Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04649/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04649-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware

corporation, ROY GAMMON and DOES 1

through 50,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-4649 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant American Airlines, Inc. moves, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss all six causes of

action in the second amended complaint (SAC) filed by Plaintiff

Deborah Anderson. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The matter was

heard on June 24, 2005. Having considered the parties' papers and

oral argument on the motion, the Court GRANTS American's motion to

dismiss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are alleged in the SAC. Plaintiff is of

African and Belizean descent. She was hired by American on

November 18, 1991. In March, 2002, Shannon Stewart began as

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiff's general manager in American's Oakland facility. Ms.

Stewart harassed Plaintiff by making derogatory comments regarding

Plaintiff's race and status as a single mother. Plaintiff

complained to American management about Ms. Stewart's comments,

which resulted in Ms. Stewart being replaced by Defendant Roy

Gammon.

Soon after Mr. Gammon assumed the position of general manager,

he began harassing Plaintiff by, inter alia, requiring her to

perform administrative duties while not allowing her sufficient

time to complete them, sending her demeaning emails, requiring her

to work without pay after hours and on weekends, and wrongfully

denying her requests for vacation and leave time.

On February 24, 2003, Mr. Gammon issued Plaintiff a "Career

Decision Day Letter," which required Plaintiff to choose between

terminating her employment or remaining employed with American, but

with the stipulations that (1) American could terminate Plaintiff

without cause, and (2) Plaintiff would lose the right to file union

grievances.

On February 28, 2003, Plaintiff was admitted to the emergency

room due to stress, and was placed on temporary medical leave. On

March 3, 2003, Plaintiff called Mr. Gammon to inform him that she

had been cleared to return to work starting March 7. Mr. Gammon

told Plaintiff that he would not accept her medical release. 

Plaintiff called Mr. Gammon again on March 10 to inquire about the

status of her employment. Mr. Gammon informed Plaintiff that her

employment status had not been determined because she had failed to

choose an option from the Career Decision Day Letter. Plaintiff

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

reported Mr. Gammon's conduct to American management. Plaintiff

was terminated on March 14, 2003. At the time Plaintiff was

terminated, she held a management position at American.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Administrative Procedural History

On March 4, 2003, after Plaintiff had apparently contacted its

Oakland office, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 

sent her a letter and an employment discrimination questionnaire. 

The letter stated, inter alia, that (1) if Plaintiff did not check

a particular box on the questionnaire, the EEOC would consider the

questionnaire a formal charge, and (2) "If we do not hear from

further from you, within 30 days after we notify the employer of

the charge, we will dismiss it." On March 12, 2003, Plaintiff

submitted the EEOC questionnaire describing her allegations against

American; she did not check the box that the agency had identified. 

In an attachment to the questionnaire, Plaintiff alleged

discrimination and harassment based upon her national origin and

retaliation for complaining about the discrimination and

harassment. 

On June 30, 2003, Plaintiff's counsel submitted a letter to

the EEOC requesting a right-to-sue letter based upon the March 12

questionnaire. There is no evidence of any other communication

between Plaintiff and the EEOC until March 9, 2005, when

Plaintiff's counsel sent the EEOC another letter requesting a

right-to-sue letter. In a letter dated March 15, 2005, the EEOC

stated the following: "A review of this office's records discloses

no charge was filed by your client against the above named

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

employer." The letter also stated that Plaintiff could submit a

formal charge or, in the alternative, she could re-submit the March

12, 2003 questionnaire in place of a formal charge. In a letter

dated March 30, 2005, Plaintiff's counsel stated that he had

enclosed a "copy of the charges," although it is not clear from the

record whether he filed an additional charge or re-sent the March

12, 2003 questionnaire.

On April 22, 2005, the Department of Fair Employment and

Housing (DFEH) received a charge of discrimination from Plaintiff. 

In the section of the charge form in which Plaintiff was directed

to detail her allegations of discrimination, Plaintiff wrote "See

Attachments," and she attached the 2003 EEOC questionnaire. Also

on April 22, 2005, the DFEH issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue letter.

