Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV12873, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12873    Hearing Date: June 10, 2024    Dept: 74

Link v. County of Los Angeles

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.

The court sustains defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s additional material fact #139. All other evidentiary objections are preserved.

The court denies defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for whistleblower retaliation because a triable issue of material fact exists whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity. (Lab. Code § 1102.5, subd. (b).) Triable issues exist whether plaintiff reported (or caused to be reported), or defendant believed plaintiff might report (or cause to be reported), illegal conduct (plaintiff’s additional material facts #107, 109, 111, 122) to her supervisors or the government (plaintiff’s additional material facts # 111, 114, 118, 119, 120, 133).

The court grants defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action for race and gender discrimination because plaintiff fails to create a triable issue of material fact supported by admissible evidence that defendant with discriminatory intent transferred plaintiff. Defendant’s evidence that it transferred plaintiff for reasons unrelated to her race or gender satisfies defendant’s prima facie burden. Plaintiff’s evidence to support her claim of discriminatory animus is her additional material fact #139 citing her declaration paragraph 23, to which the court sustains defendant’s objection, thus leaving the record devoid of evidence to support plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s cause of action fails.

Defendant shall give notice.