Lopez-Rodriguez v. Kern Med. Surgery Ctr.
| Decision Date | 22 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-01187-ADA-CDB |
| Parties | MARIA ELENA LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. KERN MEDICAL SURGERY CENTER, LLC et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P 12(b)(6)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Kern Medical Surgery Center, LLC, Kern Medical Center, Kern Medical Center Foundation, Kern County Hospital Authority and Marie Ruffin (“Defendants”), motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) Defendants have also filed a request for judicial notice. (ECF No. 9.) For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant, in part, and deny, in part Defendants' motion to dismiss, deny Defendants' motion to strike, and grant Defendants' request for judicial notice.
On February 24, 2020, Maria Elena Lopez-Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”') filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern. (ECF No. 7 at 12.) The Complaint alleged eleven (11) claims for relief against four named defendants: the Kern Medical Surgery Center (“Surgery Center”), the Kern Medical Center Foundation (“Foundation”), the County of Kern, and Marie Ruffin. (Id.) On May 28, 2020, the Surgery Center and Defendant Ruffin filed a demurrer and motion to strike, and, on July 6, 2020, the Foundation filed a demurrer and motion to strike. (Id.) On July 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging thirteen (13) claims for relief and adding the Kern County Hospital Authority (“Authority”) and the Kern Medical Center (“KMC”). (Id.) These twelfth and thirteenth claims allege Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) retaliation and interference. (Id.)
On August 21, 2020, due to the newly pleaded federal causes of action, Defendants removed this action to this Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a) under federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendants filed a stipulation to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 7 at 12.) The Court approved the stipulation. (Id.) On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a SAC. (Id.) Plaintiffs SAC asserts the following claims against the Surgery Center, the Foundation, County of Kern, KMC, and the Authority: Disability Discrimination (Claim 1); Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation (Claim 3); Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Claim 4); Retaliation (Claim 5); and Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation (Claim 6). (ECF No. 6 at 13, 16-18, 20.) Plaintiff asserts a Disability Harassment claim against all Defendants (Claim 2). (Id. at 15.) As against the Surgery Center, the Foundation, and KMC, Plaintiff asserts the following claims: Retaliation for Reporting a Workplace Injury and/or Filing a Workers' Compensation Claim under California Labor Code section 6310(a) (Claim 7) and Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy claim under Labor Code section 1102.5 (Claim 8). (Id. at 22-23.) As against the
Surgery Center, the Foundation, KMC, and Marie Ruffin, Plaintiff asserts a violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 (Claim 9) and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Claim 10). (Id. at 24.)
Plaintiff asserts a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (Claim 11) against the Surgery Center and KMC. (Id. at 26.) Lastly, Plaintiff asserts FMLA/CFRA retaliation (Claim 12) and interference claims (Claim 13) against the Surgery Center, the Foundation, County of Kern, KMC, and the Authority. (Id. at 27-28.)
On September 22, 2020, all Defendants timely filed the instant motion to dismiss and motion to strike. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed oppositions to both motions, and on October 13, 2020, Defendants filed their replies to both. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13.)
The following facts are discernable from Plaintiff's SAC. Plaintiff's employment as a Certified Nursing Assistant (“CNA”) with Defendants began on or around April 7, 2006. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) For approximately twelve years, Plaintiff worked for Defendants. (Id. at 7.) Her job's responsibilities included obtaining and recording vitals, tending to and discharging patients. (Id.) Due to Plaintiff's education and experience, she competently performed those duties and performed her job with or without accommodation. (Id. at 6.)
Around February 2015, Defendants placed Plaintiff under the supervision of Clinical Supervisor Marie Ruffin. (Id.) Defendant Ruffin assigned Plaintiff tasks outside of her job description as a CNA, including working in information technology and ordering supplies as an outpatient scheduler and eye clinic technician. (Id. at 7.) Defendant Ruffin also assigned Plaintiff the task of picking up supply orders, driving them back to the hospital, and carrying them upstairs. (Id.) Due to these tasks, Plaintiff's arthritis quickly flared up, and she began to feel overwhelmed and stressed. (Id.) Plaintiff was doing the work of multiple employees, unlike other CNAs, and Defendant Ruffin deprived Plaintiff of rest breaks. (Id.) When Plaintiff asked Defendant Ruffin why she was the only CNA who did not receive breaks, Defendant Ruffin told her that she “would not be able to complete all of her tasks.” (Id.)
