P alleges that she was terminated from work as a result of time lost due to continued disability resulting from a work-related injury suffered seven weeks earlier; and allegedly for filing a workers compensation claim. P alleges various employment- related theories of liability. D demurs to P's FEHA "harrassment" count and P's "public policy" count.
Statutory claims must be pleaded with particularity. Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 771, 790. While this is not an "environmental" sexual harrassment case of the kind cited by D, P cites no analogous case where a single letter telling an allegedly injured employee that she needed to get back to work (Compl., ¶ 20) either qualifies as "harrassment" or constitutes a "pattern and practice" as matter of law. (cf. Compl., ¶ 39.) Telling an employee to get to work is more properly characterized as a "commonly necessary personnel management action."
"[C]ommonly necessary personnel management actions ... do not come within