Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC714514, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC714514    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 74

Tabitha Lawson v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Plaintiff Tabitha Lawson’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff Tabitha Lawson (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant).

            On September 14, 2023, the parties stipulated to file cross-motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t). In the stipulation, the parties agreed to address the following issues in their motions: whether Defendant’s interpretation and application of Education Code section 45192 is consistent with the statute or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); whether Defendant’s placement of Plaintiff on the 39-month reemployment list can be considered discriminatory or unlawful under any of her FEHA claims; whether Defendant’s process to obtain reemployment under the 39-month reemployment list was lawful.

            On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for summary adjudication.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t), a party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to this subdivision. Such a motion shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (t)(5).)

DISCUSSION

            The court will sign plaintiff’s proposed order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication under section 437c, subdivision (t) because plaintiff has established that defendant violated Education Code section 45192, subd. (g) by relying on plaintiff’s exhaustion of “benefit time” to place plaintiff on the 39-month reemployment list without permitting plaintiff to first exhaust both her paid and unpaid leaves of absence. By jumping the gun to place plaintiff on the 39-month reemployment list prematurely, defendant short-circuited the interactive process and its duty to provide reasonable accommodations absent an undue hardship. Furthermore, defendant’s request that plaintiff authorize the release of all her medical records as part of the reemployment process was unlawful.

            Plaintiff shall give notice.

Tabitha Lawson v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff Tabitha Lawson (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant).

            On September 14, 2023, the parties stipulated to file cross-motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t). In the stipulation, the parties agreed to address the following issues in their motions: whether Defendant’s interpretation and application of Education Code section 45192 is consistent with the statute or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); whether Defendant’s placement of Plaintiff on the 39-month reemployment list can be considered discriminatory or unlawful under any of her FEHA claims; whether Defendant’s process to obtain reemployment under the 39-month reemployment list was lawful.

            On September 26, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for summary adjudication.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t), a party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to this subdivision. Such a motion shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (t)(5).)

            As stated in its tentative granting plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary adjudication, the court finds defendant violated Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g).

            The court further finds that defendant’s motion for summary adjudication raises issues not properly before the court because those issues exceed the parties’ stipulation filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t) or were previously ruled upon in November 2021.

Whether Education Code Section 45192, Subdivision (g) Precludes Plaintiff’s Discrimination Claims

            Defendant contends Plaintiff’s discrimination claims fail as a matter of law given Defendant’s application of Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g). However, the court has already denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of these causes of action. (November 19, 2021, Minute Order, pp. 3-4.)

Whether Education Code Section 45192, Subdivision (g) Precludes Plaintiff’s Claim for Failure to Accommodate.

            Defendant contends Plaintiff’s claim for failure to accommodation fails as a matter of law because of Defendant’s application of Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g). But the court has already denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this cause of action. (November 19, 2021, Minute Order, p. 4.)

Whether Education Code Section 45192, Subdivision (g) Precludes Plaintiff’s Claim for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process.

            Defendant contends Plaintiff’s claim for failure to engage in the interactive process fails as a matter of law due to Defendant’s application of Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g). However, the court already denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this cause of action. (November 19, 2021, Minute Order, pp. 4-5.)

Whether Education Code Section 45192, Subdivision (g) Precludes Plaintiff’s Claim for Retaliation Under FEHA.

            Defendant contends Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation under FEHA fails because of Defendant’s application of Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g). But the court has already denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this cause of action. (November 19, 2021, Minute Order, pp. 5-6.)

Whether Education Code Section 45192, Subdivision (g) Precludes Plaintiff’s Claim for Retaliation Under California Family Rights Act (CFRA)

            Defendant contends Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation under CFRA fails given Defendant’s application of Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g). However, the court has already denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this cause of action. (November 19, 2021, Minute Order, pp. 7-8.)

Whether Education Code Section 45192, Subdivision (g) Precludes Plaintiff’s Claim for Failure to Prevent Discrimination.

            Defendant contends Plaintiff’s claim for failure to prevent discrimination fails due to Defendant’s application of Education Code section 45192, subdivision (g). But the court has already denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this cause of action. (November 19, 2021, Minute Order, p. 7.)

CONCLUSION

                The court denies Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication in its entirety.

            Defendant shall give notice.