II. Litigation Procedural History

On March 2, 2004, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint in the

Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. However, that

complaint only referred to Plaintiff on its cover page; the

remainder of the complaint referred to a plaintiff named Mr.

Nolasco. On September 13, 2004, Plaintiff filed a first amended

complaint (FAC) in State court that alleged nine causes of action: 

(1) "tortuous wrongful termination" based upon "Plaintiff's

discharge because she engaged in a protected activity of seeking

medical leave," (2) "harassment," which Plaintiff alleged had

occurred because she had complained to American management about

the conduct of Ms. Stewart and Mr. Gammon, (3) "wrongful

termination," also allegedly a result of Plaintiff's complaints to

management, (4) "wrongful termination in violation of public policy

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 4 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

-- Government Code § 12920" [discrimination based upon a medical

condition], (5) "wrongful termination in violation of public policy

-- Government Code § 12940(n)" [failure reasonably to accommodate

an employee's medical condition], (6) "retaliation" based upon

Plaintiff's allegations that she was terminated because she

complained to management of harassment, (7) "breach of implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing," (8) "intentional

infliction of emotional distress," and (9) "negligent infliction of

emotional distress."

On November 3, 2004, American removed the action to this

Court. Mr. Gammon did not join in the removal because he had not

been served with either the initial complaint or the FAC. On

November 9, American moved to dismiss the first, third, seventh,

eighth and ninth causes of action in the FAC. Plaintiff filed a

statement of non-opposition, and the Court granted the motion;

these causes of action were dismissed with prejudice. 

On March 4, 2005, American moved under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff's

remaining causes of action. On April 8, 2005, the Court held a

hearing on American's motion. At that hearing, the Court made a

bench ruling denying American's motion but dismissing Plaintiff's

claims; Plaintiff was given forty-five days to file a second

amended complaint. Plaintiff was also given an additional fortyfive days to serve Mr. Gammon. At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel

represented to the Court that he did not intend to add any new

parties or claims, and he was not given leave to do so. On April

19, 2005, the Court issued a written order on American's Rule 12(c)

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 5 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

motion. Specifically, the Court ruled as follows: (1) although it

was not clear from the FAC which legal theories Plaintiff was

asserting, the Court construed her harassment (second cause of

action) and retaliation (sixth cause of action) claims as arising

under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Title VII, but

ruled that Plaintiff had failed to allege that she had exhausted

her administrative remedies for such claims; and (2) dismissed

Plaintiff's wrongful termination (fourth and fifth causes of

action) claims because Plaintiff had not adequately plead that she

suffered from a "mental disability," as that term is defined under

FEHA. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend these claims, but was

not granted leave to add additional claims.

On May 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed the SAC. The SAC alleges the

following causes of action: (1) "Wrongful Discharge in Violation of

Fundamental Public Policy (Racial Discrimination based on Title

VII, and Govt. Code §§ 12900-12996 [FEHA])," (2) "Wrongful

Discharge in Violation of Fundamental Public Policy (National

Origin based on Title VII, Govt. Code §§ 12900-12996 [FEHA] and

Cal. Const. Art. I § 8)," (3) "Wrongful Discharge in Violation of

Fundamental Public Policy (Mental Disability Discrimination, Govt.

Code § 12940(a), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,

42 USC §§ 12101 - 12213)," (4) "Tortious termination in Violation

of Fundamental Public Policy (Termination based on Medical

Condition in violation of the California Family Rights Act, Govt.

Code § 12945.2)" [employer required to grant medical leave],

(5) "Retaliation in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(h)"

[retaliation for engaging in protected oppositional activity], and 

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 6 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

(6) "Unlawful Business Practices, Business and Professions Code, 

§§ 17000 et seq., and §§ 17200 et seq."

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be

denied unless it is “clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.” Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th

Cir. 2002), citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506

(2002). A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple,

concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are

required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). These rules “do not require a

claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his

claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds on which it

rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).

When granting a motion to dismiss, a court is generally

required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request to

amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile. 

Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911

F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether amendment

would be futile, a court examines whether the complaint could be

amended to cure the defect requiring dismissal “without

contradicting any of the allegations of [the] original complaint.” 

Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 7 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

DISCUSSION

I. First and Second Causes of Action

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for wrongful termination

based upon her race and national origin. 

American argues that these claims should be dismissed because

they are barred by the statute of limitations. A common law claim

for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is governed by

a two-year statute of limitations. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1;

Mathieu v. Norrell Corp., 115 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1189 n.14 (2004). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated on March 14, 2003,

and she did not file the SAC until May 4, 2005. American argues

that these claims do not relate back either to the original

complaint or to the FAC because Plaintiff did not allege them in

either pleading. However, Plaintiff disclaims any intent to sue

for wrongful termination in violation of public policy against

discrimination based upon race and national origin.

Plaintiff argues that her first and second causes of action

are actually FEHA and Title VII claims and are not time-barred

because she obtained a right-to-sue letter from the DFEH on April

22, 2005. At the hearing, Plaintiff maintained that this right-tosue letter was based upon her recent submission to the DFEH of a

copy of the March 12, 2003 EEOC questionnaire. Plaintiff contends

that the right-to-sue letter authorizes her first and second causes

of action, and that she should not be penalized because the letter

was not timely issued to her. However, Plaintiff prepared the EEOC

questionnaire before she was terminated, and it alleged only

discrimination and harassment based upon her national origin. 

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 8 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

Thus, even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff's first and

second causes of action as arising under Title VII and FEHA, the

questionnaire could not exhaust those causes of action for wrongful

termination based upon her race and national origin.

For the foregoing reasons, the first and second causes of

action must be dismissed; they are dismissed with prejudice because

Plaintiff has already had one opportunity to amend her Title VII

and FEHA claims.

II. Third Cause of Action

American argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's

third cause of action, for "Wrongful Discharge in Violation of

Fundamental Public Policy (Mental Disability Discrimination, Govt.

Code § 12940(a), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,

42 USC §§ 12101 - 12213)." In the April 19, 2005 order dismissing

Plaintiff's first amended complaint, the Court granted Plaintiff

leave to amend this cause of action:

Plaintiff may be able to allege that she has a "mental

disability." Depression may meet the definition of a mental

disability under FEHA. Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass'n. v.

Fair Employment & Housing Comm'n, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1578,

1592-93 (2004). Thus, Plaintiff may amend her complaint, if

she is truthfully able to do so, to allege that the FEHA

articulates a fundamental public policy that protects her from

discrimination based upon her mental disability, and that

American discriminated against her because of this mental

disability.

The SAC does not allege that Plaintiff has a mental disability

as that term is defined under FEHA; Plaintiff alleges only that she

"end[ed] up in the emergency room due to stress," and that she was

able to return to work several days later. She does not allege

that she suffers from depression, nor does she allege that she has

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 9 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

any mental or physical impairment that would qualify as a mental

disability under FEHA or as a "disability," as that term is defined

by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus, Plaintiff's third

cause of action fails to state a claim, and must be dismissed. 

Because Plaintiff has had one opportunity to amend this claim, it

is dismissed with prejudice.

III. Fourth Cause of Action

Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is "Tortious termination in

Violation of Fundamental Public Policy (Termination based on

Medical Condition in violation of the California Family Rights Act,

Govt. Code § 12945.2)." According to the SAC, this cause of action

arises from American's alleged refusal "to allow Plaintiff to

return to her employment position after her doctor released her to

return to work from medical leave."

In Plaintiff's FAC, the first cause of action was "tortuous

wrongful termination," which was based upon "Plaintiff's discharge

because she engaged in a protected activity of seeking medical

leave." Plaintiff did not state a legal theory under which that

cause of action was brought. American moved to dismiss the claim,

and Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. 

On December 13, 2004, the Court dismissed the claim with prejudice. 

The only material difference between the dismissed claim and

the fourth claim in the SAC is that, in the SAC, Plaintiff cites

California Government Code section 12945.2, which covers employees'

rights to return to work after taking medical leave. Presumably,

that is the same statute under which Plaintiff brought the first

cause of action in the FAC. The SAC's fourth cause of action is

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 10 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

the same claim that the Court dismissed with prejudice in its

December 13 order. Thus, Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is

dismissed with prejudice.

