Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV28394, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28394    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 7, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Apple, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Naomi Hatter

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT 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 October 30, 2024, Plaintiff Naomi Hatter filed a complaint against Defendants Security Industry Specialists, Inc. and Apple, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) gender discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) racial discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) gender violence; (4) sexual battery; and (5) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. Plaintiff alleges that a store security guard sexually harassed her while she was employed at an Apple. Plaintiff also alleges her supervisors and managers at Apple harassed and discriminated against her based on her race.

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. Gender Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged that the security guard who allegedly harassed her was employed by Defendant or that Defendant was responsible for the guard’s conduct. This is contrary to the allegations in complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the guard was an employee of Defendant SIS and a de facto employee or agent of Apple. (Compl. 12.)  Plaintiff also alleges that she complained to Apple about the guard’s conduct and Apple failed to remedy the situation. The Court must treat these allegations as true on demurrer.

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

B. Racial Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA

Defendant asserts that the second cause of action for racial harassment and discrimination fails because Plaintiff has not identified any adverse employment actions based on her race. Plaintiff alleges her managers made demeaning comments about her hair and touched her hair without her permission, creating a hostile working environment. Courts have held that the creation of a hostile work environment may constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of discrimination and retaliation. (See e.g. Kelley v. Conco Companies (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191, 210.) Comments about Plaintiff’s hair may constitute racial discrimination; the Court cannot rule as a matter of law that they do not. Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action for FEHA harassment and discrimination.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

C. Gender Violence and Sexual Battery

Defendant demurs to the claims for gender violence and sexual battery on the grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged the guard was an employee of Defendant or that Defendant committed gender violence or sexual battery. As discussed, Plaintiff alleges the guard was an employee of Defendant and that Defendant failed to remedy the situation after Plaintiff complained to Defendant. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis.

The demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action is OVERRULED.

D. Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike the first through fourth causes of action on the same grounds as those in the demurrer. For the reasons stated, these arguments fail.

The motion to strike is DENIED.