OrientationWhat this page is, and when to act now
In plain words#
Every claim is a list of elements, and every element is a fact question. A table that puts the elements in one column, what each requires in the next, the facts that may support it in the third, the facts that may defeat it in the fourth, and the authority in the fifth is the most compact statement of a claim the law allows. The project's directive requires such a table for every important theory. This page supplies them.
The tables are built from the Roadmaps and the authority register. "Facts that may support" and "facts that may defeat" are categories of facts, not findings; the defense playbook (133) carries the defenses in prose, and the worksheets (100–114) collect the facts. Where an authority is marked "R1 pending" or "not opened," the element is stated at the level the project has verified and must be re-checked before publication.
Deadline
Deadlines. None here. Each claim's limitation source is in Roadmap 096.1.
Note
Private-stage verification note (2026-10-17): The source-A serial identity 096.3 remains proposed, not canonically mapped to any competing source-B index. This candidate has targeted, mixed-grade checks only: official federal statutory text, federal agency guidance, and nonofficial California statutory reproductions. A checked cell is not an outcome, a claim deadline, a privilege determination, or publication clearance. LEAP-dependent references to 096.1/096.2 are historical source-A labels, with routing HELD pending body-to-body canonical reconciliation.
On this page — 12 sections
- Orientation
- Working analysis
- Research depth
Working analysisLaw, evidence and procedure
How to read the tables#
Each row is one element. "What it generally requires" is the legal standard in one or two sentences. "Facts that may support" and "Facts that may defeat" are illustrative, never exhaustive, and never a prediction. "Primary authority" is the register ID; the full citation is in the register and the public libraries.
Employment and civil-rights claims#
FEHA disability discrimination — Gov. Code § 12940(a) (Roadmap 013)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covered FEHA employer | Under Gov. Code § 12926(d), a private employer generally must regularly employ five or more persons; California state/political subdivisions and cities are separately included, subject to statutory exclusions. Establish the responsible employer or legally supported agent, not merely a brand or payroll label. | Dated personnel counts; governing contracts; hiring, payroll, supervision and labor-relations records | Private employer below five-person regular threshold; statutory exclusion; genuinely distinct employer; no supportable agency or employment link | Gov. Code § 12926(d) (2026 nonofficial statute reproduction, original official host inaccessible); AR-010-S05; AR-S901 (R1 pending); AR-094-S01–S02 |
| Employee | The plaintiff was an employee or applicant under the applicable FEHA employment test; a tax label does not decide status by itself | W-2; offer letter; schedule, clinical and hiring control; agreement and actual practice | Evidence of genuine independent-contractor relationship, distinct professional-corporation control, or different responsible employer; a 1099 alone is not dispositive | AR-095-S02–S03 (employment-status rule requires source/case-specific check) |
| Disability or medical condition | A physical or mental disability that limits a major life activity (FEHA's "limits" standard), a medical condition, or being regarded as disabled | Diagnosis; restrictions; leave; employer's own treatment of the plaintiff as impaired | Transient minor condition; no limitation; no employer knowledge | AR-013-S01; AR-013-R01 |
| Qualified | Able to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation | Performance history; clearance; accommodation that works | Restrictions precluding an essential function; no accommodation possible | AR-013-C01; AR-013-R01 |
| Adverse action | Termination, demotion, refusal to reinstate, or other action materially affecting terms | The action and its date | Minor change; voluntary resignation (unless constructive discharge) | AR-010-C04; AR-019-C01 |
| Substantial motivating reason | The disability was a substantial motivating reason for the action | Timing; shifting reasons; comparators; decisionmaker's statements | Documented legitimate reason predating knowledge; same-decision proof | AR-010-C10 |
| Harm and causation | The action caused damage | Lost wages; distress; treatment | Mitigation; same decision limits remedies | AR-010-C10; 096.2 |
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation — § 12940(m) (Roadmap 014)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employer; employee; disability | As above | As above | As above | As above |
| Employer knowledge | The employer knew of the disability | Written request; restrictions provided; obviousness; employer's inquiry | No disclosure; no obvious impairment | AR-015-R01 |
| Qualified with accommodation | A reasonable accommodation existed that would have allowed performance of essential functions | Schedule change; modified duty; reassignment to a vacant position; leave of finite duration | No accommodation would allow essential functions; indefinite leave | AR-014-C01; AR-014-C02 |
| Failure to accommodate | The employer failed to provide it | Request denied; silence; termination instead | Accommodation provided; employee refused it | AR-014-R01 |
| Undue hardship (defense) | Significant difficulty or expense relative to the employer's size and resources | — (employer's burden) | Cost analysis; operational impact; safety | AR-014-R01 |
| Harm and causation | As above | As above | As above | — |
