California Statutes
§ 12941. — 12941. (Added by renumbering Section 12941.1 by Stats. 2002, Ch. 525, Sec. 3.)
California·Code GOV Government Code - GOV·Div. 3.·Title 2. DIVISION 3. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT·Part 2.8. PART 2.8. CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT·Ch. 6. CHAPTER 6. Discrimination Prohibited·Art. 1. ARTICLE 1. Unlawful Practices, Generally
The Legislature hereby declares its rejection of the court of appeal opinion in Marks v. Loral Corp.
(1997)57 Cal.App.4th 30, and states that the opinion does not affect existing law in any way, including, but not limited to, the law pertaining to disparate treatment. The Legislature declares its intent that the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may be found to constitute age discrimination if use of that criterion adversely impacts older workers as a group, and further declares its
intent that the disparate impact theory of proof may be used in claims of age discrimination. The Legislature further reaffirms and declares its intent that the courts interpret the state’s statutes prohibiting age discrimination in employment br
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
California § 12941. (12941. (Added by renumbering Section 12941.1 by Stats. 2002, Ch. 525, Sec. 3.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Raymond Vincent Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corporation
113 F.3d 912 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp.
826 F.2d 794 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers
911 F.2d 233 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Ada S. Kern v. Levolor Lorentzen, Inc.
899 F.2d 772 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Mahoney v. Crocker National Bank
571 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. California, 1983)
Raymond Vincent NIDDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
103 F.3d 854 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Real v. Continental Group, Inc.
653 F. Supp. 736 (N.D. California, 1987)
Phipps v. Gary Drilling Co., Inc.
722 F. Supp. 615 (E.D. California, 1989)
Pfeifer v. United States Shoe Corp.
676 F. Supp. 969 (C.D. California, 1987)
Pena v. Downey Savings & Loan, Ass'n
929 F. Supp. 1308 (C.D. California, 1996)
Ramon Olvera v. Quest Diagnostics
(C.D. California, 2019)
Atakilti v. Bayer U.S. LLC
(N.D. California, 2021)
Plessinger v. Castleman and Haskell
838 F. Supp. 448 (N.D. California, 1993)
Leonard Ford v. Varian Associates, Inc., a Corporation, Black Company, Does 1 Through 5, Inclusive, Red Company
892 F.2d 1045 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Shelton L. Watson v. Volume Services, Inc. Canteen Corp Tw Recreational Services Thomas E. Hagins, Does 1-10, Inclusive
85 F.3d 639 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Robert Trezise v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Corp.
107 F.3d 878 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Joel Alan Schnur v. Gm Hughes Electronics Hughes Aircraft Co.
76 F.3d 388 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Jerry Brown, and Thelma Egan v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
116 F.3d 482 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Jack Buchanan v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
133 F.3d 925 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Legislative History
Added by renumbering Section 12941.1 by Stats. 2002, Ch. 525, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2003.