Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV01613, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01613    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 39

Patricia Dantzler v. Leidos Holdings, Inc., et al.
Case No. 22STCV01613

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

            Plaintiff Patricia Dantzler (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action alleging various causes of action under FEHA and the Labor Code.  Now, Defendants move for a judgment on the pleadings with respect to the second cause of action (harassment based upon Plaintiff’s gender in violation of FEHA) and the tenth cause of action (intentional infliction of emotional distress).

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, but may be made after the time to demur has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).)  “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1013.)  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.” (Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.)

The Court denies the motion with respect to the second cause of action.  Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants subjected [her] to harassing conduct and hostile work environment because of [her] gender (i.e., female).  Defendants established a companywide culture and practice of  discriminating against their female employees and treating them as if they were inferior to their male counterparts, all of which created a hostile work environment . . . .”  (Complaint, ¶ 84.)  Plaintiff alleges a series of facts in support of this allegation.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 27-62.)  This is sufficient for pleading purposes.

The Court grants the motion with respect to the tenth cause of action.  The gravamen of Plaintiff’s allegations cannot form the basis of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.  Personnel decisions cannot form the basis of such a claim because such conduct is “a normal part of the employment relationship . . . , [e]ven if such conduct may be characterized as intentional, unfair or outrageous.”  (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 25.)  The remaining allegations do not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiff provides no basis to conclude that an amendment would be successful.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied with respect to the second cause of action.

2.         Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with respect to the tenth cause of action.  The Court denies leave to amend.

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