Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2022 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Department of Health Services v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2005Because the FEHA imposes this negligence standard only for harassment ‘by an employee other than an *589 agent or supervisor’ (§ 12940, subd. (j)(l)), by implication the FEHA makes the employer strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor.” (State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040-1041 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441 , 79 R3d 556], citation omitted.) On appeal, CYA contends the jury verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. 2005Because the FEHA imposes this negligence standard only for harassment ‘by an employee other than an *589 agent or supervisor’ (§ 12940, subd. (j)(l)), by implication the FEHA makes the employer strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor.” (State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040-1041 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441 , 79 R3d 556], citation omitted.) On appeal, CYA contends the jury verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 2 |
Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.green1 sentence2015(Id. at pp. 1044-1045.) As an example of a sufficiently severe isolated incident, in Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419 (Myers), we held a triable issue precluded summary judgment where the plaintiff’s supervisor drove her to a business meeting, and in the car on the way back to the office put his hand on her leg, told her he could please her sexually, tried to put her hand on his leg, drove to his home, pulled into the garage and shut the garage door, pushed himself on her, kissed her on the mouth, tried to put his hand up her dress, pushed her against the car | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Lesliegreen2 sentences2005Under the substantial evidence test, “ ‘[t]he power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted,’ to support the trial court’s findings. . . . ‘We must therefore view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving [him] the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in [his] favor ....’” (Estate of Leslie (1984) 37 Cal.3d 186, 201 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 561 , 689 P.2d 133 ], citations omitted.) “[T]he focus is on the quality, not the quantity of the evidence 2005Under the substantial evidence test, “ ‘[t]he power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted,’ to support the trial court’s findings. . . . ‘We must therefore view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving [him] the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in [his] favor ....’” (Estate of Leslie (1984) 37 Cal.3d 186, 201 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 561 , 689 P.2d 133 ], citations omitted.) “[T]he focus is on the quality, not the quantity of the evidence | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2003(See Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1059, fn. 4 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 .) Because the FEHA imposes this negligence standard only for harassment "by an employee other than an agent or supervisor" (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1)), by implication the FEHA makes the employer strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor. 2003(See Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1059, fn. 4 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 .) Because the FEHA imposes this negligence standard only for harassment "by an employee other than an agent or supervisor" (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1)), by implication the FEHA makes the employer strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co.
green
1 sentence2022(Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 415 .) Because the FEHA imposes this negligence standard only for harassment “by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor” (Gov. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.