§Why CasetextPricing

Motion_for_judgment_on_the_pleadings

Motion

19 Cited authorities

  1. Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist.

    63 Cal.App.4th 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 482 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statutory language of § 12940 does not "support recovery on . . . a private right of action where there has been a specific factual finding that [the alleged] discrimination or harassment actually occurred at the plaintiffs's workplace"

  2. Penny v. United Parcel Service

    128 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 478 times
    Holding that "an employee whose only obligation to arbitrate is contained in a collective bargaining agreement retains the right to obtain a judicial determination of his rights under a statute such as the ADA"

  3. Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.

    163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 335 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim

  4. 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."

  5. City of Moorpark v. Superior Court

    18 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 303 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff may simultaneously pursue § 132a claim before Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and action in state court for common-law violation of public policy

  6. Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc.

    53 Cal.App.4th 935 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 260 times
    Concluding that the plaintiff presented triable issues of fact with respect to his negligence cause of action based on United Air Lines's failure to supervise employees and train employees about the plaintiff's rights under the FEHA

  7. Furtado v. State Personnel Board

    212 Cal.App.4th 729 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 60 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Setting out the separate elements for a FEHA "failure to accommodate" claim and a FEHA disability discrimination/"disparate treatment" claim

  8. Payne v. Anaheim Memorial Medical Ctrenter

    130 Cal.App.4th 729 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 43 times
    Concluding the physician plaintiff's allegations "against his coworkers present[ed] complex issues—a pattern of racist conduct intended to provide his minority patients with a lesser standard of care, and to interfere with his own ability to care of them," and, thus, further concluding that, unless the court presumed such allegations were unfounded, "which [it was] not permitted to do," the court could not "agree that the procedure outlined in [the hospital's bylaws], which, as in Glendale ..., ‘provides merely for the submission of the grievance form, without the taking of testimony, the submission of legal briefs, or resolution by an impartial finder of fact’ [was] adequate to resolve them"

  9. Alamillo v. BNSF Ry. Co.

    869 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2017)   Cited 24 times
    Concluding that no plausible accommodation claim exists if the employer fails to make a requested for accommodation and there is no evidence that disability was the motivating fact in the employer's decision

  10. Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist.

    22 Cal.App.5th 1187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 12 times
    In Hernandez, a probationary employee took leave so that she could undergo and recover from surgery necessitated by a work-place injury.

  11. Section 11065 - Definitions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11065   Cited 71 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Defining essential and marginal functions