Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five

September 13, 2002, Decided ; September 13, 2002, Filed

No. B150017.

Opinion

TURNER, P.  [*43]  J.

 [**665]  I. INTRODUCTION

Jerold Daniel Friedman (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment entered after the general demurrers of Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (defendants), were sustained without leave to amend. In the published portion of this opinion, we resolve the question of whether veganism is a "religious creed" within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing [***2]  Act (FEHA), Government Code 2 section 12940. We conclude veganism is not a "religious creed" within the meaning of the FEHA. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

 CA(1)(1)] Our Supreme Court has set forth the standard of review we must apply on appeal from a judgment following an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend as follows: "On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the standard of review is well settled. The reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. [Citations.] The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] The judgment must be affirmed 'if any one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken. [Citations.]' [Citation.] However, it is error for [***3]  a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citation.] And it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment. [Citation.]" ( Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 962, 966-967 [9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 92, 831 P.2d 317]; accord, Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 1112, 1126 [119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171]; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318 [216 Cal. Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58].)

B. The Complaint's Allegations of Religious Creed Discrimination 

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

102 Cal. App. 4th 39 *; 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663 **; 2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4641 ***; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9503; 89 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1507; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 10633

JEROLD DANIEL FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Notice:  [***1]  Opinion certified for partial publication. 1 

Subsequent History: Order Modifying Opinion September 24, 2002. No Change in Judgment.

Rehearing denied by Friedman v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4821 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Oct. 7, 2002)

Review denied by Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Med. Group, 2002 Cal. LEXIS 8131 (Cal., Nov. 26, 2002)

Subsequent appeal at Friedman v. Merck & Co., 107 Cal. App. 4th 454, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 451, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 885 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., 2003)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Friedman v. S. Ca Permanente Medical, 155 L.Ed.2d 1063, 123 S.Ct. 2078, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 3727 (U.S., May 19, 2003)

Prior History: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC224249, Ronald M. Sohigian and Cesar C. Sarmiento, Judges.

Disposition: The judgment is affirmed. Defendants, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., are to recover their costs on appeal from plaintiff, Jerold Daniel Friedman. A petition for a rehearing was denied October 7, 2002, and on September 24, 2002, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant's petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 26, 2002. Werdegar, J., and Chin, J., did not participate therein.

CORE TERMS

religion, religious, religious belief, sincerely, regulation, God, occupy, veganism, observance, religious creed, title vii, court of appeals, church, exemption, cases, ethical, secular, concurring opinion, belief system, practices, way of life, orthodox, qualify, courts, filled, conscientious objector, teachings, terms, religious conviction, theistic

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court, Appeals, Standards of Review, General Overview, Labor & Employment Law, Religious Discrimination, Burdens of Proof, Employee Burdens, Scope & Definitions, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Environmental Law, Administrative Proceedings & Litigation, Judicial Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Religion, Free Exercise of Religion, Establishment of Religion, Title VII Discrimination, Business & Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, Federal & State Interrelationships, Civil Rights Law, Contractual Relations & Housing, Fair Housing Rights, Defenses