 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campise v. Valley Children's Hospital12/31/2001
This case is the companion case to F034128, Campise v. Morrison Health Care, Inc. On August 13, 1998, Kari Campise filed a complaint against Morrison Health Care, Inc. (Morrison) and Valley Children's Hospital (VCH) pursuant to Government Code section 12900 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). VCH filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted in part. A second motion for summary judgment was then filed by VCH, which also was granted and judgment entered in favor of VCH. We will reverse.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The procedural summary of the case set forth in F034128 is adopted here. Set forth below are additional facts and case history pertinent to this appeal. Campise's complaint asserted a cause of action against VCH and Morrison, pursuant to section 12940, for sexual harassment and retaliation. VCH filed an answer to the complaint on October 5, 1998, generally denying the allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
On June 4, 1999, VCH filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. In addition to the motion, VCH filed a statement of undisputed facts; memorandum of points and authorities; several supporting declarations and copies of portions of two transcripts of depositions.
Campise filed a response to the statement of undisputed facts filed by VCH, her declaration in opposition, a statement of disputed material facts, and points and authorities in opposition to VCH's motion. VCH filed a reply, objections to Campise's declaration, and a consolidated separate statement of undisputed facts. With limited exceptions, the facts set forth as disputed material facts by Campise were undisputed by VCH. VCH maintained that the facts alleged by Campise were simply immaterial, and that the conduct complained of did not constitute sexual harassment or retaliation.
VCH did not dispute that Campise was an employee of VCH, worked in the kitchen at VCH, and reported to kitchen supervisors who in turn reported to Rafael Negroe and Rod Miranda, employees of Morrison. Nor did VCH dispute that Leslie Herzog, a VCH employee, was one of Campise's supervisors. It also was undisputed that Negroe assigned and adjusted daily work schedules and duties, and had the authority to discipline VCH employees. Virtually all of the conduct engaged in by Negroe, which Campise asserted constituted sexual harassment, was labeled by VCH as "undisputed and immaterial." VCH maintained that the conduct simply amounted to "isolated and trivial" remarks and incidents. With respect to the undisputed facts alleged by Campise to be retaliatory actions, VCH variously responded that these facts were disputed, undisputed, or immaterial.
On July 15, 1999, after argument, the trial court granted the motion in part. Summary adjudication was granted as to the sexual harassment claim. In addition, the trial court found that VCH had an affirmative defense under Faragher v. Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775 and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 772. Summary adjudication of the retaliation claim and the claim for punitive damages was denied.
On August 6, 1999, VCH filed a second motion for summary judgment with respect to the retaliation and punitive damage claims asserted by Campise against VCH. Campise opposed the motion, asserting in part that it was barred by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2). On September 3, 1999, the trial court granted the second motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
Many of the issues raised in the instant appeal are raised and addressed by this court in the companion case, Campise v. M
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|