Employment Law Blog

To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a complaint must state sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Chavez v. United States, 683 F. 3d 1102, 1108-1109 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, a defendant is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the complaint raises issues of fact which, if proved, would support recovery. General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F. 2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989).

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) they engaged in a protected activity, (2) that they were thereafter subjected to adverse employment action by their employer, and (3) there was a causal link between the two.  Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, 75 Cal.App.4th 803, 814 (1999), quoting Flait v. North American Watch Corp., 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 476 (1992).

In order to be protected against discharge, a complainant need only make a good faith complaint about working conditions that they believes to be unsafe. Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 1009 (1998) [emphasis added].  An employer is prohibited from retaliating against a complainant who made “a bona fide oral or written complaint to [their] employer of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in [their] employment or place of employment.” Labor Code § 6310(b) [emphasis added].

“In the context of a class action, it is the court’s authority and duty to exercise control over the class action to protect the rights of all parties, and to prevent abuses which might undermine the proper administration of justice.” (Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 572, 581 (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard (1981) 452 U.S. 89, 100–103).)

“Communications that misrepresent the status or effect of the pending action, or which may cause confusion, adversely affect the administration of justice.” (Howard Gunty, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th 572at 582.) “Where a trial court identifies a potential for abuse, the court ‘has both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties.’” (Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1454 (quoting Howard Gunty, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 579).