42 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,604 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,708 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
429 U.S. 252 (1977) Cited 4,421 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs need show only that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision," because, after all, "[r]arely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one."
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 4,989 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) Cited 3,324 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."
Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.
302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,256 times
Holding that "[a]n employee is not required to use any particular language when requesting an accommodation but need only inform the employer of the need for an adjustment due to a medical condition." (cleaned up)
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.
36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,584 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.
47 Cal.3d 654 (Cal. 1988) Cited 1,158 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that tort damages are not available for breach of an employment contract
Roby v. McKesson Corp.
47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2009) Cited 547 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding "there is no basis for excluding evidence of biased personnel management actions so long as that evidence is relevant to prove the communication of a hostile message"
Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.
178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 417 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
Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 Cited 2,876 times 11 Legal Analyses
Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"
Section 12923 - Application of the laws about harassment
Cal. Gov. Code § 12923 Cited 71 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 200 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) “shall not be used in determining what kind of conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

Opp_msj_grill_final

42 Cited authorities

Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"

Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

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."

Holding that "[a]n employee is not required to use any particular language when requesting an accommodation but need only inform the employer of the need for an adjustment due to a medical condition." (cleaned up)

Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."

Holding that tort damages are not available for breach of an employment contract

Holding "there is no basis for excluding evidence of biased personnel management actions so long as that evidence is relevant to prove the communication of a hostile message"

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

Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"

Stating that Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 200 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) “shall not be used in determining what kind of conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act