Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Alegria v. Chartwell Staffing Services Inc., et al.", Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc. demurs to plaintiff Christian Alegria’s complaint.  For the following reasons, Chartwell’s demurrer is overruled.

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint.  Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations.  Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.  Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer.  Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.  Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice.  Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.

Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Chartwell.  Chartwell contends they are all uncertain.  Chartwell’s demurrers to the first through ninth causes of action for uncertainty are overruled.  These cause of action is not “so incomprehensible that [Chartwell] cannot reasonably respond.”  Lickiss v. Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2010) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135; see also A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.

Chartwell also argues the seventh cause of action (failure to rehire) and ninth cause of action (unlawful medical inquiry) do not state claims.  Chartwell’s demurrers on this basis are overruled.

The seventh cause of action alleges Chartwell violated the FEHA by refusing to hire or rehire plaintiff based on plaintiff’s alleged disabilities and/or plaintiff’s alleged requests for reasonable accommodations.  Chartwell contends plaintiff’s seventh cause of action is a disability discrimination claim and that plaintiff cannot state a separate cause of action for “failure to rehire.”

A court considering a general demurrer analyzes whether a complaint states any valid claim entitling the plaintiff to relief, even if the plaintiff’s cause of action is improperly titled.  See, e.g., Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38; Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547.  To state a claim for disability discrimination a plaintiff must allege:  (i) the plaintiff suffers from a disability; (ii) the plaintiff was a qualified individual “performing competently in the position . . . held”; (iii) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; and (iv) the alleged disability was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse employment action.  Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355, 356.  Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action alleges facts supporting each of these elements.

The ninth cause of action alleges defendants violated the FEHA by allegedly conditioning plaintiff’s continued employment on the result of allegedly unlawful medical inquiry (i.e., a drug test).  Plaintiff alleges the drug test was unnecessary and irrelevant plaintiff’s ability to perform plaintiff’s essential job duties.

Chartwell argues the FEHA does not prohibit medical inquiries as long as they relate to job functions.  Chartwell further contends plaintiff cannot claim protection under the FEHA because plaintiff was terminated for marijuana use, and “[a]n applicant or employee who currently engages in the use of illegal drugs or uses medical marijuana is not protected as a qualified individual under the FEHA when the employer acts on the basis of such use, and questions about current illegal drug use are not disability-related inquiries.” 

Government Code section 12940(f) provides:  “It is an unlawful employment practice . . . for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an employee, [or] to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an employee,” except those examinations or inquiries “that [the employer] can show to be job related and consistent with business necessity.”  Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(f)(1)-(2). 

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, § 11071(d)(2), states:  “An employer . . . may maintain and enforce rules prohibiting employees from being under the influence of alcohol or drugs in the workplace and may conduct alcohol or drug testing for this purpose if they have a reasonable belief that an employee may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs at work.”  Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11071(d)(2).  Subparagraph (A) provides:  “[A]n applicant or employee who currently engages in the use of illegal drugs or uses medical marijuana is not protected as a qualified individual under the FEHA when the employer acts on the basis of such use, and questions about current illegal drug use are not disability-related inquiries.”  Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11071(d)(2)(A).

Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of section 12940(f).  Chartwell’s factual arguments regarding the necessity of and justification for the drug test cannot be resolved on demurrer.

Chartwell is ordered to file and serve an answer by August 22, 2022.

Chartwell’s reply request for judicial notice is denied.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Management Conference

The trial is scheduled for January 2, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C13.

Clerk to give notice.