Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that compliance with FEHA § 12945, which provides 4-months of pregnancy leave, did not insulate an employer from liability under other portions of FEHA
• overlapping statutes governing pregnancy-related disability leave because the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law’s “remedies augment, rather than supplant, those set forth elsewhere in the FEHA”
• collecting cases 8 and noting that “[a] finite leave of greater than four months may be a reasonable 9 accommodation for a known disability under the FEHA”
• “[A] disabled employee is entitled to a reasonable 2 accommodation – which may include leave of no statutorily fixed duration – provided that such 3 accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.”
• “[A] disabled employee is entitled to a reasonable 2 accommodation – which may include leave of no statutorily fixed duration – provided that such 3 accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Taylor v. Trees, Inc.
  E.D. California· 2014-11-05· cited 17×
• Cunha v. IntelliCheck, LLC
  N.D. California· 2017-05-26· cited 3×
• Faton v. Ahmedo
  California Court of Appeal· 2015-05-15
• Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists
  California Court of Appeal· 2021-10-29
• Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres
  California Court of Appeal· 2023-03-16
• Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2024-06-27

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization
  California Supreme Court· 1998-08-27· cited 663×
• People v. Murphy
  California Supreme Court· 2001-03-29· cited 306×
• Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 1999-08-13· cited 186×
• Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank
  California Court of Appeal· 2000-12-05· cited 176×
• Honig v. San Francisco Planning Department
  California Court of Appeal· 2005-03-10· cited 61×
• Rogers v. County of Los Angeles
  California Court of Appeal· 2011-08-16· cited 59×
• John Watkins v. Ameripride Services, Dba Ameripride Uniform Services
  Ninth Circuit· 2004-07-06· cited 44×
• Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co.
  California Court of Appeal· 2006-08-29· cited 39×
• Badih v. Myers
  California Court of Appeal· 1995-07-20· cited 32×