Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 19STCV46843, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46843    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 39

Kathleen Eubank v. Barry & Taft, Inc.

Case No. 19STCV46843

Motion for Summary Judgment

            Plaintiff Kathleen Eubank (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against Barry & Taft, Inc. (“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action:

            1.         Discrimination under FEHA

            2.         Retaliation under FEHA

            3.         Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation under FEHA

            4.         Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under FEHA  

            5.         Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process

            6.         Retaliation under Government Code section 12945.2

            7.         Declaratory Judgment

            8.         Wrongful Termination in violation of Public Policy

Now, Defendant moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, which Plaintiff opposes. 

            The Court’s tentative order is as follows:

            1.         The Court is inclined to grant summary adjudication on the first, second, third, and eighth causes of action to the extent they rely on age discrimination.

2.         The Court is inclined to grant summary adjudication of the seventh cause of action.  “[D]eclaratory relief should not be used for the purpose of anticipating and determining an issue which can be determined in the main action.  The object of the statute is to afford a new form of relief where needed and not to furnish a litigant with a second cause of action for the determination of identical issues.”  (Hood v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 319, 324.) 

            3.         The Court has no tentative order on the remaining claims, which are predicated on Plaintiff’s alleged disability.  The Court’s tentative order is to reject Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s condition is not a disability, because Plaintiff’s evidence suggests that she missed work for nine days in October 2017, 22 days in November 2017, and 11 days in December 2017.  (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, ¶ 19.)  However, the Court is concerned that Plaintiff presented no medical documentation in support of her requests for accommodation.  The Court may order further briefing on this issue or may take the motion under submission following the hearing.    

            4.         Defendant’s counsel did not appear to file a response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.