Friedman

Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Good Law
102 Cal. App. 4th 39·125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 2002B150017California13,342 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

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 Act (FEHA), Government Code 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

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,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.