Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02625/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02625-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER LE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION;

and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-05-02625 DFL KJM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Defendant California Nurses Association (“CNA”) moves to

dismiss plaintiff Jennifer Le’s (“Le”) suit for insufficient

service of process and failure to state a claim, or, in the

alternative, for summary judgment. In addition, CNA moves to

dismiss the complaint under the “anti strategic litigation

against public participation” statute (“anti-SLAPP” statute),

California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(a). For the reasons

stated below, the court denies CNA’s motion.

I.

Le alleges the following facts in her complaint. She worked

as an advice nurse for Kaiser Permanente (“Kaiser”) from January

Case 2:05-cv-02625-DFL -KJM Document 41 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 7
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

2

2002 until January 2004. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Kaiser requires

membership in CNA for all of its nursing staff. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

Le stopped paying CNA union dues when she learned CNA

supported political positions she disagreed with on religious

grounds. (Id. ¶ 11.) On October 7, 2003, Le sent a letter to

CNA notifying it of her religious objections and requesting a

refund of her dues that were not related to bargaining or

administrative expenses. (Id. ¶ 13.) She also requested that

CNA distribute the remaining portion of her union dues to a

non-profit charity of her choice. (Id.)

On October 14, 2003, CNA denied Le’s refund and contribution

request. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) CNA offered to contribute her

remaining dues to one of the five charities listed in the

collective bargaining agreement. (Id. ¶ 16.) On October 25,

2003, Le informed CNA that she had a religious objection to all

of the listed charities. (Id. ¶ 18.) CNA did not respond to

Le’s second letter. (Id. ¶ 20.)

On February 17, 2004, Kaiser offered Le a temporary

non-union position. (Id. ¶ 9.) CNA approved the new position in

April 2004. (Id.) In August 2004, Kaiser terminated Le because

she refused to prescribe “birth control” -- devices or

medication, the complaint does not specify -- to patients who

wanted birth control. (Id.)

Since October 2004, Le has worked at Catholic Healthcare

West (“CHW”) in Sacramento. (Id. ¶ 26.) A contract between CNA

and CHW requires CHW to hire only nurses who are members of CNA

Case 2:05-cv-02625-DFL -KJM Document 41 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

for most positions. (Id. ¶ 27.) Because Le is not a member of

CNA, she claims that she is prohibited from seeking advancement

or transfer to higher paid positions at CHW. (Id. ¶ 28.) In

addition, Le also alleges that she cannot seek future employment

with Kaiser because she is not a member of CNA. (Id. ¶ 32.) 

Based on these allegations, Le raises the following claims

against CNA: (1) failure to accommodate religious beliefs under

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; (2) intentional religious

discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; (3) intentional

religious discrimination under Cal.Gov.Code § 12900, et seq.; and

(4) failure to accommodate religious beliefs under Cal.Gov.Code §

12900, et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-104.) Her claims primarily seek

injunctive and declaratory relief. 

II.

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, in the

Alternative, for Summary Judgment

CNA argues that Le’s claim should be dismissed because she

did not suffer any discriminatory treatment. (Mot. at 12.) CNA

argues that it did not take any action against Le and, therefore,

she has no cause for complaint. To establish a prima facie case

of religious discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she

has a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which

conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer

of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her

or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including

discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job

Case 2:05-cv-02625-DFL -KJM Document 41 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 7
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 CNA also argues that, in the alternative, the court should 1

treat its motion as a motion for summary judgment. (Mot. at 3

n.2.) The court declines the invitation given that plaintiff has

4

requirements. Tiano v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679,

681 (9th Cir. 1998).

CNA claims that after Le notified it that she had a

religious objection to membership in the union, CNA did not

require her to continue to pay union dues and it advised Le’s

employer to stop deducting union dues from her paycheck. (Mot.

at 14.) CNA argues that it took no discriminatory actions

towards Le and any allegations about future harm she might suffer

are speculative. (Id.) 

On a motion to dismiss, Le adequately states a claim for

religious discrimination. She alleges that she has sincerely

held religious beliefs and that she informed CNA of those

beliefs. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.) She asserts that CNA discriminated

against her based on her religion by rejecting her request to

donate money to a charity outside of those listed in the

collective bargaining agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 20-22.) Because CNA

would not accommodate her religious beliefs, Le claims she cannot

be a member of CNA nor a “charity payer” in good standing. As a

consequence, she claims that she is restricted from working at

better paying positions which require her to be a CNA member or a

“charity payer.” (Id. ¶¶ 24-25, 27-33.) Whether meritorious or

not, this series of allegations adequately sets forth a claim for

religious discrimination. Therefore, the court DENIES CNA’s

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.1

Case 2:05-cv-02625-DFL -KJM Document 41 Filed 06/16/06 Page 4 of 7
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

not had the opportunity for discovery.

5

Although Le has alleged a claim, CNA has raised an issue as

to whether Le has suffered a sufficient injury to assert standing

to bring some or all of her claims. See Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992). In

particular, some or all of Le’s claims are based on the assertion

that she will be unable to advance or seek other, better paying

positions unless CNA permits her to designate other charities,

and, further, that CNA refuses to permit her to designate other

charities. Yet it is unclear that any employment or advancement

that Le is or will be seeking is subject to a collective

bargaining agreement with CNA that would limit Le to

contributions as to which she would object. After oral argument,

Le provided a declaration that is directed to the issue of

standing. If CNA considers that the declaration is inadequate,

it may take her deposition, limited to the question of standing,

and may make a further motion to dismiss some or all of her

claims for lack of standing.

B. Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process

CNA argues that Le’s claim should be dismissed for

insufficient service of process. (Mot. at 16-17.) Statutes that

govern substitute service are “liberally construed to effectuate

service and uphold jurisdiction if actual notice has been

received by the defendant.” Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc.,

6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1392 (1992). Although CNA notes a number of

problems with the service of process, it received actual notice. 

Case 2:05-cv-02625-DFL -KJM Document 41 Filed 06/16/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Therefore, the court DENIES CNA’s motion to dismiss for

insufficient service of process. 

C. Motion to Dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute

CNA argues that Le’s claim should be dismissed under the

Anti-SLAPP statute. (Mot. at 15.) Under the Anti-SLAPP statute,

“[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of

that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or

free speech under the United States or California Constitution in

connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special

motion to strike . . . .” Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16(b)(1). It

is doubtful that this statute has any application in federal

court even as to the state law claims. Assuming that it does,

the Anti-Slapp statute would not apply here. CNA concedes that

plaintiff has the right to divert a portion of her dues to

charities. The only issue is whether plaintiff has a further

First Amendment right to object to the alternative charities

identified in the collective bargaining agreement. This claim

does not chill CNA’s participation in the political and

legislative process. Therefore, the court DENIES CNA’s motion to

strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute.

III.

For the reasons stated above, the court: (1)DENIES CNA’s

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; (2) DECLINES to

treat CNA’s motion as a motion for summary judgment; (3) DENIES

CNA’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process; and

(4) DENIES CNA’s motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. 

Case 2:05-cv-02625-DFL -KJM Document 41 Filed 06/16/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

In addition, CNA may take a deposition of Le limited to the

issues raised by her declaration and then may file a further

motion to dismiss some or all of the claims, based on a lack of

standing, if it deems such a motion meritorious. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/15/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02625-DFL -KJM Document 41 Filed 06/16/06 Page 7 of 7