Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 19STLC11506, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC11506    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 39

Eugene Ellis v. Los Angeles County Probation Department, et al.

Case No. 19STLC11506

Demurrer

            Plaintiff filed this employment action against Defendants, asserting causes of action for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent retaliation/harassment/discrimination, violation of the Family Medical Leave Act/California Family Rights Act, failure to accommodate his disability, and failure to engage in the interactive process.  Defendants demur only to the second cause of action for harassment, though the Court construes the demurrer as relating to the fourth cause of action to the extent it is predicated upon harassment. 

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

To state a claim for harassment, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant engaged in severe or pervasive harassment that unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance.  (See Thompson v. City Of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 877.)  However, “the exercise of personnel management authority properly delegated by an employer to a supervisory employee might result in discrimination, but not in harassment.”  (Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 64.)  In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “caused Plaintiff to suffer adverse employment actions,” including reassignments and demotion.  (Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 10, 25-26.)  Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants did not accommodate his disability.  None of these allegations support a claim for harassment.  Simply, Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that Defendants harassed him, e.g., by making negative comments, etc. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         The demurrer to the second cause of action, and the fourth cause of action to the extent it is based on harassment, is sustained.

2.         The Court denies leave to amend, as Plaintiff proffers no facts suggesting that an amendment would be successful.  This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff conducting discovery and seeking leave to amend if he develops such evidence.

3.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.