IV. Fifth Cause of Action

American moves to dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation claim, which

is the fifth cause of action in the SAC. American argues that

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for the

claim.

In its April 19, 2005 order, the Court construed Plaintiff's

retaliation claim as arising under FEHA and Title VII. The Court

ruled that Plaintiff had not included, in the FAC, any factual

bases for her argument that the March 12, 2003 EEOC questionnaire

constituted a formal charge, and ruled further that the

questionnaire that Plaintiff had submitted to the Court, which did

not include the attachment that apparently had been submitted to

the EEOC describing her allegations of discrimination, harassment

and retaliation, did not adequately describe the actions of which

she complained. The Court dismissed the retaliation claim with

leave to amend, ruling that Plaintiff was required to show that she

had satisfied the two requirements for exhaustion: (1) timely

filing of an administrative charge of retaliation, and 

(2) obtaining a right-to-sue letter or, in the alternative,

justifying her lack of a right-to-sue letter.

Plaintiff has now submitted (1) the EEOC questionnaire, 

(2) the questionnaire attachment that details Plaintiff's

allegations of discrimination and harassment based upon her

national origin and retaliation for her complaints about the

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 11 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

discriminating and harassing activity, (3) the letter sent by the

EEOC which stated that, if Plaintiff did not check a particular

box, the questionnaire would be considered a formal charge, and 

(4) the letter dated June 30, 2003 from Plaintiff's counsel

requesting a right-to-sue letter based upon the questionnaire.

Plaintiff's fifth cause of action alleges retaliation based

upon protected oppositional activity while employed at American,

but it states that she was retaliated against for taking medical

leave. Taking medical leave is not oppositional activity. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff's EEOC questionnaire and its attachment

allege retaliation based only upon Plaintiff's complaints about

national origin discrimination. Retaliation for complaining of

national origin discrimination is not alleged in the SAC. 

Plaintiff's counsel represented at the hearing that the EEOC

questionnaire and its attachment constituted the charge upon which

Plaintiff is basing her claims in this case. Thus, Plaintiff has

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her fifth cause

of action for retaliation for taking medical leave.

V. Sixth Cause of Action

Plaintiff has alleged, for the first time, a cause of action

for unlawful business practices arising out of American's alleged

requirement that Plaintiff work more than forty hours per week

while only receiving wages for forty hours of work.

This cause of action must be dismissed. First, Plaintiff's

counsel represented to the Court at the April 8 hearing that he

would not add new parties or claims, and he was not granted leave

to do so. Second, the SAC alleges that Plaintiff was a member of

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 12 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

management at American. Individuals employed in executive,

administrative or professional categories are generally exempt from

the provisions of State law requiring overtime compensation for

overtime work. Cal. Lab. Code § 515(a). In her opposition brief,

Plaintiff argues that American had relieved her of supervisory

duties. However, that allegation is not made in the SAC. Thus,

Plaintiff's sixth cause of action fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, and must be dismissed. The Court does not

grant leave to amend this claim because Plaintiff did not have

leave to file it and it is not related to the remainder of her

complaint. However, the dismissal is without prejudice to refiling

as a separate case, if Plaintiff truthfully can do so without

contradicting the allegations in her earlier complaints or running

afoul of the statute of limitations.

VI. Defendant Gammon

At the April 8, 2005 hearing, the Court noted that Plaintiff

had failed to serve Mr. Gammon within the 120-day time limit

mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(m). At that

hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to serve

Mr. Gammon and set a deadline of May 23, 2005. To date, Plaintiff

still has not served Mr. Gammon with any pleading in this case. 

Thus, the claims against Mr. Gammon are dismissed.

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 13 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 14

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, American's motion to dismiss each

claim in the SAC (Docket No. 36) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's first,

second, third, fourth and fifth claims are dismissed with

prejudice. Plaintiff's sixth cause of action is dismissed without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/20/05 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04649-CW Document 44 Filed 07/20/05 Page 14 of 14