Failure to engage in the interactive process — § 12940(n) (Roadmap 015)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employer; employee; disability; knowledge | As above | As above | As above | — |
| Request or known need | The employee requested accommodation or the employer otherwise knew of the need | Request; restrictions; return-to-work note | No request and no notice | AR-015-R01 |
| Employee willing | The employee was willing to participate | Responses to inquiries; provision of information | Refusal to respond; refusal of all alternatives | AR-015-C01 |
| Employer failed to engage in good faith | No timely, good-faith process | Silence; unilateral decision; unreasonable demands for information; termination during the process | Documented meetings; alternatives offered; reasonable follow-up | AR-015-R01; AR-015-C01–C03 |
| Available accommodation | Pleading practice ordinarily identifies a reasonable accommodation that was available | As in the accommodation table | None available | AR-014-C01; AR-015-C01 |
| Harm and causation | As above | As above | As above | — |
FEHA retaliation — § 12940(h) (Roadmap 019)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protected activity | Opposing a practice forbidden by FEHA; participating in a proceeding; requesting accommodation (§ 12940(m)(2)) | Written complaint referring to discrimination; charge; accommodation request | Complaint about non-FEHA matters; no reasonable belief | AR-010-S05; AR-019-C01 |
| Adverse action | Action that materially affects terms, conditions or privileges | Termination; demotion; refusal to reinstate; pattern of actions | Trivial acts | AR-019-C01 |
| Causal link | The protected activity was a substantial motivating reason | Timing; knowledge; shifting reasons; antagonism | No knowledge; intervening cause; decision already in motion | AR-019-J01; AR-010-C10 |
| Harm and causation | As above | As above | As above | — |
ADA discrimination, accommodation and retaliation — 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, 12203 (Roadmaps 012, 019)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covered ADA Title I entity | Employer generally must have 15 or more employees for each working day in each of at least 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year; § 12111(5)(B) has exclusions. Employment agencies, labor organizations and labor-management committees have separate covered-entity routes. The statutory 20-week rule is not FEHA's five-person rule. | Employer-specific employee/relationship counts by week and year; evidence of legally sufficient integrated-enterprise or joint employment where asserted | Missing statutory threshold weeks; applicable exclusion; wrong respondent or unproven employment/control link | 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2),(5)(A)-(B) (official OLRC text through P.L. 119-120, 2026-10-07); current EEOC coverage guidance; AR-012-S02 |
| Disability | Impairment substantially limiting a major life activity; record of; regarded as (broad construction) | Diagnosis; limitation; employer's treatment | No limitation; transitory and minor for "regarded as" | AR-012-S01; AR-012-R01 |
| Qualified individual | Essential functions with or without accommodation | As FEHA | As FEHA | AR-012-S02; AR-012-C03 |
| Discrimination because of disability | But-for causation in the Ninth Circuit | Timing; statements; pretext | Legitimate reason; no knowledge | AR-012-C02 |
| Accommodation | Known limitation of an otherwise qualified individual, a reasonable accommodation that would address it, failure to provide it, and no proven undue hardship; coverage solely under ADA regarded-as definition does not require accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 12201(h) | Accommodation request, functional limitation, available modification; process communications | No actual/record-of impairment supporting accommodation, only regarded-as status; no reasonable option; undue hardship | 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(b)(5), 12201(h) (official 2026 federal text); AR-012-R02; AR-014-C02 |
| Retaliation | Protected activity; adverse action that might dissuade a reasonable worker; causal link | Request for accommodation; complaint; charge | No protected activity; no causation | AR-019-S01; AR-019-C02; AR-023-C01 |
| Exhaustion | Charge filed; right-to-sue notice; suit within 90 days of receipt | Charge; notice; dates | Untimely; different respondent; different basis | AR-125-F01–F02; AR-023-S06; AR-S607 |
Employer-coverage and defendant-identity adversarial control (targeted review October 17, 2026). For the ADA threshold, preserve the legally relevant employees and employment relationships on each working day of each asserted qualifying calendar week in the current and preceding calendar years. Integrated-enterprise and joint-employer tests are legally distinct; corporate branding, shared counsel, common ownership, a shared benefits administrator, one W-2, one EDD identifier, or overlapping personnel alone cannot substitute for a fact-specific showing of who employed, controlled, or made the challenged decision. The EEOC's historical threshold guidance supplies a useful investigative framework but does not replace current controlling Ninth Circuit law. Anticipate defenses involving distinct corporate operations, exempt entity status, an insufficient 20-week census, or absence of labor-relations control. FEHA private regular-five-person coverage and the separate public-entity statutory language must be examined independently. The numbers 096.1–096.3 remain source-A historical identifiers; source-B routing and LEAP links are HELD. This statement finds no case-specific CFMG/Wellpath employer identity or violation.
Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation (Roadmap 021)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure or refusal | Disclosure to a government agency, a person with authority over the employee, or an employee with authority to investigate, of information the employee reasonably believed disclosed a violation of statute, rule or regulation (§ 1102.5(b)); or refusal to participate in a violation (§ 1102.5(c)) | Written report to supervisor, compliance, board or agency about staffing minimums, licensing, patient-safety law, wage law | Complaint about management style; no legal violation implicated; unreasonable belief | AR-020-S01; AR-023-S01 |
| Adverse action | Discharge, discipline, or other adverse employment action | As FEHA | Trivial | AR-020-S01 |
| Contributing factor | The disclosure was a contributing factor (plaintiff's burden, preponderance) | Timing; knowledge; pretext; pattern | No knowledge; intervening cause | AR-020-S02; AR-020-C01 |
| Employer's rebuttal (burden shift) | Clear and convincing evidence the employer would have taken the action for legitimate, independent reasons | — | Documented independent reason; consistent treatment of others | AR-020-S02; AR-020-C01 |
| No exhaustion required | No prerequisite of a § 98.7 complaint | — | — | AR-021-S02; AR-021-C01 |
| Harm | Damages | As FEHA | Mitigation | — |
Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 and Bus. & Prof. Code § 2056 (Roadmap 022)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covered setting | § 1278.5: a health facility as defined; § 2056: a physician advocating for medically appropriate care | Licensed facility; physician's advocacy | A jail infirmary is generally not a licensed health facility; the plaintiff is not a physician | AR-011-S03; AR-011-S02 |
| Protected conduct | § 1278.5: complaint, grievance or report about quality of care or services; § 2056: advocacy for appropriate care | Written complaint; report to a body | Not about patient care | As above |
| Adverse action and causation | Discrimination or retaliation because of the protected conduct; § 1278.5's rebuttable presumption where the action follows within 120 days of a report to a listed body (as read) | Timing within the statutory window; knowledge | Legitimate reason; outside window | AR-011-S03 |
| Remedies | Reinstatement, lost wages, fees under § 1278.5(g) as read; § 2056 as the statute provides | — | — | AR-011-S03; AR-011-S02 |
Wrongful termination in violation of public policy — Tameny (Roadmaps 010, 011)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employer-employee relationship | Employment, not independent contracting | As above | As above | AR-010-C01; AR-010-C05 |
| Termination | Actual or constructive discharge (intolerable conditions a reasonable employer would realize would compel resignation) | Termination letter; intolerable conditions documented | Voluntary resignation; conditions not intolerable | AR-010-C04 |
| Public policy | Delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions; public; fundamental; well established at the time | FEHA; § 1102.5; § 6310; a specific statute identified | A private interest; no statutory source; policy not established at the time | AR-010-C06; AR-011-C01 |
| Substantial motivating reason | The violation of policy substantially motivated the termination | Timing; pretext | Legitimate reason | AR-010-C10 |
| Harm | Damages (tort) | As FEHA | Mitigation | AR-010-C02 |
Breach of contract; implied covenant (Roadmap 028)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract | Express or implied agreement limiting at-will termination or promising compensation | Written agreement; policies; course of dealing (implied); specific promise | At-will clause; integration clause; § 2922 presumption; Guz limits | AR-010-S01; AR-010-C02; AR-010-C08 |
| Performance | Plaintiff performed or was excused | Performance | Material breach by plaintiff | — |
| Breach | Defendant failed to perform | Termination without cause where cause required; non-payment | Cause existed; payment made | — |
| Damages | Contract damages (no emotional distress; no punitive) | Lost compensation | Mitigation | AR-010-C02 |
Wage claims — Lab. Code §§ 200–204, 226, 218.5 (Roadmap 026)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment | As above | As above | As above | AR-095-S02–S03 |
| Wages earned and unpaid | Amounts that are "wages" under § 200, earned under the terms of employment, unpaid | Wage statements; time records; bonus plan terms (Schachter); commission agreement (§ 2751) | Discretionary bonus; conditions unmet; payment made | AR-026-S01; AR-026-C01; AR-026-S10 |
| Final wages (§§ 201–203) | Wages due at discharge or within 72 hours of resignation; willful failure | Separation date; payment date | Good-faith dispute (8 C.C.R. § 13520) | AR-026-S02–S04; AR-026-R01; AR-026-C02–C03 |
| Wage statements (§ 226) | Knowing and intentional failure to furnish accurate statements; injury | Missing items including employer's legal name (a)(8) | Clerical error; no injury | AR-026-S09; AR-033-S02 |
| Limitation | By contract type and statute | — | Expired | AR-010-S03–S04; AR-021-S04–S05; AR-026-C04 |
Record-access penalties — §§ 1198.5(k), 226(f) (Roadmap 033)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Request | Written (§ 1198.5) or written or oral (§ 226) request by a current or former employee or representative | Dated letter; proof of receipt | No request; oral request under § 1198.5 | AR-033-S01–S02 |
