS QUIXOTE STUDIOS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV08721
-
Hearing
Sep 04, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
of FEHA – hostile work environment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; (4) sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.5; (5) sex discrimination; (6) disability discrimination; (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) violation of Government Code § 12964.5; (10) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (11) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (12) intentional
-
Name
JANE DOE VS SKYLER LUCCI, ET AL.
-
Case No.
19STCV41441
-
Hearing
Sep 17, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On November 26, 2024, RAQUEL ROJAS (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP; ALVARO MALDONADO; LOREN REID; MICHELLE SALCIDO; and JESSICA PENA (Defendants), alleging the following causes of action: (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 HIRE/RE-HIRE IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (5) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION
-
Name
RAQUEL ROJAS VS UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV31283
-
Hearing
Jul 24, 2025
-
County
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 of
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Oct 27, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
of FEHA; (6) failure to investigate and prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; (7) violation of Cal.
-
Name
CHRISTOPHER EMERSON VS JOE & THE JUICE NEW YORK LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV33527
-
Hearing
Mar 26, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
of FEHA; (6) failure to investigate and prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; (7) violation of Cal.
-
Name
CHRISTOPHER EMERSON VS JOE & THE JUICE NEW YORK LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV33527
-
Hearing
Mar 25, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Defendant” or “Team”)’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication of Plaintiff Ariel McBean (“Plaintiff” or “McBean”)’s claims for (1) violation of Civil Code Section 1708.85; (2) sexual harassment (violation of Government Code § 12940); (3) violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12900, et seq.) – retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and (4) violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12940(j)) – quid pro quo sexual harassment).
-
Name
MCBEAN VS QUALSPEC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
MSC19-02278
-
Hearing
Oct 30, 2023
-
County
Contra Costa County, CA
On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants 4Insite, LLC, SBM Management Services, LP, Andrey Smetyukh and Marie Espinoza (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) Disparate Treatment (Race Discrimination) in Violation of FEHA; (2) Disparate Treatment (National Origin Discrimination) in Violation of FEHA; (3) Disparate Treatment (Gender Discrimination) in Violation of FEHA; (4) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
-
Name
ABU ZAHRAH VS 4INSITE, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25CV002940
-
Hearing
Mar 11, 2026
-
County
Sacramento County, CA
To be sure, Plaintiffs Complaint for sexual harassment arises under violation of FEHA, which defines harassment because of sex as including sexual harassment and gender harassment that need not be motivated by sexual desire. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)(4)(c).)
-
Name
STEPHANIE ABUNDIS VS COMPREHENSIVE SURGICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV17834
-
Hearing
Nov 08, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Second, under Matthews, if the supervisor participates in the sexual harassment or substantially assists or encourages continued harassment, the supervisor is personally liable under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser. Third, under the FEHA, the employer is vicariously and strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor.
-
Name
MAKI VS. SASAKI
-
Case No.
30-2018-00983846-CU-OE-CJC
-
Hearing
Jan 25, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. ROBERT MOSS
-
County
Orange County, CA
Following an investigation, Defendant concluded that the Hispanic, male employee’s conduct constituted sexual harassment in violation of Defendant’s sexual harassment policy. ( Ibid. ) Rather than terminate the employee, Defendant chose to provide the employee with a “verbal warning”.
-
Name
JONATHAN SAXMAN VS CREWS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
-
Case No.
19STCV25531
-
Hearing
Sep 02, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
on the Basis of Sex/Pregnancy in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; (5) Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the FEHA; and (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
-
Name
CHRISTINA YOUSEFI VS PACIFIC PREMIER BANK, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV12055
-
Hearing
Sep 18, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The statutory language suggests that the exception applies to an entire case that includes a sexual harassment dispute. ( See Liu v. Miniso Depot, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 791, 799 [Under the EFAA, when a plaintiffs lawsuit contains at least one claim that fits within the scope of the act, the arbitration agreement is unenforceable as to all claims asserted in the lawsuit.].) Plaintiff has alleged viable claims for sexual harassment and related claims in violation of FEHA.
