DEMAND FOR CASE REMAND

Because Plaintiff concludes The Superior Court of California did not accord appropriate deference to the relevant Federal and/or State etc regulations; Plaintiff therefore asks for the reversal of this case's dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint claim. We have concluded The Superior Court of California used the wrong evidentiary standard in assessing Plaintiff's case; therefore we vacate its denial and remand for consideration under the correct standard. We therefore demand The Superior Court of California remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GO TO: DEMAND FOR CASE REMAND @

http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/04/demand-for-case-remand.html

"The courts have found a "pattern or practice" when the evidence establishes that the discriminatory actions were the defendant's regular practice, rather than an isolated instance. This does not mean that the Department has to prove that a defendant always discriminates or that a large number of people have been affected. A "pattern or practice" means that the defendant has a policy of discriminating, even if the policy is not always followed. The courts have held that the Attorney General has discretion to decide what constitutes an issue of "general public importance," and the courts will not second-guess that decision. Thus, the Department can bring suit even when a discriminatory act has occurred only once, if it affects a group of persons and the Department believes that the discrimination raises an issue of general public importance..."

SEE ALSO: A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATION:

http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-pattern-or-practice-of-discrimination.html