23 Cited authorities

Miklosy v. Regents of University of California
44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2008) Cited 467 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
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."
Nealy v. City of Santa Monica
234 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 196 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the employee should be able to identify specific, available reasonable accommodations through the litigation process, and particularly by the time the parties have conducted discovery" (citing Scotch, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 365)
Mokler v. County of Orange
157 Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 227 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding three offensive encounters involving no physical threats over a five-week period not "severe or pervasive" as a matter of law
Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
21 Cal.3d 910 (Cal. 1978) Cited 514 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that jury appropriately found bad faith even though "some of evidence was to the effect that Farmers did no more here than assert its legal position reasonably and in good faith"
Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc.
229 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 132 times 1 Legal Analyses
Ruling against a plaintiff who argued that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on conduct violating a fundamental public policy is an exception to the general preemption rule
Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
163 Cal.App.3d 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) Cited 251 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming nonsuit where plaintiff's expert could not testify to a greater than "50-50 chance" that defendant's product contributed to development of disease
McCoy v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n
216 Cal.App.4th 283 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 111 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that comments about other women's bodies outside of their presence, with no sexual comments directed to the plaintiff, that were made between five and nine times over the course of four months, were not so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment
City of Los Angeles v. Decker
18 Cal.3d 860 (Cal. 1977) Cited 279 times
Articulating independent determination standard of review
Mercer v. Perez
68 Cal.2d 104 (Cal. 1968) Cited 285 times
Holding Supreme Court had no power to revive the trial court's jurisdiction to specify reasons for granting a new trial where trial court failed to comply with § 657, discussing Free with approval
Section 3600 - Generally
Cal. Lab. Code § 3600 Cited 908 times 6 Legal Analyses
Noting that liability for compensation under California's Workers’ Compensation Act is "in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person "

Memorandum_in_support_of_motion_for_new_trial

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

Holding that "the employee should be able to identify specific, available reasonable accommodations through the litigation process, and particularly by the time the parties have conducted discovery" (citing Scotch, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 365)

Holding three offensive encounters involving no physical threats over a five-week period not "severe or pervasive" as a matter of law

Holding that jury appropriately found bad faith even though "some of evidence was to the effect that Farmers did no more here than assert its legal position reasonably and in good faith"

Ruling against a plaintiff who argued that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on conduct violating a fundamental public policy is an exception to the general preemption rule

Affirming nonsuit where plaintiff's expert could not testify to a greater than "50-50 chance" that defendant's product contributed to development of disease

Holding that comments about other women's bodies outside of their presence, with no sexual comments directed to the plaintiff, that were made between five and nine times over the course of four months, were not so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment

Articulating independent determination standard of review

Holding Supreme Court had no power to revive the trial court's jurisdiction to specify reasons for granting a new trial where trial court failed to comply with § 657, discussing Free with approval

Noting that liability for compensation under California's Workers’ Compensation Act is "in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person "