The opinion
Filed 4/24/26 Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
INGO RADEMACHER, B344867
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 21STCV45383)
AMERICAN BROADCASTING
COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed.
JW Howard/Attorneys, John W. Howard and Scott J. Street
for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Paul Hastings, Steven Marenberg and Deisy Castro for
Defendant and Respondent.
________________________
Plaintiff and appellant Ingo Rademacher appeals from a
judgment entered following an order granting summary
judgment in favor of defendant and respondent American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC) in this employment action.
On appeal, Rademacher contends triable issues of fact exist as to
the following: (1) whether ABC violated the Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) by failing to
accommodate his religious objection to vaccination; (2) whether
ABC wrongfully terminated him in retaliation for his political
commentary; and (3) ABC breached his employment contract and
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
We conclude the trial court properly found there was no
triable issue of fact because: (1) Rademacher requested an
exemption from ABC’s vaccine policy based on his religious
beliefs, but refused to provide additional information establishing
that his beliefs were religious for the purposes of accommodation;
(2) the ABC employees who decided that Rademacher failed to
show he was entitled to a vaccine exemption and terminated his
employment for failing to comply with ABC’s vaccine policy were
unaware of his political commentary; and (3) it was undisputed
that Rademacher willfully breached ABC’s vaccine policy. We
therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Allegations of the Complaint
In December 2021, Rademacher filed his initial complaint
against ABC. He was an actor on the television show General
2
Hospital. On October 4, 2022, he filed the operative second
amended complaint against ABC containing several causes of
action, including discrimination under FEHA on the basis of his
religious beliefs, wrongful termination in violation of public
policy, and breach of his employment contract for a specified
term. He alleged ABC discriminated against him based on his
religious and political beliefs by refusing his request for a
religious exemption to ABC’s Covid-19 vaccine requirement.
B. Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting
Evidence
ABC filed a motion for summary judgment. Among other
arguments, ABC asserted Rademacher’s beliefs were not
sufficiently religious or sincerely held to support protection under
the FEHA, and ABC could not have reasonably accommodated
Rademacher’s unvaccinated status in his employment as an actor
working unmasked in close proximity to others. ABC also argued
that Rademacher did not have viable claims for wrongful
termination because adverse actions related to casting decision
are not actionable. He did not have a viable breach of contract
claim because failing to comply with ABC’s vaccination policy
breached his contract.
1. Decision to Impose Vaccine Mandate
ABC submitted the declaration of Paul Richardson, the
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources
Officer for ABC’s parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company.
Richardson initially served on a task force that Disney convened
3
in response to the Covid-19 threat to Disney’s workforce and
businesses, and later was briefed on the emerging data and
scientific evidence related to Covid-19 that the task force
monitored. In June 2021, the Delta variant of Covid-19 posed a
significantly greater health and safety risk compared to previous
variants in terms of transmission, infection rates, and severity of
symptoms. In July 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Health issued an order requiring people to wear masks
indoors, regardless of vaccination status. In response, Disney
required all employees to wear masks in the office and postponed
return-to-work plans.
At that time, the task force informed Richardson that the
Covid-19 vaccines were safe, and moreover, effective against the
Delta variant. The vaccines were effective at preventing serious
illness, hospitalization, and death from the Delta variant, and
also effective at reducing the spread of Covid-19, including the
Delta variant. For these reasons, the task force strongly
advocated mandating vaccines.
The task force also advised Richardson on workplace safety
regulations and relevant public health orders by state and local
governments, which, for example, required employers to obtain
the vaccination status of their employees to comply with
workplace safety protocols. State and local public health orders
imposed strict guidelines for unvaccinated employees. Having
both vaccinated and unvaccinated employees, it was
administratively challenging to ensure compliance, which also
favored adopting a mandatory vaccine policy.
Richardson considered this information when he decided on
July 30, 2021, to adopt a mandatory vaccine policy for Disney and
its subsidiaries, including ABC. Requiring vaccines was the most
4
effective way to protect employees, comply with health and safety
regulations and public health orders, and continue operations
through the pandemic. Richardson discussed his decision with
Disney’s senior executive team and the task force, which agreed
with his decision. Richardson announced the policy by email to
employees that day. The policy initially applied only to non-
union employees to allow Disney’s subsidiaries to complete the
collective bargaining process with the relevant unions. The
July 30, 2021 email provided a link to an internal website with
information about applying for an exemption from the vaccine
policy.
Richardson had never heard of Rademacher until the
instant lawsuit; he was not aware of Rademacher when he
decided to adopt the vaccine policy in July 2021.
2. Contract Renewal and Creative Decisions
ABC provided the declaration of Frank Valentini, who was
the executive producer for General Hospital. Valentini explained
that Rademacher executed a three-year contract in February
2019. ABC could cancel the contract at the end of any 26-week
cycle with six weeks of notice to Rademacher. Contracts were
suspended and extended for approximately four months due to
the impact of the Covid-19 virus.
Every six months, the writers prepared long-term story
plans. By July 2021, the writers told Valentini that several
characters would be or could be written out, including
Rademacher’s character.
ABC also submitted the declaration of Chris Van Etten,
who is the co-head writer for General Hospital. Van Etten
5
explained the original story arc anticipated for Rademacher’s
character failed to generate enthusiasm. Instead, a storyline
with different characters became more successful in the spring of
2021, resulting in awards for the actors portraying those
characters. By July 2021, Rademacher’s role was minimal and
there were no creative ideas for his character that generated
more serious planning. Van Etten did not see a role for
Rademacher’s character going forward. Van Etten discussed this
decision with Valentini, and Valentini agreed. Two other
characters were written out of the show around the same time.
