ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The FAC further alleges that Plaintiff was diagnosed with a mental disability during the course of his employment with Defendant, which were significantly exacerbated by adverse conditions 25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 in the workplace. (FAC ¶ 14.)

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s physician’s recommendation that Plaintiff be permitted to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation of Plaintiff’s condition, Defendant required Plaintiff to report for in-person work at the lab. (FAC ¶¶ 14-15.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated to Plaintiff’s request for accommodation by harassment and pressure to work in-person. (FAC ¶ 15.) Plaintiff further contends that he was denied reasonable accommodations demonstrating discriminatory intent when he was denied benefits under the University’s Computer Ergonomics Matching Fund Program. (FAC ¶¶ 16-17.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant extended his probationary period for three months, which constitutes an adverse employment action that was arbitrary, retaliatory, and imposed after Plaintiff requested accommodations. (FAC ¶ 20.) Plaintiff filed a complaint with the UC Berkeley Ombudsman Office on July 19, 2021 alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. (FAC ¶ 21.) Plaintiff further contends that he was harassed by colleagues and managers while he was working from home after being diagnosed with Covid. (FAC ¶¶ 24-25.)

On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff reported to Peter Allison, a Subject Matter Expert at NASA, that Plaintiff’s managers refused to modify Plaintiff’s duties which were commensurate with the job duties of a higher title than Plaintiff’s, or to extend Plaintiff’s deadlines. (FAC ¶ 27.) Plaintiff also alleges that he reported violations of statutory quality requirements. (FAC ¶ 28.)

Plaintiff contends that his mental disability was exacerbated by the denial of his requests for reasonable accommodations, a hostile work environment, and assignment of excessive workloads. (FAC ¶ 34.) Plaintiff went on medical leave on September 25, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant denied his request to allow a disability advocate attend an online meeting with him, and deactivated his university email account. (FAC ¶ 36.) On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant terminated his employment, effective October 10, 2021. (FAC ¶ 38.) Plaintiff contends that his termination proceeded his request for medical leave and refusal to attend a meeting without his disability advocate. (FAC ¶ 38.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint. (Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) A court should not sustain a general demurrer unless the complaint liberally construed fails to state a cause of action on any theory. (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.) A plaintiff must plead facts as are necessary to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of her claims to provide defendant with notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 570.)

On a demurrer, the court accepts the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 276.) Facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 true, however improbable they may be. (Id. at p. 280, citations omitted.)

DISCUSSION

Procedural Issues

Both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel separately filed Oppositions to the Demurrer. Plaintiff’s counsel filed the opposition on the same day she filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. Due to internal court issues, however, only the opposition filed by Mr. Angeles appeared on eCourt; the filings by counsel Trincy Lekshmanan were not timely processed. As such, the Court continued the hearing on the demurrer and advanced the hearing on the motion to withdraw.

Defendant’s Reply contends that Plaintiff’s unsigned opposition should be stricken and disregarded, for failure to comply with C.C.P. § 128.7(a). Defendant’s Reply responds substantively to both oppositions.

For purposes of the instant demurrer, Plaintiff is currently represented by counsel, and as such, the opposition filed and signed by Plaintiff’s counsel shall be considered as the operative opposition.

Demurrer

Defendant demurs to the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action, for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

Discrimination – First, Sixth, and Ninth Causes of Action

Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for discrimination based on either disability or gender.

The elements of a prima facie case of discrimination vary depending on particular facts, but generally, a plaintiff must allege that he or she (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position sought or was performing competently in the position already held; (3) suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job; and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive. (Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1105.)

Similarly, a prima facie case under the ADA requires a plaintiff to allege that he or she (1) has a disability as defined by the ADA; (2) is a qualified individual; and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. (Real v. City of Compton (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1416.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 A claim of discrimination or retaliation requires a plaintiff to allege that he or she has been subjected to an adverse employment action that materially affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. (McRae v.

Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 386.) A change contrary to the employees’ interests or not to the employee’s liking is insufficient. (Id.) “The plaintiff must show the employer’s retaliatory actions had a detrimental and substantial effect on the plaintiff’s employment.” (Id. at pp. 386-387.) “Although an adverse employment action must materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment to be actionable, the determination of whether a particular action or course of conduct rises to the level of actionable conduct should take into account the unique circumstances of the affected employee as well as the workplace context of the claim.” (Yanowitz v.

L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1052.)