| Failure within time | Not within 30 days of receipt (or agreed date ≤ 35) under § 1198.5; not within 21 days of request under § 226 | Dates | Timely production; agreed extension; impossibility (§ 226(c)) | AR-033-S01–S02 |
| No exclusion | Records not within § 1198.5(h); no pending personnel-matter lawsuit (§ 1198.5(n)) | Records are performance or grievance records | Criminal-investigation records; letters of reference; lawsuit pending | AR-033-S01 |
| Penalty and relief | $750; injunctive relief; fees | — | — | AR-033-S01–S02 |
FMLA and CFRA interference and retaliation (Roadmaps 024, 025)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage and eligibility | FMLA: private-sector coverage ordinarily requires 50 employees in 20 workweeks; public agencies and covered schools can be covered regardless of size. Separately, individual eligibility generally requires 12 months, 1,250 service hours, and 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite (subject to statutory exceptions). CFRA: generally five-employee employer coverage (public entities separately covered), more than 12 months and 1,250 hours or statutory exception; do not import the federal 75-mile requirement | Payroll counts by legal employer and geographic worksite, tenure, hours, employer status, state-law exceptions | Ineligible employee; employer not covered under applicable statute; inconsistent employer/employee identification | 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2),(4) (official 2026 text); DOL Fact Sheet 28D; Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2 (2026 reproduction; official access pending); AR-024-F01; AR-025-S05 |
| Qualifying reason | Determine separately whether the requested leave fits the governing FMLA reason or CFRA reason; CFRA includes covered listed family members and a defined designated person in circumstances provided by § 12945.2, while federal family-member categories differ | Timely request; applicable family or designated-person relationship; qualifying certification where lawful | Reason outside relevant statute; deficient notice or certification only after properly demanded and an opportunity to comply where required | 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (federal text requires check); Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2(b) (2026 reproduction; official access pending); AR-024-F02–F03 |
| Notice | Employee gave required notice | Communications | None | AR-024-CF01–CF06 |
| Interference | Denial of leave or benefits, including failure to reinstate | Denial; termination during leave; refusal to reinstate | Employee would have been terminated regardless; leave exhausted | AR-024-F04–F05; AR-024-C01 |
| Retaliation | Adverse action because of protected activity | Timing; statements | Legitimate reason | AR-024-C02–C03 |
| Remedies | § 2617(a); CFRA via FEHA | — | Good faith (liquidated damages) | AR-024-F06 |
Negligence, death and public-entity claims#
Professional negligence (Roadmap 044)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duty | A provider-patient relationship or undertaking of care | Treatment; orders; triage | No relationship; purely administrative role | Roadmap 044 (CACI 500, not opened) |
| Standard of care | Skill and care of reasonably careful practitioners in the same or similar circumstances | Expert opinion; guidelines; protocols | Expert opinion to the contrary | Roadmap 044 |
| Breach | Departure from the standard | Missed assessment; delay without reason; failure to follow up or refer | Reasoned clinical judgment; adherence to protocol | Roadmap 044 |
| Causation | Breach was a substantial factor, to a reasonable medical probability | Expert opinion; hospital findings on presentation | Outcome unchanged by timely care | Roadmap 044 |
| Damages | Economic; noneconomic subject to MICRA | Bills; lost earnings; injury | Comparative fault; caps | AR-0961-S03 |
| Prerequisites | § 364 notice; Claims Act for public defendants | Notice served; claim presented | None | AR-096-S04; AR-096-S02 |
Wrongful death — Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Death caused by wrongful act or neglect | The underlying tort proven | As above | As above | AR-065-S08 |
| Proper plaintiff | Spouse, domestic partner, children, issue of deceased children, or intestate takers; dependent putative spouse, stepchildren, parents | Relationship documents | Outside the list | AR-065-S08 |
| Damages | Heirs' pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses; MICRA wrongful-death cap for providers | Support; services; companionship | Caps; no dependency where required | AR-0961-S03; § 377.61 (not opened) |
Survival — Code Civ. Proc. §§ 377.30, 377.34
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decedent's surviving claim | The decedent had a claim at death | The tort | None | AR-0961-S06 |
| Proper plaintiff | The personal representative may bring the estate claim; a successor in interest relying on CCP § 377.32 must file the specified sworn declaration or affidavit, attach a certified death certificate, and address any estate administration and superior claimants; these are not interchangeable procedural routes | Letters of administration or properly supported successor declaration plus certified death certificate | No legal authority to sue; conflicting superior successor; defective declaration or missing attachment | Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 377.30, 377.32 (2026 statutory reproduction, not official authentication); AR-0961-S06 |