-
Name
INDIA QUINN VS ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE LLP, DBA ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV29012
-
Hearing
Jan 20, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Though the Complaint alleges “sexual harassment, groping, sexual assault, sexual propositions, sexual advances, and sexual comments”, it is silent as to who committed the conduct, whether the sexual harassment was directed at Plaintiff or if it was done to others in Plaintiff’s presence. On the FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and FEHA failure to prevent harassment claims are insufficient for the same reasons stated above.
-
Name
KATRINA ASHBAUGH VS MEADOWBROOK POST ACUTE LLC
-
Case No.
CVME2505418
-
Hearing
Oct 23, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA against all Defendants, (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA against GCC and GCCD (“GCCD Defendants”), (3) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA against GCCD Defendants, (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy against GCCD Defendants, (5) retaliation against GCCD Defendants, (6) sexual harassment in violation of the Sex Equity in Education Act against GCCD Defendants, (7) intentional infliction
-
Name
ASHLEY FOWLER VS CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES, ET AL.
-
Case No.
19STCV08661
-
Hearing
Jan 06, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Daniel S. Murphy
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
If the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only. ( Ibid. ) In this action, Plaintiffs allege one cause of action for Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (i)) against the Defendants, who are individual members of the board of directors of Guess ?, Inc. (Guess). (Comp. ¶¶ 7-14.)
-
Case No.
22STCV-9391
-
Hearing
Jul 21, 2022
-
Judge
Hon. Lauren B. Zorfas
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
First, Wordin does not assert FEHA claims, but rather a Tameny claim and a claim for violations of the UCL. Second, failure to exhaust does not preclude Tameny claims and the like premised on FEHA violations. ( Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 880, 904–06.)
-
Name
RIDE 2 RECOVERY VS JOHN WORDIN
-
Case No.
18STCV03056
-
Hearing
Apr 13, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Regarding Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (FEHA), a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff employee to show: (1) he or she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, conduct or comments; (2) the harassment was based on sex; and (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. (Lewis v. City of Benicia, (2014) 224 Cal.
-
Name
PINA, CARMEN VS LIPPERT, BERT A)
-
Case No.
CV-21-006540
-
Hearing
Sep 05, 2024
-
County
Stanislaus County, CA
Defendants allege that Plaintiff cannot state prima facie causes of action for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA against Defendants BFS Group of California, LLC and Builders FirstSource, Inc. because there is no evidence that they are Plaintiff’s employers.
-
Name
GUZMAN VS BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA, LLC
-
Case No.
CVPS2305610
-
Hearing
Aug 25, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
Defendants allege that Plaintiff cannot state prima facie causes of action for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA against Defendants BFS Group of California, LLC and Builders FirstSource, Inc. because there is no evidence that they are Plaintiff’s employers.
-
Name
GUZMAN VS BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA, LLC
-
Case No.
CVPS2305610
-
Hearing
Aug 23, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
Defendants allege that Plaintiff cannot state prima facie causes of action for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA against Defendants BFS Group of California, LLC and Builders FirstSource, Inc. because there is no evidence that they are Plaintiff’s employers.
-
Name
GUZMAN VS BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA, LLC
-
Case No.
CVPS2305610
-
Hearing
Aug 24, 2025
-
County
Riverside County, CA
FEHA Claims: Plaintiff has the burden to plead and prove administrative exhaustion or exceptions thereto. (Holland v. Union Pacific R. Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 940, 945.) In order to bring a claim for violation of the FEHA, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies as to each defendant by filing an administrative complaint with the DFEH within one-year of the unlawful act, and obtaining a right-to-sue notice. (Gov. Code § 12960(d).)
-
Name
LEYLA MANSOURI VS SHIKA'S AUTO GALLERY ET AL
-
Case No.
