Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV18663, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18663    Hearing Date: December 18, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendants J. Frank Associates, LLC and Eric Brielmann’s Demurrer

Defendants J. Frank Associates, LLC and Eric Brielmann demur to the sixth cause of action alleged in plaintiff Caroline Lipe’s complaint.

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for a hostile work environment.  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.)  “To constitute harassment, the conduct must be so objectively severe or pervasive as ‘ “to create a hostile or abusive working environment.” ’  [Citation.]  Factors to consider in this context include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance.’ ”  (Ibid.)  “Whether a work environment is reasonably perceived as hostile or abusive ‘is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test.’  [Citation.]  ‘The working environment must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances.’ ”  (Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611, 628.) 

            Plaintiff alleges facts that, when evaluated in their totality, suffice to constitute a cause of action for hostile work environment harassment.  Plaintiff alleges she had “severe generalized psoriasis, a systemic autoimmune condition” (¶ 12) with symptoms including “full body plaques, blisters and cracking, physical pain, peeling and bleeding, swollen and painful joints, high risk for bacterial infection, high risk for developing follow-on conditions, and sleep deprivation” (¶ 13).  Plaintiff alleges three managing agents at her employer “regularly treated Plaintiff with contempt and hostility” and each “bullied, undermined, and diminished Plaintiff in front of other employees on projects.”  (¶ 40.)

Plaintiff alleges defendant Eric Brielmann, a partner at J. Frank Associates, LLC (¶ 7), “regularly made comments about Plaintiff’s physical appearance during internal company meetings and on client calls, going so far as to publicly ridicule her apparent suntan following an approved summer vacation in 2022” (¶ 41).  She further alleges, “Mr. Brielmann regularly sent abusive e-mails regarding Plaintiff’s writing style, only to follow up with minimal or inconsistent edits to corresponding documents.”  (¶ 44.) 

The complaint also alleges, “Mr. Palash regularly attacked, mocked, and insulted Plaintiff on calls in front of other colleagues to the point where multiple account executives expressed concerns to Plaintiff regarding his treatment.”  (¶ 52.)  “Mr. Palash frequently called Plaintiff’s direct reports to undermine Plaintiff’s materials, going so far as to tell her account executives that her ideas or edits to documents were ‘stupid.’ ”  (¶ 54.)  “Mr. Palash frequently dismissed Plaintiff’s input and regularly interrupted her while she was speaking.”  (¶ 56.)

The court cannot conclude as a matter of law that these alleged events were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a cause of action for hostile work environment.  Frequently, “ ‘hostile working environment cases involve issues “not determinable on paper.” ’ ”  (Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney’s Office, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 634, fn. 7.)  While a trier of fact might find these events were not severe or pervasive enough, plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to withstand demurrer. 

Defendants argue plaintiff’s harassment claim improperly relies on personnel management actions.  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.)  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.) 

Plaintiff alleges offensive conduct in the workplace’s social environment, not just personnel management actions.  Alleged comments or ridicule about plaintiff’s appearance, abusive emails, and insults were not necessary to her supervisors’ jobs.  Calling a subordinate’s work product “stupid”, for example, crosses the line from personnel management to humiliating social conduct. 

Disposition

Defendants J. Frank Associates, LLC and Eric Brielmann’s demurrer to plaintiff Caroline Lipe’s complaint is overruled.  Defendants shall answer within 15 days.