Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV19481, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19481    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 39

James Wahl, et al. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Case Number 22STCV19481

Order #1 of 3

Motion for Summary Judgment

INTRODUCTION

            Plaintiffs James Wahl (“James”) and his son, Timothy Wahl (“Timothy”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC” or “Defendant”).  Plaintiffs ran the construction shop and special effects department for the ABC-produced soap opera General Hospital.  After ABC instituted a requirement that its employees become vaccinated against COVID-19, Plaintiffs requested religious exemptions, which were denied.  Plaintiffs filed this action for violations of the California Constitution and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) asserting the following causes of action:

1.  Violation of Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution

2.  Religious discrimination/failure to accommodate under FEHA

3.  Disability discrimination under FEHA 

4.  Retaliation under FEHA

5.  Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

Defendant moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication based upon seven issues.  The Court grants summary adjudication of the first cause of action and denies summary adjudication with respect to the remaining causes of action. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Plaintiffs filed this action on June 15, 2022, and the Court accepted this case as related to Ingo Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Case Number 21STCV45383.  In that case, the Court granted summary judgment and incorporates its order of June 5, 2023, by reference.  Now, Defendant moves for summary adjudication of seven issues: (1) The invasion of privacy claim fails because Plaintiffs’ union agreed to the vaccination policy; (2) The invasion of privacy claim fails because Plaintiffs had no legally protected privacy interest in continued employment at ABC; (3) The invasion of privacy claim fails because Plaintiffs did not act consistently with an expectation of privacy; (4) The invasion of privacy claim fails because Defendant had a compelling interest; (5) The religious discrimination claim fails because Plaintiffs’ objections were not sufficiently religious in nature; and (6) The religious discrimination claim fails because Defendant could not have accommodated Plaintiffs.    

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) 

DISCUSSION

            A.        Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution

            The Court grants summary adjudication of the first cause of action for the same reasons it granted summary adjudication of this claim in Ingo Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Case Number 21STCV45383. 

            B.        Whether Plaintiffs had genuine religious beliefs

            Defendant moves for summary adjudication of Issue #6: Whether Plaintiffs’ objections to the vaccine policy are sufficiently religious in nature to warrant protection under FEHA.  The Court granted summary adjudication of this issue in Ingo Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Case Number 21STCV45383 because the plaintiff refused to cooperate with the interactive process.  By contrast, Plaintiffs cooperated sufficiently with the interactive process, so the Court must reach the merits of the issue.  While Defendant’s counsel identifies seeming inconsistencies, Plaintiffs raise sufficient facts to give rise to a triable issue.  Therefore, Defendant’s motion is denied.

            C.        Whether Plaintiffs could be accommodated

            Defendant moves for summary adjudication of Issue #7: Whether Defendant could have reasonably accommodated Plaintiffs.  The Court granted summary adjudication of this issue in  Ingo Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Case Number 21STCV45383 because the plaintiff was an actor and he conceded the following facts: (1) Plaintiff interacts with other actors on stage when performing the story line; (2) Acting requires Plaintiff to “get very close to other actors;” (3) ABC did not write masking into the storyline of General Hospital; (4) Plaintiff could not have acted on General Hospital while wearing a mask; and (5) Plaintiff would be in close proximity to others between the ages of 12 and 65 while acting on General Hospital.  By contrast, Plaintiffs performed different roles than Ingo Rademacher.  Plaintiff James Wahl “used to work behind the scenes” and “ran the construction/special effects shop for the show.”  (Declaration of James Wahl, ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff Timothy James Wahl “worked in the construction/special effects shop for the show.”  (Declaration of Timothy James Wahl, ¶ 2.)  Both spent “most of [their] time” in the special effects shop and went to the set only “periodically.”  (Declaration of James Wahl, ¶ 4; Declaration of Timothy James Wahl, ¶ 4.)  Both could perform their job duties while wearing masks, social distancing, and testing regularly.  (Declaration of James Wahl, ¶¶ 3-5; Declaration of Timothy James Wahl, ¶¶ 3-5.)  Whether Defendant could reasonable accommodate Plaintiffs is a triable issue for the jury. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

                Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants summary adjudication of the first cause of action.  The Court denies summary adjudication of the remaining causes of action.  Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #2 of 3

Motion for Sanctions

            Plaintiffs move for issue and evidentiary sanctions, arguing that Defendant’s counsel improperly coached a witness at the deposition.  Defendant’s counsel opposes the motion, arguing that he spoke to the witness for approximately one minute while no question was pending in order to understand a potential inconsistency between the witness’s testimony and his understanding of the facts, as reflected by the testimony of two prior witnesses. 

            The motion is denied.  The conversation occurred while no question was pending; the conversation was brief in nature; the record supports the view that the witness or Defendant’s counsel was confused about the question or facts; the record does not support the argument that the witness committed perjury based upon the advice of his attorney; and Defendant’s counsel did not prevent Plaintiff’s counsel from inquiring about the inconsistencies or any other subject area.  Regardless, sanctions are not necessary.  The testimony “is what it is,” as they say.  The Court acknowledges that the witness testified inconsistently, but that is a benefit to Plaintiffs.  This testimony may very well have prevented the Court from granting summary judgment had the Court not denied the motion on other grounds.  Plaintiffs’ counsel is free to impeach the witness at trial, which is an appropriate remedy.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.620.) 

            The Court finds no basis to re-take these depositions, because Defendant’s counsel did not prevent them from making any inquiries into the relevant issues.  Nor does the Court find good cause to appoint a discovery referee at this stage.  Plaintiffs’ counsel does not identify any future depositions of Defendant’s employees.  However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court orders that all future depositions shall be taken in-person unless the parties stipulate to conduct the depositions remotely. 

            Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied.  Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #3 of 3

Case Management Order

            The Court sets the following dates:

            Final Status Conference:

            Trial:

The discovery and motions deadlines shall be based on the new trial date.  The parties shall prepare and file joint trial documents on or before ______.  The parties shall identify all witnesses they intend to call in their respective cases-in-chief, and identify and produce all exhibits they intend to introduce in their respective cases-in-chief, on or before ________.

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