Legal Opinion
Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 29, 2006No. A109826PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUVOLO, P. J.—
I
INTRODUCTION
Following 14 weeks of medical leave, appellant Barbara J. Neisendorf s at-will employment with respondent Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) was terminated. She filed suit, claiming, among other things, that the termination of her employment violated the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act of 1993 (CFRA) (Gov. Code, § 12945.2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7297, subd. (b)) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). After most of Neisendorf s case was dismissed on summary adjudication, including her claims of gender and age…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Daniel R. Arban, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. West Publishing Corp., Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Vera L. Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Mike Black Rita SilvaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Katherine R. Cehrs v. Northeast Ohio Alzheimer's Research Center and Windsor House, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2009
- Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co.California Supreme Court · 2007
- Rogers v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Davis v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.