Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV01631, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 24PSCV01631 Hearing Date: May 21, 2025 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
(1) DEFENDANT WEST COVINA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED;
Background
This is a discrimination case. Plaintiff DENNIS ROWLAND alleges the following against Defendant WEST COVINA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: Plaintiff, who is over 40 years old, from around October 2022 to the present time, was subject to a racially hostile working environment. Specifically, Plaintiff focuses on a racial slur used on the campus. On one occasion, he was called the derogatory racial slur by an employee; in another the word was scrolled on the wall of a room he was cleaning; and in another the word has been scribbled on the school’s walls. Defendant has not eliminated the use of the word.
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit asserting the following causes of action (COAs):
1. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
2. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
3. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
4. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA ( AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
5. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
6. FAILURE TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
7. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE ( AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
8. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON COLOR IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
9. SLANDER AND DEFAMATION
10. FALSE LIGHT
11. NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISING OR RETENTION
12. WRONGFUL DEMOTION/TERMINATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
13. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
14. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike (MTS).
On May 14, 2025, the court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order continuing the hearing on the demurrer.
On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition (due 9 court days before the hearing).
Discussion
The court’s ruling will be brief as the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff alleges violations of several provisions of FEHA, but it is not alleged what protected class he might fall under. The only specific factual allegation Plaintiff makes is that he is over 40 years old. Even as to the racial slurs, Plaintiff does not identify his own race or color. As for claims of a disability, the complaint does not allege what is the disability that affects his daily life activities. Overall, Plaintiff’s complaint is replete with legal conclusions, but devoid of the necessary factual allegations.
The opposition perhaps concedes the foregoing as it argues new facts: Plaintiff is an African American male whose position was filled by a less qualified, younger, non-African American employee as supervisors made statements suggesting a preference for a different "image.” Plaintiff also argues that he was subject to be called the n-word by coworkers on at least three occasions, but no such allegations are found in the complaint. (A writing on a wall does not indicate it was directed to Plaintiff.) As it is well-established, a court is bound by the four corners of a pleading on a demurrer.
Therefore, as Plaintiff’s arguments appear to be based upon facts not alleged, the court sustains the entirety of the demurrer with leave to amend.
As for the motion to strike, California Government Code section 818 provides, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the
sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.”
Therefore, Plaintiff cannot obtain punitive or exemplary damages against the District such that references and requests for punitive or exemplary damages against the District should be stricken.
Therefore, the court grants the MTS;.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend and the MTS is granted.