Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV09480 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This action arises out of an employment relationship. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) discrimination on the basis of disability; (2) discrimination on the basis of race; (3) work environment harassment; (4) retaliation under Government Code section 12940; (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (6) retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5; (7) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; and (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation.[1]

The relevant allegations of the SAC are as follows: Plaintiff began working for the Los Angeles County Probation Department (“Employer”) in 2018, where Moving Defendant worked as one of her supervisors. (SAC ¶¶ 11, 15.) In July 2019, Plaintiff injured her back during a work shift. (SAC ¶ 12.) When Plaintiff returned to work, her supervisors ignored the work restrictions ordered by Plaintiff’s doctor. (SAC ¶ 14.) When Plaintiff, who is Hispanic, returned to work, she also began to become aware that Black employees were treated favorably as compared to Hispanic employees. (SAC ¶ 15.) Plaintiff’s supervisors, including Moving Defendant, who is Black, discriminated against her and Plaintiff filed grievances concerning the favoritism and discrimination. (Id.)

The SAC further alleges as follows: On several occasions, Plaintiff’s supervisors knowingly subjected Plaintiff to work conditions that disregarded her medical condition and caused her physical pain and humiliation. (See SAC ¶¶ 16-19.) Furthermore, Moving Defendant made personnel and disciplinary decisions that disregarded Plaintiff’s work performance in retaliation for her complaints about discriminatory treatment and her need for accommodations. (See SAC ¶¶ 27-29, 33, 38-39.) As a result of the work environment created by Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff ultimately requested and was granted a reassignment to another facility. (SAC ¶ 46.)

Moving Defendant filed a motion to strike (the “Motion”) portions of the SAC related to punitive damages.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 435, subdivision (b), any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part of that pleading. (CCP § 435, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike: (1) any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; and (2) all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (CCP § 437.) In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) Courts read the allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. (Id.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Municipal Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)

A plaintiff may recover punitive damages in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).) Malice is conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff, or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Despicable conduct is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331.) Oppression is defined as despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (c)(2).)

Liberally construing the allegations in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds that the SAC adequately alleges a basis for punitive damages against Moving Defendant. The SAC alleges specific situations where Moving Defendant willfully exercised his discretion in a manner that disregarded Plaintiff’s known medical condition and documented work restrictions and which resulted in Plaintiff’s experiencing physical discomfort and humiliation. The SAC alleges that Moving Defendant continued to knowingly subject Plaintiff to work conditions that disregarded her physical limitations and negatively impacted her work conditions after and as a result of the internal grievances Plaintiff made concerning such work conditions. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion. Moving Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the SAC within 20 days of this order.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The third cause of action for harassment is the only claim in the SAC alleged against Moving Defendant personally.