Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00035938-CU-OE-NC, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00035938-CU-OE-NC AMINI VS AQUA-LUNG AMERICA, INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 09/27/2023

The Motion to Strike Punitive Damages brought by defendant Aqua-Lung America Inc. (Defendant) is GRANTED without leave to amend, but with the express reservation that if facts are uncovered in discovery that would enable Plaintiff to make sufficient allegations to support a claim for punitive damages Plaintiff may make a formal motion for leave to amend to re-assert such a claim.

The Request for Judicial Notice brought by Defendant is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 451, et seq.

This is an employment discrimination case in which plaintiff Sadie Amini (Plaintiff) alleges that she was terminated due to being pregnant. Such claims are brought under the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA), and neither party is disputing that a claim for employment discrimination due to pregnancy can support a claim for punitive damages. However, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's present allegations do not arise to the level of fraud, oppression, or malice that is necessary to support a claim for punitive damages. The Court agrees.

Reading Plaintiff's complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff is able to allege that she was an exceptional employee with growing responsibilities throughout her tenure working for Defendant – a tenure that allegedly ran from January 2021 through March 2023. Her growing responsibilities and overperformance are alleged in contrast to another employee, one Liliana Molina, who was hired around the same time, but who underperformed and was demoted. Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated amongst 26 other people the majority of whom she alleges were underperforming using the following language: 'On information and belief, with the exception of Plaintiff, the majority people that were selected for termination were underperforming employees.' (Complaint, ¶ 28.) Plaintiff alleges that the underperforming employee, Ms. Molina, was retained.

The structure of this allegation is a bit unclear in that it references 'the majority [of] people' who were terminated in a parallel structure that also describes Plaintiff being 'the exception.' If Plaintiff was 'the exception,' then proper interpretation of this allegation would indicate that she was the one employee who was overperforming and the other twenty-five were underperforming. But, if only 'the majority' of the 26 terminated employees were underperforming, then up to 12 employees who were terminated could have been either at performance levels or overperforming just like Plaintiff. Interpretation of this language is important, in context, because it is Plaintiff's outlier status that serves to establish a nexus between the reason why she was terminated and earlier comments within her workplace about children and pregnancy.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029257 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AMINI VS AQUA-LUNG AMERICA, INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00035938-CU-OE-NC In addition to describing her as an overperformer, Plaintiffs allegations describe that her direct supervisor was the General Manager. However, there was another individual, the Director of Sporting Goods, who, according to the allegations 'also began to manage Plaintiff.' (Complaint, ¶ 13.) That Director of Sporting Goods – Mr. Jean-Pierre De Bruin (the Director) – allegedly made several comments over the time of Plaintiff's employment about children and pregnancy, as follows: --Spring 2022 – when the Director's assistant was getting ready to take maternity leave, he made comments about not having children and not wanting them and joked with the assistant about 'finding her replacement' --July 2022 – Plaintiff and the Director went on a business trip to Minnesota and during a business dinner the Director: (1) asked Plaintiff if she intended to have children, and (2) told her he did not think children were a good idea because they took up time and money --October 2022 – the Director 'voiced his dislike for employees with children' when his assistant asked to leave work to pick up her newborn Plaintiff informed the Director and Human Resources that she was pregnant in February 2023.

Thereafter, the Director instructed her to begin training another employee to take over Plaintiff's duties saying 'now that you're pregnant, you'll need some help. In a few months you won't be here, so it's good you get some help...' The Director subsequently instructed Plaintiff to swap out her company card on specific accounts for a more general corporate credit card.

According to the allegations, the President of 'the North America company' held a meeting on March 30, 2023 and announced that 26 people were to be laid off. As it happened, this particular day was the end of the quarter – a quarter in which Plaintiff exceeded her quarterly goals. Plaintiff was among the terminated employees, but despite her inquiries her employer would provide no further reasons why she was terminated.

Plaintiff is asserting several causes of action that, generally speaking, encompass discrimination in the workplace on the basis of pregnancy. None of those claims are being refuted and, in fact, Defendant has answered the Complaint. What Defendant is challenging via the instant motion is the notion that these allegations rise to the level of punitive damages. As alleged, they do not. While the Director who seems to be at the heart of the allegedly discriminatory actions seems to have a certain opinion about children and parenting, the law does not prevent him from simply holding a view or expressing that view. The kinds of allegation made in the Complaint, while perhaps unprofessional or unnecessary, do not presently rise to the level of conduct that supports a claim for punitive damages. As presently alleged, it appears that the Director made some unwanted comments about his own views of children and parenting, his actions of having someone come in to learn and be prepared to take over for Plaintiff when she went out on maternity leave is not enough to demonstrate fraud, oppression, or malice.

Of particular note is the fact that Plaintiff was not terminated alone, such that there is a clear nexus between her giving notice to Human Resources that she is pregnant and, thereafter, being terminated due to that pregnancy. On the contrary, the facts alleged demonstrate that there was a larger layoff of sorts at the end of a quarter. Plaintiff even alleges that most of that layoff targeted underperforming employees, such that when drawing inferences from the Complaint it is reasonable to conclude that the company was having some financial trouble or shoring up its losses on the books by downsizing. Were it the case that Plaintiff was the only employee among the 26 who were terminated who was not considered to be 'underperforming,' the inference might be stronger and sufficient to conclude that Defendant's act of burying or 'folding in' Plaintiff's termination among several others was a sort of pretext – and therefore perhaps fraudulent, oppressive, or malicious – to deprive Plaintiff of her rights.

However, given that punitive damages must be proven to a clear and convincing standard, it is not enough that the 'majority' of other people who were terminated were underperforming. In other words, even if everything Plaintiff has alleged can be proven true, the imposition of punitive damages cannot be built on inferences and innuendo. This is all the more true in this case, where the allegation of the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029257 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AMINI VS AQUA-LUNG AMERICA, INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00035938-CU-OE-NC pretext (i.e. that the majority of people selected for termination were underperforming) is preceded with the qualifier that the allegation is made '[o]n information and belief...' Simply put, at this stage of litigation Plaintiff does not know why the other 25 employees were terminated or what their records were, she just is informed and believes that a 'majority' of them were 'underperforming.' On the other hand, there does appear to be a bit of a shroud of mystery over the reasons for Plaintiff's termination – and, for that matter, for the reasons why any of the other 'minority' of employees who were overperforming and still terminated may have been selected. It may be that Defendant was cutting a particular wing or sector of its business operations related to a particular product or clientele base. Or, it could be that Defendant made a business practice of folding illegal discriminatory terminations in with legitimate quarterly downsizing in response to revenues and business needs. These facts will come in time through discovery, but at this juncture the limitations on Plaintiff of only being able to make allegations on 'information and belief' without real knowledge of the motives behind Defendant's termination decisions, combined with the equivocal nature of the allegation itself and the heightened standard of proving-up a claim for punitive damages by showing fraud, oppression, or malice, warrant striking Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, but doing so with the express reservation that if the shroud of mystery is lifted through discovery Plaintiff make seek leave to amend to add such claims via a formal noticed motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029257