sex discrimination claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

sex discrimination claim in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. Manhartgreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980In contending that the Commission's race-conscious hiring practice violates title VII, the district attorney relies on a passage from Justice Stevens' opinion in Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart (1978) 435 U.S. 702, 709 [ 55 L.Ed.2d 657, 666 , 98 S.Ct. 1370 ], which states, inter alia, that "Congress has decided that classifications based on sex, like those based on national origin or race, are unlawful." The Manhart decision clearly does not control here, however, for that decision did not pass upon a remedial affirmative action program at all, but instead involved a traditional

1980In contending that the Commission's race-conscious hiring practice violates title VII, the district attorney relies on a passage from Justice Stevens' opinion in Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart (1978) 435 U.S. 702, 709 [ 55 L.Ed.2d 657, 666 , 98 S.Ct. 1370 ], which states, inter alia, that "Congress has decided that classifications based on sex, like those based on national origin or race, are unlawful." The Manhart decision clearly does not control here, however, for that decision did not pass upon a remedial affirmative action program at all, but instead involved a traditional

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV green
cal · 1991
2 sentences

2026(Id. at p. 1175.) The Supreme Court concluded a sex discrimination claim under the Unruh Act required intentional discrimination and, thus, could not be established using a disparate impact analysis. ( Harris, supra, at p. 1175 .) The court also rejected the claim of arbitrary economic discrimination, concluding the minimum income requirement did not distinguish among persons based 31. on the classifications listed in the Unruh Act or similar personal traits and the distinctions made were based on the landlord’s legitimate business interest in assessing prospective tenant’s ability to pay rent

2026(Id. at p. 1175.) The Supreme Court concluded a sex discrimination claim under the Unruh Act required intentional discrimination and, thus, could not be established using a disparate impact analysis. ( Harris, supra, at p. 1175 .) The court also rejected the claim of arbitrary economic discrimination, concluding the minimum income requirement did not distinguish among persons based 31. on the classifications listed in the Unruh Act or similar personal traits and the distinctions made were based on the landlord’s legitimate business interest in assessing prospective tenant’s ability to pay rent

22026–2026
Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. green
calctapp · 1994
1 sentence

2020(Martin, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1726 .) The court disagreed, explaining that “an EEOC right-to-sue notice satisfies the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies only for purposes of an action based on [federal law].

12020–2020
Alam v. Reno Hilton Corp. green
nvd · 1993
2 sentences

2003Moreover, Yanowitz has provided evidence that she was never asked, by Wiswall or anyone else at L'Oreal, to dismiss men for being insufficiently "hot." Alam relied on Malarkey to reject a discrimination claim based on an employer's selectively choosing "Barbie doll" types for certain positions. ( Alam, supra, 819 F.Supp. at pp. 912-913.) Both men and women were hired; plaintiffs complained that attractive men and women were hired over unattractive men and women. ( Ibid. ) Alam thus involved a pure physical appearance discrimination claim, rather than a sex discrimination claim.

2003Moreover, Yanowitz has provided evidence that she was never asked, by Wiswall or anyone else at L'Oreal, to dismiss men for being insufficiently "hot." Alam relied on Malarkey to reject a discrimination claim based on an employer's selectively choosing "Barbie doll" types for certain positions. ( Alam, supra, 819 F.Supp. at pp. 912-913.) Both men and women were hired; plaintiffs complained that attractive men and women were hired over unattractive men and women. ( Ibid. ) Alam thus involved a pure physical appearance discrimination claim, rather than a sex discrimination claim.

12003–2003
Jefferson v. California Department of Youth Authority green
cal · 2002
2 sentences

2002The distinction is significant because the employers in Lopez and Delaney were in at least as good a position as the employees to enumerate pending civil claims in the release, and therefore would not have to "struggle to enumerate all claims the employee might plan to allege." (Maj. opn., ante, 121 Cal. Rptr.2d at p. 396 , 48 P.3d at p. 427 .) In the present case, plaintiff had already filed a sex discrimination claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing under the Fair.

2002The distinction is significant because the employers in Lopez and Delaney were in at least as good a position as the employees to enumerate pending civil claims in the release, and therefore would not have to "struggle to enumerate all claims the employee might plan to allege." (Maj. opn., ante, 121 Cal. Rptr.2d at p. 396 , 48 P.3d at p. 427 .) In the present case, plaintiff had already filed a sex discrimination claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing under the Fair.

12002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Government Code § 12900 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IA 7 (1988–2017) CA 6 (1980–2026) MA 5 (1994–2025) MI 5 (1997–2023) WA 5 (1994–2019) OH 4 (1994–2024) PA 4 (1980–2019) MO 4 (2019–2025) OR 3 (1990–2023) HI 2 (2003–2025) IN 2 (2003–2004)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check