Older 9th Circuit decisions hold that while statutory employment discrimination claims under Title VII and similar laws are arbitrable, there must be a showing that the employee knowingly waived his right to a jury trial of such claims. In this decision, the court holds that even if the "knowing waiver" standard is still good law, it was satisfied in this… Read More
Section 105(c) of the federal Mine Safety and Health Act (30 U.S.C. § 815(c)) prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee "because of" the employee's reporting a violation of the Act or seeking benefits under it. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S.Ct. 1731, 1739 (2020) and other recent cases, this decision… Read More
This decision affirms the trial court's reduction of punitive damages to a 2:1 ratio to actual damages in a disability employment discrimination case. The employer's conduct was reprehensible, although not grossly so. The large award of emotional distress damages already contained a punitive element, and particularly when combined with the 2:1 punitive damage award and with the large attorney fee… Read More
To prove a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act (29 USC 206(d)), the plaintiff need only show that men were paid more for substantially equal work. In making that comparison it is the overall job, not its individual segmnents that is to be considered. Here, the male professors of psychology were paid more than plaintiff for essentially the… Read More
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
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
A narrower state law does not preempt San Francisco’s ordinance more broadly prohibiting landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants based on their receiving government assistance to pay rent. 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
Plaintiff, who was fired when his wife complained to his boss (who was also her mother) that plaintiff was armed, angry and on drugs, failed to state an actionable claim for discrimination based on marital status. Read More
