 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
George v. Money Store11/28/2001
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 13, 1999, Jeffrey George filed a complaint for damages against The Money Store, alleging causes of action for sexual harassment and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In his complaint, George alleged he was employed by The Money Store as a loan representative from about July 1995 until June 11, 1997, when he "was forced to involuntarily quit his employment . . . ." George further alleged that The Money Store had "discriminated against because of his sex by subjecting, or permitting to be subjected to, verbal and physical sexual harassment, abuse and embarrassment" and that he "was personally subjected to sexual harassment and embarrassment in daily incidents which were known to and ignored by" The Money Store. George alleged that "as a result of the unsolicited and unwelcome sexual advances forced upon him and other sexual harassment and touching of his body and the exposing of his body to co-workers in the workplace, . . . and in retaliation for complaining about this despicable, deplorable and humiliating conduct, , even though he had performed his job satisfactorily, was forced to involuntarily terminate his employment with" The Money Store. George also alleged he had filed a complaint of harassment with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the Department) on October 29, 1998, and received a right-to-sue letter on November 10, 1998.
The Money Store demurred to the complaint on the grounds that George's cause of action for sexual harassment was barred because George failed to timely file an administrative complaint with the Department and that his cause of action for wrongful termination was barred by the statute of limitations. In opposing the demurrer, George argued his administrative complaint with the Department was timely because The Money Store, the Department, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) had conspired to hide from him a complaint filed against him by another employee of The Money Store and had "intentionally discouraged from filing a complaint until the one-year statute of limitations passed." The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
On review of an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, our initial standard of review is de novo, "i.e., we exercise our independent judgment about whether the complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law." (Montclair Parkowners Assn. v. City of Montclair (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 784, 790.) In analyzing the complaint, we "give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded." (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) If the complaint fails to state a cause of action, we then review the court's decision not to allow the plaintiff leave to amend under the abuse of discretion standard. " t is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment." (Ibid.)
We begin with George's cause of action for sexual harassment. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) prohibits sexual harassment in employment. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j); s
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.
|
|