Defendant’s Demurrer to 1st Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association (Association) asserting causes of action for violation of Labor Code, §§ 98.6, 1102.5, and 6310 and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to both causes of action on the following grounds: these causes of action premised upon California’s whistleblower statutes are defective in that the 1st amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish plaintiff made any protected complaints to defendant; and the alleged complaints plaintiff made were based on personnel matters that fall outside the scope of protected activities.
Plaintiff opposes the demurrers on the following grounds: plaintiff’s complaints to defendant involved a co-employee’s illegal drug use of marijuana and “acid” impairment, which compromised the health and safety of other employees and community residents. Defendant replied to the opposition.
Hearing Date
August 10, 2018
Type
WRONGFUL TERMINATION - UNLIMITED
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant’s Demurrer to 1st Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association (Association) asserting causes of action for violation of Labor Code, §§ 98.6, 1102.5, and 6310 and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to both causes of action on the following grounds: these causes of action premised upon California’s whistleblower statutes are defective in that the 1st amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish plaintiff made any protected complaints to defendant; and the alleged complaints plaintiff made were based on personnel matters that fall outside the scope of protected activities.
Plaintiff opposes the demurrers on the following grounds: plaintiff’s complaints to defendant involved a co-employee’s illegal drug use of marijuana and “acid” impairment, which compromised the health and safety of other employees and community residents. Defendant replied to the opposition.