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

    Sep 29, 2030

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

    Apr 25, 2026

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

    Apr 25, 2026

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

    Jun 20, 2021

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

    Jun 20, 2021

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

. & 16010, 16020, and 16030 Phoenix Drive” in “Los Angeles” and that the stated base rent of $43,153.00, as per Paragraph 1.5 of the parties’ agreement, applied to the entirety of the foregoing premises. The court notes that Plaintiff’s related case, Case No. 19PSCV00905, pertains to 16030 Phoenix Drive, City of Industry, CA, 91745 only.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

Plaintiff alleges that on or around February 18, 2015, Plaintiff and Zaragoza entered into another agreement (“Agreement #2”), wherein Plaintiff agreed to lend Zaragoza $30,000.00 in cash; in return, Zaragoza agreed to repay Plaintiff $3,000.00/month plus 2% of the principal amount owed per month ($600.00) for ten months starting in March 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Zaragoza has only paid $11,970.00 on Agreement #2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Upon receipt of the Drafts, Plaintiff believed as per the Draft that it was to pay the price agreed upon for the vehicle, as well as the broker fee, to Round Table and that Round Table, as the broker, would be responsible for paying the selling dealer. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff issued 2 checks made payable to Round Table, one for $24,750.00 (i.e., for the vehicle in Draft No. 001495) and the other for $11,550.00 (i.e., for the vehicle in Draft No. 001496.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the Southeast District, Norwalk, the Honorable Margaret Miller Bernal, Judge presiding in Department F, for further reassignment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

DANIEL GINZBURG, ET AL. VS 15025 SATICOY STREET, INC., ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the Northwest District, Van Nuys, the Honorable H. Cotton, Judge presiding in Department A, for further reassignment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the South District, Long Beach, the Honorable Mark C. Kim, Judge presiding in Department S27, for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) N/A 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.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

I took the time to look at a calendar and compare each day with my recollection of time worked and records including emails, text messages, and various schedules, attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A,’ to calculate the number of hours that I worked in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.” (Plaintiff’s Supplemental Decl., ¶6.) Much of Exhibit A, however, is comprised of communications made in a foreign language. No translation has been provided. (See California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Five Bulls, Anacleto and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Agreement Breach of Written Guaranty Money Had and Received Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Common Count Fraud Constructive Trust Unfair Business Practices Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of Labor Code § 1198 On July 6, 2020, Five Bulls’ and Anacleto’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Merits On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a SAC, asserting causes of action against Emanate for (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations [5 counts], (2) Inducing Breach of Contract [3 counts], (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations [5 counts], (4) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., (5) Violation of Cartwright Act, Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq., (6) Breach of Written Contract and (7) Aiding

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Between March 2018 and September 1, 2018, Plaintiff invested over $150,000.00 in the business. On or about August 22, 2018, Plaintiff and E. Yoo agreed to amend the Statement of Information for CJME, Inc. (“CJME”), which E. Yoo had incorporated on November 13, 2017. Since CJME was not actively involved in business, Plaintiff and E. Yoo agreed that CJME would be used in operation of the Mugs. In amending CJME, E. Yoo remained as the CEO while Plaintiff was named as its CFO and Secretary.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Since plaintiff has not challenged the reasonableness of the fees requested, the Court will award defendant attorneys fees in the amount of $7,350. The Clerk will amend the judgment to add attorneys’ fees in that amount and costs in the amount of $391.18 requested in the unchallenged Memorandum of Cost

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

In or around March 2018, Plaintiff met Thomas Chen (“Chen”). Chen advised Plaintiff that he had been operating a successful business, Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), for many years and could assist Plaintiff to open a business and obtain a visa. On or around March 24, 2018, the parties signed a contract, in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $120,000.00 to Tissuesco and, in return, Tissuesco would open, operate and manage a company for Plaintiff and assist Plaintiff in applying for an L-1 visa.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The declaration lacks the requisite language for admissibility (ie: identification of the place of signing and/or a statement providing “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California…” if signed outside of California.) To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 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 ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable M. Linfield, Judge presiding in Department 34, for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE FRANCES CARLENTINE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

The causes of action in the FAC include (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of contract; (3) quiet title/cancellation of instrument; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) violations of Business and Professions Code sections 12700 et seq.; (6) escrow negligence; (7) fraud; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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 gather your results.