BC662524
-
Hearing
Jul 09, 2018
-
Judge
Hon. Daniel S. Murphy
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Personal Injury/ Tort
-
Sub Type
Fraud
Plaintiff sues DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. , NBCUniversal, LLC, Entertainment Partners Enterprises, LLC, Jen Yip, Peter Gal, Veronica Blakney (Blakney) and Does 1 through 100 pursuant to an October 25, 2024, complaint (Complaint) alleging causes of action for: (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 prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) breach
-
Name
SHAUNT NIGOGHOSSIAN VS DREAMWORKS ANIMATION TELEVISION, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV28030
-
Hearing
Jun 12, 2025
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation; (3) sexual harassment; and (4) violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to the third cause of action. DISCUSSION A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)
-
Name
DENISE STILWELL VS TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX ET AL
-
Case No.
BC690958
-
Hearing
Apr 13, 2018
-
Judge
Hon. Daniel S. Murphy
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
Accordingly, plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he complained to Davis and Majors about a violation of FEHA, upon which a violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(b) claim can be maintained. (Gov. Code § 12940(j)(4)(C) [unlawful harassment because of sex includes sexual harassment].) The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED. C.
-
Name
MICHAEL MENDEZ VS MOTION PICTURE GRIPS, LOCAL 80, INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, ET AL.
-
Case No.
21STCV23739
-
Hearing
Nov 16, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 8. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
-
Name
PHUOC CONG NGUYEN VS SWIFT MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
22STCV13865
-
Hearing
Mar 30, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Retaliation in violation of FEHA To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA, plaintiff must show that: • plaintiff engaged in a protected activity; • the employer subjected plaintiff to an adverse employment action; and • a causal link exists between the protected activity and the employer's action. [Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 212 F3d 493, 506 (Title VII); Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 C4th 1028, 1044 (FEHA); Lewis v.
-
Name
MANLY VS. EXCELSIOR NUTRITION, INC.
-
Case No.
30-2020-01131220
-
Hearing
Sep 10, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Layne H. MELZER
-
County
Orange County, CA
As such, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the first cause of action for sexual harassment, second cause of action for gender discrimination, third cause of action for retaliation under FEHA, fourth cause of action for failure to prevent under FEHA, eighth cause of action for violation of Labor Code, § 1102.5, ninth cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
-
Name
SANDRA RAMIREZ VS ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV22900
-
Hearing
Apr 18, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Factual Background: The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed on September 6, 2017 alleges: 1. sexual harassment (FEHA) (against all) 2. sexual harassment (Civil Code §51 and 51.9) (against all) 3. wrongful termination in violation of public policy (against Century 21 and Bachelor) 4. retaliation (FEHA) (against all) 5. negligent hiring/retention (against Century 21 and Bachelor) 6. intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all) On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the 5th cause of
-
Name
GOFF VS. PREFERRED
-
Case No.
MCC1600985
-
Hearing
Jan 31, 2019
-
Judge
Hon. Raquel A. Marquez
-
County
Riverside County, CA
The Complaint alleges the following six causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent FEHA violations; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Defendants now demur to each cause of action of the Complaint.
-
Name
MARTHA QUIROZ VS I A T S E LOCAL 44 ET AL
-
Case No.
BC644141
-
Hearing
Jun 16, 2017
-
Judge
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
) (1) FEHA Foley’s first cause of action is for violation of FEHA’s prohibition against retaliation.
-
Name
QUIANA FOLEY VS SB BOOKS INC ET AL
-
Case No.
15CV00589
-
Hearing
Oct 27, 2015
-
Judge
Hon. Thomas Anderle
-
County
Santa Barbara County, CA
First, Wordin does not assert FEHA claims, but rather a Tameny claim and a claim for violations of the UCL. Second, failure to exhaust does not preclude Tameny claims and the like premised on FEHA violations. ( Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 880, 904–06.)
