Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV35715, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35715 Hearing Date: February 9, 2023 Dept: 55
REYES-REYNAGA
v. AMANECER COMM. COUNSELING SERVICE 22STCV35715
Hearing Date: 2/9/23,
Dept. 55
#10: MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Defendants
RP:
Plaintiff
Summary
On 11/10/22, Plaintiff ELAINE REYES-REYNAGA filed a
Complaint alleging that her employment with defendant AMANECER COMMUNITY
COUNSELING SERVICE was wrongfully terminated, based on age, disability, taking
medical leave, sex and gender.
The causes of action are:
(1) DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEHA;
(2) HARASSMENT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEHA;
(3) RETALIATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEHA;
(4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA;
(5) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN
THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(6) FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, OR RETALIATION
IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(7) NEGLIGENT HIRING,
SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION;
(8) WRONGFUL TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
(9) WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION (LABOR CODE § 1102.5);
(10) INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
MP
Positions
Moving parties request an order granting the motion to
strike allegations regarding punitive damages, from the Complaint, on grounds
including the following:
·
The alleged level of negligent behavior
does not come close to the acts of malice, oppression, despicable conduct, or
fraud required to support a claim for punitive damages. See, Scott v Phoenix
Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715 (court reversed an award of
punitive damages for wrongful termination because there was no intent to
injure, and the “mere carelessness or ignorance of the defendant does not
justify the imposition of punitive damages.”)
·
A plaintiff must plead specific facts of
the allegedly oppressive, malicious, or fraudulent conduct. Brousseau v.
Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.
·
Plaintiff fails to plead any facts
whatsoever that corporate employer Defendants had advance knowledge that any of
these agents were unfit or engaged in any wrongful conduct. Plaintiff fails to
plead any specific facts regarding approval or ratification by Defendant except
for some conclusory allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
RP
Positions
Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons
including the following:
·
Defendants covered up their actual reason
for termination of Reyes-Reynaga, so as to hide that they terminated
Reyes-Reynaga because of her disability and associational disability. When an
employer “attempt[s] to hide the illegal reason for their decision with a false
explanation,” that conduct will support a jury’s determination that the
employer acted willfully and in conscious disregard of the employee’s rights.
Cloud v. Casey¿ 76 Cal.App.4th 895, 912 (1999).
·
Defendants denied Plaintiff the
opportunity for growth as an HR Manager, while hiring younger-male HR Managers
who lacked the experience she held. (Complaint, ¶¶ 14(b)-(e).) Defendant, Cardenas constantly made ageist
comments towards Reyes-Reynaga, characterizing Reyes-Reynaga’s pace of work to
be slow compared to a younger-male, Jesus Martinez (Complaint, ¶ 14(b)). After Plaintiff’s efforts to communicate her
accommodations requests, defendants denied them, and instead continued to add
on to her workload, exacerbating her disabilities.
·
Plaintiff need not allege “who ‘bound’ the
employer,” and Plaintiff properly alleged identifications of the actors and
their capacities.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is denied.
Twenty days to answer.
Beyond conclusions, the pleading adequately alleges
ultimate facts expressing or inferring that defendants intentionally violated
rights by adverse employment actions based on medical leave, disability and
age (e.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 14(e) (“Reyes-Reynaga heard that Defendant wanted
to bring in new, younger employees. Although Cardenas allowed Reyes-Reynaga to
submit her resume for the position this time given her prior complaint,
Reyes-Reynaga was not selected for the job.), 14(g) (“Reyes-Reynaga
communicated to Defendants that her blood pressure and her blood sugar were
increasing due to the stress from work, however, defendants did not provide
necessary accommodations ), 17(c) (“defendants asserted false (pretextual)
grounds for terminating plaintiff’s employment and/or other adverse job
actions, thereby to cause plaintiff hardship and deprive her of legal rights.”), 26 (“Defendants’
discrimination was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent,
despicable, and/or oppressive manner,…”)).
“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation
of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such
relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” Clauson
v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255. Accord Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood
Apartments (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1055; Blegen v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 125
Cal.App.3d 959, 962.
Punitive damages are potentially available in actions
based on FEHA or violations of public policy.
Cloud v. Casey (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 895, 912 (jury properly found employer defendants
intentionally discriminated and consciously disregarded employee’s rights, by
doing an adverse employment action based on gender, because defendants tried to
hide it with a false explanation.); Commodore
Home Systems v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 220; Wilson v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1997)
52 Cal.App.4th 267, 273; Bihun v.
AT&T Info. Systems (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 996, overruled on
other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins
Associated Ind. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 664;
Roberts v. Ford Aerospace & Communication Corp. (1990) 224
Cal.App.3d 793, 798; Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th
1128, 1158-59; Myers v. Trendwest
Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1435 ("A court can award
Civil Code section 3294 punitive damages in an FEHA case.").
“[W]rongful termination, without more, will not
sustain a finding of malice or oppression.”
Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.
(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 717. Cf. Turman v. Turning Point of
Central Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 64 (“Appellant persists that
the punitive damages allegations are adequately pled, relying primarily on the
underlying facts associated with the cause of action for gender discrimination.
However, as pled in this complaint, such facts do not rise to the level of
malice, oppression or fraud necessary under Civil Code section 3294 to state a
claim for punitive damages.”).
Additionally, general allegations, such as at
paragraph 4 of the Complaint, suffice for alleging punitive damages against a corporation.
Alleging that persons acted "with the permission
and consent" of all defendants including corporate defendants is
sufficient to plead corporate employer liability for punitive damages. O'Hara
v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal. App. 3d 798, 806 (“it was
alleged that the misrepresentations were made by persons who acted ‘with the
permission and consent’ of all the defendants. For the purpose of meeting a
general demurrer, this was a sufficient allegation that the corporations had
authorized their agent's acts; a corporation is liable for punitive damages
when it authorizes the wrongful act.”); Kisesky
v. Carpenters’ Trust (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d
222, 235 (allegations of agents acting in scope of employment with
employer’s permission and consent were sufficient). See also generally Scannell v. County of Riverside
(1984) 152 Cal. App. 3d 596, 614 (insufficiency where a complete failure to
plead acts done with the knowledge or under express direction or ratification
of officer, director or managing agent);
United W. Medical Ctrs. v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 500,
505 n. 2 (dicta re sufficiency being questionable where a complete failure to
allege authorization, ratification, or conduct by managerial agent).
*IF BOTH PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE, PLEASE CALL
213-633-0655 TO NOTIFY THE COURTROOM*