Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S265223
|
Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney's Office
City could be liable where a human resource manager obstructed and threatened a reporting employee if she persisted in bringing a complaint. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
K. Evans | Jul. 30, 2024 |
23-55404
|
Okonowsky v. Garland
A colleague's social media page could reasonably create an objective hostile work environment under Title VII. |
Employment Discrimination, Employment Law |
|
K. Wardlaw | Jul. 26, 2024 |
23-55106
|
Kama v. Mayorkas
Temporal proximity alone was insufficient to demonstrate employer's stated reason for firing employee was pretextual where, during same period, employee failed to cooperate with a separate investigation. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
R. Gould | Jul. 19, 2024 |
23-15399
|
Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc.
Apprentice's Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Zen Center were properly dismissed under the First Amendment's "ministerial exception." |
Employment Discrimination, Constitutional Law |
|
L. VanDyke | Jul. 18, 2024 |
22-16870
|
Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
42 U.S.C. Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in hiring against United States citizens based on their citizenship. |
Employment Discrimination, Employment Law |
|
E. Miller | Jun. 28, 2024 |
C097584
|
Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc.
Egg retrieval and freezing procedures did not qualify as a pregnancy-related medical condition or disability protected by FEHA. |
Employment Discrimination, Employment Law |
|
L. Earl | Jun. 28, 2024 |
23-35119
|
DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling where it was ambiguous as to whether his colorblindness was a "reportable health event" under the class definition. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
D. Hamilton | Jun. 17, 2024 |
A163571
|
Modification: Ververka v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
*Harris* case law that allows for some relief for a FEHA plaintiff even after a successful "same decision" defense does not extend to whistleblower retaliation claims. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. Langhorne Wilson | Jun. 7, 2024 |
A163571
|
Ververka v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
*Harris* case law that allows for some relief for a FEHA plaintiff even after a successful "same decision" defense does not extend to whistleblower retaliation claims. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. Langhorne Wilson | May 24, 2024 |
22-15485
|
Amended Opinion: Hittle v. City of Stockton
Summary judgment was affirmed when overwhelming evidence showed that there was no discriminatory animus in City's statements and actions regarding employee's religion. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
E. Korman | May 20, 2024 |
C097065
|
Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital
Substantial evidence supported plaintiff's age discrimination claim because ample evidence demonstrated that significant participant in her termination exhibited discriminatory animus towards her and that reasons for her firing were pretextual. |
Employment Discrimination, Employment Law |
|
P. Krause | May 20, 2024 |
22-15889
|
Mattioda v. Nelson
NASA scientist met pleading standard for hostile-work-environment claim when he stated that harassment began after informing superior of his disability. |
Disability Discrimination, Employment Discrimination |
|
D. Forrest | Apr. 23, 2024 |
B323735
|
Kuigoua v. Dept. of Veteran Affairs
Inclusion of fundamentally different claims in legal complaint from those contained in administrative complaint concerning alleged employment discrimination meant plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 19, 2024 |
22-193
|
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Title VII employment discrimination does not require a showing that the injury was "significant." |
Employment Discrimination |
|
E. Kagan | Apr. 18, 2024 |
B303509
|
Martin v. Board of Trustees of the California State University
Because defendant had a legitimate basis for firing employee which employee failed to rebut, trial court appropriately granted summary judgment for defendant. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
V. Viramontes | Nov. 15, 2023 |
F085416
|
Rossi v. Sequoia Union Elementary School
Where school district employee refused to provide vaccination status or succumb to weekly testing, district's actions against employee were shielded by Confidentiality of Medical Information Act's necessity exception. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
B. Hill | Aug. 29, 2023 |
S273630
|
Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group
Business entities carrying out Fair Employment and Housing Act-regulated activities on behalf of an employer may be held directly liable for FEHA violations. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. Jenkins | Aug. 22, 2023 |
22-15485
|
Hittle v. City of Stockton
Summary judgment was affirmed when overwhelming evidence showed that there was no discriminatory animus in City's statements and actions regarding employee's religion. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
E. Korman | Aug. 7, 2023 |
21-17138
|
Sharp v. S&S Activewear, L.L.C.
Employees' sexual harassment lawsuit survived dismissal since "sexually graphic, violently misogynistic" music played daily in warehouse could constitute a hostile work environment. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. McKeown | Jun. 8, 2023 |
21-15660
|
Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller
California State Controller's Office could not use the excuse of undue hardship when employee requested an addendum to oath of government allegiance to accommodate her religious beliefs. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. Friedland | Apr. 4, 2023 |
A163133
|
Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres
Plaintiff in pregnancy-discrimination action who failed to provide evidence her condition was related to pregnancy failed to meet her burden of proof. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
A. Tucher | Mar. 20, 2023 |
B314162
|
Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
Summary judgment of employee's disability discrimination claim against Kaiser was reversed because a reasonable jury could find that Kaiser's decision to terminate her was substantially motivated by her shoulder injury. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
E. Daum | Feb. 28, 2023 |
21-55953
|
Opara v. Yellen
Former IRS agent failed to establish discrimination claim when the direct evidence largely supported her termination based on unauthorized inspections of tax return information. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. Bennett | Jan. 18, 2023 |
B311426
|
Allen v. Staples, Inc.
Summary judgment was not appropriate where Equal Pay Act plaintiff-appellant had shown she was paid less than an appropriate male comparator and the defendant failed to provide evidence of its defense. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
D. Kim | Oct. 20, 2022 |
B318588
|
Malloy v. Superior Court (Comprehensive Print Group)
Venue was proper in Los Angeles County because employer allegedly interfered with plaintiff's rights to pregnancy disability leave while she was on leave in Los Angeles County, where she was authorized to work from home. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
D. Perluss | Sep. 20, 2022 |
B301486
|
Khoiny v. Dignity Health
Academic deference did not apply to the jury's determination whether medical resident was terminated for discriminatory reasons because residents were primarily treated as employees, not students. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. Stratton | Mar. 18, 2022 |
C084698
|
Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd.
Plaintiff's burden of proving that the discrimination was a substantial factor motivating an adverse employment action arises only after, not before, the employer has rebutted plaintiff's prima facie showing. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
A. Hoch | Feb. 9, 2022 |
G060420
|
Wilkin v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula
Summary judgment was properly granted because employee did not present evidence that employer's reasons for terminating employment were pretextual. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
R. Fybel | Nov. 22, 2021 |
20-15710
|
Fried v. Wynn Las Vegas
In a hostile work environment claim, the trial court erred by focusing on the customer's behavior rather than the employer's response. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
M. Christen | Nov. 19, 2021 |
B305594
|
Jorgensen v. Loyola Marymount University
A comment that an employee with hiring influence 'wanted someone younger' for a position is admissible to show pretext in an age discrimination lawsuit. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
J. Wiley | Sep. 14, 2021 |