Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV21819, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21819    Hearing Date: October 27, 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 Ty Tanya Loughridge (“Defendant Loughridge”).  Plaintiff named Defendant Loughridge 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 Loughridge demurs to these causes of action and moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.  The Court sustains the demurrer and takes the motion to strike off-calendar as moot. 

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Loughridge, who was a supervisor, approached her and said: “We recycle clothes around here and have never seen you wear the same thing.”  (Complaint, ¶ 15(c).)  On another occasion, Defendant Loughridge said that Plaintiff “treated the sidewalk as if it was her runway.”  (Ibid.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

A.        Demurrer

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.)  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)  “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.)  However, courts do not accept as true deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact.  (Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 538.)  The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts.  (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.)  “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.”  (Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  In addition, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, courts strictly construe a demurrer for uncertainty “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)  

            B.        Motion to Strike

Courts may, upon a motion, or at any time in their discretion, and upon terms they deem proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) Courts may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id., § 436, subd. (b).)  The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., §¿437.)  

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 Loughridge 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.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was a supervisor.  As such, even a single offensive act may constate a hostile work environment.  (Dee v. Vintage Petroleum (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 30, 36.)  Nevertheless, the Court cannot conclude that the alleged comments rise to the level of workplace harassment, especially because Plaintiff does not allege that they were 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.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court sustains the demurrer.

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

            3.         The Court shall afford leave to amend.  Because there are other demurrers, the Court authorizes Plaintiff to wait to file an amended complaint until thirty (30) days after the Court decides the final demurrer.    

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