Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV21819, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21819    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 39

Beverly Watson v. Crystal Stairs, Inc., et al.

Case No. 22STCV21819

Demurrer and Motion to Strike

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Beverly Watson (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment case against her employer, Crystal Stairs, Inc. (“Crystal Stairs”) and a series of individual employees, including Jackie Majors (“Defendant Majors”).  Plaintiff named Defendant Majors in the following causes of action:

            Second Claim – Hostile work environment/harassment based on age, gender, race, national origin, and color, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code section 12900, et seq.

            Sixteenth Claim – Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Now, defendant Majors demurs to these causes of action and moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.  The Court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend and takes the motion to strike off-calendar as moot. 

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

            Plaintiff alleges that she received a performance review from Kendall Hirai, in which he labeled her as being “emotional.”  (Complaint, ¶ 15(f).)  Plaintiff complained to Defendant Majors about the comment, and she responded: “Well don’t let anyone define you by words.”  (Complaint, ¶ 15(g).)  Defendant Majors also said “they only have one or two toxic people on the team,” in response to which Plaintiff stated, “Well one toxic person who is not addressed can affect the whole.”  (Ibid.) 

            In or around December 2019, Defendant Majors approached Plaintiff and “told her that she looked cute but that her dress is a little short.”  (Complaint, ¶ 15(h).)  Then, in or around May 2020, Defendant Majors called Plaintiff into her office.  (Complaint, ¶ 15(n).)  Defendant Majors informed Plaintiff that “there was a sexual harassment incident involving two men that [Plaintiff] supervised.”  (Ibid.)  When Plaintiff responded that she had recently learned about the incident, Defendant Majors “became upset” and told Plaintiff that she “[does] not give a fuck what [Watson had] heard.”  (Ibid.)  Defendant Majors also stated that there was too much gossip at Crystal Stairs.  (Ibid.)  At one point, Defendant Majors asked Plaintiff why she was “so emotional” and when Plaintiff denied being “emotional,” Defendant Majors raised her voice and said, “Look at me when I am talking to you.”  (Ibid.)  Defendant Majors asked Plaintiff how she “missed the alleged harassment,” and Plaintiff responded that “there were other things going in the company that were being missed.”  (Ibid.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

DISCUSSION

            As an initial matter, the Court notes that the vast majority of the allegations are against Crystal Stairs and other employees, namely, Kendall Hirai.  The allegations against Defendant Majors are narrow. 

            To state a claim for hostile work environment 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.)  The Court cannot conclude that the alleged conduct—telling Plaintiff once that she was being “emotional” and once that “she looked cute but that her dress [was] a little short”—rises to the level of workplace harassment, especially because Plaintiff does not allege that the comment about her dress was made in a sexual context.

            Nor can the Court conclude that these comments constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Workers’ compensation provides the exclusive remedy for emotional distress caused by an employer’s conduct in employment actions when the misconduct attributed to the employer are a normal part of the employment relationship.  (See Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Prot. Dist. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148, 160.) 

The main issue presented is whether an employee may maintain a civil action in the courts for intentional infliction of emotional distress against his employer and fellow employee when the conduct complained of has caused total, permanent, mental and physical disability compensable under workers' compensation law. We conclude that when the employee's claim is based on conduct normally occurring in the workplace, it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

(Ibid.)  This includes emotional distress caused by the employer’s conduct involving termination, promotions, demotions, criticism of work practices and negotiations as to grievances.  (Ibid.)  “[This type of conduct is] a normal part of the employment relationship . . . [e]ven if such conduct may be characterized as intentional, unfair or outrageous, it is nevertheless covered by the workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions.”  (Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 902.)

            The Court declines to afford leave to amend at this stage, as Plaintiff’s counsel does not articulate what additional facts he could allege in an amended complaint.  This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s counsel seeking leave to amend if he develops additional facts against Defendant Majors. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

            2.         The Court takes the motion to strike off-calendar as moot.

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