In a disability discrimination
case under FEHA, like under the ADA, plaintiff has the burden of proving that
he/she has the ability to perform the essential functions of the job, with or
without reasonable accommodation.
2006
Burlington
Northern RR vs. White (2006)
Suspension without pay and
job reassignment are adverse actions under Title VII.
An adverse action exists if
a reasonable employee would have found the action materially adverse; meaning
the action might well have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making or
supporting a charge of discrimination.
2005
Yanowitz
vs. L’Oreal
USA (2005) 36 C4 1028
Under
FEHA, an adverse action encompasses the entire spectrum of employment actions
that are reasonably likely to adversely and materially affect an employee’s
job performance of opportunity for advancement in his or hers career.
Retaliatory
acts must be viewed collectively, not individually, in determining whether they
amount to an adverse action.
2004
California
Government Code § 12940 (j) (1)
Under the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, an employer will be responsible for sexual
harassment of an employee by a customer or vendor, if the employer knew or
should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate
corrective action.
2003
Department
of Health Services vs. Superior Court
(2003) 31 C4 1026
An employer is strictly liable for hostile
work environment sexual harassment by a supervisor under the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.
However, under the “avoidable
consequences” doctrine, an employer is entitled to a reduction in damages if
it is shown that the employee unreasonably failed to use the employers
preventive and corrective measures and that reasonable use of the employers
procedures would have prevented at least some of the harm the employee suffered,
without undue risk, expense or humiliation to the employee.
2002
Government
Code §12951 - English Only Rule
It is unlawful for an employer to prohibit the
use of any language in the workplace unless justified by business necessity.
2001
Government
Code §12940 (j) (3)
Non-supervisory perpetrators of sexual
harassment will be personally liable, whether or not the employer knew of the
harassment and whether or not the employer takes immediate and appropriate
corrective action.
2000
Armendariz vs. Foundation Healthcare
(2000) 24 C4 83
Employment claims, including
discrimination claims, are subject to arbitration, so long as the arbitration
procedure meets the following requirements:
A neutral arbitrator; no
limitation on remedies or damages; adequate discovery allowed; a written
arbitration decision; arbitration costs paid by the employer; and a mutual
agreement to arbitrate the claim.
1999
Meade vs. Cedarapids Inc
(9th Cir. 1999) 164 F3 1218
The
plaintiffs applied to work with the defendant and were told that the
future with the company looked very good. The plaintiffs were hired and moved
with their spouses to the defendants location in Oregon to take the job.
A short time later, the defendant
closed the Oregon facility and the plaintiffs were fired. The plaintiffs and
their spouses sued the company for fraud and misrepresentation.
The court allowed both the
employees and their spouses to sue for fraud, even though the spouses did not
participate in the interviews. The court said that the employees would have told
their spouses of the representations made by the company and the spouse would
rely on that information in consenting to the move. Therefore, the spouses could
sue for damages caused by the move.
Although this case involved
Oregon law, the federal court that decided the case also covers California, and
the reasoning could be extended to California employment claims.
1998
City of Moorpark vs. Superior Court (1998) 18 C4 1143
Plaintiff, an administrative
secretary, injured her knee, on the job. She underwent surgery for the knee
injury. After surgery, she returned to work and was fired. Her employer told her
she would not be able to perform the duties of the job due to her injury.
Plaintiff filed a Workers'
Compensation Claim. Plaintiff also filed a separate claim in superior court for
Disability Discrimination, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Previously, California Courts had
ruled that employees injured on the job could only sue for Workers' Compensation
benefits and not for discrimination.
The California Supreme Court
ruled that California employees, injured on the job, could sue for both Workers'
Compensation benefits and Disability Discrimination.
