Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV13214, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13214    Hearing Date: January 6, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff James Padilla

Demurrer to Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this demurrer.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff James Padilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this FEHA action against defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) on April 20, 2022, alleging six causes of action for (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (4) failure to engage in the good faith interactive process; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; and (6) declaratory judgment.

Defendant now moves the court for an order sustaining its demurrer to Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action.   

DEMURRER

The court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for discrimination on the ground of uncertainty because this cause of action is not ambiguous or unintelligible.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for discrimination because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff does not allege the element of an adverse employment action.  (Code. Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355 [setting forth elements of a discrimination claim].)

The court notes that Plaintiff alleges various facts describing incidents that occurred throughout Plaintiff’s employment, including the denial of promotions (Compl., ¶¶ 16-17, 29) and allegations that Plaintiff was called “a liar” and was reprimanded for violating the honesty policy based on a complaint that Plaintiff made to the department (Compl., ¶ 37-39).  However, in support of this cause of action, Plaintiff only alleges that the adverse employment actions he suffered consisted of Defendant’s “denial of accommodation, refusal to engage in the interactive process, [and] failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation….”  (Compl., ¶ 61.)  This allegation does not describe “adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to impair a reasonable employee’s job performance or prospects for advancement or promotions” and instead refers to various unlawful employment practices prohibited by FEHA.  (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1054-1055; Gov. Code, § 12940.)  To the extent that Plaintiff is relying on specific facts set forth in the general “Factual Allegations” section of his Complaint, Plaintiff should include those allegations within the first cause of action in order to set forth facts that sufficiently allege that Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action.

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action for retaliation because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff fails to allege the element of an adverse employment action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co., LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1063 [an adverse employment action is a critical component of a retaliation claim and “requires a ‘substantial adverse change in the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment’”].)  Plaintiff alleges, similar to the first cause of action, that he “suffered the adverse employment actions of denial of accommodation, refusal to engage in the interactive process, [and] failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation….”  (Compl., ¶ 69.)  The court finds that this allegation is insufficient to establish the element of an adverse employment action for the same reasons set forth in connection with the first cause of action for discrimination.

ORDER

            The court sustains defendant County of Los Angeles’s demurrer to plaintiff James Padilla’s first cause of action for discrimination and second cause of action for retaliation.

The court grants plaintiff James Padilla 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies with the first and second causes of action set forth above.

The court orders defendant County of Los Angeles to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 6, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court