Background
On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) disability discrimination in violation of public policy, (3) pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) pregnancy discrimination in violation of public policy, (5) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of public policy, (7) pregnancy harassment in violation of FEHA against employer, (8) pregnancy harassment in violation of FEHA against individuals, and (9) failure to do everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring in violation of FEHA.
On June 30, 2017, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer, without leave to amend, as to the first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth causes of action, on the ground Defendant was a religious entity, and therefore not subject to
Hearing Date
March 18, 2019
Type
Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Background
On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) disability discrimination in violation of public policy, (3) pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) pregnancy discrimination in violation of public policy, (5) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation for complaints of pregnancy discrimination and/or harassment in violation of public policy, (7) pregnancy harassment in violation of FEHA against employer, (8) pregnancy harassment in violation of FEHA against individuals, and (9) failure to do everything reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring in violation of FEHA.
On June 30, 2017, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer, without leave to amend, as to the first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth causes of action, on the ground Defendant was a religious entity, and therefore not subject to