Latest Posts › FEHA

Share:

Employee Barred By Two-Year Statute of Limitations Period From Bringing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

In Wassmann v. South Orange County Community College District, No. G053411, published June 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee was barred from bringing an Intentional Infliction of Emotional...more

Employee Denied Attorney’s Fees Despite Establishing that His Termination was Substantially Motivated by His Disabilities

In William Bustos v. Global P.E.T, Inc., et al. (Cal Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2017, No. E065869), William Bustos brought a disability discrimination action against his former employers, Global P.E.T., Inc. and Global Plastics, Inc....more

Hotel Housekeeper Overcomes Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity to Maintain FEHA Action for Assault

In M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 26, 2017, No. D070150) 2017 WL 4831603, a hotel housekeeper (known as M.F. to preserve her privacy) was assaulted and raped at work by a trespasser known to...more

Context Is Key in Age Discrimination Cases

In Charles T. Merrick v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., et. al. (No. 14-56853, filed 8/16/17), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied a nuanced analysis within the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting...more

Employee Given Two Bites of the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Apple

It is well-established that the workers’ compensation system serves as the exclusive remedy for an employee who suffers injuries arising during the course and scope of employment, including psychiatric injuries. Recently,...more

Employer’s Refusal To Allow Rescission of an Employee’s Voluntary Resignation Does Not Constitute Adverse Employment Action Under...

In Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, (No. B275225, filed 4/19/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held absent evidence an employee’s resignation was coerced, an...more

New California Laws for 2017 – AB 2296: Electronic signature rules.

Assembly Bill 2296 brings California another step closer to a fully paperless system. Partners David Harris and Yvette Davis authored an article “AB 2296: Electronic signatures” in Daily Journal’s New Laws 2017 report,...more

EEOC Investigation Can Toll Statute of Limitations in Employment Discrimination Cases

On July 27, 2016, in Reginald Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (“Mitchell”) (Superior Court Case No. BC550911), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the one year statute of...more

Firefighter’s Twelve Year Court Battle Over Racial Discrimination Ends in Reversal of His Million Dollar Judgment

In Jabari Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles (Ct. of Appeal B255763), published November 10, 2015, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ended 12 years of see-saw litigation, ruling that the racial discrimination...more

Employers Who Prevail in FEHA Cases Cannot Recover Costs Unless the Employee’s Claims Are Frivolous, Unreasonable, or Groundless

In Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fires District, (No. S213100, en banc, filed 5/4/15) (Williams), the Supreme Court of California held a prevailing defendant in an action under the California Fair Employment and...more

Employer Is Not Required To Eliminate An Essential Job Function In Order To Reasonably Accommodate Disability

In Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 2015 WL 632228, the Second District Court of Appeals held that an injured worker was properly denied the right to return to work where he was unable to perform essential functions of his job...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide