248 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 147 times
Holding that the FEHA amendment was prospective in application, and thus Moore could not base FEHA retaliation claim solely on the request for accommodation, because the amendment was not in effect at time of protected activity
Holding a doctor's disclosure of detailed medical and psychiatric information to that plaintiff's private employer following an examination associated with a disability leave policy was not adequately justified because the "detailed psychiatric information [the employer] requested and obtained from [the doctors], and ultimately used to make adverse personnel decisions about Pettus, was far more than the employer needed to accomplish its legitimate objectives," in the context of a private employer's personnel actions involving "no dispute resolution mechanism, no hearings"