Van Etten could not remember whether he heard about
Rademacher’s comments about Covid-19 vaccines, and Van Etten
does not know Rademacher’s political views. Even if he did,
Rademacher’s views did not factor into Van Etten’s views or
decisions as a writer on General Hospital. Van Etten worked
solely based on the storyline. Many members of the cast have
differing opinions on subjects, including politics, but Van Etten
does not make creative decisions based on the cast members’
views or because of them. For example, actor Maurice Benard
was scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention
when Donald Trump was nominated. Benard’s political views did
not matter to the writer and Bernard’s character was not written
out of the show.
Valentini also declared that Rademacher’s political views,
posts, and statements had nothing to do with the creative
decision.
6
3. Social Media Posts
ABC submitted evidence of several social media posts that
Rademacher made on his Instagram page. In August 2021,
Rademacher posted about attending an anti-vaccine passport
rally. His post was critical of vaccine passports. In reaction to
the post, people created a social media campaign known as
#fireIngo calling for Rademacher’s termination for his views.
In reaction, he posted, “My post was not anti-vaccine. It
was anti vaccine passport/mandate. If you want to get the
vaccine because you have a fear of dying from this virus, talk to
your doctor and decide. This is about freedom to choose what’s
best for you. A huge percentage of our population have already
recovered from covid and have natural immunity, why does that
not count? Please let that question sink in. Taking the vaccine
does not stop you from getting COVID, spreading it, or dying
from it. Now would be a good time to be honest and start
following the science.”
On August 25, 2021, he posted a video on his Instagram
page in which he stated, “Some more research on the science on
this vaccine. Now the CDC’s already come out and it was pretty
much right from the start, you had a 95% effectiveness rate for
this vaccine. It was never supposed to stop the spread. And it’s
never going to stop the spread of this virus. So mandating it
doesn’t make sense at all. And also excluding all the people who
have already had COVID, you know that doesn’t make any sense
either. Because they have better immunity than you do if you got
vaccinated. Facts are more important than whatever emotions
you have going on.”
7
The same day, he posted, “To all the bigots that called for
my firing at GH and made #fireIngo trend [praying hands emoji]
(thanks for the press btw) about a post of mine that is factually
correct. Getting vaccinated does not stop you from spreading the
virus. That’s straight from the CDC. Mandating any vaccine is
wrong but especially one that doesn’t help stop the spread, that’s
nothing short of crazy talk. If you want to take the vaccine, take
it. Just know you’re doing it for yourself, not to save anyone else.
You’re not a hero. [shrugging emoji]”
On August 29, 2021, he posted, “Make no mistake, this is
the fight of our lives. The fight to have the freedom to choose. It
has zero to do with your political beliefs or [whether] you’ve been
vaccinated or not. [US ]stand strong America!”
4. Vaccine Mandate Applicable to Rademacher
ABC submitted the declaration of Dominick Nuzzi, who is
the vice president of production and administration for ABC
daytime television. Nuzzi received an email on September 2,
2021, notifying him that the SAG-AFTRA union had agreed, on
behalf of its members, to a mandatory vaccination policy for the
cast of General Hospital. Rademacher is a member of SAG-
AFTRA.
That same day, a production manager sent an email to
Valentini and Nuzzi reflecting changes anticipated for the show’s
budget in the next fiscal year, 2022. The email showed three
actors had contracts ending the following year who would not be
picked up for renewal. Rademacher’s contract was ending
June 19, 2022, and he was not being picked up.
8
Nuzzi responded that they had “a notice date” of
November 5, 2021, to tell Rademacher whether his contract was
being picked up for the last cycle. Nuzzi wondered, “Why can’t
we drop him then? He may not be able to work if he refuses to
get fully vaccinated any way.”
Valentini wrote, “I worry with the #fireIngo we might be
sued if we drop him in November but that was my initial
intention -to let him go in November.” Valentini declared that he
wanted to avoid any perception that ABC acquiesced to the social
media campaign, even though the creative decision to write off
Rademacher’s character predated the social media campaign.
The following day, on September 3, 2021, Valentini and
Nuzzi announced by email that the Covid-19 vaccine mandate
applied to the cast and crew of General Hospital. Employees
were advised that they could seek an accommodation based on
religious or medical reasons. Employees needed to be vaccinated
by November 1, 2021, unless they qualified for a religious or
medical exemption.
Valentini declared that in Rademacher’s job as an actor, he
was required to interact closely with other cast and crew
members, separated by less than three feet, without personal
protective equipment. Rademacher’s character often hugged,
kissed, or embraced co-stars, as dictated by the scripts. There
was no way to implement any increased safety protocols without
having an impact on the creative direction or other artistic
aspects of the show.
9
5. Request for Vaccine Exemption and Termination
ABC also submitted the declaration of Employee Relations
Director Erin Nguyen, the ABC employee who evaluated and
denied Rademacher’s request for a religious exemption from
ABC’s vaccine mandate. In October 2021, she was promoted from
senior manager to director. Since the beginning of the pandemic,
she has handled approximately 100 to 150 requests for religious
or medical exemptions or accommodations related to Covid-19.
On October 11, 2021, Rademacher applied for a religious
exemption to the Covid-19 vaccine mandate by email, stating he
was entitled to an exemption based on “my deeply and sincerely
held moral belief that my body is endowed by my creator with
natural processes to protect me and that its natural integrity
cannot ethically be violated by the administration of artificially
created copies of genetic material, foreign to nature and
experimental.”
Nguyen responded the following day, thanking Rademacher
for the submission and asking about his availability to discuss his
request. Ultimately, Rademacher agreed to participate in a
conversation by telephone on October 26, 2021. Nguyen took
contemporaneous notes during the conversation.
