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.
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), [1] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not apply to an interactive online operator whose questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act.
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), is an agency of California state government charged with the protection of residents from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard; City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball LP; Corry v. Stanford University; County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition; Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America
California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963.
The Fair Housing Act confers jurisdiction to hear cases on federal district courts. The United States Department of Justice also has jurisdiction to file cases on behalf of the United States where there is a pattern and practice of discrimination or where HUD has found discrimination in a case and either party elects to go to federal court ...
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155) before issuing a ...
Activision Blizzard petitioned the court to pause the proceedings of the DFEH case in light of these ethics issues raised by the EEOC as to allow time for limited discovery by their own counsel, as well as to request a change of venue due to the new complexity of the case. [45] The court denied Activision-Blizzard's request to halt the suit in ...