MOR FLEISHER LEACH VS. DEEL US LLC, ALSO REFERRED TO AS DEEL, AND LETS ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24618998 - June 24, 2025 Hearing date: June 24, 2025 Case number: CGC24618998 Case title: MOR FLEISHER LEACH VS. DEEL US LLC, ALSO REFERRED TO AS DEEL, AND LETS ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24618998 | Case Title: | | MOR FLEISHER LEACH VS. DEEL US LLC, ALSO REFERRED TO AS DEEL, AND LETS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-24 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Line 8. 1-DEFENDANT DEEL US LLC DEMURRER to COMPLAINT. (PART ONE OF TWO)

Defendant Deel US LLC's demurrer to all seven causes of action in plaintiff Mor Leach's complaint is sustained with ten days leave to amend as to all seven causes of action.

Ms. Leach's complaint is quite thin on where she performed her work as an employee of Deel and where the decision to terminate her employment was made. The little that she does allege is that she resides in Texas, was employed by Deel as a "remote employee," and the "notice of termination of her employment and pay statements came" from Deel's San Francisco office. Significantly, she does not allege where the decision to terminate her employment was made and how much, if any, of her work occurred in California. Because those are the two key issues on this demurrer, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend to allow Ms. Leach to address them in a first amended complaint if she wishes to do so.

The court offers brief guidance on these issues. That Ms. Leach is a Texas resident and may have worked mostly or entirely outside of California is not dispositive as to her first two causes of action for FEHA pregnancy discrimination and common law wrongful termination. Numerous federal district court cases hold that a non- California employee can prevail on a California law discrimination/termination claim by proving that the wrongful conduct occurred in California. (See, e.g., Stovall v. Align Technology, Inc. (N.D.

CA 2020) 2020 WL 264402 *3 (denying a motion to dismiss California law employment discrimination and termination claims because, even though the plaintiff resided and worked outside California and the majority of the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred outside California, the "ultimate" alleged wrongful conduct, termination of plaintiff's employment, was directed, overseen and ratified by a person in California)); Sims v. Worldpac Inc. (ND CA 2013) 2013 WL 663277 (denying a motion to dismiss California discrimination and termination claims because, even though the plaintiff resided and worked outside of California, the alleged wrongful conduct occurred in California)).

Thes cases are fully consistent with California appellate decisions and are good law.