20 Cited authorities

Miklosy v. Regents of University of California
44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2008) Cited 457 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that when "alleged wrongful conduct ... occur at the worksite, in the normal course of the employer-employee relationship ... workers' compensation is a plaintiff exclusive remedy for any injury that may" result
Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.
178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 400 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that all materials submitted by plaintiff to DFEH, including two intake questionnaires, may be considered for purposes of determining whether plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies
Christensen v. Superior Court
54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. 1991) Cited 682 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics
46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 535 times
Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more
Rojo v. Kliger
52 Cal.3d 65 (Cal. 1990) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Unruh Act "has no application to employment discrimination"
Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.
2 Cal.3d 493 (Cal. 1970) Cited 507 times
Holding that plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim was not covered by Unruh Act
Light v. Cal. Dep't of Parks & Recreation
14 Cal.App.5th 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 105 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that pretext is one way to rebut an employer's legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination
Fretland v. County of Humboldt
69 Cal.App.4th 1478 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 104 times
Holding that emotional distress caused by employer's alleged work-related injury discrimination was not barred by exclusivity rule
CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon
120 Cal.App.4th 1141 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 86 times
Remarking that representation by an attorney "is not an absolute prerequisite to the court's fundamental power to hear or determine a case ... it is more appropriate and just to treat a corporation's failure to be represented by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected ... in the sound discretion of the court"
Angie M. v. Superior Court
37 Cal.App.4th 1217 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 102 times
Holding that the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because "[the plaintiff] pleaded no facts demonstrating the nature, extent or duration of her alleged emotional distress"

Opposition Objections

20 Cited authorities

Holding that when "alleged wrongful conduct ... occur at the worksite, in the normal course of the employer-employee relationship ... workers' compensation is a plaintiff exclusive remedy for any injury that may" result

Holding that all materials submitted by plaintiff to DFEH, including two intake questionnaires, may be considered for purposes of determining whether plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies

Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains

Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more

Holding that the Unruh Act "has no application to employment discrimination"

Holding that plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim was not covered by Unruh Act

Holding that pretext is one way to rebut an employer's legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination

Holding that emotional distress caused by employer's alleged work-related injury discrimination was not barred by exclusivity rule

Holding that the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because "[the plaintiff] pleaded no facts demonstrating the nature, extent or duration of her alleged emotional distress"