Judge: Bradley S. Phillips, Case: 22STCV41052, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and "cc" all other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

2. For any motion where no parties submit on the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT ON A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 22STCV41052    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 26

Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University (“Defendant” or “CSU”) moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for harassment and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). 

While a student at CSU, Plaintiff was employed as a teacher’s aide in the University’s work-study program, Jump Start.  She alleges that, in connection with a course in which she was enrolled, another student sexually harassed her and that Defendant retaliated against her (by terminating her from the Jump Start program) after she complained about the harassment.  She asserts claims only under FEHA; she makes no claim under Title IX based upon alleged harassment by a fellow student in connection with assigned coursework.

Defendant argues, correctly, that there is no triable issue whether the alleged harassment occurred in a work-related context, as is required to support a claim under FEHA.  (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4^th 1038, 1047-1049.)  There is no dispute that the alleged harasser was not an employee of CSU, that the alleged harassment did not occur at Plaintiff’s place of work, and that it did not occur during her work hours.  

Plaintiff’s argument that the harassment occurred in a work-related context is premised entirely on the following assertions and citations in her opposition brief at pages 4-5 and 10:

·        That, while she was working at Jump Start, she was “simultaneously completing courses that were necessary to maintain her eligibility and paycheck,” citing Plaintiff’s Declaration at ¶¶ 2-4 & Ex. A and AMF Nos. 1, 2 [erroneously cited by Plaintiff as “SSF ¶¶ 1, 2].

·        That her participation in Jump Start was “expressly contingent on her continued enrollment and academic progress,” citing Pltf. Decl. at ¶ 2 and AMF No. 3.

·        That, under Jump Start’s rules, “Plaintiff had to maintain full-time student status in specified fields – early-childhood education, communications, and related areas,” citing Pltf. Decl. at ¶ 3 and AMF No. 4.

·        That “[a]mong her required classes was a media performance/journalism course into which she enrolled in February 2020,” citing Pltf. Decl. at ¶ 4 and AMF No. 5.

·        That her presence at the time of the alleged harassment “was inseparable from the coursework required for her teacher’s-aide position,” citing Pltf. Decl. at ¶ 7 and AMF 8.

·        That the alleged harassment occurred “as Plaintiff completed an assignment integral to maintaining her paid role under Jump Start,” citing Pltf. Decl. at ¶ 7 and AMF No. 8.

·        That “her presence in the media/journalism course was a formal requirement for her Jump Start position,” citing Pltf. Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4 and AMF Nos. 4-5, 7-8.

·        That “Plaintiff had to maintain full-time student status in communications- or child-development-related coursework to remain employed,” citing AMF Nos. 4-5.

·        That “Defendant assigned Plaintiff to that media/journalism course as part of her academic plan; completion of that course was expressly tied to her eligibility for further wages and program continuation,” citing AMF No. 5.

None of these assertions is supported by the cited evidence (or by the evidence cited in the referenced AMF paragraphs).  Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have simply made useful “factual” assertions and then inserted random citations to purported evidence that in no way supports those assertions.  There is, in fact, no evidence that Plaintiff was required, as a condition of her employment by CSU, to enroll in or complete the media/journalism class in the context of which the alleged harassment occurred. 

The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiff has failed to show there is a triable issue of material fact whether the alleged harassment occurred in a work-related context; the undisputed evidence establishes that it did not.  The facts of this case bear no resemblance to those present in Doe v. Capital Cities, supra, the sole case upon which Plaintiff relies in this regard.

Because the Court finds that any alleged harassment did not occur in a work-related context and that FEHA therefore does not apply, the Court need not reach Defendant’s other arguments.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.