Stephan Pardi v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that retaliation under the 19 Rehabilitation Act has the same elements as under the Americans with Disabilities Act 20 (“ADA”)
• holding that to state a 25 claim under Title V of the ADA, Plaintiff must allege as a threshold matter, that “he or she 26 engaged in a protected activity”
• holding that California’s litigation privilege did not grant immunity in connection with FDCPA claim
• holding that settlement agreement barred later claims covered by the release in the settlement agreement where there was no indication of “fraud, duress, failure of informed consent, or any other basis that would render [the settlement agreement] invalid”
• stating that successful ADA retaliation claim requires causal link between employee’s protected activity and employer’s adverse employment action
• concluding the plaintiff 2 stated a prima facie case of ADA retaliation based on post-termination actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).