On 08/03/2017 MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against PHARMAVITE LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT
MARTINEZ MARIA GUADALUPE
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
PAIRAVI LAW PC
PAIRAVI EDWIN ESQ.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
LECRONE JOHN PRESCOTT
4/10/2018: ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES
10/5/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
10/5/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
10/5/2018: Ex Parte Application
10/12/2018: Motion for Protective Order
11/15/2018: Request for Refund / Order
2/6/2019: Minute Order
2/27/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
3/21/2019: Minute Order
4/17/2019: Ex Parte Application
4/19/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
9/7/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
at 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
at 4:00 PM in Department 74; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
at 3:30 PM in Department 74; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For An Order Continuing The Trial and Related Dates) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (Unopposed Ex Parte Application For An Order Continuing The Trial and Related Dates); Filed by Pharmavite, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For An Order Continuing The T...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
[Proposed] Order On Ex Parte Application For An Order Continuing The Trial and Related Dates; Filed by Pharmavite, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 3:30 PM in Department 74; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Motion for Leave (to File First Amended Complaint); Filed by Maria Guadalupe Martinez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Maria Guadalupe Martinez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Maria Guadalupe Martinez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION [CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION 12940 ET SEQ.]; ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC671153 Hearing Date: January 09, 2020 Dept: 74
BC671153 MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ VS PHARMAVITE LLC
Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is overruled. The motion to strike portions of the complaint is denied.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant’s request for judicial notice of plaintiff’s DFEH complaint is GRANTED
First Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination, Second Cause of Action for Failure to Accommodate and Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
Defendant argues that the amended complaint raises a theory of disparate impact of a facially neutral policy for the first time and that it is barred by the statute of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Regarding administrative exhaustion, ‘what is submitted to the DFEH must not only be construed liberally in favor of plaintiff, it must be construed in light of what might be uncovered by a reasonable investigation.’ ” (Wills v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 155; quoting Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 268.)
Plaintiff’s administrative complaint states that she was terminated because of her disability due to discrimination, retaliation, failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate her disability, and that defendant refused to abide by plaintiff’s work restrictions. It does not address the underlying facts or show how the claims alleged will be proven. Nothing negates a disparate impact claim, which is one method of providing the claims. A reasonable investigation could have discovered that the rotation policy did not accommodate plaintiff’s, or any other employee’s, disability. The DFEH complaint is broad enough to encompass a disparate impact claim.
“[I]f an amendment is sought after the statute of limitations has run, the amended complaint will be deemed filed as of the date of the original complaint provided recovery is sought in both pleadings on the same general set of facts.” (Amaral v. Cintas Corporation No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1199.) “[P]roper amendments to an original complaint ‘relate back’ to the date of the filing of the original complaint, despite the amendments being made after the statute of limitations has expired.” (Garrison v. Board of Directors (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1670, 1678.)
The original complaint alleged plaintiff suffered a work-related injury, was placed on leave, and could have returned at the end of her leave with work restrictions but was terminated on the grounds that there were no existing jobs plaintiff could perform with her restrictions. Paragraph 23, in the first cause of action and incorporated into subsequent causes of action, alleges that defendant’s policies and procedures were applied to her differently than to other employees.
The amended complaint alleges that defendant’s policies were neutral on their face, but resulted in disparate impact which treated plaintiff differently based on her disability, and specifically the rotation policy and workers compensation settlement policy. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 17 and 18.)
Both versions of the complaint are based on the same general set of facts, that plaintiff was terminated because defendant refused to accommodate her disability and because she filed a workers compensation claim. The causes of action alleged are the same. The first amended complaint is alleged with more specificity than the original complaint. The new allegations relate back to the filing of the original complaint.
Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed, because discovery can be used for clarification, and apply where defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues or claims are stated. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) The failure to identify claims and parties by labeling causes of action may render a complaint uncertain, except where the complaint contains allegations sufficiently apprising defendants of the issues, in which case a demurrer should be overruled. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 135, 139.)
As shown by the demurrer, defendant can reasonably determine the issues and claims stated and has been sufficiently apprised of the issues.
The demurrer is overruled.
Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint
Defendant moves to strike the allegations relating to disparate impact. The motion is denied for the reasons stated above.