15 Cited authorities

Conroy v. Regents of University of California
45 Cal.4th 1244 (Cal. 2009) Cited 450 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding claims for negligent misrepresentation "do[] not require intent to defraud"
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics
46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 547 times
Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more
Hersant v. Department of Social Services
57 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 489 times
Holding that "to avoid summary judgment, an employee claiming discrimination must offer substantial evidence that the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination.
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 302 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."
Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 379 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"
Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.
29 Cal.App.4th 1718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 346 times
Holding plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where FEHA complaint did not include sex discrimination and retaliation claims
Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.
165 Cal.App.4th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 199 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding a triable issue of fact as to the existence of malice when defendant made an allegedly defamatory statement, and ordered employees to shun and avoid plaintiff
Raine v. City of Burbank
135 Cal.App.4th 1215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 160 times 2 Legal Analyses
Alleging claims for disability discrimination and age discrimination
Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc.
135 Cal.App.4th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 130 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting contention that employer's two-installment bonus program created implied contract that the plaintiff's employment would continue until date second installment was due
Semore v. Pool
217 Cal.App.3d 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 70 times
Holding that defendant employer's conduct in discharging defendant could not constitute negligent infliction of emotional distress because any action "by the employer were intentional, not negligent"

Juan Sotomayor vs. Sanders & Wohrman Corporation

15 Cited authorities

Holding claims for negligent misrepresentation "do[] not require intent to defraud"

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 "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."

Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"

Holding plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where FEHA complaint did not include sex discrimination and retaliation claims

Finding a triable issue of fact as to the existence of malice when defendant made an allegedly defamatory statement, and ordered employees to shun and avoid plaintiff

Alleging claims for disability discrimination and age discrimination

Rejecting contention that employer's two-installment bonus program created implied contract that the plaintiff's employment would continue until date second installment was due

Holding that defendant employer's conduct in discharging defendant could not constitute negligent infliction of emotional distress because any action "by the employer were intentional, not negligent"