-
Name
RIDE 2 RECOVERY VS JOHN WORDIN
-
Case No.
18STCV03056
-
Hearing
Apr 28, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint on May 8, 2023 against Defendants alleging (1) sexual battery; (2) sexual assault; (3) false imprisonment; (4) gender violence; (5) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) discrimination based on sex and gender in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (9) constructive discharge in violation of public policy; (10) harassment and aiding and abetting
-
Name
JANE DOE VS JACK IN THE BOX INC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10282
-
Hearing
Jan 22, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The continuing violation doctrine may be applied to claims of sexual harassment under the FEHA. (Birschtein v. United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 994, 1000-1007.) In Richards, a disabled employee brought a FEHA action for disability harassment and discrimination, alleging that over a four-year period, her employer harassed her and failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. (Richards, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 802-810.)
-
Name
SHERRI JONES VS STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT
-
Case No.
STK-CV-UNPI-2019-0008075
-
Hearing
Feb 22, 2021
-
Judge
Hon. Jayne Lee
-
County
San Joaquin County, CA
“The term ‘sexual harassment dispute’ means a dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.” (9 USC § 401(4).) While Plaintiff has not alleged that he was subjected to sexual harassment, he has alleged that he was retaliated against for reporting sexual harassment. Numerous federal cases have held that retaliation resulting from reporting sexual harassment meets the definition of sexual harassment in the EFAA.
-
Name
SODERBERG VS WOK IN THE PARK, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24CV016924
-
Hearing
Apr 16, 2025
-
County
Sacramento County, CA
On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, filed her operative third amended complaint (“TAC”) against GAPH and PetVet for: (1) Sex Discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) Sexual Harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) Disability Discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) Retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) Failure to Take all Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) Failure to Accommodate in violation of FEHA, and (7) Wrongful Termination in violation of FEHA.
-
Name
ASHLEIGH MARVIN VS GOLETA AIRPORT PET HOSPITAL ET AL
-
Case No.
23CV02969
-
Hearing
Feb 05, 2025
-
County
Santa Barbara County, CA
in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Negligent Retention; (7) Unfair Business Practices; and (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
-
Name
JANE DOE VS PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25STCV20340
-
Hearing
May 27, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff now brings causes of action for (1) FEHA Disparate Treatment Discrimination, (2) FEHA Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment, (3) FEHA Work Environment Harassment, (4) FEHA Retaliation, (5) FEHA Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation, and (6) Labor Code 1102.5 retaliation. Defendant Mania Topanga Mall now demurrers to each cause of action in the FAC. Plaintiff opposed. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety.
-
Name
KRYSTAL MERLIN VS MANIA TOPANGA MALL, LLC
-
Case No.
21STCV04721
-
Hearing
Oct 09, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
She filed her Complaint on 7/12/21, First Amended Complaint (FAC) on 12/3/21 and Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on 3/22/22 alleging causes of action for (1) discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of FEHA (against County only); (2) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA (against County only); (3) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA (against all defendants); (4) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 (against County only); (5) intentional infliction of
-
Name
CHANDLER VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
-
Case No.
CVRI2103362
-
Hearing
May 25, 2022
-
County
Riverside County, CA
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.
-
Name
LANA MCLEOD VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
-
Case No.
21STCV25597
-
Hearing
Oct 27, 2021
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts claims for sexual harassment in violation of Civil Code § 51.9; sexual harassment in violation of FEHA (hostile work environment), Govt Code §§ 12955(a), (d); quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of Govt Code §12940(j); and failure to prevent hostile work environment and harassment in violation of Govt Code §12940(k).
