Judge Malcolm Mackey, Case 22STCV35832 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV35832, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35832 Hearing Date: April 5, 2023 Dept: 55

O'BRIEN v. KALTEC ELECTRONICS, INC., 22STCV35832

Hearing Date: 4/5/23, Dept. 55.

#9: MOTION TO STRIKE.

Notice: Okay

Opposition

MP: Defendant

RP: Plaintiff

Summary

On 11/10/22, Plaintiff ALEXANDER O'BRIEN filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant employer wrongfully terminated his employment as Inside Sales Support, based on disabilities including Generalized Anxiety Disorder, depression and related physical symptoms, and medical leave, instead of providing reasonable accommodations, like part-time work from home, and Defendant asserted the pretext of needing a full-time employee.

The causes of action are:

1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICIES.

2. MEDICAL LEAVE RETALIATION.

3. MEDICAL LEAVE DISCRIMINATION.

4. RETALIATION FOR REQUESTING AND USING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABILITIES.

5. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A TIMELY, GOOD FAITH, INTERACTIVE PROCESS TO DETERMINE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABILITY.

6. FAILURE TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE DISABILITIES.

7. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION.

8. RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING VIOLATIONS OF FEHA.

9. FAILURE TO PREVENT AND STOP HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order striking allegations regarding punitive damages, on grounds including the following:

· Specific factual allegations are required to support a claim for punitive damages.

· Plaintiff’s allegations do not bear witness to the type of “reprehensible” conduct that blatantly violates law or policy and is of a kind that “decent citizens should not have to tolerate.”

· Plaintiff fails to establish a nexus between any actions of Defendants and the purported emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff.

· Plaintiff admits in his Complaint that Kaltec gave him leave in 2019 and cooperated with him about providing him with this leave, only that he was given a different position upon returning from his leave. Plaintiff admits that he had no issues regarding his employment for three years. Plaintiff claims in his Complaint that he requested to work part time but was told that his position required a full-time employee and that was the basis for his termination.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, or leave to amend, for reasons including the following:

· The complaint alleges that when plaintiff returned to work from 6 months’ disability leave, he was replaced in his regular position, demoted, and assigned menial duties (Complaint, ¶ 41).

· When Plaintiff requested the reasonable accommodation of working from home for a period of time, Defendant cut his pay (Complaint, ¶¶ 42-43).

· When plaintiff requested the disability accommodation of working a limited schedule, he was told he would be terminated and lose pay if he did not remove the accommodation, and there was no interactive process (Complaint, ¶¶ 54 – 56).

· Immediately after plaintiff took additional reasonable accommodation disability leave, his employment was terminated (Complaint, ¶ 57).

· The employer terminated plaintiff on the false pretext that it could not accommodate his disability.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is denied.

Twenty days to answer.

The allegations are extensively evidentiary, and thus meet the modern pleading requirement of ultimate facts.

“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.

The Complaint sufficiently alleges an employer disregarding employee rights for reasonable disability accommodating and medical leave, including by demotions, pay reduction and ultimately wrongful termination, after asserting the false pretext of needing a full-time employee.

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.").

The Court cannot adjudicate alleged facts having inferences favoring both the employee and employer, in the motion-to-strike procedure, such as alleged facts that the employer did provide accommodating and allowed medical leave for a long time before stopping.

“[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.