| Damages | Ordinarily decedent's own pre-death losses plus legally supportable penalties or punitive damages; CCP § 377.34(b) allows pre-death pain/suffering/disfigurement only for an action granted a § 36 preference before 2022-01-01, or filed 2022-01-01 through 2025-12-31. An action newly filed in 2026 is not automatically within that temporary window; § 377.34(f) preserves separate elder/dependent-adult-abuse law | Evidence of decedent's pre-death economic loss; actual filing date, pre-2022 preference order, or separately pleaded statutory basis | Filing on/after 2026-01-01 without qualifying exception; no established injury/damages; punitive prerequisites unproved | Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.34(a),(b),(f) (2026 reproduction; official page HTTP 403); AR-065-S07 |
Government Claims Act prerequisites (Roadmap 096.1 Family J)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold and defendant | Identify whether a California state-law cause is subject to the Government Claims Act against the particular public entity or employee; do not impose state claim-presentation on a standalone federal § 1983 claim. A private corporation and its workers are not automatically public employees merely because of a county contract | County/public employment, scope documents, legal claim and each defendant's status | Pure federal claim; genuinely private-party defendant; statutory presentation exception | Gov. Code §§ 905, 910, 911.2, 945.4 (official 2026 California authentication OPEN); § 1983 federal-law distinction; AR-S506 (R1 pending) |
| Claim presented | Gov. Code § 911.2(a): ordinarily six months after accrual for death, personal injury, personal-property injury or crops; one year for other covered claims. Determine statutory accrual, claim category, presentation method, proper public entity and exceptions individually | Complete presented claim, service/receipt record, accrual chronology and relevant category | Late or defective presentation to the proper entity; claim is outside the Act; claim falls in different statutory time category | Cal. Gov. Code §§ 911.2(a), 915 (2026 reproduction, official page HTTP 403); AR-096-S01–S02 |
| Rejection and suit | For covered public-entity suits under § 945.6(a), the six-month suit period ordinarily turns on notice given in accordance with § 913, running from personal delivery or deposit in mail; absent § 913-compliant written notice, the statute provides a different two-year-from-accrual rule, subject to enumerated exceptions/extensions. Do not calculate from an informal denial alone | Actual § 913 notice, mailing/personal-delivery proof, action date, accrual and any extensions | Wrong accrual/date, missing compliance with claim prerequisite, contrary § 913 notice, expired governing period | Cal. Gov. Code §§ 913, 945.6(a), 946.4, 946.6 (2026 reproduction; official verification OPEN); AR-096-S03 |
| Late claim relief | For a claim ordinarily due in six months, § 911.4 permits a written late-presentation application within a reasonable time generally not exceeding one year after accrual, with the proposed claim attached; statutory exceptions to measuring the one-year interval and § 911.6 grounds matter. A denied application may require a separate, timely § 946.6 petition. Relief is not automatic | Dated § 911.4 application and proposed claim, evidence supporting a statutory ground, denial notice and petition record | Wrong claim category, elapsed applicable window, missing statutory justification, untimely petition | Cal. Gov. Code §§ 911.4, 911.6, 946.6 (2026 reproductions; official authentication OPEN); AR-S503 (R1 pending) |
Constitutional and correctional claims#
Fourteenth Amendment medical care — pretrial detainee (Roadmap 042)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under color of state law | The defendant performed the state's custodial medical function | County employment; contract to provide care (West) | Unrelated private actor | AR-0961-C07; AR-096-F03 |
| Intentional decision re conditions | The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions of confinement (including medical care decisions) | Decision not to see, refer, transport, medicate | Decision made by someone else; no decision | AR-0961-C01 |
| Substantial risk of serious harm | The conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk | Symptoms reported; known diagnosis; obvious emergency | Minor condition; no risk | AR-0961-C01 |
| Failure to take reasonable available measures a reasonable official would have appreciated | Objective: more than negligence, less than subjective intent — akin to reckless disregard | Repeated requests ignored; protocol not followed; delay without reason; obviousness | Reasonable response; prompt escalation; no available measure | AR-0961-C01 |
| Causation | The failure caused the injury | Expert on timing; records | Outcome unchanged | AR-0961-C01 |
| Entity liability | Monell (separate table) | — | — | — |
