Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV13759, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV13759 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: September 20, 2022 TRIAL
DATE: December 6, 2022
CASE: Judy Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, et
al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV13759 
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Los Angeles, acting by and through
its Department of Water and Power
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Judy
Thompson
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Filed on April 28, 2020, this is an action for employment discrimination
and retaliation on the basis of race, age, and gender.
Defendant
moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to
all causes of action asserted against it.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
Defendant’s alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is
DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Defendant
moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to
all causes of action asserted against it.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant
requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) Title X of the City of Los
Angeles Charter, and (2) The Rules of the Los Angeles Civil Service Commission.
As these documents are not relevant to the Court’s ruling, Defendant’s Request
for Judicial Notice is DENIED. (Gbur
v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 (“[J]udicial notice . . . is always
confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.”].)
Motion for Summary Judgment
As
discussed in connection with Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication below,
Defendant has not demonstrated that it is entitled to prevail as to each cause
of action asserted against it. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is
DENIED.
Motion for Summary Adjudication
Defendants
move for summary adjudication on of Plaintiff’s five causes of action asserted
against it.
Legal Standard
The function of a motion for
summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an
opposing party can show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and, if
not, to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil
Procedure Section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment
if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from
the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that
there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
(Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110,
1119.) “The function of the pleadings in
a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the
function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any
triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge
v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI
Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-82.)
As to each claim as framed by the
complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial
burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to
establish a defense. (Code Civ Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes,
Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the
evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts
concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide,
Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) The lack of opposition by a plaintiff is
not grounds to grant a motion for summary judgment if a defendant cannot meet
their initial burden of proof. (See Thatcher v. Lucy Stores, Inc. (2000)
79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1087.)
Once the
defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that
a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action
or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party
opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster
v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
The California Supreme Court has
adopted the federal burden-shifting test for assessing employment
discrimination claims. (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th
317, 354.) "[I]n order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
under the FEHA, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a 'protected
activity,' (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment
action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the
employer's action. [Citations.] Once an employee establishes a prima facie
case, the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for
the adverse employment action. [Citation.] If the employer produces a
legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of
retaliation '" 'drops out of the picture, '"' and the burden shifts
back to the employee to prove intentional retaliation." (Yanowitz v.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042.)
"In responding to the
employer's showing of a legitimate reason for the complained-of action, . . .
'" . . . the employee' "must demonstrate such weaknesses,
implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the
employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable
factfinder could rationally find them 'unworthy of credence,'
[citation], and hence infer 'that the
employer did not act for the [ . . . asserted] non-discriminatory reasons.'
[Citations.]" '" '" (McRae v. Department of Corrections &
Rehabilitation (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 388-389.) "The
plaintiff must do more than raise the inference that the employer's asserted
reason is false. '[A] reason cannot be proved to be "a pretext for
discrimination" unless it is shown both that the
reason was false, and that discrimination was the real
reason.' [Citation.] If the plaintiff produces no evidence
from which a reasonable fact finder could infer that the employer's true reason
was discriminatory, the employer is entitled to summary judgment.
[Citation.]" (Hicks v. KNTV Television, Inc. (2008) 160
Cal.App.4th 994, 1003.)
"Although an employee's
evidence submitted in opposition to an employer's motion for summary judgment
is construed liberally, it 'remains subject to careful scrutiny.' [Citation.]
The employee's 'subjective beliefs in an employment discrimination case do not
create a genuine issue of fact; nor do uncorroborated and self-serving
declarations.' [Citation.] The employee's evidence must relate to the
motivation of the decision makers and prove, by nonspeculative evidence, 'an
actual causal link between prohibited motivation and termination.'" (Featherstone
v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th
1150, 1159.)
Defendant’s Analysis of Plaintiff’s Response to Separate
Statement
Defendant has filed a document
tiled “Defendant’s Analysis of Plaintiff’s Response to Separate Statement.”
Neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor the California Rules of Court entitle
Defendant to file such a document in connection with a motion for summary
judgment or summary adjudication. The Court therefore will not consider it.
//
Analysis
Defendant contends that Plaintiff
cannot prevail on her first three causes of action for race, gender, and age
discrimination, nor her fifth cause of action for retaliation, because
Plaintiff cannot show any adverse employment action, discriminatory intent, or
protected activity, and cannot rebut Defendant’s legitimate rationales for the
actions taken.
Throughout the entirety of its
moving papers and separate statement, however, Defendant neglects the
allegation that Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination by being forced,
along with her entire (predominantly Black) department, to work in the office
during the COVID-19 pandemic when other departments were not required to do so,
with the one member who was permitted to work remotely being an Hispanic male.
(See FAC ¶ 15c.) The scope of the issues in a motion for summary judgment or
adjudication is defined by the pleadings. (FPI Development, Inc. v.
Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-82.) As this on-site work
requirement is cited as a basis for all three of Plaintiff’s discrimination
claims (race, gender, and age) as well as her retaliation claim, (see FAC ¶55),
the burden is on Defendant to show that Plaintiff cannot prevail on these
causes of action as to each allegation in the First Amended Complaint,
including this one. Defendant’s failure to do so is fatal to Defendant’s
motion. Defendant has failed to meet its burden with respect to the first,
second, third, and fifth causes of action.
As
Defendant concedes that Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for failure to
prevent discrimination is wholly derivative of the other causes of action,
Defendant has similarly failed to meet its burden with respect to the fourth
cause of action.
Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
Defendant’s alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 20, 2022 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.