Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Discrimination

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.

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

An employer may not defend an Equal Pay Act claim by showing that pay disparities are based on differences in the workers’ wages at prior jobs. Read More

Plaintiff could not state a viable employment discrimination claim based on her supervisor’s actions favoring his co-employee wife, but plaintiff could state a viable whistleblower claim based on the supervisor’s retaliation for her complaining about his favoritism. Read More

While a police department could not legally discriminate against its employee police officers based on their ethnicity, it could legally take adverse employment action against them based on the race of the man they shot.   Read More