| PLRA exhaustion (threshold, not merits element) | Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), prison-conditions actions under § 1983 or other federal law brought by a statutory prisoner while confined require exhaustion of available administrative remedies; prisoner status at filing, claim type, grievance-process operation and availability must be evaluated separately | Custody dates; available grievance rules; final review or evidence the process was unavailable | Actually available process not properly exhausted; defendant has exhaustion defense; no statutory prisoner status at filing | 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),(h) (official 2026 federal text); AR-096-F04; AR-0961-C09; court case-law/subsequent history OPEN |
Eighth Amendment medical care — convicted prisoner (Roadmap 043)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serious medical need | A condition a reasonable doctor would find important and worthy of treatment, or one causing substantial pain or significant effect on daily activities | Diagnosis; symptoms; outside hospital findings | Minor condition | AR-0961-C02; AR-C31 (R1 pending) |
| Deliberate indifference (subjective) | The defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk; aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn and drew it; obviousness permits inference | Requests received; notes showing awareness; obvious risk | No knowledge; reasonable response; difference of medical opinion | AR-0961-C03; AR-0961-C02; AR-C32 (R1 pending) |
| Harm | Injury caused by the indifference | Records; expert | None | AR-0961-C03 |
| Not mere negligence | Malpractice is not a constitutional violation | — | Facts show only negligence | AR-0961-C02 |
| PLRA exhaustion (separate threshold) | Apply the same § 1997e(a) available-remedies/prisoner-at-filing test as for detainee medical-care claims; it is not an element proving or disproving deliberate indifference | Applicable process and response history | Availability, proper exhaustion, prisoner-status and timing defense | 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),(h) (official 2026 federal text); AR-096-F04; AR-0961-C09 |
Monell liability — county and private contractor (Roadmaps 046, 047, 048, 049, 050)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Underlying violation | A constitutional deprivation (tables above) | As above | None | AR-0961-C04 |
| Policy, custom or practice | Official policy; longstanding custom; decision by final policymaker; ratification; failure to train or supervise amounting to deliberate indifference | Written policy; prior incidents; inspection findings; staffing below contract; policymaker's decision; known need for training | Isolated incident; policy would have prevented harm if followed; training provided | AR-0961-C04; AR-C34, AR-C35, AR-C40, AR-C41, AR-C43, AR-C13 (R1 pending) |
| Moving force | The policy caused the violation | Causal link pleaded as fact | Employee's deviation from policy caused it | AR-0961-C04 |
| Private-entity § 1983 | Separate questions: whether the actor functioned under color of state law (a county healthcare contract may be evidence, not conclusive for each act) and whether the private entity's own policy/custom was the moving force; employer-employee relationship alone does not establish corporate § 1983 liability | Contract, delegated functions, entity-specific policy, decision authority, repeat events and causal linkage | Private conduct not fairly attributable to state; no policy/custom; individual deviation from an adequate policy | West v. Atkins; Tsao v. Desert Palace (Ninth Circuit holdings, full current negative history NOT checked); AR-0961-C08; AR-0961-C07 |
| Damages | Compensatory; no punitive against the county; fees under § 1988 | — | — | AR-C73; AR-S922 (R1 pending) |
Individual-capacity liability and immunity (Roadmap 045)
| Element | What it generally requires | Facts that may support | Facts that may defeat | Primary authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal participation | Each defendant's own conduct caused the violation; no vicarious liability | Defendant's own acts and omissions pleaded | Group pleading; supervisor without personal involvement (supervisory liability requires own culpable action — Starr, AR-C33, R1 pending) | AR-0961-C05 |
| Qualified immunity (public employees) | Right clearly established; conduct unreasonable | Clearly established right in the specific context | Not clearly established | Roadmap 045 (Pearson, not opened) |
| Qualified-immunity inquiry for private defendants | Richardson v. McKnight denied qualified immunity to private prison guards employed by a for-profit contractor in its specific context; it did not announce a blanket rule for every private medical contractor or clinician. Filarsky v. Delia illustrates distinct immunity treatment of some private individuals retained by public entities. Defendant-specific comparison and current case history remain required | Nature of delegated function, firm arrangement, supervision, historical immunity analogues | Different role, temporary government engagement, jurisdiction-specific authority supporting or opposing immunity | Richardson, Filarsky (Supreme Court holdings; official opinion/citator authentication OPEN); AR-0961-C10 |
Using the tables#
Each table is a checklist for the chronology (Worksheet 100) and for the pleading models (129–130.1): every element must have facts in the chronology and a paragraph in the complaint. Each "facts that may defeat" cell points to an entry in the defense playbook (133). Each authority ID points to the register, where the verification status and any limitation are recorded.
