Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the Court
CODRINGTON J.
*859I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant Natasha Meeks contends that she suffered sexual harassment on the job. She brought suit against her employer, defendant and appellant AutoZone, Inc. (AutoZone), and the alleged harasser, defendant and appellant Juan Fajardo, pursuing claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12940 et seq. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of AutoZone on Meeks's retaliation claim. A jury returned defense verdicts on…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Sprint/United Management Co. v. MendelsohnSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC.California Supreme Court · 2005
- People v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- People v. AlvarezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Alexander v. Community Hospital of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Clark v. County of SaginawDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2022
- Lee v. YRC, Inc. CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Leedy v. Bell CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Romo v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2021
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.