Mahler v. Judicial Council of California
| Docket Number | A158696 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 2021 |
Retired superior court judges who have participated in the Temporary Assigned Judges Program (TAJP) challenged recent changes to the program made by the Chief Justice, including limits on the duration of service in the program with some exceptions. Plaintiffs, claiming these changes discriminate against “older” retired judges, filed suit, alleging disparate impact age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The trial court dismissed without leave to amend on the ground...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
2 cases
-
City of Whittier v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.
...National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354, fn. 20, 100 Cal. Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089; accord, Mahler v. Judicial Council of California (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 82, 112, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 34.) Thus, the employer’s wrongdoing appears not at the time it institutes the policy or practice, but in a s......
-
Fujishige v. Amazon.com Servs.
...anecdotal observations still fail to demonstrate the requisite causation to show a significant disparity between males and females. See id. asserts that Amazon's Productivity Policy--ranking warehouse employees on a weekly basis by Productivity Scores and writing up the bottom 5% for poor p......
1 firm's commentaries
-
California Approves Landmark AI Employment Regulations
...practice); see also, Vernon v. City of Berkeley, 2006 WL 1467790, *10 (Cal. Ct. App. May 30, 2006); Mahler v. Judicial Council of California, 67 Cal. App. 5th 82, 126 (2021). 4 ' 11072 provides, "[i]t is unlawful for an employer or other covered entity to use a qualification standard, emplo......