Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 20, 2012No. B231817Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
Plaintiff Sylvia Ventura originally alleged battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and ratification, all arising out of claims that one of the defendants—a supervisor—had been sexually pursuing plaintiff and made physical, unwanted advances toward her. Plaintiff did not assert any claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), which requires an employer to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(l)), and under which attorney fees are available…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Wisconsin v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Marjati Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Roger E.A. Taylor, Wayne Liem, Bill McKinley Ron Birtch, Nancy AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Venegas v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Chavez v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.