Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part UPS's motion to dismiss Samantha Williams's employment-related first amended complaint. The order dismisses the FEHA claims without leave to amend for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, dismisses the first claim with leave to amend to clarify its legal basis, and analyzes the sufficiency of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The excerpt does not include the complete disposition of all claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Williams exhausted California Fair Employment and Housing Act administrative remedies before filing her FEHA discrimination, harassment, failure-to-prevent, disability, accommodation, and retaliation claims.
- Whether the first CRD complaint against the union was sufficient to exhaust FEHA claims against UPS.
- Whether the second CRD complaint filed after commencement of the lawsuit cured the FEHA exhaustion defect.
- Whether the first claim for disparate treatment in violation of public policy stated a cognizable legal theory.
- Whether the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim plausibly alleged outrageous and intentional conduct and severe emotional distress.
- Whether the breach of contract claim identified an employment contract and a breached provision.
- Whether the Equal Pay Act claim alleged substantially equal work, similar working conditions, and discriminatory wage disparity.
- Whether the California Unfair Competition Law claim could proceed when its FEHA predicates failed.
- Whether the wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim identified a qualifying public policy and a discharge substantially motivated by its violation.
Holdings
- A plaintiff must exhaust FEHA administrative remedies before filing a civil action, including by filing a timely and sufficient CRD complaint that gives the defendant notice of the claims.
- Williams's first CRD complaint against Teamsters Local 150 did not exhaust FEHA claims against UPS because it did not name UPS or otherwise identify UPS as the employer or respondent.
- A CRD complaint filed after the civil lawsuit cannot satisfy the FEHA exhaustion prerequisite for that lawsuit.
- The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth claims were inadequately pleaded, but amendment was permitted where the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile.
- Claims two, three, seven, eight, and eleven were dismissed without leave to amend for failure to exhaust FEHA remedies; the UCL claim was dismissed without leave to amend to the extent based on FEHA violations, but with leave to amend to the extent based on an Equal Pay Act violation.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (at 6)
“It is the plaintiff’s burden to plead and prove timely exhaustion of administrative remedies.” (at 8)
“Because Plaintiff failed to file her second administrative complaint prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies as required under FEHA.” (at 11)
“To state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL, the alleged conduct must violate a “borrowed” law.” (at 16)
Factual background
Williams worked for UPS in California beginning in 2008. She alleged sexual harassment, workplace safety complaints, retaliation, disparate treatment, denied work-area changes related to lifting restrictions, disability-related employment issues, and eventual loss of employment. She filed a California Civil Rights Department complaint against her union in 2021, but did not name UPS; she filed a second CRD complaint against UPS only after commencing this lawsuit and after UPS raised exhaustion in its motion to dismiss.
Procedural history
Williams filed the action in Sacramento County Superior Court on August 14, 2023. UPS removed the action to the Eastern District of California on November 8, 2023. Williams filed a first amended complaint as a matter of course on December 6, 2023, and UPS thereafter moved to dismiss all eleven claims. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing every claim but granting leave to amend several claims.