§Why CasetextPricing

HARRIS v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Respondent's Reply Brief on the Merits

30 Cited authorities

  1. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle

    429 U.S. 274 (1977)   Cited 8,980 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"

  2. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

    490 U.S. 228 (1989)   Cited 4,609 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"

  3. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,248 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."

  4. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

    36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,532 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."

  5. Reid v. Google, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,087 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

  6. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions

    38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 459 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."

  7. Green v. State

    42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 292 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FEHA protects only employees with a disability who can perform the essential duties of the job with reasonable accommodation

  8. State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court

    31 Cal.4th 1026 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 229 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the defense of mitigation of damages applies to "many different sorts of legal claims" including statutory sexual harassment claims

  9. Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc.

    29 Cal.4th 1019 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 182 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff need only show that a condition limits, as opposed to substantially limits (the federal requirement), his ability to participate in a major life activity

  10. Conservatorship of Wendland

    26 Cal.4th 519 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Exercising discretion to decide an otherwise moot case concerning "important issues that are capable of repetition yet ... evad[ing] review"

  11. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 51,492 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

  12. Section 2000e-7 - Effect on State laws

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7   Cited 204 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing validity of state antidiscrimination provisions

  13. Section 33-12A-3 - Termination of contractual relationship; notice; good cause

    W. Va. Code § 33-12A-3   Cited 4 times
    Prohibiting an insurance company from discharging its agents except for "good cause"

  14. Section 7286.7 - Affirmative Defenses to Employment Discrimination. [Renumbered]

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 7286.7   Cited 10 times

    Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 7286.7 1. Repealer and new section filed 6-20-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certificate of Compliance included (Register 80, No. 25). 2. Editorial correction of Reference cite (Register 95, No. 6). 3. Change without regulatory effect renumbering former section 7286.7 to new section 11010 filed 10-3-2013 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2013, No. 40). Note: Authority cited: Section 1418(a), Labor Code. (Section 12935(a)

  15. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  16. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 119 times

    (a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide