Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV01233, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01233, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV01233 Hearing Date: April 3, 2024 Dept: G

Defendants Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center and Ray Inge’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

Respondent: Plaintiff Shaunette Miller

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center and Ray Inge’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is an employment discrimination action. In June 2019, Plaintiff Shaunette Miller was hired as a human resources director for Defendant Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (PVHMC) under the direct supervision of Defendant Ray Inge, PVHMC’s vice president of human resources. Soon afterwards, Miller alleges Inge began sexually harassing Miller by making lewd and inappropriate comments to Miller about Inge’s private life and Miller’s appearance. Miller also alleges Inge singled out Miller by commenting on Miller’s attire, including scolding Miller for wearing leggings.

As a result of Miller’s refusal to give in to or entertain Inge’s alleged sexual harassment, Miller alleges Inge began to retaliate against Miller by yelling at Miller, speaking to Miller in a condescending manner, and undermining Miller’s authority. Miller further alleges that Inge discriminated against Miller’s disability by attempting to make Miller feel bad about using sick days, contacting Miller’s primary care physician to verify accommodations, and demanding proof of Miller’s physical therapy and chiropractor visits.

In response to this alleged harassment and discrimination, Miller made complaints to recruitment supervisor Sandra Shea and benefits specialist Krystal Garcia. On August 5, 2021, Inge gave Miller a performance evaluation that allegedly contained untruthful statements about Miller. When Miller submitted a rebuttal to the evaluation, Inge stated an independent third party would conduct a review of the performance evaluation and rebuttal. Miller then alleges the review was conducted by Naomi Nightingale, one of Inge’s close friends, and that the final report absolved Inge of responsibility. A week afterwards on August 10, 2022, Inge fired Miller.

On October 12, 2022, Miller filed a complaint against PVHMC, Inge, and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of Government Code sections 12940 et seq.; (2) discrimination in violation of Government Code sections 12940 et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (6) failure to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress. On February 1, 2023, the court partially sustained and overruled a demurrer to Miller’s Complaint by PVHMC and Inge.

On February 21, 2023, Miller filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same Defendants alleging the following causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of Government Code sections 12940 et seq.; (2) discrimination in violation of Government Code sections 12940 et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (4) failure to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. On June 30, the court overruled a demurrer to Miller’s FAC by PVHMC and Inge.

On January 17, 2024, PVHMC and Inge filed the present motion for summary judgment or adjudication. A hearing on the motion is set for April 3 along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

PVHMC and Inge move for summary judgment or adjudication on all six of Miller’s causes of action and on Miller’s request for punitive damages. For the following reasons, the court DENIES their motion.

A party seeking summary judgment or adjudication must support their motion with “a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) “The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1350, subd. (d)(2).) “‘Material facts’ are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1350, subd. (a)(2).) Furthermore, there is a distinction between material facts and evidence cited in support of those material facts. (See Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 105-106 (Reeves).)

A party’s failure to provide a code-compliant separate statement itself is grounds for denial of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1); see Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Before Trial, § 13.18, 13.20.) In fact, “[t]rial courts should not hesitate to deny summary judgment motions when the moving party fails to draft a compliant separate statement – and an inappropriate separate statement includes an overly long document that includes multiple nonmaterial facts in violation of the Rules of Court.” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 876.)

In the present case, PVHMC and Inge submitted a 145-page separate statement in support of their motion for summary judgment. The court acknowledges such a lengthy separate statement may be appropriate if the complexity or number of material facts at issue demand it, but that is not the case here.

Instead, PVHMC and Inge’s separate statement is riddled with facts that are not material to the issues in their motion, including background information and outlines of policy that have no bearing on whether Inge engaged in conduct that constitutes harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. Defendants’ separate statement also frequently falls short of the requirements in Reeves by blurring the lines between a material fact and evidence that should be cited in support of that material fact.

Instead of clearly stating those material facts which actually are without substantial controversy, Defendants offer countless obliquely stated “facts” that are material only to the extent they are controverted, and uncontroverted only to the extent they are immaterial. For instance, looking at Defendants’ Separate Statement on Issue 1 (Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Harassment), Defendants assert various “undisputed facts” in terms not of relevant events but of what a witness has said about events, e.g., Dr. Nightingale’s conclusion that evidence did not support a claim for sexual harassment or hostile work environment, or that Dr. Nightingale spoke separately with Plaintiff and Defendant Inge. It seems indisputably true that Dr. Nightingale prepared a report, but the report is of interest only as evidence of a material fact, e.g., that Defendant PVHMC investigated the complaints made by Plaintiff and concluded there was no sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. That “fact” is squarely controverted by Plaintiff’s statement to the contrary, to wit, that Defendant Inge required Plaintiff to show Defendant Inge Plaintiff’s pants and that Plaintiff felt uncomfortable doing so and refused further meetings with Defendant Inge.

This pattern continues throughout Defendants’ Separate Statement and takes an arguably worse turn in Defendants’ assertion of “facts” in the form of supposed perceptions by witnesses. For Example, Defendants assert that it is undisputed that “Dr. Nightingale noted” something, or Defendant Inge’s perception that many of Plaintiff’s absences were unrelated to health or illness. Ordinarily, however, the perceptions of witnesses are simply not “material facts,” as that term is used in the summary judgment statute. (Reeves, supra, at 106.) The relevant question is whether the underlying facts—the events or conditions witnesses say they perceived—are established without substantial controversy. Id. Defendants merely cloud the inquiry into that question by formulating the operative facts in the intermediate form of a witness’ perceptions or statements.

Finally, trial courts have the inherent power to strike proposed “undisputed facts” that fail to comply with the statutory requirements and that are formulated so as to impede rather than aid an orderly determination whether the case presents triable material issues of fact. If such an order leaves the required separate statement insufficient to support the motion, the court is justified in denying the motion on that basis. (See, Id., and California Code of Civil Procedure,§437c, subd. (b)(1).)

Accordingly, PVHMC and Inge’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice for their failure to properly craft a code-compliant separate statement.

The court does not address the merits of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement.