Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA in California

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)).

Rulings for Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA in California

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

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

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

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

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

Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 645-646 [defining FEHA harassment as conduct outside the scope of necessary job performance, conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives.]; Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706 n. 8 [defining quid pro quo sexual harassment as merely a type of sexual harassment under the FEHA].) Defendants contend the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for sexual harassment.

  • 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

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

Further, the demurrer is also sustained because the Complaint fails to allege sexual harassment by Tarantino personally. The Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the second cause of action for sexual harassment in violation of the Unruh Act. The Unruh Act does not apply in employment or quasi-employment contexts. (See, e.g., Alcorn v.

  • Name

    JHONA MATHEWS VS. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14537040

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2014

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

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

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

(“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

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

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

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

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

(c) Wordin’s Termination R2R argues Wordin’s termination was proper because Wordin failed to comply with R2R’s directive that he not (1) withdraw funds from R2R’s bank accounts and (2) contact employees in relation to a sexual harassment survey.

  • Name

    RIDE 2 RECOVERY VS JOHN WORDIN

  • Case No.

    18STCV03056

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In the Complaint Plaintiff asserts twelve causes of action including (1) sexual harassment; (2) retaliation; (3) sexual discrimination; (4) failure to prevent sexual harassment; (5) constructive wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligent hiring, retention and supervision; (9) breach of contract; (10) fraudulent misrepresentation; (11) services rendered and (12) quantum meruit

  • Name

    LEYLA MANSOURI VS SHIKA'S AUTO GALLERY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC662524

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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

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

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 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

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

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

First Cause of Action – Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA The FEHA prohibits harassment of an employee because of sex. (Cal. Gov't Code §12940(j)(1).) Here, Plaintiff is alleging sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment theory involving sexual favoritism. “For [hostile work environment] sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment.” (Fisher v.

  • Name

    MARTHA QUIROZ VS I A T S E LOCAL 44 ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC644141

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2017

The Court expresses no opinion at this time on whether plaintiff can state a valid claim for retaliation in violation of FEHA because she made a complaint based on sexual harassment, or any other valid FEHA-based claim. On this demurrer, the Court can only respond to what is actually pleaded, and what is actually raised in the demurrer; as of this time, no valid cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA has been stated.” (Ruling, Aug. 4, 2015, p. 8.)

  • Name

    QUIANA FOLEY VS SB BOOKS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    15CV00589

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2015

(c) Wordin’s Termination R2R argues Wordin’s termination was proper because Wordin failed to comply with R2R’s directive that he not (1) withdraw funds from R2R’s bank accounts and (2) contact employees in relation to a sexual harassment survey.

  • Name

    RIDE 2 RECOVERY VS JOHN WORDIN

  • Case No.

    18STCV03056

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The demurrer to the first cause of action (“COA”) of sexual harassment and third cause of action of failure to prevent sexual harassment is OVERRULED on the ground that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged equitable estoppel. Additionally, Defendant Marshall’s demurrer to the first COA of sexual harassment on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead the Plaintiff suffered any “severe” or “pervasive” harassment as required by the FEHA is OVERULED.

  • Name

    SHERRI JONES VS STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UNPI-2019-0008075

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.: 22STCV23490 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Christopher Deloach RESPONDING PARTY : No opposition On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff, Christopher Deloach, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Boondock, Inc. dba Texino, for (1) Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (3) Discrimination

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER DELOACH VS BOONDOCK, INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV23490

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles 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

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

It is well established that the public policies set forth in FEHA are sufficient to support a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. As such, Plaintiff’s harassment claim supports her wrongful discharge claim in this regard. These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a claim for sexual harassment. The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED. 3.

  • Name

    BRIDGITTE RODGERS VS COUNSELING 4 KIDS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC647647

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2017

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

Code Of Civil Proc. 438) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS RE 12TH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT - DENIED. RE 14TH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF FEHA FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION - HEARING REQUIRED. RE 15TH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS - DENIED. (CW)

  • Name

    ANNA CARR VS. GORDON AND REES LLP ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC01401234

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2002

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

A” Well, sexual harassment, I didn’t believe it was sexual harassment. But there was jokes in the operating room that pertained to sex.” (See Evidence in support of Motion, Exh. D, Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 36, line 25 – p. 37, lines 1-4.) Plaintiff does not dispute this testimony or offer any testimony to rebut that she believes she was, in fact, sexually harassed. As such, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the 5th cause of action for sexual harassment.

