15 Cited authorities

Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.
36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,565 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."
Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.
222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 935 times
Holding that a claim for breach of the implied covenant may be disregarded if it rests on the same set of facts as a claim for breach of contract
Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
21 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 1999) Cited 595 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
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics
46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 550 times
Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more
Gelfo v. Lockhead Martin Corp.
140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 292 times 1 Legal Analyses
Ruling that Kaplan's reasoning should not be applied to similarly limit California discrimination laws
Nealy v. City of Santa Monica
234 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 194 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)
Hendy v. Losse
54 Cal.3d 723 (Cal. 1991) Cited 329 times
Affirming an order sustaining defendants' demurrer without leave to amend when the plaintiff filed an amended complaint omitting harmful allegations from the original unverified complaint
Cochran v. Cochran
65 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 262 times
Holding that a defendant's conduct is "extreme or outrageous" when a reasonable person would exclaim "outrageous!" upon hearing of the defendant's actions
Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn.
128 Cal.App.4th 989 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 172 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. B174412 April 27, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC265484, Charles W. McCoy, Jr., Judge. Law Offices of Steven L. Zelig and Steven L. Zelig for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Black, Compean Hall, Frederick G. Hall and Jacqueline L. Shulman for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION PERLUSS, P.J. This case involves the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9 (section 340.9), which revives certain time-barred claims against insurers for policy benefits for
Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist.
47 Cal.App.4th 1505 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 68 times
Holding that the plaintiff could not bring an FEHA action against two codefendants in the case since he had not named in his DFEH complaint
Section 430.10 - Grounds for objection by party against whom complaint or cross-complaint filed
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10 Cited 1,048 times
Explaining "[t]he party against whom a complaint ... has been filed may object, by demurrer ..., to the pleading" on the basis that "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

Kern Medical Center Foundations Demurrer

15 Cited authorities

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 a claim for breach of the implied covenant may be disregarded if it rests on the same set of facts as a claim for breach of contract

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 "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more

Ruling that Kaplan's reasoning should not be applied to similarly limit California discrimination laws

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)

Affirming an order sustaining defendants' demurrer without leave to amend when the plaintiff filed an amended complaint omitting harmful allegations from the original unverified complaint

Holding that a defendant's conduct is "extreme or outrageous" when a reasonable person would exclaim "outrageous!" upon hearing of the defendant's actions

Holding that the plaintiff could not bring an FEHA action against two codefendants in the case since he had not named in his DFEH complaint

Explaining "[t]he party against whom a complaint ... has been filed may object, by demurrer ..., to the pleading" on the basis that "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"