WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ (“KFH” or “Defendant”) motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, against Plaintiff Shaneice Williams (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer for retaliation, wrongful

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

termination, disparate treatment based on medical condition, failure to prevent, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wage and hour claims.

Defendant brings the instant motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.

Defendant brings this motion for summary adjudication on the following twelve issues:

Retaliation Claim (1st COA)

ISSUE 1: KFH is entitled to judgment on the First Cause of Action for Retaliation because Plaintiff cannot meet her prima facie burden to show that her alleged protected activity was a substantial motivating reason for her employment termination or any other alleged adverse employment action.

ISSUE 2: KFH is entitled to judgment on the First Cause of Action for Retaliation because Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to show KFH’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for her employment termination or any other adverse employment action is pretextual.

Disparate Treatment Based on Medical Condition Claim (3rd COA)

ISSUE 3: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Third Cause of Action for Disparate Treatment Based on Medical Condition because Plaintiff cannot meet her prima facie burden to show that her alleged medical condition was a substantial motivating reason for her employment termination.

ISSUE 4: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Third Cause of Action for Disparate Treatment Based on Medical Condition because Plaintiff cannot meet her prima facie burden to show that she was a qualified individual.

ISUE 5: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Third Cause of Action

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

for Disparate Treatment Based on Medical Condition because Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to show KFH’s legitimate, non- retaliatory reason for her employment termination is pretext.

Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Claim (5th COA)

ISSUE 6: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Fifth Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process because Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to show KFH failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith.

ISSUE 7: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Fifth Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process because Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to show KFH failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for the restrictions set forth in her doctors’ notes.

Wrongful Termination Claim (2nd COA)

ISSUE 8: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination because Plaintiff was not subject to discrimination, harassment or retaliation and all her underlying claims fail.

Failure to Prevent Claim (4th COA)

ISSUE 9: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent because Plaintiff was not subject to discrimination, harassment or retaliation and all her underlying claims fail.

Wage and Hour Claims (6th – 12th COA)

ISSUE 10: KFH is entitled to judgment on the Sixth through Twelfth Causes of Action for Failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages owed, failure to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and waiting time penalties because Plaintiff released these claims in the Farley and Halfhill actions.

Punitive Damages

ISSUE 11: KFH is entitled to judgment as to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages because she cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that KFH engaged in conduct against Plaintiff with fraud, oppression or malice.

ISSUE 12: KFH is entitled to judgment as to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages because she cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that a corporate officer or director, or a managing agent authorized, adopted, approved or engaged in conduct against Plaintiff with fraud, oppression or malice.

(Notice, 1:13 – 3:4.)

On May 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of her third cause of action for disparate treatment, her fifth cause of cation for failure to engage in the interactive process, and her wage and hour claims (causes of action 6-12.)

The causes of action that remain are Plaintiff’s first cause of cation for retaliation, her second cause of action for wrongful termination, and her fourth cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination.

As a result, the Court need only address Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to issues 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, and 12.

Disputed Service

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a)(2) states that “[n]otice of the motion [for summary judgment] and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 81 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 81-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 81-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f)(2) states that “[a] motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.”

Defendant filed this motion on March 25, 2026, and set it for hearing for June 15, 2026, 82 days later.

Defendant filed proofs of service attesting to service by certified mail on March 25, 2026 (Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 5-6), and by personal service on March 25, 2026 (Proof of Personal Service).

Plaintiff contends that the motion and supporting papers were not actually served to her. Instead, Plaintiff contends that she never received a copy of this motion. Plaintiff further contends that when she arrived home on March 25, 2026, she noticed a stack of documents sitting at the front door floor which were loose and not held together by anything. Plaintiff contends that she read the caption of the documents, and it was Kaiser's motion for summary judgment. She contends that she reviewed the entire stack and determined many pages were missing as the sequencing of the page numbers did not match and/or add up.

Plaintiff asserts that as a result, she reviewed the camera system to see if the camera captured anything for March 25, 2026. Plaintiff states that when she reviewed the camera, she noticed that a white woman with tattoos in her arm came to the house carrying the stack of lose documents in her arms at around 1:37 p.m. and that a few hours later, the camera feed, showed that a man came to the door with a smaller stack of documents. This second individual did not leave anything on the floor, but instead left.