  • Name

    COTA VS. SOUTH COAST OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00988156

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

First, Second, and Third Causes of Action – Sexual Harassment in Violation of Govt. Code §§12940 et seq.; Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Govt. Code §§12940 et seq.; and Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of Govt.

  • Name

    TONEE J. NAVARRO VS. INJOY LIFE RESOURCES, INC.

  • Case No.

    VC066974

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff claims she refused these advances and Defendant committed the FEHA and Labor Code violations in response. Plaintiff asserts the entire action should be exempt from arbitration under EFASASHA. Defendant argues that only the first and fifth causes of action for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA are subject to the Act. No California Court of Appeal cases address this issue; both parties cite only New York federal district court cases in their favor.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA RAMIREZ VS LAW OFFICES OF ADAM ZOLONZ, APC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV16604

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

overtime compensation, and (13) FEHA violations based upon sexual harassment.

  • Name

    GIOVANNI VILLEGAS, ET AL. VS CITEA DRINKS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22AHCV00338

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

For the first cause of action sexual harassment, the elements for a sexual harassment based on a hostile working environment are: (1) plaintiff belongs to a protected group; (2) plaintiff was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; (4) the harassment was sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment; and (5) respondeat superior. (Jones v.

  • Name

    SPAKOWSKY VS HEALTHGRADES OPERATING COMPANY INC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000679

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2023

procedural history Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on July 17, 2020, alleging nine causes of action: FEHA discrimination based on sex FEHA discrimination based on race FEHA discrimination based on religion FEHA harassment based on sex FEHA harassment – hostile work environment FEHA retaliation FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment FEHA wrongful constructive discharge Wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed

  • Name

    ERICA ROBINSON VS OTOY, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV27066

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 6. AIDING AND ABETTING 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H) 8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

  • Name

    ERIKA VALADEZ ET AL VS IN N OUT BURGERS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC675696

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA gender discrimination, (2) FEHA sexual harassment, (3) FEHA failure to prevent sexual harassment, (4) FEHA failure to correct sexual harassment, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. All COAs are asserted against VF; Sicari is named as to the 2nd COA only. On 6/17/15, Plaintiff filed an amendment correcting Sicari’s name as Alberto aka Alfredo Sicari.

  • Name

    VERONICA TORRES VS VF OUTDOOR INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC573963

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2016

Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action in the FA C: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation; (3) sexual harassment; and (4) violation of public policy. Zwissig Defendants demur to the third cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to support a cause of action for sexual harassment. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Zwissig Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Cal. Evid. Code §452, 453.)

  • Name

    DENISE STILWELL VS TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC690958

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2018

The complaint alleges claims for sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), violation of the California Family Rights Act, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff also alleges Labor Code violations for, among other things, failing to pay wages and business expenses upon her termination. Park West is located in Rancho Santa Margarita in the County of Orange. Tracy Decl., ¶ 5.

  • Name

    PIGOTT VS PARK WEST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00006685-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

; (8) Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (9) Race and National Origin Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (10) Retaliation in violation of FEHA; (11) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (12) Failure to Provide Complete Access to Employee Personnel File and Payroll Records in Violation of California Labor Code 226, 432 and 1198.5.

  • Name

    SMITHLINE ASHLEY VS GNH TOPANGA INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19VECV01637

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

In the TAC, Rojas asserts causes of action for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA, and unfair business practices. Defendant Din Tai Fung (Glendale) Restaurant, LLC[1] (“DTF”) now demurs to each and every cause of action. Rojas opposes. Request for Judicial Notice The Court grants DTF’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A and B.

  • Name

    NORMA ROJAS VS DIN TAI FUNG ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC697069

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (7) negligent infliction

  • Name

    SIA AMBER SOUTHERN VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CO

  • Case No.

    BC690804

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2018

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against BBC, Verdugo and Does 1-50 for: Sex Harassment in Violation of FEHA Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Wrongful Termination Failure to Furnish Complaint Wage Statements Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Period Premiums Waiting Time Penalties A Case Management Conference is set for December 8, 2020.

  • Name

    MARAM GHAZALEH VS BEST BEVERAGE CATERING, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20PSCV00099

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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 of FEHA

  • Name

    MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC724039

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

Harassment & Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA 2. Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy 3. Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA 4. Violation of Meal & Rest Breaks 5. Violation of Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) 6. Failure to Provide Accurate Paystubs 7. Waiting Time Penalties in Violation of Labor Codes 201-204 8. Failure to Timely Provide Personnel & Payroll Records

  • Name

    KATELYN NGUYEN VS THE BOILING CRAB, A CALIFORNIA BUSINESS

  • Case No.

    21PSCV01009

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on June 22, 2020, alleging eight (8) causes of action sounding in: (1) Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Harassment in violation of FEHA and Government Code § 12940(j); (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA and Government Code § 12940(h); (4) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (5) Whistleblower Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Intentional Infliction

  • Name

    ROBERT NORLAND VS CRANEVEYOR CORP., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20BBCV00392

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

These allegations do not specify if the superiors agreed that the conduct amounted to sexual harassment. Nor do these allegations show the type of conduct Marshall was engaged in. Thus, the Court does not have sufficient facts to find that Plaintiff has alleged a claim for sexual harassment based on conduct that occurred after June 27, 2017. Therefore, the Court finds that the demurrer to cause of action three for sexual harassment is sustained.

  • Name

    MAUPIN VS CONTRA COSTA FIRE

  • Case No.

    MSC19-00496

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a complaint against Defendants, Allied, HRL, and Beveridge, for: (1) Sexual Harassment Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Sexual Harassment Quid Pro Quo in Violation of FEHA, (3) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (4) Gender Discrimination, (5) Sexual Battery; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (7) Retaliation.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV07728

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault and battery, (2) discrimination in violation of the UCRA and FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA and Civil Code section 51.9, (4) violation of the Ralph Act, (5) interference with the exercise of civil rights in violation of the Bane Act, (6) gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (9) failure to engage in the interactive

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV33834

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

The causes of action are: (1) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS; (2) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS; (3) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME; (4) FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES; (5) FAILURE TO PAY WAITING TIME PENALTIES; (6) FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS; (7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE; (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; (9) SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (10) SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (11) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (12) FAILURE

  • Name

    MARIA BERETTA VS LAKESIDE RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV23318

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(Republic), as well as Peter Pouwels, asserting the following causes of action: (1) Sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code sections 12900, et seq.

  • Name

    LUIS VENEGAS, ET AL. VS BROWING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV11027

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In their motion, defendants challenge plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for failure to remedy, prevent, and investigate sexual harassment in violation of Government Code Sections 12940(k), 12950, and 12950.1 of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

  • Name

    IVONNE HERNANDEZ VS DP INVESTMENTS ET AL

  • Case No.

    1380738

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2011

(“FloQast”) brings this demurrer to the fourth cause of action (sexual harassment/harassment in violation of FEHA) of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) of Plaintiff Megan Hoffman (“Hoffman”). Hoffman opposes. Discussion A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. ((Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

  • Name

    MEGAN HOFFMAN VS FLOQAST INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC676447

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

Fifth Cause of Action – Sexual Harassment (MSA Issue No. 1) As to Clark's fifth cause of action for sexual harassment under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Chini raises three arguments. First, Chini asserts he cannot be held liable for sexual harassment because neither he nor the company for which he is Vice President, Bainbridge Capital, Inc. ("Bainbridge"), was Clark's employer.

  • Name

    BAINBRIDGE CAPITAL INC VS VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00008514-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

(SAC) The SAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (FEHA), (2) failure to investigate and prevent sexual harassment, (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (4) harassment and discrimination in violation of Civil Code §51 and Civil Code § 52, (5) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) negligent hiring, supervision and retention.

  • Name

    MELANIE MCDADE-DICKENS VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV02999

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2021

  • 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. Zwissig Defendants demur to the third and fourth causes of action per CCP §430.10(e). REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Zwissig Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED. Zwissig Defendants do not properly provide or identify the documents in their request. (Evid. Code §453; Willis v.

  • Name

    DENISE STILWELL VS TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC690958

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2018

This is a wage & hour, PAGA case with wrongful termination/sexual harassment allegations. On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed an individual and representative action Complaint alleging (1) FEHA Sex Harassment; (2) FEHA Sex Discrimination; (3) Failure to Prevent Same; (4) Meal Periods; (5) Rest Periods; (6) Wage Statements; (7) Waiting Time Penalties; (8) Unfair Competition; (9) Violation of PAGA; and (10) Wrongful Termination. Defendant moves to compel arbitration.

