Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV11045, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV11045 Hearing Date: October 27, 2022 Dept: 72
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Date: 10/27/22
(9:30 AM)
Case: Tasha Jenkins v. Monfric et al. (20STCV11045)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Monfric, Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion for Summary
Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.
ISSUE NO. 1: Whether Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action
for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6 fails because Plaintiff
did not engage in a protected activity.
The elements of a violation of Labor Code § 98.6 are: (1)
the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer subjected the
employee to an adverse employment action; and (3) the employee’s protected
activity substantially motivated the employer’s adverse employment action. (Garcia-Brower
v. Premier Automotive Imports of CA, LLC (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 961, 977.)
Protected activity includes making a written or oral
complaint about unpaid wages or violations of state statutes. (Lab. Code § 98.6(a),
98.6(b)(1) [incorporating conduct protected by Labor Code § 1102.5(a)].)
Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated after she complained about not being
paid for all hours worked and not being reimbursed for business expenses.
(Compl. ¶¶ 13, 24, 27.)
As evidence that plaintiff did not engage in any protected
activity, defendant presents requests for admission, which were deemed admitted
after plaintiff did not respond to the requests. (UMF 3.) “The failure to
answer the request for admissions is deemed an admission of the matters
contained in such request . . . . A summary judgment may be based on such
admissions and requests for admissions, and on the moving party's affidavit.” (Jack
v. Wood (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 639, 644.)
The requests that were deemed admitted include:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
Admit that YOU did not complain to DEFENDANT about its
alleged failure to pay you for all hours worked.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Admit that YOU did not complain to DEFENDANT about its alleged
failure to reimburse you for business expenses.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
Admit that YOU never made a written complaint to DEFENDANT
that you were owed unpaid wages.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
Admit that YOU never made an oral complaint to DEFENDANT
that you were owed unpaid wages.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31:
Admit that YOU did not disclose information to a government
or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over YOU or another
employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct violations
of or noncompliance with local, state or federal rules, regulations, or
statutes.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32:
Admit that YOU did not file a complaint with the Labor
Commissioner relating to unpaid wages against DEFENDANT while employed by
DEFENDANT.
Based on plaintiff’s admissions to Request for Admission
Nos. 4, 5, 19, 20, 31, and 32, defendant presents evidence that plaintiff
cannot establish that she engaged in a protected activity, which is necessary
to prevail on a Labor Code § 98.6 retaliation claim. (UMF 5, 6, 14, 15, 20,
21.) Plaintiff did not file any opposition demonstrating a triable issue of
material fact with respect to protected activity.
The motion as to Issue No. 1 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action
for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6 fails because Plaintiff
cannot demonstrate a causal link between the termination and retaliatory
motive.
For plaintiff to prevail on a Labor Code § 98.6 retaliation
claim, plaintiff needs to show that her protected activity substantially
motivated the termination of her employment. (Garcia-Brower, 55
Cal.App.5th at 977.)
Pertinent requests for admission that were deemed admitted
include:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
Admit that DEFENDANT did not retaliate against YOU for
complaining of unpaid wages.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
Admit that DEFENDANT did not retaliate against YOU for
complaining of unreimbursed expenses.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:
Admit that DEFENDANT did not retaliate against YOU for
disclosing any purported violations of the California Labor Code to DEFENDANT.
(UMF 40-42.) Based on plaintiff’s admission of the matters
set forth in Request for Admission Nos. 21-23, defendant demonstrates that
plaintiff was not terminated due to any complaints about unpaid wages or
unreimbursed business expenses. Plaintiff did not file any opposition
demonstrating a triable issue of material fact concerning the link between her
termination and her protected activity.
The motion as to Issue No. 2 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action
for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6 fails because the Defendant
had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the termination.
To assess retaliation claims in the summary judgment
context, the employer can show that plaintiff cannot demonstrate one or more
elements of the prima facie case or that the adverse employment action was due
to legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. (Choochagi v. Barracuda Networks,
Inc. (2020) 60 Cal.App.5th 444, 457.) Defendant argues that, even if
plaintiff could demonstrate a prima facie case for retaliation, defendant had
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for terminating plaintiff’s employment.
Pertinent requests for admission that were deemed admitted
include:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
Admit that, from October 1, 2016 to March 23, 2018, YOU
failed to keep your assigned property clean.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
Admit that, from October 1, 2016 to March 23, 2018, YOU did
not satisfactorily perform YOUR job duties while working for DEFENDANT.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
Admit that YOU failed to perform light maintenance work, as
required.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
Admit that, from October 1, 2016 to March 23, 2018, YOU were
frequently not in YOUR office during work hours, as required.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33:
Admit that YOU failed to lock your office door or cabinets
when YOU were not in YOUR office.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34:
Admit that YOU failed to obtain prior approval from
DEFENDANT before taking any time off.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35:
Admit that YOU failed to comply with DEFENDANT'S policies
and procedures.
(UMF 36-39, 43-45.)