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff was denied advancement while a female colleague, who did not have the same qualifications and experience as Plaintiff, was promoted and attended meetings that Plaintiff was excluded from. (FAC ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant rejected a recommendation to promote Plaintiff. (Id.) The FAC alleges Plaintiff was denied a salary increase and was assigned work with unreasonable deadlines. (FAC ¶¶ 11-12, 18-19.) However, the FAC fails to allege that these actions materially affected the terms, conditions, or privileges of his employment. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that any of the foregoing actions was due to discrimination based on Plaintiff’s gender.

The FAC does allege that on July 16, 2021, Plaintiff was notified that his probationary period was extended for three months, and this extension occurred after he had requested reasonable accommodations despite his positive performance review for immediately preceding periods. (FAC ¶ 20.) This allegation is sufficient to support a claim for disability discrimination under the FEHA or the ADA.

The FAC adequately alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action for disability discrimination. The demurrer to the First and Ninth Causes of Action is OVERRULED.

The FAC fails to allege that Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action based on discrimination due to gender. As such, the demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Retaliation in Violation of FEHA – Second Cause of Action

The elements of a claim for retaliation under FEHA are (1) a plaintiff engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action. (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042 (“Yanowitz”).) “To be entitled to relief for allegations of retaliation, a FEHA claimant must first demonstrate an employment relationship with his or her alleged employer.” (Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc. (2019) 41

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 Cal.App.5th 189, 196, internal citations omitted.)

Defendant contends that the FAC fails to allege a causal connection between Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation for a disability and any adverse employment action.

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff received a doctor’s note dated June 11, 2021, recommending that Plaintiff be able to work remotely as reasonable accommodation for his disability. (FAC ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to pressure and harassment to work on site, including an email dated June 14, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that despite a second doctor’s note relating to work restrictions, Plaintiff was still denied reasonable accommodation and subjected to undue press to work on-site. (FAC ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff’s request for accommodation by harassment and further pressure to work on campus. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that his supervisors and/or managers denied his benefits under the University’s Computer Ergonomics Matching Fund Program in retaliation to Plaintiff’s request for accommodation. (FAC ¶ 16.) The FAC further alleges that the extension of his probationary period on or about July 16, 2021 was in retaliation to his requests for reasonable accommodations in June and July 2021. (FAC ¶ 20.)

The FAC further alleges that in August 2021, Plaintiff told a buyer that a vendor and supplies list was improperly designated as approved, and thereafter, he was subjected to retaliation and harassment. (FAC ¶ 30.) Plaintiff contends that he confirmed the existence of prior violations and non-conformances, and he then faced retaliation as he was removed from a project after he complained about the lack of space quality standards. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges in September 2021, he notified others about regulatory and compliance issues, but he was met with retaliation, a hostile work environment, and assignment of work without training. (FAC ¶ 32.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant retaliated against him by denying his request to allow his disability advocate to attend a meeting regarding his request for medical leave. (FAC ¶¶ 34-36.)

The FAC adequately alleges a causal connection between Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation due to medical issues and adverse employment actions. The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Failure to Provide Whistleblower Protection in Violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5 – Third Cause of Action

Labor Code § 1102.5, the California Whistleblower Protection Act, prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who blows the whistle on wrongdoing to the authorities, that is, when an employee discloses information that he or she believes has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of local, state, or federal law. (Brown v. City of Inglewood (2025) 18 Cal.5th 33, 40-41.) To establish a prima facie case under section 1102.5, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 engaged in a protected activity; (2) his or her employer subjected him or her to an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal link between the two. (Moreno v. UtiliQuest, LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 29 F.4th 567, 575.)

Labor Code § 98.6 prohibits termination for conduct protected by the Labor Code, including due to an employee’s exercise of the employee on behalf of himself any rights afforded to him. (Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86-87.) Section 98.6 provides protection against employer retaliation, and incorporates other sections of the Labor Code, such as 1102.5. (People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 719, 731-732.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff does not allege that he complained of violations relating to his wages, nor did he report violations of law to any government agency as set forth in sections 98.6 or 1102.5. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s contract complaints to NASA are not violations of any statute, nor were they complaints made to a government agency with authority to address violations of a statute. Plaintiff’s complaints of contract violations to a buyer at UC Berkeley are not complaints of violations of law, nor is it alleged that the buyer has authority over Plaintiff. To the extent Plaintiff complained of contractual violations to his supervisors and/or managers, Defendant contends that these are not violations of law which constitute a protected activity under the Labor Code.

Plaintiff contends that the FAC alleges that Plaintiff reported compliance concerns relating to NASA projects, including quality-control deficiencies, regulatory non-conformances, inaccurate documentation, improper procurement and vendor approval practices, and violations of quality requirements governing federally funded aerospace programs. However, Plaintiff does not allege that he had reasonable cause to believe that any of the foregoing acts or omissions were violations of local, state, or federal law such as to constitute protected activity for purposes of Labor Code § 1102.5. Nor does Plaintiff allege that he was retaliated against for reporting Labor Code violations.

The demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Hostile Work Environment/Harassment – Seventh Cause of Action

A claim for hostile work environment, or harassment, in violation of FEHA requires a showing that (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on her protected status; (4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) defendants are liable for the harassment. (Ortiz v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 568, 581.) Under Government Code § 12923(a), a hostile work environment exists when harassing conduct offends, humiliates, or distresses a plaintiff such that it disrupts emotional tranquility or interferes with the plaintiff’s sense of well-being or ability to perform his or her job. (Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2025) 117

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 Cal.App.5th 75, 86.) Conduct is determined to be sufficiently severe or pervasive by the totality of the circumstances, and while isolated incidents are generally insufficient, an insolated incident can form the basis of an actionable claim if it is extremely serious. (Id.)

The FAC alleges the following acts of harassment: complete complex work with unreasonable deadlines; excessive workloads; pressure to work in-person despite Plaintiff’s medical restrictions; pressure to work and attend meetings while Plaintiff was out sick with Covid; (FAC ¶¶ 12, 14-15, 19, 24-25, 66.) However, Plaintiff does not allege that any of these acts were because of Plaintiff’s membership in a protected class or that the harassment was based on his protected status.

The demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Failure to Comply with Post-Termination Obligation in Violation of Unemployment Insurance Code – Eighth Cause of Action

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Eighth Cause of Action for Failure to Comply with Post- Termination Obligations in violation of California Unemployment Insurance Code sections 1089, 1089.5, and 1089.6 is subject to demurrer because none of the sections create a private right of action under which Plaintiff may bring suit.

As an initial matter, the Unemployment Insurance Code does not contain a section 1089.5 or 1089.6. Plaintiff fails to address the non-existence of these statutes in his opposition.

Unemployment Insurance Code section 1089 imposes a duty on an employer to post maintain information regarding benefit rights and to provide individuals, at the time they become unemployed, with written statements and/or materials relating to claims for benefits. Subdivision (g) of section 1089 states that an employer’s failure to comply with this section constitutes a misdemeanor. Unemployment insurance law is to be liberally construed to further the legislative objective of reducing unemployment hardship. (Wang v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 412, 418-419.)

“A violation of a state statute does not necessarily give rise to a private cause of action.” (Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 592, 596, internal citations omitted.) Whether a plaintiff has a right to sue depends on whether the Legislature has manifested an intent to create a private cause of action under the statute. (Id.) The intent is determined through the language of the statute and its legislative history. (Id.) A statute may state that a person has or is liable for a cause of action for a particular violation, or a remedy or means of enforcing its substantive provisions. (Id. at p. 597.) In the absence of such language, a statute’s legislative history is required. (Id.)

Here, Unemployment Insurance Code section 1089 does not expressly state that an employer is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 liable for a violation of the statute, nor does it provide a remedy or means to enforce its provisions. While it does include subsection (g) stating that an employer’s failure to comply with the section constitutes a misdemeanor, the existence of a criminal enforcement mechanism does not create a private cause of action. (See Lu, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 603 [Labor Code section 351’s provision that a violating employer is guilty of a misdemeanor did not create a private right to sue].)

Neither party here has provided argument or authority regarding the legislative history of section 1089 to establish whether the Legislature manifested an intent to create a private cause of action under the statute. The adversarial system of justice assumes that the parties “are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” (People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 445 [quoting Greenlaw v. United States (2008) 554 U.S. 237, 244].) Under C.R.C. rule 3.1113, the trial court has no “obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide.” (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.)

Based on the record which omits argument and legal authority to support Defendant’s contention, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that Unemployment Insurance Code section 1089 does not create a private right of action. The demurrer to the Eighth Cause of Action is therefore OVERRULED.

CONCLUSION

The Regents of the University of California’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action and OVERRULED as to the First, Second, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action.

If Plaintiff can do so in good faith, he may amend his pleading to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action under the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action.

Plaintiff MAY NOT include in his amended pleading any causes of action or new parties that are not asserted in the prior complaint. (See Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.) If Plaintiff wishes to add any new claims or parties, Plaintiff must seek leave to amend pursuant to C.C.P. § 473.

In light of the Court’s ruling granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be filed by October 30, 2026, to permit Plaintiff sufficient time to retain new counsel. This deadline may be further extended pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

Plaintiff is further advised that, in the event he fails to timely file an amended pleading, the Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to C.C.P. § 581(f)(2) and Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(h).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed" BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV127033: ANGELES vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by The Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# 006761913450 in Department 20 BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.