Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies CA2/5

── Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies CA2/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 failin