§Why CasetextPricing

Reply_to_opposition_to_motion_to_compel_special_interrogatories

Reply

39 Cited authorities

  1. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank Tr.

    487 U.S. 977 (1988)   Cited 1,399 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff has burden to show that a particular employment practice "caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group"

  2. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,301 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. Connecticut v. Teal

    457 U.S. 440 (1982)   Cited 538 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a pass-fail threshold test for promotions, which had a disparate impact on African-Americans, could meet the plaintiffs' prima facie burden

  4. Christensen v. Superior Court

    54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 700 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

  5. Taylor v. Principal Financial Group, Inc.

    93 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 547 times
    Holding that "the employee's initial request for an accommodation . . . triggers the employer's obligation to participate in the interactive process of determining one"

  6. Weiler v. Household Finance Corp.

    101 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 449 times
    Holding the ADA does not require an employer to transfer an employee to work under another supervisor, and noting such a request essentially asks the court to allow the employee, rather than the employer, to establish the conditions of her employment—most notably, who will supervise her

  7. Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.

    166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 305 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."

  8. Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank

    85 Cal.App.4th 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 360 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"

  9. Shoemaker v. Myers

    52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 466 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no employee has a vested contractual right ... beyond the time or contrary to the terms and conditions fixed by law"

  10. Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist.

    43 Cal.3d 148 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 448 times
    Holding that exclusivity rule applied where employer falsely accused employee of misconduct, subjected employee to a "kangaroo" disciplinary proceeding, publicly demoted him, gave him burdensome and menial duties, and filed an application to force him to retire involuntarily

  11. Section 12101 - Findings and purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 12101   Cited 23,996 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Finding a pattern of " unnecessary discrimination and prejudice" that "costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity"

  12. Section 12111 - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 12111   Cited 8,204 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of "person" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e for purposes of Title I of the ADA

  13. Section 2510 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 2510   Cited 4,304 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"

  14. Section 3333.2 - Damages for noneconomic losses in action for injury against health care provider based on professional negligence

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.2   Cited 181 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Limiting non-economic losses to $250,000

  15. Section 3333.1 - Evidence introduced by defendant in action for personal injury against health care provider based upon professional negligence

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.1   Cited 126 times
    Abrogating the collateral source rule in medical malpractice actions

  16. Section 1431 - Presumption obligation joint and several

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1431   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Joint Liability An obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right created in favor of several persons, is presumed to be joint, and not several, except as provided in Section 1431.2, and except in the special cases mentioned in the title on the interpretation of contracts. This presumption, in the case of a right, can be overcome only by express words to the contrary. Ca. Civ. Code § 1431 Amended June 3, 1986, by initiative Proposition 51, Sec. 2. Note: Prop. 51 (the Fair Responsibility Act

  17. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 34 times

    (a) Separate statement required Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; (4) To compel answers at a deposition;