Case Summary

3887 REVIEW DENIED An employer with a well-known policy of age discrimination in hiring may be liable to persons who were deterred by that policy from filing job applications; applicants who were deterred from applying for employment in the year prior to commencing an action were not barred by the one year statute of limitations on FEHA claims, even though the discriminatory policy that deterred them existed more than a year before the action was filed; screenwriters' agents who refused to represent writers over the age of forty because they were aware that TV producers would not hire them may be liable to the writers for aiding and abetting FEHA violations; writers suing for age discrimination under the Unfair Competition Law are not required to allege potential competitive harm or likely consumer deception to state a claim, but are entitled only to injunctive relief and not to classwide back pay; even though summary disposition of a class action leaves viable individual actions, appeal of orders that have the effect of terminating class actions is available under the "death knell" doctrine; the FEHA prohibition against filing a class action in state court after filing one in federal court applies to actions brought concurrently, but not to actions brought successively.

ALCH v SUPERIOR COURT (Middle-aged Writers) 122 CA4 339 [See: GovC 12940 etseq; CivC 51, 51.5; B&PC 17200 etseq; Daar v Yellow Cab 67 C2 695; Stephen v Enterprise 235 CA3 806; Richards v CH2M 26 C4 798, T/AT 9/01; Teamsters v US 431 US 324]