“Even where ... a statutory touchstone has been asserted, [the court] must still inquire whether the discharge is against public policy and affects a duty which inures to the benefit of the public at large rather than to a particular employer or employee.” Foley, 47 Cal. 3d at 669-71 (termination allegedly for disclosing rumor that coworker was being investigated for embezzlement of former employer did not state claim for wrongful termination). Here, the Complaint simply parrots the elements of the claim by concluding that “Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by Defendant…because of his gender, among other things” and concluding that this “was in violation of public policy, including, but not limited to, Government Code §12940.” (Complaint ¶¶ 34-35.)

Id. Importantly, the Hittle court also found that plaintiff’s failure to allege a retaliation claim precluded failure to prevent retaliation under the Section 12940(k). Id. As in Hittle, Wright does not adequately establish causes of action for retaliation, either under the FCA or FEHA.

. As with the FAC, Count 1 of the SAC repeats the conclusions from other counts and parrots the elements of the claim by concluding that Defendant “wrongfully terminated Mr. Estrada’s employment in violation of public policy,” “including, but not limited to, Government Code §12940.”

Mr. Estrada’s Count 1 simply repeats the same conclusions already noted – complaints of unspecified unequal distribution of work, unspecified inadequate training, unspecified lack of guidance, undesirable shift assignments, all coupled with no allegation that the compared persons were similarly-situated (e.g., in the same positions). The FAC then parrots the elements of the claim by concluding that Defendant “wrongfully terminated Mr. Estrada’s employment in violation of public policy,” “including, but not limited to, Government Code §12940.” (FAC ¶¶ 43, 47.)

The tenth and eleventh causes of action allege discrimination and are titled “Discrimination In Violation Of California Public Policy Race (Cal. Const. Art. I § 8; Cal. Govt. Code §12940(a)” and “Discrimination In Violation Of California Public Policy National Origin (Cal. Const. Art. I § 8; Cal. Govt. Code §12940(a)”, respectively. Finally, the twelfth and thirteenth causes of action allege retaliation and are titled “Retaliation In Violation Of California Public Policy Protesting Unlawful Failure to Pay Wages and Unlawful Deductions (Labor Code § 1102.5(c))” and “Retaliation In Violation Of California Public Policy Protesting Race and National Origin Discrimination (Cal. Constit. Art. I § 8; Cal. Govt. Code §§12940(a), (j), (and (h)).” While the titles of these claims contain the phrase “Violation of California Public Policy”

See Hawkins v. SimplexGrinnell, L.P., 640 Fed.Appx. 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2016); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(h).

To state a claim for retaliation under the FEHA and/or California Labor Code section 1102.5, Plaintiff must show: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he was thereafter subject to adverse employment action by his employer; and (3) there was a causal link between the two. Morgan v. Regents of the University of California, 88 Cal. App. 4th 52, 69 (2001); Edgerly v. City of Oakland, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1191, 1199 (2012). “Protected activity” is defined in the California Government Code as: (1) making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in proceedings or hearings under FEHA, or (2) opposing acts made unlawful by FEHA. See Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(h). “Protected activity” under Labor Code section 1102.5 is defined as “the disclosure of or opposition to ‘a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.” Edgerly, 211 Cal. App. 4th at 1199 (quoting Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) and (c)). Here, Plaintiff’s retaliation claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing that he engaged in protected activity or any facts that establish causation between any protected activity and an adverse action.

JUDICE; PS AND AS STATUTES 42 U.S.C. § 1981 .................................................................................................................... passim 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 ............................................................................................................... passim 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) ................................................................................................................. 20 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) ................................................................................................................. 15 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1) ...................................................................................................... 15, 17 CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12920 .................................................................................................... passim CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(a) ....................................................................................................... 25 CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(h) ...................................................................................................... 20 CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12960(d) ................................................................................................ 15, 17 RULES FED. R. CIV. P. 8 .................................................................................................................... passim FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2) .................................................................................................................. 12 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) .............................................................................................................. 1, 5 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 1, 2, 5, 12, 24 Case3:12-cv-02730-MMC Document45 Filed02/15/13 Page7 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 3:12-CV

. After the parties met and conferred with respect to the Bank’s anticipated motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), dismissing her untimely claims for race and age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq. The only remaining claim is for alleged retaliation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5.

Morongo Unified School Dist., 232 Cal. App. 4th 954 (2014) .............................................................................. 15 Watson v. Volume Servs., No. 94-16402, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 38272 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 1995) .................................................................................................................... 18 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA Inc., 36 Cal. 4th 1028 (2005) ................................................................................. 21, 22 Case 8:15-cv-01441-CJC-KES Document 25 Filed 01/30/17 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:416 x MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES CASE NO. 8:15-CV-01441-CJC-KES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Statutes Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) .......................................................................................... 24 2 Cal. Code Regs. 11068(c) ...................................................................................... 14 Cal. Gov't Code § 12940 ............................................................................... 11, 21, 22 Case 8:15-cv-01441-CJC-KES Document 25 Filed 01/30/17 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:417 1 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES CASE NO. 8:15-CV-01441-CJC-KES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION James Nakashima was a Senior Digital Service Engineer in the Large Format Division of the Canon Business Solutions, Inc.’s (“CSA”) predecessor, Océ N.A. (“Océ”). He serviced heavy, large equipment at customer sites, regularly lifting 50+ pounds, crawling into large, high-volume printers, and bending and twisting along the floor to reach machine parts.