In her notes, she wrote Rademacher suspected there were
kids in the cast who were not eligible for vaccination. Under the
current protocols, when the actors worked every day, they were
tested two or three times per week. He explained his objection to
the vaccine consistent with the statement in his request for an
exemption. It was not morally permissible to be injected with
such substances. He reduces toxicity as much as possible, eats
10
healthy, organic food, with as little intervention from western
medicine as he can. Stress causes toxicity in his body. He has
not taken any vaccines as an adult.
Asked if he was a follower of a religion or spiritual
community, he stated, “Look, my beliefs are religious and sincere,
but you do not have the right to ask about my religious basis or
conscious about whether they are true.” He asserted that
spiritual beliefs cannot be determined to be true, and asking
about his religious beliefs was actionable as religious
discrimination. Under the law, his beliefs did not need to be
based on religion.
Nguyen explained that the company understood people
may not belong to a recognized religion to articulate sincerely-
held religious or spiritual beliefs, but the company needed to
understand whether an objection to the vaccine was religious or
spiritual in nature, as opposed to a reason that the company
would not consider for accommodation, such as a personal belief
or lifestyle choice. She explained that for something to be a
religious or spiritual belief, it would typically be based on broader
teachings, a system of beliefs, rather than simply an objection to
vaccines. Rademacher’s view was that spiritual beliefs cannot be
proven, and questioning his religious sincerity was a violation of
his civil rights.
Her notes reflect that all Rademacher would say was that
his beliefs are religious and sincere. Asked if his beliefs had
informed any of his other choices for medical care or
interventions, he expressed that his beliefs do not need to be
based on religion or a belief in God, but only his conscience. He
did not believe that he needed to explain any more than he
already had.
11
Toward the end of the conversation, when Nguyen asked if
there was anything else that she should know, Rademacher said
he had been on the show for 25 years and would love to keep
working there for another 25 years, but he had already “been
written out of the show.” Nguyen did not have a clear
understanding of what he was referring to.
Based on the conversation, Nguyen found Rademacher did
not qualify for a religious exemption. Her decision was based on
Rademacher’s refusal to engage with her about the substance of
his religious or spiritual beliefs. Nguyen sent him an email
informing him of the decision. She gave him additional time to
become vaccinated.
Rademacher responded that he had no intention of
becoming vaccinated “by November 5 or at any time after that.”
Nguyen declared that she was the person who determined
Rademacher did not qualify for a religious exemption to the
Covid-19 vaccine mandate and his political views did not play any
role in her decision. Throughout the interactive process, she was
unaware of Rademacher’s political views. She never discussed
the substance of Rademacher’s request for a religious exemption
with Nuzzi, Valentini, or any other person responsible for the
content or casting decisions on General Hospital. Other than
providing status updates about the timing of her decision, she
had no conversations with Nuzzi or Valentini about
Rademacher’s request.
About a month after her decision, she learned Rademacher
had posted on the social media platform Instagram and she
viewed some of his posts.
In the course of the lawsuit, she learned that the creative
executives for General Hospital had decided to write
12
Rademacher’s character out of the story lines. She was not aware
of this information when she made the decision about his request
for a religious exemption.
ABC also submitted the declaration of Business Affairs
Director Lisa Gagliardi. Gagliardi’s duties include sending
notices of breach or default if an actor violates the terms or
conditions of the actor’s agreement with ABC. On November 5,
2021, after being advised Rademacher’s request for a religious
exemption had been denied and he confirmed that he had no
intention to get vaccinated as required by ABC’s policy, Gagliardi
sent correspondence to Rademacher’s manager that ABC was
terminating the employment agreement for failure to comply
with the Covid-19 policy.
Gagliardi declared the sole reason ABC terminated the
employment agreement was Rademacher’s failure to comply with
ABC’s vaccination policy. Gagliardi had no knowledge of
Rademacher’s political views when she sent the termination
notice and his political views did not enter into her decision-
making process.
In addition to the above, Van Etten declared that he has
never spoken to Nguyen about Rademacher’s accommodation
request and was not aware of the request until the lawsuit was
filed. Valentini declared that he received status updates from
Nguyen about the timing of her decision for the show’s scheduling
purposes, because alternate storylines must be developed as a
contingency in case accommodation requests were not granted,
but he never had any conversations with Nguyen about
Rademacher’s request, nor did he have any input on the decision
to approve or deny his accommodation request. Nuzzi also
declared that other than receiving a few status updates about the
13
timing of Nguyen’s decision related to the show’s schedule for
shooting scenes involving Rademacher’s character, Nuzzi never
had any conversations with Nguyen about Rademacher’s request
for an exemption. Nuzzi had no input on the decision to approve
or deny his accommodation request.
ABC submitted additional evidence to demonstrate the
careful attention to evolving scientific information that resulted
in the vaccine mandate. They also submitted evidence of
Rademacher’s posts on social media and interviews after the date
that he was terminated.
6. Additional Evidence
ABC submitted Rademacher’s deposition testimony. Asked
whether he withheld any information from ABC related to his
religious beliefs in connection with his application for a religious
exemption, Rademacher stated that he did not answer certain
questions because he believed the questions were a violation of
his civil rights. There was information that he did not provide to
ABC because he believed it violated his civil rights to provide the
information. He tries not to put anything in his body that is not
natural, or he limits it to keep his body as healthy as possible and
reduce toxicity. His religious beliefs are very private and
personal to him, so he did not think it was for his employer to
know. He knowingly withheld information about his religious
beliefs from ABC that he later shared in his deposition because
he believed it was a violation of his civil rights to get into the
details of his religious beliefs. After reviewing Nguyen’s notes
from their conversation, he said nothing stood out as inaccurate.
14
He had taken a general position of hosting more
conservative views on his Instagram website. He did not know
who made the decision to terminate his employment based on his
political beliefs, assuming that happened. He did not know of a
specific post or subject that led to his termination, simply because
he sided with conservative views.
C. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and
Supporting Evidence
Rademacher filed an opposition to the motion for summary
judgment and supporting evidence. He argued that he was
entitled to summary adjudication, under his competing motion
for summary adjudication, of the claim for failure to
accommodate his religious beliefs because Nguyen had testified
she had no reason to doubt the sincerity of Rademacher’s beliefs
but made no effort to accommodate them. Disney accommodated
some employees who expressed religious objections to the vaccine
policy; a jury could decide that Disney could have accommodated
Rademacher. Throughout the pandemic, he had tested
frequently for Covid-19, and wore a mask on and around the set,
including rehearsals. He did not have any intimate scenes,
because according to the lead writer, they could not find a love
interest for his character after spring 2021.
In addition, he argued a jury could conclude ABC
terminated his contract because of his political commentary. He
also asserted that he did not breach any of his contractual duties,
and a jury could find ABC violated the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
15
1. Rademacher’s Declaration
In support of his opposition, Rademacher submitted his
declaration. He declared that he had not received any vaccines
as an adult and he provided details explaining his religious
beliefs. He was uncomfortable sharing his religious views with
Nguyen, as he considered them a private matter. Nguyen never
said that she doubted the sincerity of his religious beliefs or
practices. The sole reason given for terminating his contract on
November 5, 2021, was his failure to comply with the vaccine
policy.
In October 2019, Rademacher wrote an email message to
Valentini confirming dates for an event. He mentioned that he
preferred Donald Trump to Hilary Clinton, but was not a
Republican and did not agree with everything Trump said.
Rademacher’s focus was his passionate support for
environmental protection.
2. Rademacher’s January 2021 Social Media Posts
In January 2021, Rademacher posted a message on
Instagram about violence during Black Lives Matter rallies. He
also posted a picture of the mob on January 6, 2021, and stated,
“President @realDonaldTrump supporters pulling Antifa
terrorists away from building. There’s plenty of these videos.
Why isn’t the #mainstreammedia reporting?” He also posted
messages thanking Trump for four incredible years and praising
Matt Gaetz.
An Instagram user replying to the General Hospital
Instagram page included Valentini’s Instagram account in a
16
message, stating, “There is a difference between being
Conservative and being a nut who supports violence, racism &
sedition. @ABC_Publicity #gh #GeneralHospital I can’t watch as
long as NaziJax #IngoRademacher is still on the show.
@valentinifrank.” Multiple similar messages criticized ABC and
General Hospital for continuing to employ Rademacher.
An ABC employee informed Valentini about a social media
account where fans criticized Rademacher’s political posts, and
Valentini agreed to have the digital marketing team monitor
Rademacher’s social media accounts, as they did for primetime
shows.
Later that month, Rademacher sent an email to Valentini
complaining that he had not had a story line worthy of
submitting for award consideration. He added, “Please be honest
with me. If this is about cancel culture or about my slightly
different political views, that some people might feel I need to be
punished for, which . . . is happening all over our country right
now, then I hope you can nip this. Understand I’m for truth and
freedom of speech no matter of political party or views. This is
happening all over the place so I don’t think it’s weird to bring
up. Conservative views are being silenced and people being fired.
I just hope Disney and ABC supports freedom of speech like it
has been communicated to us in many HR meetings.”
In February 2021, Nancy Grahn, another actor on General
Hospital, sent Valentini copies of Rademacher’s social media
posts about Grahn. She blocked Rademacher years earlier. She
ended her message, “I really appreciate your advocacy here. It
means a lot.” In a series of messages between Grahn and
Valentini, Grahn complained about bullying by Rademacher and
another actor. Valentini was sympathetic, furious for her and for
17
the show’s brand, and promised to report the matter to human
resources.
3. Other Employer Documents
Rademacher provided several of the company’s documents
related to Covid-19 pandemic policies, which evolved from
encouraging employees to become vaccinated to mandating
vaccination. On July 28, 2021, an employee named Christine
McCarthy wrote to a group, including Richardson, “Google
announced they are postponing [return to work] until October
and requiring vaccines. [¶] I think we should reconsider
requiring vaccines. We now have multiple large companies and
states, cities, counties making it a requirement for their workers.
Given the break through issue with vaccinated people I think it is
unfair to have unvaccinated people potentially putting vaccinated
people at risk.” Another employee in the group responded, “Josh
and I had that exact same conversation today.” Richardson
agreed they were all reaching the same conclusions.
Story notes in July 2021 listed several characters whose
shelf life was coming to an end on the show, including possibly
Rademacher’s character Jax. The notes observed, “What is Jax’s
role going forward? How do we write him off in a dramatic way?”
4. August Social Media Posts and Exemption
Request Updates
In August 2021, Grahn sent several messages to Valentini
expressing strong health concerns that she had about working
with unvaccinated actors and demanding additional protections.
18
On August 21, 2021, she texted Valentini attachments of
Rademacher’s social media posts about the anti-vaccine passport
rally. Valentini responded, “Good luck with that.”
Valentini texted a screenshot of Rademacher’s social media
post about the anti-vaccine passport rally to Nuzzi. Nuzzi
replied, “Ready for a recast!” Valentini answered, “Yup.”
On August 25, 2021, an ABC employee asked Nuzzi when
he would announce the vaccine mandate for General Hospital
and whether it would result in discussion on social media. Nuzzi
stated he anticipated it would; Rademacher had been vocal on
social media and a different employee had refused to get the
vaccine.
On August 27, 2021, an ABC employee named Mary K.
Weir sent a link to an article about the social media campaign
based on Rademacher’s criticism of vaccines and vaccine
passports. A recipient outside the company responded, “He is
such an idiot!” Valentini was one of the recipients copied on the
message.