Why this may matter in a CFMG/Wellpath setting#
The tables include an "employer" or "under color of state law" or "public entity" row in every claim because, in a multi-entity organization operating under county contracts and through a chapter 11 case (Roadmaps 004, 090, 094), that row is where cases are won and lost before the merits are reached. Nothing here states that any element is met on any facts.
Research depthAuthorities, related pages and limits
Primary authorities#
The register entries cited in the tables. R1 pending entries relied on: AR-S506, AR-S503, AR-C13, AR-C31, AR-C32, AR-C33, AR-C34, AR-C35, AR-C40, AR-C41, AR-C43, AR-S922, AR-S901. Targeted official federal statutory texts checked 2026-10-17: 29 U.S.C. § 2611, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, 12201, 1997e (OLRC codifications reflecting laws through Pub. L. 119-120). California statutory reproductions, not directly authenticated official Legislative Counsel pages: Gov. Code §§ 911.2, 911.4, 945.6, 12945.2; CCP §§ 377.32, 377.34 (official site returned HTTP 403). Still not opened or not fully subsequently validated: CACI 500 series, CCP § 377.61, Pearson, Richardson, Filarsky, West, Tsao, Gov. Code § 845.6, full adverse case history and source-specific 2026 amendments.
Related roadmaps#
010–039; 040–050; 044; 090; 091; 096; 096.1; 096.2; 100–114; 125–130.1; 133.
Research expansion — how to read an element table without treating it as an outcome engine#
A claim-element table states what legal questions generally arise under a legal theory; it is not a numerical score for the likelihood of winning. The same event may concern distinct statutory schemes, each with different coverage definitions, duties, causation requirements, prerequisites and available remedies. An ADA employment claim, a California FEHA accommodation or interactive-process claim, a Labor Code retaliation theory, professional negligence, and a federal §1983 claim should not be placed into a common list of “elements” as though one generic proof rule applied to all of them. For California FEHA harassment allegations, § 12940(j)(4)(A) creates a distinct employer-coverage standard reaching persons regularly employing one or more people or regularly receiving services from one or more qualifying contractors; the § 12926(d) five-person private-employer discrimination threshold must not be transposed mechanically to harassment. This is a coverage distinction, not a finding that harassment took place.
Every row should identify the exact governing source and scope. An agency guidance page may describe typical filing steps, while a statute or controlling appellate decision defines operative liability. A source that supports the general topic does not necessarily support each element in the table. A well-designed matrix includes the legal proposition, pinpoint authority, controlling court, certainty grade, limitation or defense, public evidence types and verification date. It also carries a column for the strongest legally relevant contrary fact; otherwise the table rewards selection of supportive evidence without testing the claim.
For disability employment disputes, coverage of the defendant, legally cognizable disability, qualified status, essential functions, accommodation or adverse action, causation and administrative prerequisites must be separated as applicable. Requests for accommodation and formal employment discrimination are not identical theories. Federal “regarded as” treatment and California FEHA rules should not be collapsed. Medical certifications can support or challenge functional restrictions but do not decide legal qualification by themselves. A proposed schedule modification might be reasonable in one job and fundamentally alter another; the table cannot evaluate those facts for a stranger.
For correctional-care disputes, the custody classification determines which constitutional framework is relevant. A pretrial detainee's medical-care claim under Gordon requires an objective analysis distinct from a sentenced person's Eighth Amendment subjective-awareness claim under Farmer. For private and public entities, Monell and Tsao introduce policy/custom attribution and causation questions that do not appear in the same way in claims against individual clinicians. A serious illness, a staff member's presence and a corporate contracting relationship do not collectively satisfy those independent legal elements by mere proximity.
