During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

When an employee sues her employer under Gov. Code 12940(n) for failing to engage in an interactive process concerning making a reasonable accommodation for the employee's disability, the employee need not suggest a possible accommodation to begin the process, but must, by the time of trial, be able to show that a reasonable accommodation existed at the time the employer… Read More

A doctor who was joined a hosptial's staff and was given clinical privileges and performed surgery at the hospital was an independent contractor, not an employee and so could not state a Title VII claim for discrimination in employment against the hospital.  He was on call with the hospital only 5 days a month, and his earnings from the hospital… Read More

Summary judgment for defendant in an age and racial association FEHA discrimination case is affirmed.  The employer provided evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for firing plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence raising a triable issue of fact that the stated reason was pretextual.  The few alleged comments about plaintiff's age--mostly that she looked much younger than her age--were harmless and… Read More

Under the continuing violations doctrine, an employer is liable for actions that took place outside the limitations period if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the limitations period.  Here, Blue Fountain subjected the plaintiff to a continuous course of sexual harassment for more than a decade.  When plaintiff finally quit or was terminated, she sued. … Read More

Santa Clara University is not a state actor and so cannot be sued for violation of 42 USC 1983 in firing one of its professors.  It did not become a state actor merely because it isrequired by generally applicable civil rights laws to ameliorate sex or other forms of discrimination. Nor does its receipt of federal and state funds conditioned… Read More

Though not called "ministers" and though lacking as rigorous a religious education, teachers at a Catholic or other religious school, whose duties include educating students in the tenets of their religious faith fall within the "ministerial exception," based on the First Amendment, which prevents courts from adjudicating wrongful termination or employment discrimination claims brought by employees of religious institutions whose… Read More

First Amendment’s ministerial exception barred seminary dean-plaintiff’s claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but not breach of contract, since the latter is a matter of compliance with a faculty handbook and hence does not turn on an ecclesiastical inquiry or excessively entangle the court in religious matters. Read More

Under the 2008 amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is no longer necessary for an employee to show that his perceived disability limited or was perceived to limit a major life activity in order to show evidence of “disability”; all that the employee need plead or prove is that the employer regarded him as physically or mentally impaired. Read More

Administrative law judge’s decision finding cause for community college employee’s termination collaterally estopped employee’s later suit for discrimination, insofar as that suit sought to challenge ALJ’s finding that employer had a non-discriminatory reason for the termination. Read More

Summary judgment was improperly granted on plaintiff’s FEHA pregnancy discrimination claim; she did not need to show she had submitted a job application; it was enough to show that the employer’s discriminatory conduct deterred her from applying. Read More

1 2