Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
California law and the FEHA also allow for the imposition of punitive damages [9] [10] when a corporate defendant's officers, directors or managing agents engage in harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, or when such persons approve or consciously disregard prohibited conduct by lower-level employees in violation of the rights or safety of the plaintiff or others.
The Department enforces California state laws that prohibit harassment, discrimination, retaliation employment, housing, and public accommodations that provide for pregnancy leave, family, and medical. The D.F.E.H also accepts, investigates, mediates and prosecutes complaints alleging hate violence or threats of hate violence.
"Mixed motive" discrimination is a category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. Where the plaintiff has shown intentional discrimination in a mixed motive case, the defendant can still avoid liability for money damages by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made even in the absence of the impermissible ...
Employment practices liability is an area of United States labor law that deals with wrongful termination, sexual harassment, discrimination, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, breach of contract, emotional distress, and wage and hour law violations.
In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.
The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v.
A senior official at the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services has been accused in a lawsuit of sexual harassment and retaliation against a senior employee. Kendra Bowyer, a former ...
Case history; Prior: White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). Holding; The anti-retaliation provision (42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a)) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.