Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/disability-discrimination-110
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 23:33:37
Document Index: 277885386

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 12182', 'art 36', '§ 51', '§ 12940', '§ 12940', '§ 12940', '§ 12940', '§12940', '§12940', '§17200', '§ 12940', '§ 1812', '§ 12940']

The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the operation of private businesses. Civ. Code § 51(a), (b). This includes discriminatory conduct directed at persons with disabilities. Id. at (b).
Civil Code section 54 provides that individuals with disabilities have the same right to access public streets and facilities as the general public. Civil Code section 54 “does not entitle a disabled individual to greater access than the public at large.” Turner v. Assoc. of Am. Med. Colleges (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1412.
The Unruh Act is violated if individual rights are abridged under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Civ. Code § 51(f). The Unruh Act comprehensively incorporates ADA accessibility standards. Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 673.
While the ADA itself does not allow a private action by a disabled individual denied access to public accommodations, “by incorporating the ADA into the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s own civil rights law covering public accommodations, which does provide for such a private damages action, the Legislature has afforded this remedy to persons injured by a violation of the ADA.” Id. at 673.
To prevail on a discrimination claim under the ADA, Plaintiff must show that:
Defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and
Plaintiff was denied public accommodations by Defendant because of a disability.
Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. (2010) 603 F. 3d 666, 670.
“The third element... is met if there was a violation of applicable accessibility standards.” Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp. (2011) 816 F.Supp.2d 831, 847. “Discrimination” includes a failure to ensure that alterations are “readily accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities” and, where there are no alterations, “a failure to remove architectural barriers... in existing facilities... where such removal is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) and 12183(a)(2).
The term “disability” refers to:
Architectural Barrier Defined
“To determine if Plaintiff describes an ‘architectural barrier’ the Court must turn to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG).” Rush v. Denco Enterprises, Inc. (2012) 857 F.Supp.2d 969, 973.
“If an element does not meet or exceed ADAAG standards, it is considered a barrier to access.” Id. “Codified in 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A, these standards constitute legally binding regulations.” Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant (2000) 96 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1086. A disabled person who encounters a ‘barrier,’ i.e., an architectural feature that fails to comply with an ADAAG standard relating to the disability, suffers unlawful discrimination as defined by the ADA. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc. (2011) 631 F.3d 939, 948, fn. 5.
The Department of Justice, Technical Assistance Manual on the American with Disabilities Act (at § III-4.4100) states that “[a]rchitectural barriers are physical elements of a facility that impede access by people with disabilities.”
For example, section 4.1.2 of the ADAAG sets forth the requirements for disabled parking. Under the ADAAG, if the business provides between 1 and 25 parking spaces, it must provide at least one handicap van accessible parking space with a 96-inch by eight-foot access aisle. Additionally, for every 25 parking spaces after that, a business must provide another handicap-accessible parking space (with a 60-inch wide access aisle).
Note, “[a] violation of the ADA can occur where Defendant’s business is in compliance with ADAAG requirements, but Defendant does not maintain its compliant features in a useable manner.” Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc. (2011) 826 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1227.
“The discrimination does not need to be intentional and can be found on a disparate impact theory.” Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1418 (clarifying disparate impact theory whereby “...although the alleged discriminatory policy is facially neutral, it has the effect of discriminating against members of a protected class”). Id. at 1403 n.8.
“By adding subdivision (f) to section 51, making all ADA violations — whether or not involving intentional discrimination — violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act as well, the Legislature included ADA violations in the category of discrimination contrary to section 51, thus making them remediable under section 52.” Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 672. ”As the Lentini court explained, quoting an earlier district court decision... ‘Because the Unruh Act has adopted the full expanse of the ADA, it must follow, that the same standards for liability apply under both Acts.’” Id. citing Lentini v. California Center for the Arts (9th Cir. 2004) 370 F.3d 837 at 847. “The effect was to create an exception to Harris‘s holding that ‘a plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh [Civil Rights] Act must plead and prove intentional discrimination... ’” Id. citing Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, at 1175.
“A plaintiff who establishes a violation of the ADA, therefore, need not prove intentional discrimination in order to obtain damages under section 52.” Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 673.
Thus, “[a]s a threshold matter, a meritorious equal protection claim requires a showing that the [defendant] has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.” Garcia v. Four Points Sheraton LAX (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 364, 382.
