Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV21329, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21329    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 7, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, Marriott International, Inc., Victor Lozano and Robyn Pabon

Responding Party: Plaintiff Mealad K. Saadeh

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff Mealad K. Saadeh filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, Marriott International, Inc., Victor Lozano and Robyn Pabon, asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (5) whistleblower retaliation; (6) wrongful termination; (7) failure to pay wages; (8) failure to provide rest periods; and (9) failure to provide wage statements. Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against based on his Middle Eastern descent.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendants demur to the second cause of action for harassment in violation of FEHA on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing severe and pervasive harassment.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibition on harassment states: “It is an unlawful employment practice. . . .[f]or an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or person providing services pursuant to a contract.” (Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1).) A hostile work environment is a recognized form of harassment. To establish a hostile work environment, harassment must be so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment based on the protected characteristic. (See Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1045, 1043.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendants created hostile work environment by treating Plaintiff, the only employee of Middle Eastern descent, differently from other employees. Plaintiff alleges Defendants assigned him tasks outside of his job duties, failed to provide sufficient support to complete his duties, subjected him to overly harsh discipline, treated Middle Eastern guests poorly, and terminated his employment for pretextual reasons. This is sufficient at the pleading stage to establish racial harassment.

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.