Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 21STCV45383, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV45383, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45383 Hearing Date: February 10, 2025 Dept: 82

Ingo Rademacher Case No. 21STCV45383

v. Hearing: February 10, 2025

Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

American Broadcasting Department: 82

Companies, Inc. Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch

[Tentative] Order Granting Motion for New Trial on the Fifth Cause of Action

under Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102

[Tentative] Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff Ingo Rademacher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff was an actor on the soap opera “General Hospital” for approximately 25 years. Defendant implemented a policy requiring employees, including actors on television shows, to get a COVID-19 vaccination unless they received an exemption for medical or religious reasons. Plaintiff requested a religious exemption, but Defendant denied the request and then terminated Plaintiff after he refused to get vaccinated.

Plaintiff filed this action asserting several causes of action, including a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleges that “ABC also fired [him] for expressing political and social views that it disagreed with and that it wanted to discourage its employees from taking.” (Second Amended Complaint ¶ 74.) Plaintiff predicates this claim on having disclosed on social media that: (1) He voted for Donald Trump; (2) He believed Donald Trump had performed well as President; and (3) He opposed vaccine mandates. The elements of a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy are as follows: (1) There was an employer-employee relationship; (2) The employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment; (3) The termination was substantially motivated by a violation of public policy; and (4) The discharge caused the plaintiff harm. (Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641.)

In order to assert a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, Plaintiff must identify a violation of “constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions.” (Jersey v. John Muir Medical Center (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 814, 821, citations omitted). Plaintiff predicates this cause of action upon alleged violations of Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102. Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any “rule, regulation, or policy” that prohibits or prevents employees from engaging or participating in political activity, or controlling or directing employees’ political activities or affiliations. (Lab. Code § 1101.) Labor Code section 1102 prohibits an employer from coercing or influencing employees’ political activities through threat of discharge or loss of employment. (Lab. Code § 1102.)

Defendant moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel is correct that the court “agonized” over whether to grant summary adjudication for the wrongful termination claim. It was a “close call,” as they say, but the court did so. Now, Plaintiff moves for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence, per Code of Civil Procedure section 657(4). In ruling on such a motion, the court considers the following factors: (1) The evidence, and not merely its materiality, is newly-discovered; (2) The movant has acted with reasonable diligence; and (3) The evidence is material to the movant’s case, i.e., it is likely to produce a different result. (Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 764, 778-779.)

Plaintiff focuses on deposition testimony from Tanya Menton in another case. Menton worked with Erin Nguyen on the accommodation team, that Disney refused to accommodate an employee because his beliefs were political, not religious. There is no evidence she is talking about Plaintiff. More important, Plaintiff could have taken her deposition before the court granted summary judgment. In fact, Plaintiff’s counsel noticed and then unilaterally canceled the deposition before the court granted summary judgment. Accordingly, this evidence will not support a motion for new trial.

Plaintiff also focuses on evidence that a similarly-situated employee has been treated differently. Evidence of disparate treatment is probative of the employer’s discriminatory or retaliatory intent. (See, e.g., Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 633, __, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 245, 270.) In the instant case, there is evidence that on September 29, 2020, the producers discussed extending Plaintiff’s contract and were contemplating potential storylines for Plaintiff. (AOE 820, 843, 1310.) Then, after Plaintiff began expressing political opinions, there was evidence that, interpreted in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, suggests that Defendant intended to terminate him. (AOE 840, 852, 789, 855.) There is evidence that, interpreted in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, suggests the termination is related to his political views. For example, Plaintiff posted an advertisement for an anti-vaccine rally on Instagram. (AOE 840.) One producer sent the posting to another and wrote: “Ready for a recast!” (Ibid.) The second produced replied, “Yup.” (Ibid.)

It is undisputed that another actor on General Hospital, Steve Burton, was terminated along with Plaintiff for failing to get vaccinated against COVID-19. It is undisputed that Burton was re-hired during the Spring of 2024, to work on General Hospital and began shooting episodes in June 2024. There is no evidence that Burton engaged in similar political conduct. Finally, it is undisputed that Plaintiff has not been re-hired.

Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of a motion for new trial under section 657(4). First, this evidence is newly-discovered. Burton was re-hired in 2024, after the court granted summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s counsel discovered the evidence during depositions in a related case. Second, Plaintiff’s counsel acted with reasonable diligence, as this motion was filed once the court regained jurisdiction following appeal. Third, the evidence is material to the movant’s case. Simply, the court would not have granted summary adjudication of the sixth cause of action if presented with this type of evidence.

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for new trial is granted with respect to the sixth cause of action: Wrongful termination in violation of public policy predicated upon violations of Labor Code section 1101 and 1102. The motion is denied in all other respects. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff moving to amend the cause of action to add additional theories or causes of action that were not resolved by the court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

2. The court denies its own motion for reconsideration.

3. The court vacates the judgment, entered on December 18, 2024.

4. The court sets a case management conference in Department 39 (Richardson, J.) for March 17, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.

5. The court issues an order to show cause why discovery should not be reopened. Plaintiff may file a response on or before February 19, 2025. Defendant may file a response on or before February 28, 2025. Plaintiff may file a reply on or before March 7, 2025.

6. The court’s clerk shall provide notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: February 10, 2025 _____________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Superior Court Judge