On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant Ruffin and Defendants' clinical director, where she mentioned her disability as rheumatoid arthritis. (Id.) She explained that her arthritis was making it “harder and harder” for her to work, including carrying and lifting boxes of supplies. (Id.) After sending the email, Defendant Ruffin spoke to Plaintiff with a demanding, forceful, and threatening tone of voice, and often yelled at Plaintiff. (Id.) In or around the same month, Plaintiff brought to Defendant Ruffin's attention that a certain employee was left off the daily schedule. (Id. at 8.) In response, Defendant Ruffin said, “that is so gay,” and Plaintiff found Defendant Ruffin's homophobic commentary offensive, harassing, and discriminatory. (Id.) Once Defendant Ruffin noticed that Plaintiff was offended, Defendant Ruffin extended her arm out towards Plaintiff's left shoulder and began stroking it in an uncomfortable and forceful way. (Id.)
Shortly after March 2015, Defendant Ruffin instructed Plaintiff's co-workers to “keep an eye on [Plaintiff]” and to inform Defendant Ruffin how long Plaintiff took restroom and lunch breaks. (Id.) Once Plaintiff discovered Defendant Ruffin's instructions to her co-workers, on or around October 2, 2015, Plaintiff complained to Defendant Ruffin and asked her via email whether Defendant Ruffin would prefer Plaintiff call or text her when she goes on breaks. (Id.)
Throughout 2016, Plaintiff continued to competently perform her job and all of Defendant Ruffin's commands. (Id.) Defendant Ruffin assigned Plaintiff to move heavy furniture and computers, a task outside of her job duties and in complete disregard of Plaintiff's medical condition. (Id.)
On or about November 15, 2017, Plaintiff called Defendant Ruffin for clarification regarding scheduling and coverage. (Id. at 9.) After the call, Defendant Ruffin informed Plaintiff that she was “very frustrated” with her, and that it was inappropriate for Plaintiff to call her. (Id.) Plaintiff was shaken with fear due to Defendant Ruffin's aggressive demeanor and was confused why she was being reprimanded. (Id.) Defendant Ruffin told Plaintiff that she did not follow the chain of command; that she was “doing Plaintiff a favor by allowing her to work” with Defendants; and that her “job was not important in [her] book.” (Id.) Afterwards, Plaintiff attempted to continue to work, but she did not know who to contact for management input. (Id.) On or about November 17, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Defendant Ruffin for clarification regarding the “chain of command.” (Id.) Defendant Ruffin told Plaintiff that “was not going to email [Plaintiff] again” and that what Plaintiff did was “wrong.” (Id.) Concurrently, Plaintiff was experiencing severe stress, panic, and anxiety, and she also felt lightheaded, dizzy, and hot. (Id.) As Plaintiff notified Defendant Ruffin that she was not feeling well and needed medical help, Plaintiff requested workers' compensation paperwork. (Id.) Defendant Ruffin denied Plaintiff's request and refused to provide her workers' compensation paperwork, telling Plaintiff that her illness was not work related. (Id.) After seeing her personal doctor, Plaintiff's doctor placed her on medical leave of absence due to work-related stress. (Id.)
On or around November 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with a human resources representative, Brook Wendell, regarding Defendant Ruffin's discrimination, harassment, and retaliation towards Plaintiff. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff complained that Defendant Ruffin refused to provide her workers' compensation paperwork during two different instances. (Id.) Plaintiff felt retaliated against for filing her complaints because all other employees who suffered their own disability were assigned to the front as greeters. (Id.) On or around December 8, 2017, Plaintiff sent an email, complaining about Defendant Ruffin's retaliation, to an unknown recipient, but no action was taken. (Id.)
On or around January 2018, Plaintiff requested to be transferred to a different supervisor, but her request was denied. (Id.) On or about February 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed another complaint with Defendants' CEO, Russell Judd alleging a hostile, discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory work environment. (Id.) Plaintiff described missed rest breaks, her complaints to human...
To continue reading
Request your trial