In text messages, Valentini told Weir that she “missed a
brutal week.” “All went well but craziness re: [Rademacher,
Grahn, and] COVID Schedules.” Weir responded, “[Grahn] is a
nutter about the vaccine but I don’t blame her frustration with
[Rademacher.] He is an ignorant racist.” Valentini replied, “Yup
he is.” To a text message that Valentini received from a different
person about Rademacher’s rants on social media, Valentini
replied, “He’s nuts.”
On September 3, 2021, an ABC employee thanked Nuzzi for
the vaccine mandate policy. He asked what the situation was
with Rademacher and another actor. He joked that he had been
working on his Australian accent and if Nuzzi had a black t-shirt,
19
they were qualified to take over the roles. Nuzzi responded that
he would not be interested in the role, and added that it was too
soon to tell what the actors would do.
On October 25, 2021, Valentini and Nuzzi exchanged
emails with information about the last dates that Rademacher
and another employee were shooting scenes, in light of the
looming deadline for vaccination. Nuzzi stated that he would ask
Nguyen whether the employees had been contacted about their
accommodation requests.
Nuzzi emailed Nguyen, asking about the status of the
accommodation requests for Rademacher and another employee
and explaining that it was their last taping week on the show
before the vaccine verification deadline. Nguyen responded that
she was trying to schedule a time to speak with Rademacher the
following day, as well as with the other employee.
Nuzzi forwarded Nguyen’s message to Sarah Murphy-Katz,
who was a manager of current programming. Murphy-Katz
asked for clarification whether both employees accommodation
requests had been denied by the reviewing committee or whether
the review process would not be complete before the deadline.
Nuzzi responded that the requests were still under review.
Murphy-Katz noted that the communication process around the
accommodation reviews was not very clear. Nuzzi agreed that
the communication process was a little sketchy, but he attributed
it to employee relations being overwhelmed with requests and
only two people handling the process, so he did not fault them.
Murphy-Katz sought an update again about the review
process from Nuzzi on November 2, 2021. She stated both
employees had worked their last dates due to not being
vaccinated, submitted accommodation requests under review,
20
and were unlikely to return under the vaccine mandate given
their beliefs and actions.
On November 2, 2021, Nuzzi responded that there was no
update. It seemed the only way to return to General Hospital
was if they decided to get the vaccine or the vaccine mandate was
lifted in the future.
5. Nguyen Deposition Testimony
Rademacher submitted excerpts of Nguyen’s deposition
testimony. When Nguyen sent her initial message on October 12,
2021, to schedule a conversation about Rademacher’s request for
a religious exemption, she had no reason to doubt the sincerity of
his beliefs. She had never spoken with him, read anything about
him, and had no idea who he was.
Nguyen was the ultimate decision-maker who denied
Rademacher’s request for a religious accommodation because he
had not shared sufficient information to conclude that he would
be prevented from being vaccinated due to a sincerely held
religious or spiritual belief. She consulted two individuals in
making her decision, attorney Tanya Menton and Jennifer Simis.
She reviewed the information that she gathered from
Rademacher with Menton and they discussed whether it was
sufficient to support an exemption to the policy. She did not
know who Nuzzi was, and Nuzzi was not involved in any way in
the decision to deny Rademacher an accommodation. She knew
Valentini, but he was not involved in the decision to deny
Rademacher’s request for accommodation.
As a result of her conclusion that he had not established a
religious belief preventing him from being vaccinated, Nguyen
21
did not engage in an analysis of whether he could be
accommodated or would present a health and safety risk.
Rademacher also submitted Nuzzi’s deposition testimony
stating that he and Valentini never had to make a decision
whether to terminate Rademacher’s services because he wasn’t
eligible to continue to work. Rademacher also submitted
Valentini’s deposition testimony, Richardson’s deposition
testimony, and the declaration of his attorney, Scott Street.
D. Reply and Trial Court Ruling
ABC filed a reply arguing that no triable issues of fact
existed. A hearing was held on April 5, 2023, on Rademacher’s
motion for summary adjudication and ABC’s motion for summary
judgment. The court took the matter under submission.
On June 5, 2023, the trial court issued a written order
granting ABC’s motion for summary judgment and denying
Rademacher’s motion for summary adjudication. With respect to
the cause of action for discrimination under the FEHA, the court
found Rademacher refused to cooperate with the interactive
process. ABC was entitled to inquire about, and Rademacher
was required to provide, information supporting the religious
nature and sincerity of his belief. An employee cannot refuse to
provide information necessary to evaluate the request for
accommodation, then sue when the request is denied. Moreover,
no reasonable accommodation was possible in light of
Rademacher’s job duties. Rademacher’s political activities are
not a protected category under the FEHA.
Rademacher’s allegations of wrongful termination were
based on asserting statutory and constitutional rights, including
22
his right to religious freedom, right to bodily integrity, and rights
protected by the FEHA, which were all derivative of his other
causes of action. Rademacher also alleged that ABC fired him for
expressing unpopular political and social views. To assert a
cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public
policy, he must identify a violation of a constitutional, statutory,
or regulatory provisions. Labor Code section 1101 prohibits
employers from making, adopting, or enforcing rules or policies
that prevent employees from engaging in political activity or
which control employee’s political activities. But there was no
evidence that ABC implemented the Covid vaccine policy to
curtail political activities, and Rademacher had not identified any
other rule or policy at issue.
To the extent that Rademacher relied on the prohibition in
Labor Code section 1102 against coercing employees’ political
activities through the threat of termination, no triable issue had
been shown. ABC satisfied its burden with evidence that
Rademacher was terminated as a natural consequence of being
unvaccinated and the person who made the termination decision
was unaware of his political views at the time of the termination.
Rademacher failed to produce evidence showing the stated reason
was false. Some of his evidence lacked temporal proximity to the
termination decision. There was no evidence that the executives
and coworkers who disagreed with Rademacher’s political views
played any role in the termination decision.