-
Name
VANESSA BARRON, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES APPARE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV15452
-
Hearing
Feb 01, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On October 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) retaliation under FEHA, (2) retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) gender discrimination under FEHA, (4) violation of the California Fair Pay Act, (5) failure to engage in interactive process under FEHA, (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation for disability under FEHA, (7) violation of the California Family Rights Act, and (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
-
Name
JEAN HALSELL VS B&V ENTERPRISES INC
-
Case No.
BC679601
-
Hearing
May 22, 2018
-
Judge
Hon. Michael J. Raphael
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
They were: 2 (1) Retaliation in Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5; (2) Discrimination in Violation of 3 Labor Code § 6310; (3) Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Prevent 4 Discrimination and Harassment, in violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(k)); (5) Retaliation 5 in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(h)); (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code 6 § 510; (7) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 2056; (8) Wrongful Termination in 7 Violation
-
Name
U NAM VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
-
Case No.
34-2013-00138396-CU-WT-GDS
-
Hearing
Mar 04, 2024
-
County
Sacramento County, CA
The FAC asserts causes of action for: Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(j)); Sexual Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); Sexual Battery (against Newman); Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov.
-
Name
GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.
-
Case No.
19STCV29112
-
Hearing
Aug 05, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Yolanda Orozco
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Other Employment
of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) whistleblower retaliation; (6) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy; (7) negligent hiring, supervision and retention; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
-
Name
SCARLET SHEPPARD VS GEN Z STUDIOS, LLC., ET AL.
-
Case No.
21STCV28183
-
Hearing
Aug 20, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
United States Gypsum Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1564 [sexual harassment occurs when “sex is used as a weapon to create a hostile work environment” regardless of sexual desire].) Finally, defendant’s argument that plaintiff has not alleged Mr. Bankson’s status as a co-employee also lacks merit; FEHA expressly applies to sexual harassment in the workplace by “nonemployees.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd.
-
Name
SASCHA ROGERS VS. CASSANDRA BANKSON, LLC
-
Case No.
C22-02483
-
Hearing
Feb 08, 2023
-
County
Contra Costa County, CA
Virzi, and Mark Anthony Sarno for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent sexual harassment, (5) retaliation in violation of false impersonation laws, (6) IIED, and (7) NIED. Defendant Argosy is referred to as Dream Center Educations Holdings, Inc.
-
Name
TITO A THOMAS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION EDMC ET AL
-
Case No.
BC683000
-
Hearing
Mar 07, 2019
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s 1AC fails to allege facts to establish individual liability for BISHOP as to the first cause of action for hostile work environment/sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, second cause of action for retaliation, third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, fifth cause of action for ratification, sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.
-
Name
COURTNEY BLUNT VS. ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL
-
Case No.
CU24-03810
-
Hearing
Sep 12, 2025
-
County
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s 1AC fails to allege facts to establish individual liability for BISHOP as to the first cause of action for hostile work environment/sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, second cause of action for retaliation, third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, fifth cause of action for ratification, sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.
-
Name
COURTNEY BLUNT VS. ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL
-
Case No.
CU24-03810
-
Hearing
Sep 14, 2025
-
County
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s 1AC fails to allege facts to establish individual liability for BISHOP as to the first cause of action for hostile work environment/sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, second cause of action for retaliation, third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, fifth cause of action for ratification, sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.
-
Name
COURTNEY BLUNT VS. ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL
-
Case No.
CU24-03810
-
Hearing
Sep 17, 2025
-
County
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s 1AC fails to allege facts to establish individual liability for BISHOP as to the first cause of action for hostile work environment/sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, second cause of action for retaliation, third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, fifth cause of action for ratification, sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.
-
Name
COURTNEY BLUNT VS. ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL
-
Case No.
CU24-03810
-
Hearing
Sep 15, 2025
-
County
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s 1AC fails to allege facts to establish individual liability for BISHOP as to the first cause of action for hostile work environment/sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, second cause of action for retaliation, third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, fifth cause of action for ratification, sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.
-
Name
COURTNEY BLUNT VS. ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL
-
Case No.
