Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV00627, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00627    Hearing Date: May 13, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 13, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants The Rector, Wardens and Vestry of The Church of Our Saviour, in San Gabriel, California (sued as The Church of Our Saviour and A Child’s Garden School) and Jeffrey Thornberg

Responding Party: Plaintiff Rosalyn Sevgiyan

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO THE REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION 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 February 23, 2024, Plaintiff Rosalyn Sevgiuan filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants The Rector, Wardens and Vestry of The Church of Our Saviour, in San Gabriel, California (sued as The Church of Our Saviour and A Child’s Garden School), and Jeffrey Thornberg, asserting 16 causes of action for FEHA and CFRA violations, wrongful termination and slander.

Plaintiff alleges she was terminated from her position as a teacher at the Defendant school due to her pregnancy, disability, and race. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Thornberg sexually harassed her and falsely accused her of stealing.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.   

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.)

A. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action for FEHA Violations

Defendants demur to the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action for FEHA violations on the grounds that Defendants are exempted from FEHA obligations as a religious organization. Gov. § 12926(d) provides, “ ‘Employer’ does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit.”

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts Defendants waived the exemption by displaying FEHA posters and having anti-discrimination policies in their handbook. In support, Plaintiff cites cases generally discussing the concepts of waiver and estoppel but provides no California authority holding that a religious organization (or any exempt organization) can waive FEHA exemptions. This is insufficient to show Defendants are liable under FEHA.

The demurrer to the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action is SUSTAINED. As Plaintiff cites no authority allowing liability for FEHA violations against a religious organization, the Court declines leave to amend.

B. Third Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination

Defendants assert the third cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy fails because it is derivative of the claims FEHA violations. Under this cause of action, Plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully terminated for reporting Labor law and FEHA violations. This claim is based at least in part on allegations of whistleblower retaliation. The demurrer cannot be sustained to part of a cause of action.

C. Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Causes of Action for Slander

Defendants demur to the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth causes of action for slander on the grounds that they are duplicative and redundant. Plaintiff alleges different defamatory statements under each cause of action. They are not duplicative or redundant.

The demurrer to the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth causes of action is OVERRULED.