Judge Ronald F. Frazier, Case 37-2020-00045266-CU-WT-CTL 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2020-00045266-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023 08:30:00 AM C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Wrongful Termination Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2020-00045266-CU-WT-CTL VALDES VS MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 11/08/2022

Defendant MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (ROA 62.) First Cause of Action – Violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5 As to Plaintiff's first cause of action for Violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5, summary adjudication is granted. (Issue Nos. 4-5.) As to Plaintiff's allegation of violation of section 98.6, Defendant only addresses this claim in a footnote wherein Defendant asserts Plaintiff never 'made a complaint that would qualify as protected activity.' (P&A at p. 14, fn. 4.) Plaintiff, for her part, submitted a lengthy dispute of the facts and yet admits in the separate statement that Issue Nos. 1-3 are moot because Plaintiff has dismissed this portion of her claim. The dismissal was not mentioned anywhere in Plaintiff's opposing memorandum. Issue Nos. 1-3 are moot.

As to Plaintiff's allegation of violation of section 1102.5, summary adjudication is granted. (Issue Nos.

4-5.) 'Section 1102.6 provides the governing framework for the presentation and evaluation of whistleblower retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5. First, it places the burden on the plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that retaliation for an employee's protected activities was a contributing factor in a contested employment action. The plaintiff need not satisfy McDonnell Douglas in order to discharge this burden. Once the plaintiff has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the action in question for legitimate, independent reasons even had the plaintiff not engaged in protected activity.' (Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2002) 12 Cal.5th 703, 718.) As evidence of retaliation, Plaintiff points to 'condescending comments to Plaintiff about her work experience and abilities' by her supervisor Verona MacDonnell as well as an increase in workload.

(Opp. at 14:19-21, Pltf. Addl. Facts at ¶¶ 41-52.) However, Plaintiff has not offered sufficient evidence that the protected activity – that is, her March 22, 2019 report – was a contributing factor in the termination of her employment on January 10, 2020. As Defendant points out, there is also a lack of temporal proximity between the March 22, 2019 report and her eventual termination on January 10, 2020.

Second Cause of Action – Discrimination (FEHA) Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2922275 14 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: VALDES VS MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC 37-2020-00045266-CU-WT-CTL In her second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges discrimination on the basis of her ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, medical leave, and/or gender. (Compl. ¶ 75.) To prove discrimination, 'the plaintiff must provide evidence that (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.' (Guz v. Bechtel Nat.

Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355.) Defendant first asserts Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because Plaintiff was not a 'qualified individual.' (Issue No. 6.) The court finds there is at least material triable issue of fact on this point. (Pltf. Resp. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 17, 22, 24.) Defendant also asserts Plaintiff's cause of action fails because it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff's termination, and Plaintiff cannot prove those reasons were a mere pretext. (Issue No. 11.) The court finds there are material triable issues of fact as to whether Defendant's decision to terminate Plaintiff during her leave of absence was motivated by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

(Pltf. Resp. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 17-19, 22, 24-25.) Because the court has determined Plaintiff's cause of action survives summary adjudication at least as to her disability discrimination claim, the court declines to consider Issue Nos. 7-10 because the court cannot grant summary adjudication as to only a portion of a cause of action.

Accordingly, as to Plaintiff's second cause of action, summary adjudication is denied.

Third Cause of Action – Harassment (FEHA) As to Plaintiff's third cause of action for harassment, Defendant asserts Plaintiff cannot prove the alleged harassment was 'severe and pervasive.' (Issue No. 12; see Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 876.) As to this issue, the court notes Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the facts offered by Defendant in her separate statement. (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 29-31.) Accordingly, the court construes these facts as undisputed.

The basis of Defendant's argument is that a few stray comments are not sufficient to support a claim for harassment. The court finds Defendant has not met its initial burden of persuasion. From the court's perspective, the severity and pervasiveness of 'stray remarks' generally present questions of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Accordingly, the court denies summary adjudication on this basis.

Further, although Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's undisputed facts, she did offer additional facts in support of this cause of action. (Pltf. Add'l Facts at ¶¶ 47, 49.) Accordingly, in the alternative, the court finds there are material triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive.

Accordingly, as to Plaintiff's third cause of action, summary adjudication is denied.

Fourth Cause of Action – Retaliation (FEHA) As to Plaintiff's fourth cause of action, the court will hear this matter. Defendant identified an issue for adjudication on this cause of action in its notice of motion (Issue No. 13) and provided facts in support thereof, but did not explicitly brief this issue in its moving memorandum.

Fifth Cause of Action – Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2922275 14 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: VALDES VS MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC 37-2020-00045266-CU-WT-CTL Defendant argues it is entitled to summary adjudication of Plaintiff's fifth cause of action because Plaintiff's other causes of action for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation fail. By this rationale, summary adjudication must be denied because the court has denied summary adjudication of Plaintiff's harassment and discrimination causes of action.

Defendant also asserts it took reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation because it had written policies. The court concludes Defendant has not met its initial burden of persuasion to demonstrate this cause of action is completely foreclosed, and denies summary adjudication.

Sixth Cause of Action – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations; Seventh Cause of Action – Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process As to Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodations and seventh cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process, summary adjudication is denied. (Issue Nos. 16-17.) Plaintiff's requests for accommodation consisted of multiple requests for medical leave. Defendant granted those requests, until it determined it could no longer accommodate Plaintiff and terminated her employment. The court finds the reasonableness of those actions is a material triable issue of fact.

(Pltf. Resp. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 16-22, 24.) Eighth Cause of Action – Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy As to Plaintiff's eighth cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, summary adjudication is denied. (Issue No. 18.) Defendant asserts it is entitled to summary adjudication of this cause of action because Plaintiff's causes of action for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation stated under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ('FEHA') fail.

Summary adjudication is denied because the court has denied summary adjudication of Plaintiff's harassment and discrimination causes of action.

Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages As to Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages, summary adjudication is granted. (Issue Nos. 19-20.) Plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact that Defendant and/or any managing agent thereof acted with malice.

Evidentiary Objections Plaintiff's and Defendant's evidentiary objections are both overruled. (ROA 104, 117.) Briefing Issues Written 'responses' to evidentiary objections are not authorized by Code or by the rules of court. (ROA 118; see Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1354.) Summary judgment motions, and particularly motions with numerous issues to be adjudicated such as this one, are incredibly time-intensive for the court to evaluate. Submitting unauthorized briefing serves to substantially increase the burden on the court and does not advance either party's interests. To the extent Defendant wished to provide legal argument to respond to Plaintiff's objections, the place to do so is in Defendant's reply brief. Defendant's counsel is admonished not to submit unauthorized briefing in the future.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2922275 14 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: VALDES VS MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC 37-2020-00045266-CU-WT-CTL The court also requests legal argument be presented in the body of the memorandum and footnotes be used sparingly if at all in any future briefing.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2922275 14