What is sexual harassment in violation of 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.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)).

Useful Rulings on Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA

Recent Rulings on Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs contend they are subject to the following interim harm: (1) the requirement that by 10/10/16 they submit a time consuming and burdensome new application, which applications may be denied for any number of new and trivial reasons; (2) the risk of Notices of Violation ("NOV") that can also be used to revoke a STR permit for minor violations, all of which can be criminally prosecuted and punished; (3) the loss of goodwill and damage to relations with renters, fewer bookings, and the potential need to

  • Hearing

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence in opposition to that motion showing the existence of triable issues of fact as to the application of equitable estoppel, and have produced evidence sufficient to show triable issues of material fact as to equitable estoppel in opposition to the current motion as well. (Opp. SSUF ¶422.)

  • Hearing

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The peremptory writ further commands that Respondents shall reconsider the Permit in light of the decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. 3. Nothing in this judgment or the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in Respondents. 4. Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.

  • Hearing

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, contingent upon Plaintiff’s production of the original promissory note to the court for cancellation in compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1806 (i.e., “[i]n all cases in which judgment is rendered upon a written obligation to pay money, the clerk must, at the time of entry of judgment, unless otherwise ordered, note over the clerk’s official signature and across the face of the writing the fact of rendition of judgment

  • Hearing

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2). Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes_________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

N/A--UD Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant.

  • Hearing

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Plaintiff states, without more, only that “Defendants Xuefan Liu and Lina Zhang sought the assistance of Defendant Shi Qiang Zhang in the wiring of the funds, and Defendant Shi Qiang Zhang made the representations alleged.” (Case Summary, 2:12-14; see also Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶4.) S. Zhang is not alleged to have been a party to the underlying contract and there are no facts alleged as to S. Zhang’s involvement. Plaintiff does not provide the court with any documentary evidence in support of his claims.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Summary Judgment will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Upon review of the FACC, the Court could not find any language referencing the administrative fees, and even if those fees were requested as part of the actual damages, “in excess of” a specified dollar amount “and according to proof” limits the amount of the award in a default judgment to that dollar amount.

  • Hearing

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Additionally, the promissory note attached as Exhibit 1 to Hutzenbiler’s Declaration reflects that Andiamo agreed to pay the loan in 12 monthly installments, with the first payment due on or before July 31, 2017 in the amount of $5,932.95, and with each subsequent monthly payment due on or before the 31st of each month, in an amount of $5,932.95. The entire remaining outstanding balance of principal was to be due on June 29, 2018.

  • Hearing

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

No further hearings are in Dept. 28, Spring StreetAFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

Order must contain findings that (1) reunification with ward’s parents is not viable; and, (2) it is not in the ward’s best interest to return to his country of origin or last habitual residence and the reason for not returning. Order must specify which parent abused, neglected or abandoned the ward; the name of the person with whom ward is placed; and, whether ward is married or unmarried.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

If Plaintiffs’ case theory rests on the idea that Moving Defendants are liable because they aided and abetted the other defendants in this case, while not directly engaging in the tortious acts complained of, this tort needs to be pled as a separate cause of action specifically against these Moving Defendants, and not consolidated into the causes of action for conversion, fraud, etc. as against the other defendants not part of this motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RE: FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF CO-EXECUTORS ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNT

ANDERSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 1 Need appearances to report status, including 9-1-2020 order to meet and confer Note: Objection filed by John Martini, Richard Martini and David Martini 10-15-2019. DAVID MARTINI JOHN MARTINI KEVIN RODRIGUEZ RICHARD MARTINI KEVIN RODRIGUEZ THE MARTINI FAMILY TRUST DTD 9 TIMOTHY MARTINI DANIEL B NEWBOLD

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF TRAVEON C GAINS

Verified declaration of petitioner showing compliance with Probate Code § 11005 7. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify plan of distribution. Will authorizes distribution to trustee of trust 8. Verified declaration by petitioner to show revised calculation of statutory fee base as required by CRC § 7.705, as needed in resolution of above 9. Proposed Order BETTE JEAN ISABELLE DEBORAH I ISABELLE J EDWARD MARSHALL ELIZABETH SOLOWAY OLIVER W.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO COMPEL TIMOTHY MARTINI TO ACCT; RPT ACTS COMPEL

Proof of service in the manner provided in CCP § 415.10 (30 days personal service) or CCP § 415.30 (30 days proof of mailing with Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt) on each person claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of, the property. PrC § 851(a)(2) KRISTEN GATES CHARLES B WOOD KRISTEN GATES CHARLES B.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST STATUS REPORT OF THE EXECUTOR'S ADMINISTRATION

Declaration in objection filed by Florian Taylor and Elzada Reed 10-7-2020. 2. Stipulation filed 11-2-2020. ELZADA REED FLORIAN TAYLOR PETRINA ARMOUR MATTHEW B TALBOT THE HATTIE M. OWNES REVOCABLE THE HATTIE M OWENS REVOCABLE L WILLIAM SHAW JONATHAN T. THOMPSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Corrected proof of mailing to complete Item # 3 which is incomplete on Proof of Service attached to Notice filed 9-2-2020. 2.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF ETHEL MAE HARTS

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FILED ON 08/19/20 BY DELPHIA LANCASTER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Petition verified. Petition verification was not dated by petitioner. (CCP § 2015.5) DELPHIA LANCASTER JASON JM ROSS ETHEL MAE HARTS

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST INSTRUMENT & CONFIRMATION

Report of Atty. Constance Figuers (limited) CEDRIC SNOW JENNIFER L STENEBERG LELAND SNOW CONSTANCE H FIGUERS LESLIE A SNOW JENNIFER L STENEBERG PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Verified declaration in support of attorney’s fees paid as reported at paragraph 6. Statement showing services rendered, hours and rates charged so ct. can evaluate attorney fees reported. LR 7.450. 2. Proposed Order Note: Per 7-27-2020 minute order, Atty.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

Accounting does not include real property located in Lake County. 11. Summary of Account that complies with PrC § 1061(b). Accounting must begin with values as reported in Inventory & Appraisal. ¶7 indicates an Inventory & Appraisal will be filed; however, it is unclear whether this is a Corrected or Supplemental I&A. Accounting must not include transfers between accounts. A transfer from Chase savings accounts of $43,590.35 was reported on 7-10-19. 12.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF CHE ANDREA TRAVERS

RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE FILED BY CHE' TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Che Travers still must do the following: File a Proof of Publication of Order to Show Cause For Change of Name CHE ANDREA TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Meiasha Davis, mother, still must do the following: Have a copy of the Order to Show Cause personally served on each father and file a Proof of Service with the court or file a verified declaration

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE

Parental Notification of Indian Status Form ICWA-020 filed 5. Proposed Order The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Report of Atty. Summer Selleck 2. Report of Atty. Robert O. Morris Need: 1. UCCJEA Form FL-105 verified. Verification is not dated. 2. Court Investigator’s Report Note: Form ICWA-030 was filed 11-18-2020. Need proof of mailing by clerk.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.