| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEMURRER to COMPLAINT
Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY CALENDAR FOR THURSDAY, JUL-31-2025, LINE 14. DEFENDANT SAFEWAY, INC.'S DEMURRER to COMPLAINT. ***PART ONE OF TWO***
Defendant Safeway, Inc.'s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Plaintiff Antoinette Baez alleges in her single-cause complaint that she was a longtime employee in good standing of Defendant Safeway until May 2023, when she was fired "arbitrarily" for "try[ing] to stop shoplifting," which termination, she contends, was in violation of public policy. (See Compl., passim.)
Defendant now demurs. Defendant demurs under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). The issue on demurrer under subdivision (e) is taking the facts properly pleaded and properly noticed as true, does the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a cause for relief. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Minton v.
Dignity Health (2019), 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) "[I]f, on consideration of all facts stated, it appears that plaintiff is entitled to any relief against defendant, the complaint will be held good, though facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to cause of action shown, or though plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under facts alleged." (Augustine v. Trucco (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 236, quoting Matteson v. Wagoner (1905) 147 Cal. 739, 742.)
The court liberally construes the complaint per CCP 452.
Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for termination in violation of public policy. "[W]hen an employer's discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions. [citation] To support a common law wrongful discharge claim, the public policy 'must be: (1) delineated in either constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) public in the sense that it inures to the benefit of the public rather than serving merely the interests of the individual; (3) well established at the time of the discharge; and (4) substantial and fundamental." (Mendoza v.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Western Medical Center Santa Ana (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1338 (internal quotations omitted).) "The claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy requires [plaintiff] to prove (1) he was employed by [defendant], (2) [defendant] discharged him, (3) the alleged violation of public policy was a motivating reason for the discharge, and (4) the discharge caused him harm." (Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641.)
Defendant's demurrer is well taken. The premise of Plaintiff's claim is that it is contrary to fundamental public policy to prohibit employees from confronting shoplifters-physically or otherwise-such that a retailer's termination of an employee for "trying to stop shoplifters" is unlawful. There is no such fundamental public policy. California employers are not required to allow employees to physically or otherwise confront shoplifters. The Penal Code provisions and other statutes identified by Plaintiff do no provide otherwise. Indeed, a policy along the lines of that advocated by Plaintiff raises serious employee and workplace safety issues, as well as public safety concerns.
Plaintiff's reliance on an unpublished Superior Court tentative ruling is improper. It is also unpersuasive. ***END OF PART ONE OF TWO***=(302/JMQ)