14 Cited authorities

Sanders v. City of Newport
657 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 286 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a viable FMLA claim requires a showing that the employee was entitled to leave
Wills v. Superior Court
194 Cal.App.4th 312 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 228 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding "purpose of FEHA's administrative exhaustion requirement is to ensure DFEH is provided the opportunity to resolve disputes and eliminate unlawful business practices through conciliation"
Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.
248 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 153 times
Holding that "an employer bears a burden, under CFRA, to inquire further if an employee presents the employer with a CFRA-qualifying reason for requesting leave"
Brundage v. Hahn
57 Cal.App.4th 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 236 times
Holding that summary judgment was appropriate where the employer's staff did not know of a plaintiff's protected characteristic
Larimer v. International Business Machines
370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 116 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the right to an accommodation, being limited to disabled employees, does not extend to a nondisabled associate of a disabled person"
Rogers v. County of Los Angeles
198 Cal.App.4th 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 73 times
Explaining that the FMLA and CFRA "contain nearly identical provisions"
Elden v. Sheldon
46 Cal.3d 267 (Cal. 1988) Cited 112 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding family relationship lacking among co-habitants
Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc.
2 Cal.App.5th 1028 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 39 times
Noting that "when FEHA forbids discrimination based on a disability, it also forbids discrimination based on a person's association with another who has a disability"
Kralik v. Durbin
130 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 72 times
Holding that a requested reassignment was not reasonable because it would violate the seniority rights of other employees
Estate of Edgett
111 Cal.App.3d 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) Cited 9 times
Docket No. 22443. October 20, 1980. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 116400, Douglas R. Woodworth, Judge. COUNSEL Karl H. Griesbaum for Objector and Appellant. Myron Siedorf, Margaret Groscup and Richard J. Barnet for Petitioner and Respondent. OPINION COLOGNE, J., Acting P.J. Elizabeth Catherine Edgett appeals an "Order Overruling Objections to Report of Inheritance Tax Referee." The facts are not in dispute. Elizabeth married the decedent Robert Neil Edgett on August 5, 1939
Section 2612 - Leave requirement
29 U.S.C. § 2612 Cited 5,062 times 40 Legal Analyses
Granting qualifying employees twelve weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period
Section 825.110 - Eligible employee
29 C.F.R. § 825.110 Cited 357 times 17 Legal Analyses
Stating that eligibility determination is made as of commencement of leave
Section 825.112 - Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule
29 C.F.R. § 825.112 Cited 87 times 17 Legal Analyses
Providing that serious health conditions are a qualifying reason for FMLA leave
Section 825.122 - Definitions of covered servicemember, spouse, parent, son or daughter, next of kin of a covered servicemember, adoption, foster care, son or daughter on covered active duty or call to covered active duty status, son or daughter of a covered servicemember, and parent of a covered servicemember
29 C.F.R. § 825.122 Cited 25 times 22 Legal Analyses
Defining “spouse” for purposes of FMLA leave as “a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized”

Rebecca Quinones vs. Arrowhead Products Corporation

14 Cited authorities

Holding that a viable FMLA claim requires a showing that the employee was entitled to leave

Holding "purpose of FEHA's administrative exhaustion requirement is to ensure DFEH is provided the opportunity to resolve disputes and eliminate unlawful business practices through conciliation"

Holding that "an employer bears a burden, under CFRA, to inquire further if an employee presents the employer with a CFRA-qualifying reason for requesting leave"

Holding that summary judgment was appropriate where the employer's staff did not know of a plaintiff's protected characteristic

Holding that "the right to an accommodation, being limited to disabled employees, does not extend to a nondisabled associate of a disabled person"

Explaining that the FMLA and CFRA "contain nearly identical provisions"

Finding family relationship lacking among co-habitants

Noting that "when FEHA forbids discrimination based on a disability, it also forbids discrimination based on a person's association with another who has a disability"

Holding that a requested reassignment was not reasonable because it would violate the seniority rights of other employees

Granting qualifying employees twelve weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period

Stating that eligibility determination is made as of commencement of leave

Providing that serious health conditions are a qualifying reason for FMLA leave

Defining “spouse” for purposes of FMLA leave as “a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized”