Greene

Greene v. Pomona Unified School District

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 198·32 Cal. App. 4th 1216·38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770·95 Daily Journal DAR 2735·78 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 939
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 1995B078828California2,680 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nott, J.

I.

Appellants Veneta Greene, Randall Williams and Zephyr Tate-Mann bring this appeal following a ruling of the trial court which sustained demurrers without leave to amend. The demurrers, which challenged the second amended complaint (complaint), were brought by respondents Associated Pomona Teachers (APT) and Tom Hollister, and Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) and Neil Romero. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

II.

Facts and Procedural History

The following facts are taken from the complaint and treated as true. (Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 210 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ]; Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 789, fn. 3 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 718 P.2d 77 , 62 A.L.R.4th 1083 ].)

A. Initial Common Allegations

Appellants are Black schoolteachers who are employed by the PUSD and are members of APT. Mr. Romero is the principal of Ganesha High School and appellants’ supervisor. Mr. Hollister is the executive director of the APT.

During 1991, appellants informed Mr. Romero and Mr. Hollister that the following had occurred at the school: African-American and Mexican-American students are (1) intentionally placed in lower level…

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.