Moreover, plaintiff’s supervisor, Shirley Oliver, provides
evidence that, between July 2017 and March 2018, plaintiff left the office of
the subject property and the file cabinets therein unlocked while absent,
plaintiff left the lobby dirty, plaintiff failed to respond to calls from
Oliver, plaintiff was absent from the subject property during business hours,
plaintiff failed to complete waitlist applications as instructed, and plaintiff
failed to inform supervisors when she took time off (UMF 24, 25, 27-34.) Oliver counseled
plaintiff about plaintiff’s violations of policies and procedures multiple
times. (UMF 23, 26.) On March 23, 2018, defendant terminated plaintiff’s
employment. (UMF 35.) On the notice of termination, defendant stated that the
reason for termination was “[e]xcessive absenteeism from workplace, without
advance approval or notice, as per Company policy. Frequently not in office
during specific office hours, as assigned and posted. Not securing office and
sensitive files, risking violation of resident privacy rights, as well as
theft. Not keeping common areas clean and neat, as repeatedly instructed to do.”
(UMF 35.)
For the foregoing reasons, defendant demonstrates that it
terminated plaintiff’s employment not because of any complaints of unpaid wages
or unreimbursed business expenses, but because of failure to comply with
policies and instructions. Plaintiff did not file any opposition demonstrating
a triable issue of material fact concerning whether defendant terminated her
employment in retaliation for any complaints she made.
The motion as to Issue No. 3 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 4: Whether Plaintiff’s Second Cause of
Action for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 fails because
Plaintiff did not engage in a protected activity.
Labor Code § 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer from
retaliating against an employee for disclosing a violation of a state statute
to a government agency or another employee with authority to correct the
violation. For the reasons stated in the discussion of Issue No. 1, defendant
demonstrates that plaintiff never complained about unpaid wages or unreimbursed
business expenses to defendant or any government agency. Plaintiff did not file
any opposition indicating that she may have complained about unpaid wages or
unreimbursed business expenses.
The motion as to Issue No. 4 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 5: Whether Plaintiff’s Second Cause of
Action for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 fails because
Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that any alleged protected activity was a
contributing factor in the decision to terminate her employment.
For the reasons stated in the discussion of Issue No. 2,
specifically plaintiff’s admission to the matters set forth in Request for
Admission Nos. 21-23, defendant demonstrates that plaintiff was not terminated
due to any complaints about unpaid wages or unreimbursed business expenses.
Plaintiff did not file any opposition demonstrating that she may have been
terminated due to any complaints of wage and hour violations.
The motion as to Issue No. 5 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 6: Whether Plaintiff’s Second Cause of
Action for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 fails because the
Defendant had legitimate, independent reasons for her termination even if she
engaged in any alleged protected activity.
Even if plaintiff could demonstrate that protected activity
was a contributing factor in her termination, defendant could defeat her Labor
Code § 1102.5 retaliation claim by demonstrating “by clear and convincing
evidence, that it would have taken the action in question for legitimate,
independent reasons even had the plaintiff not engaged in protected activity.”
(Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 718; see
also Lab. Code § 1102.6.) For the reasons stated in the discussion of Issue
No. 3, defendant demonstrates that it terminated plaintiff’s employment due to
her violation of policies and instructions, not because of any protected
activity. Plaintiff did not file any opposition demonstrating that the stated
reasons for termination were not legitimate or independent of any protected
activity.
The motion as to Issue No. 6 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 7: Whether Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action
for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy fails because Plaintiff
cannot prove any underlying public policy that was violated.
A cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of
public policy depends on the violation of a statutory or constitutional
provision. (Sequoia Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th
1472, 1475.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated various wage and hour
statutes in connection with her employment. (Compl. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff also
alleges that defendant terminated her employment for complaining about Labor
Code violations. (Compl. ¶ 35.)
By failing to respond to requests for admission, plaintiff
admitted that she took meal and rest breaks, that she was paid all required
overtime, that she was reimbursed for all reimbursable business expenses, and
that she was provided with accurate wage and hour statements. (UMF 7-13,
16-19.) For the reasons discussed in the discussion of Issue Nos. 1-6,
defendant demonstrates that it did not terminate plaintiff’s employment due to
any complaints of Labor Code violations.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant demonstrates that
termination of plaintiff’s employment was not the result of the violation of
any Labor Code provision. Plaintiff did not file any opposition demonstrating
the necessary violation of a statutory or constitutional provision that can
form the basis of the third cause of action.
The motion as to Issue No. 7 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 8: Whether Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action
for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy fails because any
alleged violation of a public policy was not a substantial motivating factor
for her termination.
For the reasons stated in the discussion of Issue Nos. 2, 3,
5, and 6, defendant demonstrates that the termination of plaintiff’s employment
was due to plaintiff’s work performance issues, not due to the violation of any
Labor Code provision. Plaintiff did not file any opposition indicating that her
termination was the result of a violation of any statutory or constitutional
provision.
The motion as to Issue No. 8 is well taken.
ISSUE NO. 9: Whether Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive
Damages fails because Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant engaged in
oppression, fraud or malice towards her.
For the reasons stated in the discussion of Issue Nos. 1-8,
defendant demonstrates that it did not disregard or deprive plaintiff of any
rights in terminating her employment. (See Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1-3)
[malice, oppression, and fraud framed in terms of a disregard or deprivation of
rights].) Moreover, by failing to respond to requests for admission, plaintiff
admits that defendant did not act with malice, oppression, or fraud in its
interactions with plaintiff. (UMF 56.) Plaintiff did not file any opposition
demonstrating a triable issue concerning whether defendant’s acts toward
plaintiff were malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent.
The motion as to Issue No. 9 is well taken.
Because Issue Nos. 1 through 9, concerning all three causes
of action in the operative Complaint, are well taken, the motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED. Defendant Monfric, Inc. is ordered to submit a proposed
judgment of dismissal within five (5) court days hereof.