Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 20STCV31522, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31522    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

This is a workplace discrimination action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Jamie Adan (“Adan”) was employed by Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation (“Defendant”) as a cashier. (Compl. ¶ 16.) In May 2015, Plaintiff injured his foot and ankle. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff was treated by a doctor and was placed on work restrictions. (Ibid.) When Plaintiff informed his supervisor of his restrictions, Plaintiff’s supervisor informed Plaintiff that his restrictions could not be accommodated before Plaintiff engaged in the good faith interactive process. (Ibid.) Plaintiff quit his position. (Ibid.)

In June 2015, Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 18.) However, Plaintiff continued to experience pain from his injury. (Ibid.)

In October 2017, Plaintiff again received treatment for his injury and was placed on medical leave. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Every three months Plaintiff would see his doctor, and his leave got extended each time. (Ibid.)

In January 2019, Plaintiff had surgery on his foot and ankle. (Compl. ¶ 21.) His medical leave was extended until October 2019. (Ibid.) However, on August 1, 2019, while Plaintiff was still on medical leave, Defendant terminated his employment. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges his termination was motivated by Defendant’s discrimination as to his disability. (Compl. ¶ 26.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting seven causes of action:

1.    Discrimination in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.;

2.    Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.;

3.    Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(k);

4.    Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.;

5.    Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.;

6.    Declaratory Judgment; and,

7.    Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

On November 18, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer.

On March 11, 2021, the parties agreed to arbitrate and to stay proceedings.

On December 1, 2022, Arbitrator Amy Semmel (“Semmel”) issued a final award granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. (Reathaford Decl., Ex. B.) Semmel ordered costs and expenses to be borne as incurred. (Ibid.)

On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award.

On January 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the instant Motion.

On February 2, 2023, Defendant filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION 

I.                PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Defendant petitions the Court to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety.

Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court for confirmation of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) Upon service and filing of a petition to confirm arbitration award, the court shall confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Id., § 1286.) The contents of a petition to confirm an arbitration award shall set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate, the names of the arbitrators, and shall set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) Where the petition is served but no response is served and filed, the allegations in the petition are deemed admitted. (CCP § 1290; Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 956, 962.)    

Every presumption is in favor of the arbitration award. (See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United Rubber Workers of America (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 444, 449.)

CCP section 1286.2 provides:

“[T]he court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following:

(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.

(2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators.

(3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.

(4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.

(5) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefore or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.

(6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. However, this subdivision does not apply to arbitration proceedings conducted under a collective bargaining agreement between employers and employees or between their respective representatives. (CCP Section 1286.2(a)(1-6).)

Here, Defendant has fulfilled the procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4. In her written opinion, Semmel states that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that he was qualified to perform the essential elements of his job. (Reathaford Decl.; Ex. 2 at p. 11.)

Semmel notes:

The central issue in this case is whether Respondent’s decision to terminate Claimant when he requested an additional three months leave in July 2019 violated its duty under the FEHA to engage in the interactive process and reasonably accommodate Claimant by providing additional leave. By July 2019, Claimant had been on multiple extended leaves of absence for an aggregate 21 months. While the Arbitrator does not adopt Respondent’s position that the 21 month leave per se entitled Responded to terminate Claimant’s employment, Kimbro and Kimbro and Humphrey make clear that by July 2019, Respondent could reasonably infer that further extensions of Claimants leave of absence would not result in his successfully returning to work at Respondent’s supermarket. (Id. at p. 12.)

As to Plaintiff’s retaliation cause of action, Semmel found:

Claimant offered nothing other than temporal proximity in support of his claim for retaliation. Even assuming an inference of retaliatory intent may be derived from mere proximity of the protected conduct to the adverse action, such inference may be dispelled by evidence indicating the adverse action was taken for legitimate, nonretaliatory reason. . . Claimant in the instant case offered no such evidence to rebut the employer’s stated legitimate reason for the termination such that summary adjudication of this claim is warranted as well.

In Opposition to Defendant’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, Plaintiff argues that the Court should vacate the arbitration award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2(a)(4). Plaintiff contends that Semmel exceeded her powers, and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.

Plaintiff argues that Semmel exceeded her powers by ignoring the standard on summary judgment, and by granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment despite Plaintiff providing evidence that he could be reasonably accommodated.

However, as Defendant notes in its Reply, “an arbitrator does not exceed his or her powers by making a wrong decisions; this is why courts will generally not review the validity of an arbitrator’s reasoning or review for errors of fact or law, even when the error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties.” (Santa Monica College Faculty Assn. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4^th 538, 546.) 

Here, Plaintiff does not argue that Semmel exceeded her power by considering Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; instead, Plaintiff contends that Semmel exceeded her power by ruling incorrectly on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Under California law, this is not a matter properly reviewed by the trial court.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

DATED: February 9, 2023 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court