Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth

Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."

Hughes v. Pair

Holding that discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress

Potter v. Firestone Tire &

Holding outrageous conduct exceeds all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community

Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions

Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."

Union Bank v. Superior Court

Finding no right to a cause of action because plaintiff admitted the defendant did not engage in misconduct

Jones v. Dept. of Corr

Holding that plaintiff "negat[ed] her FEHA claim" by admitting that hostile comments were not based on her gender or race

Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc.

Ruling against a plaintiff who argued that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on conduct violating a fundamental public policy is an exception to the general preemption rule

Collin v. American Empire Ins. Co.

Holding conversion of property does not give rise to damages from "loss of use" of property where, as here, the plaintiff seeks to recover the value of the property itself: "`Loss of use' of property is different from `loss' of property."

Section 1708.5 - Sexual battery