CU24-03810
-
Hearing
Sep 13, 2025
-
County
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s 1AC fails to allege facts to establish individual liability for BISHOP as to the first cause of action for hostile work environment/sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, second cause of action for retaliation, third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, fifth cause of action for ratification, sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.
-
Name
COURTNEY BLUNT VS. ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL
-
Case No.
CU24-03810
-
Hearing
Sep 11, 2025
-
County
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s 1AC fails to allege facts to establish individual liability for BISHOP as to the first cause of action for hostile work environment/sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, second cause of action for retaliation, third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation in violation of FEHA, fifth cause of action for ratification, sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.
-
Name
COURTNEY BLUNT VS. ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL
-
Case No.
CU24-03810
-
Hearing
Sep 16, 2025
-
County
Solano County, CA
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs complaint insufficiently alleges sexual harassment and therefore does not fall under the EFAA. (Ibid.) Defendant argues that the sexual harassment allegations are a post hoc attempt to avoid arbitration rather than a genuine allegation of sexual harassment. (Id. at p. 9.) Defendant argues that none of the alleged discrimination was sexual in nature, and therefore fails to state a claim for sexual harassment under FEHA. (Id. at p. 10.)
-
Name
JENNIFER YEKO VS PENSKE MEDIA CORPORATION, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
-
Case No.
25SMCV03700
-
Hearing
Jan 22, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA Discrimination (Sex/Gender); 2. FEHA Harassment (Sex/Gender); 3. FEHA Discrimination (Disability); 4. FEHA Failure to Accommodate Disability; 5. FEHA Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; 6. FEHA Retaliation; 7. Violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); 8. Retaliation in Violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); 9. FEHA Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation; 10. Violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5; 11.
-
Name
BRIANNA FLORES VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV31671
-
Hearing
Apr 17, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA Quid Pro Quo 2. Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA Hostile Work Environment 3. Discrimination Based on Sex in Violation of FEHA 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment 5. Retaliation 6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 2.
-
Name
VICTORIA ROSALES VS SOLOMON LAKTINEH, MD, ET AL.
-
Case No.
22LBCV00011
-
Hearing
Aug 23, 2022
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
She has since dismissed her latter two claims; she still asserts claims captioned (1) Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, and (3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA. [1] Plaintiff alleges she worked as a custodian for LBCCD from March 18 to August 14, 2025. (Compl., ¶¶ 12, 14.) Johnson was her supervisor at the beginning of her employment and towards [sic] the end of her employment[.] ( Id. , ¶ 12.)
-
Name
KRISTAL JOHNSON VS LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25LBCV03083
-
Hearing
Feb 17, 2026
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
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 § 6310, (7) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5, (8) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6, (9) Failure to Pay Earned Wages in Violation of Labor Code § 204, (10) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 203, and (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
-
Name
CHRISTOPHER DELOACH VS BOONDOCK, INC.
-
Case No.
22STCV23490
-
Hearing
Dec 13, 2023
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
The alleged comments therefore constitute harassment based on sex and sexual harassment. Friel , cited by Starbucks and quoted above, interpreted the meaning of sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and not FEHA. ( Friel , supra , 474 F.Supp.3d 673, 692.) Although the issue of whether the EFAA applies is decided under federal law (9 U.S.C., § 402, subd.
-
Name
JOCELYN MUNOZ VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
24STCV01303
-
Hearing
Jun 04, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
More specifically, the Court finds that a genuine triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (FEHA). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Specifically, the Court finds that Mr. Lippert’s conduct after July 2021 towards Plaintiff may be considered severe enough to establish a cause of action under the FEHA. (Govt. Code §12940 (j)(1); Meeks v. Autozone, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.
-
Name
PINA, CARMEN VS LIPPERT, BERT A)
-
Case No.
CV-21-006540
-
Hearing
Oct 22, 2024
-
County
Stanislaus County, CA
On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), asserting causes of action for (1) sexual battery in violation of Civil Code § 1708.5, (2) battery, (3) domestic violence in violation of Civil Code § 1708.6, (4) assault, (5) sexual harassment, (6) gender and sex discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940(A), (7) gender violence ( Civil Code § 52.4), (8 ) sexual harassment by a physician ( Civil Code §§ 51.9, 52), (9 ) professional negligence/medical malpractice, (10) failure
-
Name
JANE DOE VS RAMY ELIAS, M.D., ET AL.
-
Case No.
21STCV46946
-
Hearing
May 31, 2023
-
County
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
-
Name
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV10162
-
Hearing
Apr 10, 2024
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants 4Insite, LLC, SBM Management Services, LP, Andrey Smetyukh and Marie Espinoza, asserting causes of action for (1) Disparate Treatment (Race Discrimination) in Violation of FEHA; (2) Disparate Treatment (National Origin Discrimination) in Violation of FEHA; (3) Disparate Treatment (Gender Discrimination) in Violation of FEHA; (4) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Failure
-
Name
ABU ZAHRAH VS 4INSITE, LLC, ET AL.
-
Case No.
25CV002940
-
Hearing
Dec 03, 2025
-
County
Sacramento County, CA
Third Cause of Action ISSUE 6: Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot establish that Bauer was his supervisor and that Bausch & Strobel knew about the allegedly harassing conduct. ISSUE 7: Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot establish the alleged comments occurred in a work-related context.
-
Name
DARIN JAMES VS BAUSCH & STROEBEL MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
-
Case No.
18TRCV00004
-
Hearing
Sep 14, 2020
-
Judge
Hon. Gary Y. Tanaka
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
-
Type
Employment
-
Sub Type
Wrongful Term
The continuing violation doctrine may be applied to claims of sexual harassment under the FEHA. (Birschtein v. United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 994, 1000-1007.) In Richards, a disabled employee brought a FEHA action for disability harassment and discrimination, alleging that over a four-year period, her employer harassed her and failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. (Richards, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 802-810.)
-
Name
SHERRI JONES VS STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT
-
Case No.
STK-CV-UNPI-2019-0008075
-
Hearing
Jul 08, 2021
-
County
San Joaquin County, CA
Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA [Cal. Govt Code §12940(j)] 5. Discrimination Based on Sex in Violation of the FEHA [Cal. Govt Code §12940(a)] 6. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA [Cal. Gov't Code §12940(h)] 7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment [Govt Code §12940(k)] 8. Whistleblower Retaliation [Labor Code, § 1102.5] 9. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 10.
-
Case No.
23STCV300887
-
Hearing
Aug 26, 2024
-
Judge
Echo Dawn Ryan
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA [Cal. Govt Code §12940(j)] 5. Discrimination Based on Sex in Violation of the FEHA [Cal. Govt Code §12940(a)] 6. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA [Cal. Gov't Code §12940(h)] 7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment [Govt Code §12940(k)] 8. Whistleblower Retaliation [Labor Code, § 1102.5] 9. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 10.
-
Name
CINDY ALVAREZ VS CARE DENTISTRY GROUP, ET AL.
-
Case No.
23STCV30087
-
Hearing
Aug 26, 2024
-
Judge
Echo Dawn Ryan
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), asserting causes of action for (1) sexual battery in violation of Civil Code § 1708.5, (2) battery, (3) domestic violence in violation of Civil Code § 1708.6, (4) assault, (5) sexual harassment, (6) gender and sex discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940(A), (7) gender violence ( Civil Code § 52.4), (8 ) sexual harassment by a physician ( Civil Code §§ 51.9, 52), (9 ) professional negligence/medical malpractice,
-
Name
JANE DOE VS RAMY ELIAS, M.D., ET AL.
-
Case No.
21STCV46946
-
Hearing
Nov 07, 2022
-
County
Los Angeles County, CA