Rademacher’s contract required him to comply with all
ABC’s policies, and it was undisputed that he did not comply with
the vaccine policy, so there were no triable issues of fact
concerning breach of contract.
23
Rademacher filed a notice of appeal from the June 5, 2023
order granting summary judgment. After the appeal from the
June 5, 2023 order was fully briefed, this appellate court
discovered that no final judgment had been entered yet, so the
appeal was dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order.
Judgment was entered on December 18, 2024. Rademacher
filed a motion for new trial based on new evidence, which the
trial court denied after a hearing. Rademacher filed a timely
notice of appeal from the December 18, 2024 judgment.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate “if all the papers
submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “[T]he party
moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion
that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . There is a triable
issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a
reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the
party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable
standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 826, 850, fns. omitted.) In ruling on the motion, the court
must draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the
light most favorable to the opposing party. (Id. at p. 843.)
“The defendant is not required conclusively to negate an
element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant need
24
only show the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of
the cause of action, such as by showing the plaintiff does not
possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed
evidence. [Citation.]” (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143
Cal.App.4th 1433, 1438.) The burden then shifts to the plaintiff
to show a triable issue of material fact exists. (§ 437c, subd.
(p)(2).) “The plaintiff . . . shall not rely upon the allegations . . . of
its pleadings . . . but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts
showing that a triable issue of material fact exists . . . .” (Ibid.)
We review a decision on a summary judgment motion de novo.
(Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768.)
B. Failure to Accommodate Religious Beliefs
Rademacher contends a triable issue of fact exists with
respect to his claim for failure to accommodate his religious
beliefs. We conclude the undisputed evidence showed
Rademacher refused to provide information to ABC to make them
aware that he had a bona fide religious belief requiring
accommodation.
FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate
against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment because of a conflict between the
person’s religious belief or observance and any employment
requirement, unless the employer . . . demonstrates that it has
explored any available reasonable alternative means of
accommodating the religious belief or observance, including the
possibilities of excusing the person from those duties that conflict
with the person’s religious belief or observance . . . , but is unable
25
to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance
without undue hardship . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (l)(1).)
“[T]he employee must establish a prima facie case that he
or she had a bona fide religious belief, of which the employer was
aware, that conflicts with an employment requirement.”
(Soldinger v. Northwest Airlines (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 345, 370
(Soldinger).) “Once the employee establishes a prima facie case,
then the employer must establish it initiated good faith efforts to
accommodate or no accommodation was possible without
producing undue hardship.” (Ibid.)
A religious belief does not require a belief in God or Gods,
but must be more than “a philosophy or a way of life.” (Friedman
v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2002) 102
Cal.App.4th 39, 49 (Friedman).) Employers are not required to
“ ‘accommodate what amounts to a “purely personal
preference.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 57.) “Among the factors to be considered
are whether the belief system occupies in a person’s life a place
parallel to that of God in recognized religions and whether it
addresses ultimate concerns thereby filling a void in the
individual’s life. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 49.) California courts
often consider federal authority for guidance on the concept of
religion. (Ibid.)
A prima facie case does not require proof that the religious
practice is mandated by the employee’s religion. (California Fair
Employment & Housing Com. v. Gemini Aluminum Corp. (2004)
122 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1013–1014 (Gemini).) “The relevant
inquiry is the sincerity, not the verity of the employee’s religious
beliefs.” (Ibid.) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) guidelines state: “In most cases whether or not a
practice or belief is religious is not at issue. However, in those
26
cases in which the issue does exist, the [Equal Employment
Opportunity] Commission will define religious practices to
include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong
which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious
views. . . . The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs
or the fact that the religious group to which the individual
professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine
whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee or
prospective employee. . . .” (29 C.F.R. § 1605.1, fn. omitted.)
In Gemini, an employee requested time off to attend a
religious convention on a certain date. He explained to his
employer that he was a Jehovah’s Witness. (Id. at p. 1010.)
When his request was denied, the employee spoke with his
employer further about his responsibility to be at conventions
based on the encouragement of the ministry. (Ibid.) He
described his religious tradition and provided details about how
his religious obligation conflicted with his work obligations. After
he missed work, he was fired. In litigation, the employer argued
the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case
because the employee had not shown attendance at the
convention was obligatory or required. The Gemini court rejected
this argument.
The Gemini court relied on Heller v. EBB Auto Co. (9th Cir.
1993) 8 F.3d 1433, 1439 (Heller). In Heller, the Ninth Circuit
found it was sufficient that the employer knew the plaintiff was
Jewish, knew the plaintiff’s wife had been studying for
conversion to Judaism, and the plaintiff explained to his
employer when he made his request that he needed time off to
attend his wife’s conversion ceremony. (Ibid.) “A sensible
approach would require only enough information about an
27
employee’s religious needs to permit the employer to understand
the existence of a conflict between the employee’s religious
practices and the employer’s job requirements.” (Ibid.) “Any
greater notice requirement would permit an employer to delve
into the religious practices of an employee in order to determine
whether religion mandates the employee’s adherence. If courts
may not make such an inquiry [citations], then neither should
employers.” (Ibid.)
The Gemini court acknowledged, however, there was no
dispute in that case whether the Jehovah’s Witness sect was a
religion. (Gemini, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014, fn. 6.)
“When the issue arises whether a belief or set of beliefs
constitutes a religion, however, ‘ “a court must, at least to a
degree, examine the content of the supposed religion, not to
determine its truth or falsity, or whether it is schismatic or
orthodox, but to determine whether the subject matter it
comprehends is consistent with the assertion that it is, or is not,
a religion.” [Citation.]’ (Friedman v. Southern Cal. Permanente
Medical Group, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 60 [veganism].)”
(Gemini, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014, fn. 6.)
