Zhu v. Bhedaru, et al.

Case No.: 25CV469640

Defendants Arlo Technologies, Inc. (“Arlo”), Velahai Bhedaru (“Bhedaru”) and Manu Prasad’s (“Prasad”) (collectively, “demurring defendants”) demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED. The complaint adequately alleges facts supporting a cause of action for hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA. (See Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 709 (stating that “when the actions establish a widespread pattern of bias... official employment actions done in furtherance of a supervisor's managerial role can also have a secondary effect of communicating a hostile message... includ[ing] Schoener’s shunning of Roby during staff meetings, Schoener's belittling of Roby’s job, and Schoener's reprimands of Roby in front of Roby’s coworkers... [m]oreover, acts of discrimination can provide evidentiary support for a harassment claim by establishing discriminatory animus on the part of the manager responsible for the discrimination, thereby permitting the inference that rude comments or behavior by that same manager were similarly motivated by discriminatory animus”); see also complaint, ¶¶ 13, 27-34 (alleging that male supervisor ordered other male workers to plagiarize Plaintiff’s work and claim it as his own to deprive Plaintiff of credit, male supervisor ratified her exclusion from meetings and discussions with other male coworkers, male supervisor required

Plaintiff to record all conversations with other male employees when such requirement not made on other male employees, male supervisor denied Plaintiff resources to assist with a new project when requests for resources were historically granted for male employees, male supervisor delayed request for green card for one of her direct report employees when male supervisor would respond with sense of urgency for male employees, male supervisor excluded Plaintiff as lone female manager from exercising managerial oversight, resulting in hostile message).)

9