  • Name

    CUNNINGHAM VS LOMAS SANTA FE COUNTRY CLUB

  • Case No.

    37-2023-00023983-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2024

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Movant argues that the sixth cause of action must be dismissed because it was added in violation of a prior court order. Movant’s arguments are not compelling. Each is addressed below. 1. The Fourth Cause of Action a. Is the fourth cause of action "time barred"? Before suing for violation of the FEHA in court, a plaintiff must timely file an administrative complaint with the DFEH within one year of the alleged unlawful conduct. (Gov’t. Code § 12960.)

  • Name

    RODRIGUES V. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CECG03478

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

of Public Policy, (12) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (13) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA, and (14) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA.

  • Name

    JANE DOE, ET AL. VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV31358

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2020

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) sexual harassment – hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (3) sexual discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (4) violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act (the “Ralph Act,” Civ.

  • Name

    SABRINA CEJA VS BAKKAVOR FOODS USA INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC700615

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2019

Without citing any caselaw, Plaintiffs assert that individual Defendants can be liable for sexual harassment under FEHA even if they work at a religious non-profit that is exempt from FEHA. Plaintiffs have not provided legal support for their contention that an individual manager employed at a religious nonprofit can be sued under FEHA when the employer is exempt from FEHA. Moreover, the Tameny claim is only against the corporate Defendant.

  • Name

    MARINO, ET AL. V. NOVO MISSION INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01151655

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

Sexual Harassment (First Cause of Action) Defendants argue Plaintiffs first cause of action for sexual harassment fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. The court agrees.

  • Name

    SHAUNETTE MILLER VS POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22PSCV01233

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DENY AS TO DAHLQUIST. c/a for quid pro quo sexual harassment = DENY AS TO PACIFIC LIFE AND DAHLQUIST. GRANT AS TO BELL. c/a for environmental sexual harassment = DENY AS TO PACIFIC LIFE AND DAHLQUIST. GRANT AS TO BELL. c/a for gender discrim--FEHA = DENY, TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT RE WHETHER FAILURE TO PROMOTE WAS MOTIVATED BY INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION. COURT DISMISSES CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND CONST. AS DUPLICATIVE. c/a for retaliation = GRANT AS TO ALL DEFEENDANTS.

  • Name

    PASSERI VS PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE CO

  • Case No.

    CGC01322382

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2002

BC719746: On 8/29/18, in BC719746 (this case), Plaintiff Hamm filed her complaint against Defendants Condenser & Chiller Services, Inc., Mistras Group, Inc., Don Spence, and Chris Byrner for: (1) sexual harassment; (2) associational gender discrimination; (3) retaliation (FEHA); (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation (FEHA); (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (GC 12940); and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (LC 1102.5).

  • Name

    SUHAILY HAMM VS CONDENSER & CHILLER SERVICES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC719746

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2019

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

    Oct 15, 2019

Second, plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for hostile environment sexual harassment.

  • Name

    GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ VS CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL ETC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1413531

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2013

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Lyneer Staffing Solutions LLC, Employers HR LLC, Capacity West LLC, Juan Hilario, Jonathan Silva, Yvonne Canseco, and Does 1 to 100 alleging claims for: (1) sexual assault and battery; (2) sexual harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) disability harassment in violation of the FEHA; (4) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation

  • Name

    JANE DOE, ET AL. VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV31358

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

sexual harassment training.

  • Name

    CINDY CHAN VS SUDOTOUCH, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV01863

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

Summary adjudication is GRANTED. 3rd COA: FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT If an employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the harassing conduct, but fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action it is a violation of FEHA. Gov. Code 12940(j)(1). Similarly, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring." Gov. Code 12940(k).

  • Name

    PEREZ VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00040605-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

in Violation of FEHA (7) Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (8) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA (9) Associational Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (10) Violation of Whistle Blower Protection Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1102.5 (11) Assault (12) Battery (13) Violation of Labor Code § 232 (14) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff served MDRN with the summons and FAC.

  • Name

    OLIVIA CECILIA HERNANDEZ VS MDRN STAFFING INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV07752

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against BBC, Verdugo and Does 1-50 for: Sex Harassment in Violation of FEHA Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Wrongful Termination Failure to Furnish Complaint Wage Statements Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Period Premiums Waiting Time Penalties A Case Management Conference is set for December 15, 2020.

