§Why CasetextPricing

Order Submitted Matter

undefined

23 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,367 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

  2. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,321 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

  3. Bachelder v. America West Airlines

    259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 610 times
    Holding that § 825.220(c)"is a reasonable interpretation of the statute's prohibition on ‘interference with’ and ‘restraint of’ employee's rights under the FMLA" and that "[t]he Labor Department's conclusion that employer use of ‘the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions' ... violates ... the Act is ... a reasonable one"

  4. Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents

    75 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 633 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer sufficiently participated in the interactive process in part because the employee “offer[ed] no evidence that” the alternative accommodation proposed by her employer “was an unreasonable accommodation”

  5. White v. Ultramar, Inc.

    21 Cal.4th 563 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 474 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a single act of retaliatory termination demonstrated that a middle manager "determined corporate policy"

  6. Xin Liu v. Amway Corp.

    347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 387 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employee adequately notified her employer when she said that she needed to take several months of maternity leave

  7. Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank

    85 Cal.App.4th 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 361 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the critical question in a failure-to-accommodate case is "whether the informal process broke down, and, if so, which party was responsible"

  8. Gelfo v. Lockhead Martin Corp.

    140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that Kaplan's reasoning should not be applied to similarly limit California discrimination laws

  9. Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

    165 Cal.App.4th 1237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 251 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that calling in sick during an absence and providing hospital forms describing the illness upon return to work is sufficient notice

  10. Wilson v. County of Orange

    169 Cal.App.4th 1185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 228 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding employer engaged in interactive process because employee got "exactly what she wanted—albeit after a series of temporary accommodations"

  11. Rule 3.1300 - Time for filing and service of motion papers

    Cal. R. 3.1300   Cited 99 times

    (a) In general Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and, when applicable, the statutes and rules providing for electronic filing and service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2007.) (b) Order shortening time The court, on its own motion or on application for an order shortening time supported

  12. Rule 3.1 - Title

    Cal. R. 3.1

    The rules in this title may be referred to as the Civil Rules. Cal. R. Ct. 3.1 Rule 3.1 adopted effective 1/1/2007.