Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (colloquially the "Unruh Act") is an expansive 1959 California law that prohibits California businesses from engaging in unlawful discrimination against all persons (consumers) within California's jurisdiction, where the unlawful discrimination is in part based on a person's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition ...
The Unruh Civil Rights Act, section 51 of the California Civil Code, enacted in 1959, did not expressly include a prohibition against discrimination by businesses based on sexual orientation until 2005; however, California courts interpreted the law to prohibit such discrimination as early as 1984 in Rolon v.
Perez v. Sharp, [1] also known as Perez v. Lippold or Perez v.Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4–3 majority that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
California lawmakers have cleared a bill that would explicitly ban caste discrimination in the state, sending it to the governor’s desk for signature. Caste discrimination could soon be banned ...
Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and ...
California moved closer to becoming the first U.S. state to ban caste discrimination after a bill to outlaw the practise passed the California Assembly late on Monday. U.S. discrimination laws ban ...
I talk lots about illegal discrimination, but there are many forms of employment discrimination that are perfectly legal. Here are some of the types of discrimination that may be legal if they ...
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.