23 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,549 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"
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) Cited 3,313 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."
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.
281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,892 times
Holding it was irrelevant whether an employee who was fired for lying during an investigation had actually lied
Michael v. Caterpillar Financial
496 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 646 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that putting plaintiff on brief paid administrative leave and a 90-day performance plan met the "relatively low bar" of a materially adverse action
Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
21 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 1999) Cited 600 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that enjoining a defendant's use of racial epithets at the defendant's workplace was not an unconstitutional prior restraint because it was based "on [his] continuing course of repetitive conduct" that violated employment discrimination law
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions
38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) Cited 474 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."
Reno v. Baird
18 Cal.4th 640 (Cal. 1998) Cited 590 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that FEHA's provisions regarding employment discrimination applied only to employers, in contrast to provisions regarding harassment which did apply to individuals as well as employers
Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist.
63 Cal.App.4th 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 485 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"
Hersant v. Department of Social Services
57 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 492 times
Holding that "to avoid summary judgment, an employee claiming discrimination must offer substantial evidence that the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination.
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 308 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."

Janice Pearson vs Los Angeles County Probation Department

23 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 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 it was irrelevant whether an employee who was fired for lying during an investigation had actually lied

Holding that putting plaintiff on brief paid administrative leave and a 90-day performance plan met the "relatively low bar" of a materially adverse action

Holding that enjoining a defendant's use of racial epithets at the defendant's workplace was not an unconstitutional prior restraint because it was based "on [his] continuing course of repetitive conduct" that violated employment discrimination law

Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."

Holding that FEHA's provisions regarding employment discrimination applied only to employers, in contrast to provisions regarding harassment which did apply to individuals as well as employers

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"

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