Campbell v. Arco Marine, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the FEHA “should not be construed to apply to non-residents employed outside the state when the tortious conduct did not occur in California”
• holding that the FEHA does 10 not apply to non-California resident
• stating that the CFEHA does not “apply to non-residents employed outside the state when the tortious conduct did not occur in California”
• finding that FEHA does 15 not apply, although the defendant company was headquartered in California, as the 16 alleged tortious conduct occurred while at sea or near the state of Washington
• reviewing FEHA’s language 13 and legislative history to reach its holding
• “FEHA was not intended to apply to non-residents where . 25 . . the tortious conduct took place out of [California’s] territorial boundaries.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).