Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03888/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03888-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-3888 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed 03/31/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOYCE JONES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T, a corporation doing business in California;

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY;

STEPHANIE CHANDLER; CINDY TSUE, and

GABRIEL REYES,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-3888 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 1

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

IN PART 

[re: docket no. 23]

On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff Joyce Jones (“Jones”) filed the instant action against

Defendants AT&T (“AT&T”), Stephanie Chandler (“Chandler”), Cindy Tsue (“Tsue”), and

Gabriel Reyes (“Reyes”) alleging racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to take all

reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, failure to maintain an environment free from

harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Family Medical

Leave Act (“FMLA”). On November 21, 2007, based upon information that Pacific Bell

Case 5:07-cv-03888-JF Document 32 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

2

Case No. C 07-3888 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

(JFEX2)

Telephone Company (“PacBell”) was Jones’ employer and the proper corporate defendant, Jones

filed the operative amended complaint (“Complaint”) and added PacBell. AT&T moves to

dismiss. The Court has considered the moving and responding papers and the argument of

counsel at the hearing on March 28, 2008. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be

granted, with leave to amend in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Jones is an African-American female employed by AT&T and/or PacBell as a Collection

Representative. AT&T is a New York corporation doing business in California. Jones’

complaint alleges the following: Jones began her employment with AT&T and/or PacBell on

August 14, 2000. On January 13, 2003, Jones filed an internal grievance with AT&T and/or

PacBell alleging discriminatory treatment by Chandler. Jones alleges that, in retaliation for this

grievance, and because of her race and serious health condition, she was harassed and subjected

to differential treatment. Jones also alleges that she was disciplined for absences occurring while

she was on approved family medical leave and was denied future family medical leave.

Jones also alleges that, during the course of her employment she was racially harassed by

a co-worker. When Jones reported this to Chandler, Chandler allegedly took no action. 

Moreover, the benefits to which Jones was entitled while on approved family medical leave

allegedly were terminated. In response, Jones filed an administrative complaint with the

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) for race and disability

discrimination and retaliation. Jones alleges that as a result, she continued to be subjected to

retaliatory treatment. 

Jones also lodged a report with her employer’s Equal Employment Officer regarding

perceived discrimination by Tsue and Chandler, which she alleges also resulted in retaliation. 

Specifically, Jones asserts that there was a significant increase in the number of reprimands she

received from her supervisors for alleged customer complaints that were placed in her file

without opportunity for review or rebuttal. She also alleges that she was required to take a “Rate

of Speech Test,” and that other non-African American employees were not subjected to the same

Case 5:07-cv-03888-JF Document 32 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

3

Case No. C 07-3888 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

(JFEX2)

treatment upon receipt of customer complaints.

Jones alleges that her seniority was usurped by a lower-level employee and she was not

recognized for achievements in the workplace in the same manner as non-African American

employees. Jones later reported retaliatory treatment by Tsue and by a customer, but she claims

that nothing was done to correct the situation. Jones subsequently filed a second complaint with

the DFEH. As a result, Jones was allegedly subjected to a hostile work environment, including

forced alienation. For example, Jones claims she was assigned to a specific seat ,while other

representatives sat where they wanted to sit.

Finally, Jones alleges that Tsue suspended her for four days based on a customer

complaint, without allowing Jones the opportunity to present her side of what took place during

the customer call. Tsue allegedly spoke to the customer about Jones without the presence of a

union representative, in violation of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”). 

Allegedly, Jones later was warned of the possibility of further discipline based on a new

customer complaint. As a result, she was advised she could not transfer into another department

for more pay for the next twelve months. She allegedly was forced to go through customerservice training, after which she continued to be admonished about the way she was doing her

job.

AT&T asserts that dismissal is appropriate because Jones has failed to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), and because the statute of

limitations on Jones’ FMLA claim has expired.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, and the

Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). “A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that

no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Furthermore, leave to amend

must be granted unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by

Case 5:07-cv-03888-JF Document 32 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

4

Case No. C 07-3888 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

(JFEX2)

amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). When

amendment would be futile, however, dismissal may be ordered with prejudice. Dumas v. Kipp,

90 F.3d 386, 393 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Judicial Notice

In support of its motion to dismiss, AT&T asks the Court to take notice pursuant to

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of the following documents: (1) the CBA between PacBell and the

Communications Workers of America (“CWA”); (2) the 2003 DFEH Complaint; (3) a Notice of

the Unemployment Insurance Claim Filed (“Unemployment Insurance Claim”); (4) a Proof of

Service and Service of Process Transmittal; (5) AT&T’s Administrative Application to Extend

Time to Respond to Jones’ Amended Complaint (“Administrative Application”); (6) Jones’

Opposition to Administrative Application (“Opposition”); and (7) the Corporation Record of

PacBell and of AT&T (“Corporation Records”).

The Court may take judicial notice of public records and reports of administrative bodies,

Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986); Interstate

Natural Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953), and of its

own records. See e.g. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 157 (1969); Hymes v.

Procunier, 428 F.2d 824, 824 (9th Cir. 1970). Under the “incorporation by reference” doctrine,

the Court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint and that are accepted by

all parties as authentic, even if the documents are not physically attached to the complaint. In re

Silicon Graphics, Inc., 183 F.3d 970. The Unemployment Insurance Claim and the Corporation

Records both are valid public records. The Proof of Service, Administrative Application and

Opposition all are admissible court records. Jones’s complaint specifically refers both to the

DFEH complaint and to the CBA, which governed the terms and conditions of her employment. 

Moreover, relevant case law supports the proposition that the Court may take judicial notice of a

CBA in evaluating a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Easton v. Siemens, No. 07-315, 2007 WL

1500724, at *1, fn. 5 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2007). Such documents properly are considered as

Case 5:07-cv-03888-JF Document 32 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

Among other things, the amended complaint must satisfy the requirements of Federal 2

Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). 

5

Case No. C 07-3888 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

(JFEX2)

materials “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they are “capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b). 

B. Liability of AT&T

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 prohibits racial discrimination by an employer against an

employee. Similarly, the FEHA prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee. 

Govt. Code § 12940(a). The FMLA prohibits an employer from interfering with or

discriminating against an employee exercising her FMLA rights. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615, 2617. A

plaintiff may not prevail on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress unless the

plaintiff can establish that the defendant owed that plaintiff a legal duty. See, e.g., 5 Witkin,

Summary of California Law, Torts § 6 at 48-49 (10th ed. 2005).

While Jones alleges that she was employed by AT&T and/or PacBell, AT&T argues that

the referenced documents establish that PacBell was Jones’s true employer at the time of the

alleged violations. The CBA and Jones’s Unemployment Insurance Claim both list PacBell as

the employer. Moreover, Jones herself lists PacBell as her employer on her DFEH complaint. 

Jones asserts that AT&T should be held liable under a “joint employer” theory of liability. 

However, although Jones articulates the factors for determining the existence of a joint employer

relationship under both Title VII and FEHA, she provides no factual allegations illustrating that

these factors are present.

In its current form, the complaint and incorporated documents are insufficient to state a

claim that AT&T was Jones’s employer or co-employer. At oral argument, Jones’s counsel

represented that he would attempt to allege additional facts. Accordingly, the Court indicated

that it would allow Jones forty-five days within which to file an amended complaint. The Court 2

further stated that if Jones fails to file an amended complaint within that time, the claims against

AT&T will be dismissed without leave to amend.

Case 5:07-cv-03888-JF Document 32 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

6

Case No. C 07-3888 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

(JFEX2)

C. Family Medical Leave Act

An employee whose FMLA rights have been violated has the choice of (1) filing a

complaint with the Secretary of Labor, or (2) filing a private lawsuit. 29 C.F.R. § 825.400(a). If

the employee chooses to file a private lawsuit, the suit must be filed within two years after the

last action which the employee contends was in violation of the Act, or three years if the alleged

violation was willful. 29 C.F.R. § 825.400(b).

Jones alleges that she was denied family medical leave on February 26, 2003, and that

benefits to which she was entitled while on leave from April 30, 2003 to approximately June 15,

2003, were improperly terminated. Jones filed her original complaint on July 30, 2007, which is

more than four years after the last action that she alleges violated the FMLA. Accordingly, the

claim is subject to dismissal. Because Jones conceded at the hearing that the statute of

limitations has expired, the claim will be dismissed without leave to amend.

IV. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Leave to amend is

granted as set forth above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 31, 2008.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03888-JF Document 32 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

7

Case No. C 07-3888 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Counsel for Plaintiff

Waukeen Quandrico McCoy

mccoylawsf@yahoo.com

Counsel for Defendants

Susan Tayeko Kumagai

skumagai@lkclaw.com

Case 5:07-cv-03888-JF Document 32 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 7