In this frame, the camera shows the larger stack delivered by the white woman at 1:37 p.m. sitting on the floor by the front door where she found them. (Decl. Bennett, ¶¶ 4-8 and Exhibits A-B.)

On reply, Defendant simply asserts:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Plaintiff was properly served with Defendant's MSJ in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, because Plaintiff is pro per, Defendant took extra steps to serve Plaintiff with the MSJ by multiple means, even though it was not required under the Code of Civil Procedure. First, Defendant served the MSJ by certified mail on March 25, 2026. (Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 5-6.) Second, Defendant retained a registered process server who personally served the MSJ on an adult family member at Plaintiff's residence the same day. (Proof of Personal Service of MSJ, filed March 25, 2026.) Plaintiff also requested and received electronic copies of Defendant's MSJ. Plaintiff's accusations that the MSJ was not properly served is baseless.

(Reply, 2:13-20.)

Defendant’s service by certified mail was not timely. Service by mail adds five days to the required notice time (a total of 86 days), and the proof of service of mailing was mail only 82 days before the date initially set for hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2).) While the motion was later continued to June 24, 2026, this does not cure the notice deficiency. If a motion for summary judgment provides insufficient notice, a judge cannot cure the insufficiency by merely continuing the hearing to a date that accounts for the insufficient amount of days - the entire notice period must begin anew. (Robinson v. Wood (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267-68.)

However, Evidence Code section 647 creates a presumption that the facts stated in a proof of service filed by the registered process server are true and that the proof of service of process by personal service filed herein is valid. This is a rebuttable presumption. Here, Plaintiff has submitted evidence to rebut the presumption, but the evidence submitted is in a declaration by Rhonda Bennett. Ms. Bennett’s declaration is submitted separately from Plaintiff’s declaration, however, the declaration states that the declarant is the plaintiff in this action. (Decl. Bennett, ¶ 1.) It is unclear to the Court if this statement was in error, or if the name on the declaration was an error, or how Ms. Bennett is connected to the facts presented in this motion. If the declaration was in fact that of Plaintiff Shaneice Williams, then it is not signed by Plaintiff. Because of these

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

inconsistencies, the Court concludes that the presumption of valid service has not been rebutted.

The Court next considers the merits of the motion.

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the Court engages in a three-step process.

First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that “[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [movant’s] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings.” (Melican v.

Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176-177 [brackets added].)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, quoting CCP § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781). Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 939-940.)

At the same time, a defendant cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case; a moving defendant must still make “an affirmative showing” in support of its motion. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 854-855 n.23; Addy v Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (CCP § 437c(p); see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326-327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

Discussion

As discussed above, the issues remaining on this motion for summary adjudication after Plaintiff’s dismissal of various causes of action include issues 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, and 12.

Issues 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11

Each of issues 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11 rely on undisputed material fact (“UMF”) numbers 1– 47, in addition to other UMFs.

As a result, if any one of these asserted 47 UMFs is not sufficiently established by Defendant’s evidence, Defendant will have failed to satisfy their initial burden and summary adjudication must be denied as to issues 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11. Further, even if Defendant sufficiently establishes UMFs 1-47 with competent evidence, a single triable issue of disputed fact raised by Plaintiff as to asserted UMFs 1-47 mandates denial of summary adjudication as to those issues. (See, Homestead Savings v. Super. Court (Dividend Devel. Corp.) (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.) Defendant’s separate statement effectively concedes the materiality of the facts included therein such that a triable issue raised as to any one fact is grounds for denial. (Nazir v. United Airlines,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.)

Here, the Court notes that there are several defects in Defendant’s supporting papers. First, the declaration of Galen P. Sallomi is unsigned. Plaintiff’s objections 1-44 as to the declaration of Sallomi are SUSTAINED. As a result, the Sallomi declaration will not be considered by the Court. This alone proves fatal to Defendant’s motion for adjudication as to issues 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11 because it is the declaration of Sallomi that purports to authenticate exhibits 1-41. Exhibits 1-41 are used by Defendant to support UMFs 1-7, 9- 22, 24-26, and 29-47.

Defendant argues that it should be able to cure this deficiency by submitting a signed copy of Sallomi’s declaration on reply, citing Kulshreshta v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 610, and Gall v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 117, 125. Both of those cases involved out-of-state attorneys and the requirement that their declaration include that it is declared under the laws of the State of California. While Gall confirmed that courts can properly find errors under Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 harmless, it did not involve an unsigned declaration. Furthermore, several UMFs are not supported by the referenced evidence, even if it had been properly authenticated.

For example, UMFs 1 and 3 cite page 42 of Plaintiff’s deposition, and that page is not included in the portions of Plaintiff’s deposition attached as exhibit 3 to Sallomi’s declaration, which skips from page 39 to page 45. UMF 4 cites to the Plaintiff’s deposition at page 50, which is also not included. UMF 13 cites to Plaintiff’s deposition at pages 50-51 and 53, none of which are included. UMF 25 cites to Plaintiff’s deposition at page 107, which is not included. In addition, UMF 25 cites to Plaintiff’s deposition at page 96:11 – 97:10, which is included, but does not actually support the purported UMF which relates to Plaintiff’s request to transfer to a night shift.

The deficiencies in Defendant’s evidence expand beyond the unsigned Sallomi declaration and incorrect references to Plaintiff’s deposition. For example, UMF 1 cites to the Jackson declaration at paragraph 4 in addition to Plaintiff’s deposition. However, UMF 1 states, “Plaintiff was employed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and held the position of Support Services Representative during the relevant time.” The declaration of Jackson at paragraph 4 states:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

In my role in HR, I have access to the personnel files, disability files, disability management files, hotline complaints, department files, and other related files for current and former KFH employees. These files are maintained in the ordinary course of business, and I have reviewed Plaintiff’s relevant files to make the representations contained in this declaration. I know that Plaintiff separated from KFH effective January 30, 2023 and has filed a lawsuit against KFH. As a result, even though Plaintiff is no longer employed by KFH, I have been authorized access to Plaintiff’s personnel records that are maintained in KFH’s systems and/or in hard copy form. Based on my access and review, I provide the information contained in this declaration.

As another example, UMF 17 states, “All employees in Plaintiff’s department worked onsite in 2020 and 2021 because employees needed to use company phones and computers to access secure systems. Additionally, in-person interactions with hospital staff, and receipt of physical paperwork throughout their shifts were needed to perform their jobs.” In addition to Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendant cites to the declaration of Bawa at paragraph 7, which references an email Plaintiff sent to Defendant requesting to return to work, and further cites to the declaration of Jackson which also related to Plaintiff’s request to return to work. These references are totally unconnected to the UMF Defendant claims they support.

These are merely examples, as the number of defects in Defendant’s supporting evidence and deficiencies in Defendant’s papers is extensive.

Failure to establish a single material fact with sufficient admissible supporting evidence, or the existence of a single triable issue of material fact as to UMFs 1-47, is sufficient alone to require denial of Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to these issues. Here, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to establish a multitude of UMFs with sufficient admissible evidence. As a result, Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden as to issues 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11. This would be true even if the Court had overruled Plaintiff’s objections to the declaration of Sallomi.

The Court need not reach Plaintiff’s objections to the declarations of Jackson, Jacobsen, and Bawa.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

The Court finds that Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to issues 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11 is DENIED.

Issue 12

Defendant’s issue 12 states, “KFH is entitled to judgment as to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages because she cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that a corporate officer or director, or a managing agent authorized, adopted, approved or engaged in conduct against Plaintiff with fraud, oppression or malice.”

Defendant relies solely on UMF 81 (which incorporates UMFs 62-65) in support of issue 12. The relied upon UMFs assert that Shanaaz Bawa (UMF 62), Alexandria Jimenez- Palpallatoc (UMF 63), Lacy Jacobsen (UMF 64), and Raynell Jackson (UMF 65), are not and have never been an “officer, director, or managing agent of KFH, [have] never held any corporate and/or executive positions, [have] not had any policy-setting authority for KFH, did not exercise substantial independent authority or judgment in KFH’s organizational decision making, and did not have any decision making authority on any of KFH’s policy.”

The Court concludes that even if true, the purported fact that four employees of Defendant were not officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant, standing alone, does not establish that there is no triable issue of material fact as to whether a corporate officer or director, or a managing agent of Defendant authorized, adopted, approved or engaged in conduct against Plaintiff with fraud, oppression or malice.

As a result, Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden as to issue 12.

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to issue 12 is DENIED.

The Court need not reach Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment fails.

Disposition

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication is DENIED in its entirety.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order pursuant to CCP § 437c and CRC 3.1312.