For regulatory or administrative routes, an element table should state when the route is an investigation or benefit-determination system rather than a damages cause of action. MBC, OMBC and BRN may investigate licensing issues but do not provide the same remedies as civil courts. EDD wage-replacement programs determine program eligibility, not whether an employer engaged in discrimination. A county Government Claims Act presentment pathway is a threshold for many covered California claims, not a general federal constitutional complaint. The bankruptcy process may administer specified debtor claims while leaving distinct nondebtor questions unresolved.
An honest “insufficient information” field is as important as a positive field. Missing employer identity, disputed custody status, unknown receipt dates, absent policy version or unverified corporate attribution can prevent responsible conclusions. The table should record the uncertainty and direct the reader toward neutral source categories, not suggest that a particular claim exists or a personal deadline is open. The design may aid comparison, but individualized application belongs to counsel.
Each element needs its own contradictory-evidence column
Evidence of an adverse employment action does not prove disability-based causation; a serious medical need does not prove the responsible actor's knowledge; a contract showing affiliation does not establish the policy causation required for an entity §1983 theory. An element table should make those gaps visible and record the strongest contrary proof: employer coverage, actual notice, essential functions, reasonable treatment, alternate causation, exhaustion or jurisdiction. This allows a reader to understand why evidence may be sufficient for one element but incomplete for the claim as a whole. A table with every box marked by a generic citation would conceal rather than illuminate legal uncertainty.
Table maintenance across changing statutes
An element table should preserve the citation's precise statutory subdivision, any controlling case holding, effective-date qualifier and subsequent-history check. If a legal proposition changes, the register should flag every table that reused it. A table developed for 2024 law may not automatically describe a 2026 claim, and a later decision may narrow an earlier case without eliminating its entire reasoning. Versioned updates are part of the product, not cosmetic administration.
A clear table records uncertainty rather than supplying a score
No matrix should convert multiple checked evidence boxes into a prediction of legal success. An authenticated document might establish one event and leave causation or employer status unresolved. The table should distinguish existence of evidence, admissibility questions, legal relevance and the strength of any contrary explanation. This is especially important where the same event raises distinct statutory and constitutional pathways.
What this page cannot do#
It cannot apply any element to any facts, predict any outcome, or replace the Roadmap that carries each claim. Several cells rest on authorities not yet verified for this release and flagged above.
About this page. This roadmap is part of a free public-education series on claims and accountability mechanisms connected to correctional healthcare and healthcare employment in California. It is general information about the law, current as of the date shown, and the law may have changed since. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney who knows the facts of a particular situation. Reading this page, or contacting its author, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and communications with the author are not confidential or privileged. Please do not send case documents, medical records, privileged communications, Social Security numbers, or other sensitive personal information; the site does not accept them. The author does not recommend particular lawyers, receives nothing of value from any referral, and charges nothing for this material. Descriptions of lawsuits refer to allegations unless a court has made a finding, and a legal theory described here does not mean that any person or entity is liable. The author's interest in the subject is described in the series' statement of interest.
Version 0.9 · Corrections log
Important legal-information notice#
KPSGILL.com is not a law firm. No one at KPSGILL.com is a lawyer, and no person associated with the website provides legal advice through these Roadmaps.
The CFMG–Wellpath Claims & Accountability Roadmaps are provided for general educational, research, public-interest, and informational purposes. They explain legal concepts, statutes, cases, procedural issues, evidence considerations, and publicly available records in general terms.
Nothing on KPSGILL.com creates an attorney-client relationship. Reading the website, using a worksheet, following a Roadmap, sending information to the website, or communicating with anyone associated with KPSGILL.com does not make that person your lawyer and does not create attorney-client privilege or confidentiality.
The Roadmaps do not determine whether any particular person has a valid legal claim, who should be sued, what claims should be brought, what defenses apply, what a case is worth, or when an individual filing deadline expires.
Laws, regulations, court decisions, procedural rules, and filing deadlines can change and can depend upon facts, jurisdiction, custody status, employment status, the identity of the parties, and other circumstances. A general limitation period or procedural rule described on this website should never be treated as a calculation of an individual's actual deadline.
Anyone considering a legal claim, responding to a lawsuit, facing a filing deadline, deciding whether to preserve or disclose records, or making another decision with legal consequences should consult a qualified licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction.
Primary sources should be reviewed independently. Where a Roadmap discusses CFMG, Wellpath, counties, clinicians, employers, or other entities, the discussion should not be understood as establishing liability merely because an entity or legal theory is discussed.