  • Name

    MARAM GHAZALEH VS BEST BEVERAGE CATERING, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20PSCV00099

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

Plaintiffs’ operative complaint alleges: C/A 1: All Defendants for Employment Discrimination—Sexual Harassment; C/A 2: All Defendants for Discrimination Based upon Disability; C/A 3: All Defendants for Failure to Accommodate Disability; C/A 4: All Defendants for Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA; C/A 5: All Defendants for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; C/A 6: All Defendants for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; C/A 7: All Defendants for Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code

  • Name

    ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC649025

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) defamation, (2) retaliation in violation of LC §1102.5, (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (4) FEHA sexual harassment, and (5) FEHA failure to prevent harassment. Defendants move for summary judgment or adjudication. Objections – Defendants object to Plaintiff’s evidence; all objections are overruled.

  • Name

    LINDA MUGGLI VS SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC598431

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2016

Issues No. 1: Sexual Harassment Defendants move for adjudication on the first cause of action on the grounds that the alleged sexual harassment is not actionable under FEHA because it is neither severe enough nor sufficiently pervasive to alter the condition of Plaintiff’s employment. FEHA prohibits “unlawful employment practices,” which includes harassment in the workplace based on, among other things, sex and gender. (Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1).)

  • Name

    TED LIN VS UNITED RESOURCES INFORMATION INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC717965

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Plaintiff Aguilar’s complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Sexual Harassment (2) Tortious Termination in Violation of Public Policy (3) Violation of Government Code §12940(k) [Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment] (4) Failure to Pay Premium Overtime Wages (5) Failure to Provide an Accurate Itemized Wage Statement (6) Waiting Time Penalties (7) Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks (8) Sexual Assault and Battery (9) Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Practices On August 21, 2017,

  • Name

    JOANN AGUILAR V. JAMES V. PIETRANTONIO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CV312372

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

of public policy, (9) violation of labor code § 1102.5, (10) failure to pay wages, (11) waiting time penalties, (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (13) FEHA sexual harassment, (14) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accomodation, and (15) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process.

  • Name

    JEREMIAH DE JESUS VS 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV00811

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

That cannot be true as Plaintiff contends the alleged sexual harassment began in January 2017, and she allegedly reported the alcohol incident in December 2017. She could not have suffered retaliation via sexual harassment in January for something that did not occur until December. Similarly, she could not have experienced sexual harassment by Ruvalcaba, because she rejected his sexual advances. · Battery, Assault, and Sexual Battery are time-barred.

  • Name

    VERONICA BOLANOS VS UNIFIRST CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV19604

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (7) negligent infliction

  • Name

    SIA AMBER SOUTHERN VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CO

  • Case No.

    BC690804

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

The First Amended Complaint, filed on March 12, 2019, alleges 14 causes of action for: (1) EEOC Violation (sexual harassment); (2) EEOC Violation (retaliation); (3) EEOC Violation (racial discrimination/harassment); (4) EEOC Violation (retaliation); (5) FEHA Violation (sexual harassment); (6) FEHA Violation (retaliation); (7) FEHA Violation (racial discrimination/harassment); (8) FEHA Violation (retaliation); (9) FEHA Violation (failure to prevent harassment); (10) Labor Code Violation (retaliation); (11) Labor

  • Name

    CHRISTIAN L. JOHNSON ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UCR-2019-0000281

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 7 causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) against all Defendants; (2) retaliation in violation of the FEHA against Beverly Terrace; (3) failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA against Beverly Terrace; (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy against Beverly Terrace; (5) sexual battery against Linares; (6) battery against Linares and (7) intentional infliction of emotional

  • Name

    MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU VS BEVERLY TERRACE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC691797

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

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)) (against the District); Sexual Battery (against Newman); Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)) (against the District); Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov.

  • Name

    GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV29112

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this matter on April 4, 2019 alleging causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA;(2) failure to prevent harassment; (3) Retaliation;(4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;(5) Gender violence in violation of Civ. Code sec. 52.4; (6) Violation of Ralph Act, Civ. Code Sec. 51.7; and (8) violation of Bane Act (Civ. Code Sec. 52.1). EVIDENCE The court OVERRULES the objection of the Regents to Plaintiff's Exhibit N.

  • Name

    LARA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    RG19013735

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2021

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope