Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 25STCV02317, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV02317    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED IN PART, OVERRULED IN PART. Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 15 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND, as to the fourth cause of action. Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to all other causes of action.

            On 1/28/2025, Plaintiff Michael Slider (Plaintiff) filed suit against County of Los Angeles (Defendant), alleging: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate; (3) failure to engage in interactive process; (4) race discrimination; (5) retaliation; (6) retaliation; and (7) failure to prevent.

            On 4/24/2025, Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to alleged sufficient facts to state a claim as to each cause of action.

            As for the first cause of action, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to plead an actual disability or discriminatory intent. As to the first contention, Plaintiff alleges that he has a disability related to a kidney transplant that he underwent. This is sufficient at the pleadings stage. As to the second contention, Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated after he requested accommodations to work from home and complained about disability discrimination. This is sufficient at the pleadings stage to show a causal connection between his disability and his termination.

            As for the second and third causes of action, Defendant argues that these claims fail because the allegations show that Defendant engaged in the interactive process in response to a request for accommodation. However, Plaintiff alleges that, following his kidney transplant in 2017, he was on immune-suppressant medication that makes him a higher risk for infection. Then:

In December of 2023, there was an increase in Covid infections in the Los Angeles area. On or about December 20, 2023, Plaintiff was at work, where he observed and heard other employees coughing and sneezing, making him feel vulnerable and unsafe because of his disability.

On this same day, Plaintiff talked to the Senior Personnel Analyst, Colleen Olmedo, and his supervisor, Jerry Faulkner, about his disability. He told them that it was very risky for him to work in the current environment where multiple people were displaying symptoms of illness. Plaintiff then left the office to work remotely to accommodate his disability.

On or about December 21, 27, and 28, 2023, Plaintiff performed his job duties remotely. Plaintiff observed and/or understood that multiple background investigators worked remotely.

On or about December 21, 2023, Olmedo contacted Plaintiff and advised him that he needed to turn in a doctor’s note to begin the accommodations process.

On or about December 27, 2023, Faulkner contacted Plaintiff and advised him that he was not approved for telecommuting, and he had to report to work in the office.

On or about December 28, 2023, Plaintiff sent an email requesting confirmation that he was being required to return to the office to work.

On or about December 29, 2023, Olmedo contacted Plaintiff and advised him that he was not approved for telecommuting, and he would be placed on unpaid leave of absence beginning immediately. Olmedo also told Plaintiff to return his work assignments to the office.

On or about January 2, 2024, Senior Personnel Analyst Demetria Willis Gourdine contacted Plaintiff and provided him with the request for accommodations form and other related information.

On or about January 25, 2024, Plaintiff had an accommodations meeting with Gourdine, among other people, wherein she asked for more information about his disability.

On or about February 14, 2024, Plaintiff was terminated. The Notice of Discharge signed by Chief of Police Michael R. Moore states: “Background Investigator Michael Slider, Serial No. N7326, does not meet department standards. After repeated efforts to train and bring Mr. Slider up to Department standards, his continued defiance, disregard for supervision, and verbal discord, has led to the conclusion that he should not continue his employment.

            (Complaint ¶¶ 10-24.)

            Accepted as true at the pleadings stage, these allegations could show that Defendant denied Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation by failing to allow him to telework from home, and that they did not engage in a good faith interactive process, particularly given the temporal proximity of his termination and requests for accommodation. In light of this, Defendant’s termination could be seen as pretextual, accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true at the pleadings stage.

            As for the fourth cause of action, Defendant argues that the allegations are conclusory and lacking factual support. The Court agrees. Plaintiff alleges:

On or about February 14, 2024, Plaintiff was terminated. The Notice of Discharge signed by Chief of Police Michael R. Moore states: “Background Investigator Michael Slider, Serial No. N7326, does not meet department standards. After repeated efforts to train and bring Mr. Slider up to Department standards, his continued defiance, disregard for supervision, and verbal discord, has led to the conclusion that he should not continue his employment.”

While employed as a background investigator for Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination because he is Black. The language used in the Notice of Discharge described above is not only untrue but is racial coded language demonstrating bias against Plaintiff because he is Black.

(Complaint ¶¶ 24-25.)

            Plaintiff’s assertion that the language in the Notice of Discharge demonstrates coded “bias” without more is conclusory. The fact that Plaintiff is black is insufficient, by itself, to show that he was terminated based on his race.

            As for the fifth and sixth causes of action, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s retaliation claims lack factual support. However, Plaintiff alleges:

On or about February 1, 2024, Plaintiff complained to the LAPD Board of Police Commissioners and the LAPD Department of Internal Affairs about discrimination because of his disability.

On or about February 7, 2024, Plaintiff responded with the information Gourdine requested. Plaintiff also complained to Gourdine that his work status of forced leave was unjust.

On or about February 12, 2024, Plaintiff complained to the EEOC about discrimination because of his disability.

(Complaint ¶¶ 21-23.)

            Plaintiff was then terminated on February 14, 2024. (Complaint ¶ 24.)  Accepted as true at pleadings stage, these allegations are sufficient to show that he engaged in protected activity, and was terminated as a result.

            As for the seventh cause of action, Defendant argues that this claim fails because Plaintiff cannot show discrimination or retaliation. As set forth above, the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrers to as to Defendant’s retaliation and disability discrimination claims.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained in part, overruled in part. Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, with 15 days leave to amend, as to the fourth cause of action. Defendant’s demurrer is overruled as to all other causes of action.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  June    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.