In contrast, in Friedman, the appellate court concluded
veganism alone is not a “religious creed” within the meaning of
FEHA. (Friedman, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 43.) The court
stated, “We do not question plaintiff’s allegation that his beliefs
are sincerely held; it is presumed as a matter of law that they
are. However, we disregard conclusory allegations, for example,
that plaintiff’s beliefs ‘occupy a place in [his] life parallel to that
filled by God in traditionally religious individuals adhering to the
Christian, Jewish or Muslim Faiths.’ [Citations.] First, plaintiff
believes ‘that all living beings must be valued equally and that it
28
is immoral and unethical for humans to kill and exploit animals
even for food, clothing and the testing of product safety for
humans’; further, it is ‘a violation of natural law’ to transgress
this belief. There is no allegation or judicially noticeable evidence
plaintiff's belief system addresses fundamental or ultimate
questions. There is no claim that veganism speaks to: the
meaning of human existence; the purpose of life; theories of
humankind’s nature or its place in the universe; matters of
human life and death; or the exercise of faith. There is no
apparent spiritual or other worldly component to plaintiff’s
beliefs. Rather, plaintiff alleges a moral and ethical creed limited
to the single subject of highly valuing animal life and ordering
one’s life based on that perspective. While veganism compels
plaintiff to live in accord with strict dictates of behavior, it
reflects a moral and secular, rather than religious, philosophy.
[Citation.] Second, while plaintiff's belief system governs his
behavior in wide-ranging respects, including the food he eats, the
clothes he wears, and the products he uses, it is not sufficiently
comprehensive in nature to fall within the provisions of
[California Code of Regulations, title 2, section] 7293.1. Plaintiff
does not assert that his belief system derives from a power or
being or faith to which all else is subordinate or upon which all
else depends. [Citations.] Third, though not determinative, no
formal or external signs of a religion are present. There are no:
teachers or leaders; services or ceremonies; structure or
organization; orders of worship or articles of faith; or holidays.
[Citation.] [¶] Absent a broader, more comprehensive scope,
extending to ultimate questions, it cannot be said that plaintiff's
veganism falls within the scope of regulation 7293.1. Rather,
plaintiff's veganism is a personal philosophy, albeit shared by
29
many others, and a way of life.” (Friedman, supra, 102
Cal.App.4th pp. 69–70.) The court noted that its decision did not
resolve whether a vegan lifestyle resulting from a religious belief
that otherwise meets the legal standard is subject to FEHA.
(Id. at pp. 70−71.)
“The reasonableness of the employer’s efforts to
accommodate is determined on a case by case basis. What is
reasonable for one employee may not be reasonable for another.
[Citation.] The obligation to search for an acceptable solution is
bilateral. Employees also have the obligation to make a good
faith effort to explore alternatives.” (Soldinger, supra, 51
Cal.App.4th at p. 370.)
“Both employer and employee have the obligation ‘to keep
communications open’ and neither has ‘a right to obstruct the
process.’ [Citation.] ‘Each party must participate in good faith,
undertake reasonable efforts to communicate its concerns, and
make available to the other information which is available, or
more accessible, to one party. Liability hinges on the objective
circumstances surrounding the parties’ breakdown in
communication, and responsibility for the breakdown lies with
the party who fails to participate in good faith.’ [Citation.]”
(Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986,
1014.)
In this case, it is undisputed that Rademacher applied for a
religious exemption from ABC’s vaccine policy and that ABC
initiated an interactive process to discuss his request. It is also
undisputed that Nguyen asked Rademacher basic questions to
understand whether his objection to the vaccine was religious or
spiritual in nature, as opposed to a reason that the company
would not consider for accommodation, such as a personal belief
30
or lifestyle choice. Rademacher refused to answer questions
about his beliefs or provide any additional information, stating
that his beliefs did not need to be based on religion, and in his
view, even asking about his religious beliefs was actionable as
religious discrimination and a violation of his civil rights.
To satisfy the elements of his claim, Rademacher was
required to show ABC was aware he had a sincerely held
religious belief, which conflicted with an employment
requirement. Unlike a Jehovah’s Witness convention or a Jewish
conversion ceremony, his objection to vaccination was not
obviously or inherently related to religion. His statement that he
has a “sincerely held moral belief that my body is endowed by my
creator with natural processes to protect me and that its natural
integrity cannot ethically be violated” does not establish that his
“beliefs, observances, or practices” have “a place of importance
parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions[.]” (See
Friedman, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 69.) His conclusory
statements that his beliefs were religious and sincere were not
sufficient to inform ABC of his beliefs requiring accommodation.
Rademacher conceded in his deposition that he did not answer
questions about his religious beliefs in connection with his
application for a religious exemption. Under the circumstances,
his limited and conclusory statements to ABC were not sufficient
to establish ABC was aware of a bona fide religious belief
Rademacher held which conflicted with a requirement of
employment.
Based on the information submitted in connection with the
summary judgment motion, the trial court properly concluded
there was no triable issue of fact on the claim for failure to
accommodate because Rademacher refused to answer limited
31
questions about his religious or spiritual beliefs that would allow
ABC to understand what religious belief, observation, or practice
needed accommodation, and to confirm the sincerity and religious
nature of the request. There was no evidence that ABC
requested intrusive information or extensive documentation
about Rademacher’s religious beliefs beyond a limited inquiry to
establish he met the criteria for exemption. Because he refused
to answer Nguyen’s questions, he failed to provide basic
information to establish that he had a bona fide religious belief
precluding vaccination, which ABC was aware of. ABC was
entitled to summary judgment of his accommodation claim.
C. Wrongful Termination Based on Political
Commentary
Rademacher contends there is a triable issue of fact as to
whether he was wrongfully terminated based on his political
commentary. We disagree.