Useful Rulings on Disability Discrimination
Chris Langer vs California Finest Oil
The Motion (ROA # 26) of Plaintiff Chris Langer ("Plaintiff") for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant California Finest Oil ("Defendant"), and that Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff as to the Unruh claim and award Plaintiff a single statutory penalty of $4,000, is GRANTED. The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the operation of private businesses. C...
..private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) Plaintiff was denied public accommodations by Defendant because of a disability. Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 603 F. 3d 666, 670. The third element is met if there was a violation of applicable accessibility standards. Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2011)...
HANSBERRY, NANNETTE VS HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT PRPERTIES
Defendant Pacific Springs, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Background On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff Nannette Hansberry (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Highland Development Properties and Does 1-10. Default was entered as to Highland Development Properties on September 1, 2017. Judgment was entered against Highland Development Properties on October...
... On February 1, 2018, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 14, 2018. Defendant filed a reply on March 6, 2018. On March 13, 2018, the Court continued the motion, finding Defendant failed to file a declaration in compliance with CCP section 430.41(a)(3). Discussion The Court finds Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirements p...
Homes on Wheels et al vs City of Santa Barbara
Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer This an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the legality of parking ordinances and policies of the City of Santa Barbara with respect to RV parking. Plaintiff Homes on Wheels (“HOW”) is an unincorporated association whose membership consists of persons who reside in motor vehicles in the City of Santa Barbara and surrounding areas. (S...
..) “City has enacted ordinances that restrict parking of certain motor vehicles, … designated as RVs, on city streets.” (SAC, ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs challenge one such ordinance, Santa Barbara Municipal Code (“SBMC”) section 10.44.205. (Ibid.) The City has also “legally empowered its officials to designate zones along the curbs of the city streets where RVs may not legally park.” (SAC, ¶ 7.) City law em...
Demurrer overruled. Defendant to answer within 20 days. This Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for: (1) wrongful death, (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress and (3) violation Civil Code § 51-the Unruh Civil rights Act arises out of the death of decedent Margaret Wida (“Wida”) when she hit head after tripping over a concrete block used to anchor a stop sign that was placed in the middle o...
..iled to plead any facts that showed Wida suffered from a disability. The demurrer is based upon the grounds that the 3rd cause of action fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiff has alleged facts that Wida suffered from a disability. Plaintiff has added the following allegation in the SAC: “Prior to the incident, Decedent Wida … underwent a hip replacement. Due to her physical condition, Dece...
Elfriede Kuegel vs Encina Pepper Tree
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Summary Adjudication Motion for Summary Adjudication RULING Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the third and fourth causes of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act is denied. BACKGROUND In this action, plaintiffs Elfriede Kuegel and Michele Jochner (mother and daughter) seek monetary damages for injur...
..sed flowerbed impermissibly impedes access for disabled persons. Ms. Kuegel asserts that she is a person with a physical disability due to her age (she was 87 at the time of the incident). The complaint alleges causes of action against defendants Encina-Pepper Tree, LLC, dba Best Western Plus Encina Lodge & Suites, and Best Western International, Inc. for (1) premises liability, (2) negligent in...
BELL, ANTHONY VS SAY, KIMLEANG
Plaintiff Anthony Bell’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Background This is a disability action. Plaintiff Anthony Ball alleges Defendant Kimleang Say is the owner of Lucy’s Mini Market. Plaintiff alleges he is disabled, in that he frequently requires a cane or a walker to walk due to back pain. Plaintiff further alleges he was discriminated against when he visited the Market, because the...
..Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is so...
Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination
Civil - Unlimited (80)
Civil Case Management Conference (63)
Discovery Hearing (42)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (132)
Slapp / Slappback Motion Hearing (24)
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) (28)
Brian C. Walsh (10)
Colleen Sterne (26)
David S. Cunningham (28)
Elaine Lu (27)
Elaine Lu Or Georgina Torres Rizk (18)
Gregory Keosian (50)
Harold E. Kahn (41)
Holly J. Fujie (29)
James Di Cesare (11)
John P. Doyle (31)
Michael J. Raphael (74)
Michael P. Linfield (153)
Patricia D. Nieto (38)
Randolph M. Hammock (57)
Robert C. Hight (19)
Robert S. Draper (94)
Teresa A. Beaudet (74)
Timothy Taylor (371)
Walter Schwarm (17)
Yolanda Orozco (33)
Yolanda Orozco Or Georgina Torres Rizk (8)
Fresno County, CA (48)
Los Angeles County, CA (1,491)
Riverside County, CA (50)
Sacramento County, CA (108)
San Diego County, CA (615)
San Francisco County, CA (100)
Shasta County, CA (17)
Ventura County, CA (80)
Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639.) While “a fee request ordinarily should be documented in great detail,” the absence of time records and billing statements did not deprive the court of “substantial evidence” to support an award when the attorney provided a declaration under the penalty of perjury which described the work and permitted the trial court to make its own evaluation of the reasonableness of the work done in light of the nature of the case and on the credibility of counsel’s declaration.
ANALYSIS: On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Jemal Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Hooshang Radnia as Trustee of the Hooshang Radnia Family Trust and United RTM Incorporated (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Following Defendants’ failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered Defendants’ default on August 22, 2018. On September 27, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default.
Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635, fn. 21.) “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford, supra, at p. 396.) Here, Cisneros’s counsel has attached billing statements to the instant motion detailing the nature of the work performed. (Mikhov Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) GM argues that counsel’s hourly rates are inflated.
(1) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: (1) and (2) Defendant Paula Kane RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) and (2) Plaintiff Jane Betts STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that she was fired from her position as Defendant’s legal assistant, after over 25 years, based on age, gender, and disability/perceived disability discrimination, and that she suffered retaliation, harassment including sexual harassment, and various Labor
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION To establish a discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must prove the following elements: “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Dinslage v.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION [Gov. Code § 12940(a)]; 2. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY [Gov. Code § 12940(m)]; 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS [Gov. Code § 12940(n)]; 4. RETALIATION FOR REQUESTING ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940(m)]; 5. HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY [Gov. Code §12940(j)]; 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, & HARASSMENT [Gov. Code §12940(k)]; 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 8.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 7, 2020, alleging the following causes of action against her former employer: (1) wrongful termination, (2) disability discrimination, (3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations (Gov't Code 12940), (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process (Gov't Code §§ 12940, et seq.), and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case for disability discrimination? LAUSD contends Plaintiff could not perform essential functions on the job nor was Plaintiff subjected to adverse employment and, as such, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination.
In Opposition, Salazar argues that her claim for disability discrimination was based on the fact that she was not given reasonable accommodations (with light duty assignment) although “male officers, during the same time as Plaintiff’s restrictions, were provided with light-duty assignments, despite those male officers being injured outside of the GDP workplace.” (UMF 59; Opp. at pp. 13-14.)
Plaintiff sued for disability discrimination, failure to provide accommodation, to prevent discrimination, and for retaliation. On December 20, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and defendant now brings this motion requesting $22,750.00 in attorneys’ fees and $24,902.59 in costs.
DISCUSSION Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA A prima facie case of disability discrimination requires: (1) plaintiff suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) plaintiff could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations; and (3) plaintiff was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability. (Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310.)
Code §§ 1812.10, 2984.4.[2]) Plaintiff cannot seriously dispute that these venue provisions in the Unruh Act and Rees-Levering Act do not apply to corporate defendants. Because the Legislature amended CCP section 395(b) to serve the same function as these other consumer protection laws, CCP section 395(b) must also apply to consumer transaction actions brought by a consumer plaintiff against corporate defendants. In sum, CCP section 395(b) is the governing venue statute in this action. B.
Demurrer Disability Discrimination The elements of a cause of action for disability discrimination under FEHA are that plaintiff: “(1) suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability. [Citation.]” (Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310.)
Plaintiff Delia Perdue’s Claims of Disability MMLB and DayZ move to strike paragraphs 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 83, 84, 98, 99, 113 and 114 of the TAC, which allege that Delia Perdue became physically disabled during her time working at the park on the grounds that these paragraphs allege irrelevant information as neither the Second Amended Complaint nor the Third Amended Complaint includes any cause of action for disability discrimination, failure to engage in an interactive process, or failure to provide a reasonable
Sixth Cause of Action – Retaliation for Complaining of Disability Discrimination and/or Harassment FEHA makes it unlawful for the employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because he or she has “opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 120 next last »