Case Name:   James, et al. v. City of Santa Clara

Case No.:       1-14-CV-265496

The first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges that, in December 2010, plaintiffs Mark James (“James”), Lawrence Orlando (“Orlando”) and Anthony Valdez (“Valdez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) were laid off from their positions as Electric Line Drivers with defendant City of Santa Clara (“City”) due to “cost reduction” as of January 16, 2011.  (See FAC, ¶¶12-14.)  Plaintiffs believe that City terminated them due to the fact that they are all over the age of 50.  (See FAC, ¶ 16.)  When they were terminated, Valdez was “reinstated” as Materials Handler at a significant reduction in pay, and James was “reinstated” as a Maintenance Worker II at a significant reduction in pay.  (See FAC, ¶¶ 21, 24.)  However, when City eventually hired younger persons for Lineman Apprentices—positions that Plaintiffs held prior to becoming Electric Line Drivers—City did not offer Plaintiffs their positions as Electric Line Drivers, despite their belief that they had “bumping rights.”  (See FAC, ¶¶ 22-23, 25-26.)  James specifically requested that he be reinstated as an Electric Driver, but was informed that there was no such opening because of an “on-going managed hiring freeze.”  (See FAC, ¶ 23.)  On July 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, asserting causes of action for:  age discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a); failure to investigate complaints/failure to prevent discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k); and, retaliation in violation of section 12940, subdivision (h).  City demurs to each of these causes of action on the ground that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The third cause of action plainly fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for retaliation.  As Plaintiffs state, to state a cause of action, the plaintiff must show that (1) they engaged in a protected activity, (2) they were subjected to adverse employment actions and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.  (See Pls.’ opposition to demurrer (“Opposition”), p.7:18-21, citing to Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal. 4^th 1028, 1042.)  In opposition, Plaintiffs asserts that “James complained after he applied and interviewed for two positions that he was qualified for with Defendants but was not selected,” citing paragraph 15 of the complaint.  (Opposition, p.8:4-6.)  However, paragraph 15 does not allege such facts and the FAC does not otherwise allege facts supporting a causal link between any protected activity by James and any subsequent adverse employment action.

As to Valdez and Orlando, Plaintiffs argue that they “both complained of age discrimination at the time of termination in January 2011.”  (Opposition, p.8:9-10.)  However, this does not suggest that Valdez and Orlando were terminated because they complained of age discrimination; on the contrary, these facts suggest that Valdez and Orlando may have a claim for wrongful termination based on age discrimination, but not for retaliation, as there is no allegations of facts supporting a causal link between any protected activity and the adverse employment action.  Accordingly, the demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend as to James, and SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to Valdez and Orlando.

As to the first cause of action for age discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a), Plaintiffs assert that they must allege facts that demonstrate that “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.”  (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4^th 317, 355; see also Opposition, p.5:6-10.)  Here, the first cause of action alleges these elements; accordingly, the demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

The second cause of action for “failure to investigate complaints of/failure to prevent discrimination” alleges that City “failed to investigate Plaintiffs’ complaints of discrimination, or otherwise protect Plaintiffs from discrimination.”  (FAC, ¶ 43.)  City argues that “[t]he law only requires that employer take ‘reasonable steps to prevent discrimination’… [and] is thus uncertain and unintelligible as pled….”  (Def.’s reply brief in support of demurrer, pp.2:23-28, 3:1-11.)  However, the cause of action is not so unintelligible that City cannot reasonably respond.  The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

The Court will prepare the order.