Defendant Good Technology (“Defendant”) demurs to the third and fourth causes of action in the Complaint filed by plaintiff James Schram (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that the causes of action are uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s late-filed opposition.

Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty is OVERRULED. The Complaint is not so unclear that Defendant cannot respond.

The third cause of action is for disability harassment. Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for disability harassment because Plaintiff has not identified a disability and was not subject to any severe or pervasive harassing conduct. In response, Plaintiff asserts that he has alleged his disability is that he is HIV positive (Complaint, ¶ 17). While it is true that Plaintiff alleges he is HIV positive earlier in the Complaint, in the third cause of action Plaintiff only alleges he experienced medical complications. (Complaint, ¶ 47.) Plaintiff does not allege that the medical complications were connected to the fact that he is HIV positive. Further, the only “harassing” conduct alleged concerns Plaintiff’s work duties (e.g. tracking his time, additional assignments, and attendance at meetings with only 20 minutes advance notice). (Complaint, ¶ 47.) Personnel management decisions such as those alleged do not come within the meaning of harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 640, 646-647.) Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action on the grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

The fourth cause of action is for sexual harassment – hostile work environment. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged detailed facts describing the alleged harassing conduct and that Plaintiff has not alleged severe or pervasive conduct. Plaintiff alleges that after he revealed his sexual orientation during a business dinner, defendant Alex Voskoboynik publicly displayed his disgust towards Plaintiff’s sexual orientation. (Complaint, ¶ 52.) Voskoboynik also dramatically increased Plaintiff’s workload and performance expectations, made harassing comments to Plaintiff, and berated him consistently. (Complaint, ¶ 53.) First, as discussed above, personnel management decisions (e.g. increasing Plaintiff’s workload and performance expectations) do not constitute harassment. Second, Plaintiff’s allegation regarding harassing comments is simply a factual conclusion; Plaintiff has not alleged facts supporting this assertion. Therefore, the only allegation that remains to support this cause of action is the allegation about Voskoboynik’s display of disgust. “[C]ourts have held that acts of harassment cannot be occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial, rather the plaintiff must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature.” (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 610.) Voskoboynik’s single display of disgust does not constitute a concerted pattern of harassment. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action on the grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.