A162131
Cal. Ct. App.Apr 29, 2022Background
- Doris Yates, a tenured CSU East Bay professor, alleges a former student (P.W.) stalked and sexually harassed her beginning in December 2014 and continuing into 2019.
- CSU East Bay investigated (April 14, 2015), found the harassment substantiated and imposed a no-contact sanction, but P.W. remained a student.
- Yates obtained a civil harassment restraining order in December 2015 (renewal sought in 2018); she filed a DFEH charge in August 2018 and later sued under FEHA.
- The trial court twice sustained demurrers, directing Yates to plead with particularity (dates, frequency, location) and to allege a material adverse employment action for her retaliation claim.
- Yates’s third amended complaint listed many incidents, but most were undated or predated the one-year limitations period; only a few events fell within the one-year window and those lacked facts showing they were directed to her or occurred under the university’s control.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding both FEHA claims insufficiently pleaded and no reasonable possibility amendment could cure defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (FEHA) — third-party harassment | Yates: P.W.’s stalking/sexual statements and repeated contacts created a severe, pervasive hostile work environment and CSU failed to take all reasonable steps to stop it. | CSU: Complaint is vague, lacks dates/frequency/location for most acts, fails to allege severe/pervasive harassment within FEHA’s one‑year limitations period and fails to show acts occurred on campus or within CSU’s control. | Affirmed dismissal. Pleading lacked required particularity; only a few incidents fell within the limitations period and they did not show severe/pervasive harassment or employer ability to prevent them. |
| Retaliation (FEHA) — adverse employment action | Yates: After filing FEHA claims, administrators told her to resign/step down from an academic committee, coercively harming her reputation and career standing. | CSU: No adverse employment action alleged — Yates did not resign, her term expired and she remained eligible for re-election; a threatened action alone is not actionable. | Affirmed dismissal. Allegations described threats but no material adverse employment action; mere unfulfilled threats are insufficient. |
| Demurrer without leave to amend | Yates: Could cure deficiencies with further amendment. | CSU: Plaintiff already had multiple opportunities and the court expressly required specific allegations; further amendment unlikely to cure defects. | Affirmed. Court found no reasonable possibility amendment could cure the pleading defects and properly denied leave. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 214 Cal.App.3d 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (hostile‑work‑environment claims require pleading the frequency/intensity of acts and applicability within the limitations period)
- Bradley v. Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 158 Cal.App.4th 1612 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (employer must take reasonably calculated remedial measures beyond investigation when warned of harassment)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (elements and scope of FEHA retaliation claim; adverse actions include those likely to impair job performance or prospects)
- King v. CompPartners, Inc., 5 Cal.5th 1039 (Cal. 2018) (standard of review for demurrer and leave to amend; plaintiff must show reasonable possibility amendment could cure defects)
- Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc., 24 Cal.App.5th 855 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (a single unexecuted threat of adverse action generally does not constitute an actionable adverse employment action)