Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV30188, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23STCV30188    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: 52

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Robert Luna, Jason Skeen, Rodney Moore, Mark Lopez, and Eric Lasko move for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff Evelyn Vega’s first and second causes of action for sexual harassment and racial harassment, respectively, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts for either her first or second causes of action.  For “a harassment claim under FEHA, a plaintiff must [allege] they were subjected to ‘offensive comments or other abusive conduct’ that is (1) based on a ‘protected characteristic’ … and (2) ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of [his] employment.’ ”  (Doe v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 721, 736.) 

In contrast with discrimination, which concerns unequal terms and conditions of employment, “harassment focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee.”  (Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706.)  Harassment includes “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”  (Rehmani v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 945, 951.)  There is a “fundamental distinction between harassment as a type of conduct not necessary to a supervisor’s job performance, and business or personnel management decisions—which might later be considered discriminatory—as inherently necessary to performance of a supervisor’s job.”  (Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 63; accord Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 645-647.) 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges only discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment.  The gravamen of this action is that plaintiff was demoted and is being denied other opportunities for career advancement.  (FAC, ¶¶ 2-7.)  All factual allegations concern those adverse employment actions.  The only allegations that pertain to harassment are conclusory allegations that parrot the relevant legal terms and standards.  (E.g., ¶¶ 95-97, 103-104, 120-122, 128-129.)  Plaintiff alleges no facts that can be reasonably characterized as abusive social conduct or communication of offensive messages to plaintiff based on her sex or race.

Disposition

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Robert Luna, Jason Skeen, Rodney Moore, Mark Lopez, and Eric Lasko’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff Evelyn Vega’s first and second causes of action is granted with 20 days’ leave to amend.