“The elements of a cause of action for wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy are ‘(1) an employer-employee
relationship, (2) the employer terminated the plaintiff's
employment, (3) the termination was substantially motivated by
a violation of public policy, and (4) the discharge caused the
plaintiff harm.’ (Yau v. Allen (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 144, 154.)”
(McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th
949, 962–963.)
The public policy prohibiting employers from terminating
an employee for engaging in political activity is found in Labor
Code section 1101, which provides: “No employer shall make,
adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: [¶] (a)
32
Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or
participating in politics . . . [or] [¶] (b) Controlling or directing, or
tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of
employees.” Labor Code section 1102 provides: “No employer
shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his
employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of
employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or
following any particular course or line of political action or
political activity.”
In this case, however, based on the facts presented to the
trial court, there was no evidence from which a trier of fact could
conclude Rademacher’s employment was terminated based on his
political views or political commentary. Nguyen had not heard of
Rademacher before she reviewed his request for exemption, and
she was not aware of his political views during the interactive
process. She was the ultimate decision-maker who made the
determination that he had not shared sufficient information from
which to conclude he was prevented from being vaccinated due to
a sincerely held religious or spiritual belief. She consulted two
individuals in making her decision, attorney Tanya Menton and
Jennifer Simis. She reviewed the information that she gathered
from Rademacher with attorney Menton and they discussed
whether it was sufficient to support an exemption to the policy.
Nguyen did not know Nuzzi, and Nuzzi was not involved in the
decision to deny an exemption. Nguyen knew Valentini and
provided status updates about the timing of her decision, as
reflected in their email exchanges, but she never discussed the
substance of Rademacher’s request with Valentini, and Valentini
was not involved in the decision to deny the exemption.
33
Business Affairs Director Lisa Gagliardi was advised that
Rademacher’s request for a religious exemption had been denied
and he did not intend to get vaccinated as required by ABC’s
policy. Gagliardi sent correspondence to Rademacher’s manager
that ABC was terminating Rademacher’s employment agreement
for failure to comply with the Covid-19 policy. Gagliardi declared
the sole reason ABC terminated the employment agreement was
Rademacher’s failure to comply with ABC’s vaccination policy.
Gagliardi had no knowledge of Rademacher’s political views
when she sent the termination notice.
There was no evidence relied on in the trial court
proceedings from which a trier of fact could conclude that the
decision-makers terminated Rademacher’s employment due to
his political views or political commentary. The evidence showed
the employees who made decision to deny a vaccine exemption
and Rademacher’s resulting termination for failure to comply
with ABC policy were not aware of Rademacher’s political views.
Rademacher’s assertion that he was terminated due to his
political commentary is speculative and unsupported by the
evidence. Summary judgment was properly granted on the
wrongful termination claim.1
1 On page 34 of Rademacher’s reply brief in this appeal, for
the first time, he cites evidence that the producers intended to
have a meeting with “Tanya” to discuss Rademacher’s
employment, which apparently referred to attorney Menton,
more than a month before Nguyen consulted with Menton about
Rademacher’s request for exemption. The reply brief does not,
however, cite to the correct volume of the appellant’s appendix for
the evidence. There is no evidence that a meeting took place. In
his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Rademacher
did not argue that there was a connection between the producers
34
and Nguyen through attorney Menton, and in the separate
statement of material facts, he does not refer to a meeting
between the producers and attorney Menton. There is no
evidence that a connection to Nguyen through attorney Menton
was raised in the trial court proceedings at all. There was also no
mention of a connection to Menton in Rademacher’s briefs
submitted in connection with the nonappealable order granting
summary judgment, and Rademacher did not mention the issue
in his opening brief in the present appeal. Even at oral
argument, Rademacher did not mention a potential connection to
Nguyen through attorney Menton until his rebuttal argument,
leaving ABC with no opportunity to respond.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court
must consider all of the evidence submitted, except the court may
disregard evidence that is not referenced in the separate
statement of material facts. (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells
Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 315−316.) “Whether to
consider evidence not referenced in the moving party's separate
statement rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and
we review the decision to consider or not consider this evidence
for an abuse of that discretion.” (Ibid.) “On the other hand,
where evidence is not referenced, is hidden in voluminous papers,
and is not called to the attention of the court at all, a summary
judgment should not be reversed on grounds the court should
have considered such evidence. Appellate courts need not
address theories that were not advanced in the trial court.”
(Ibid.) Because a connection between the producers and Nguyen
through attorney Menton was not raised below, it would be unfair
to ABC to consider this contention raised for the first time in the
reply brief on appeal. We decline to consider the evidence.
35
D. Contract Claims
Rademacher contends triable issues of fact exist as to his
claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. We conclude that the trial court
correctly granted summary judgment as to these claims.
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are
“(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting
damages to plaintiff.” (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68
Cal.2d 822, 830.) “The covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
implied by law in every contract, exists merely to prevent one
contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party’s right
to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made.” (Guz v.
Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 349.)
Labor Code section 2924 governs employment for a
specified term as follows: “An employment for a specified term
may be terminated at any time by the employer in case of any
willful breach of duty by the employee in the course of his
employment, or in case of his habitual neglect of his duty or
continued incapacity to perform it.”
There was no triable issue of fact as to whether
Rademacher willfully breached ABC’s COVID-19 vaccination
policy. On appeal, Rademacher contends the trier of fact could
conclude ABC unfairly frustrated the purpose of the employment
contract by using a sham accommodation process to cover up that
he was written out of the show based on his political views. But
there is simply no evidence from which a trier of fact could
reasonably conclude the accommodation process was a sham or
36
the employees who made the termination decision had any
knowledge of Rademacher’s political views. Summary judgment
was properly granted.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc., is awarded its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, J.
WE CONCUR:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
KIM (D.), J.
37