Sangster v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Background

Eileen Sangster sued Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, LLC, her former employers, after the action was removed from California state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Sangster alleged gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, whistleblower retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive discharge in violation of public policy, and a California Equal Pay Act claim.

According to the complaint, Sangster worked for Hewlett Packard beginning in 2011 and moved to Aruba Networks in 2016. She alleged that women were paid less than men for comparable work, given higher performance goals, excluded from meetings, subjected to inappropriate comments, and treated adversely after raising concerns. She alleged that she left her employment on or about May 25, 2022, because she could no longer withstand the alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it failed to state legally sufficient claims. At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether the complaint contains enough facts to make liability plausible. The court does not decide whether the allegations are ultimately true.

Court’s Analysis

Gender discrimination

The court held that Sangster adequately alleged an adverse employment action and a discriminatory motive under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. She alleged that female employees were given higher sales goals than male employees, which imposed additional burdens and could affect compensation, career prospects, and advancement. She also alleged that a supervisor changed goals to give relief to men while increasing the goals for Sangster and another female employee. The court further found that her allegations about exclusion from meetings, discouragement from speaking, different performance standards, and disparaging comments could support a claim under a totality-of-the-circumstances theory.

Gender harassment

The court held that Sangster sufficiently alleged gender-based harassment that could be severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. The allegations included a workplace culture favoring men, conduct that demeaned or discouraged women, unequal pay, higher performance goals, exclusion from meetings, and inappropriate comments. The court found that these allegations, taken together, went beyond isolated offensive remarks.

Retaliation

The court held that Sangster adequately alleged retaliation. She identified several complaints about conduct she believed was discriminatory, including complaints to management and a supervisor. She also alleged that after making those complaints, she received higher sales goals, was ignored by supervisors, and was labeled “emotional.” The court concluded that these allegations supported a possible causal connection between her protected complaints and the alleged adverse treatment. It stated that factual disputes about whether the hostile work environment existed before or continued after her complaints were matters for summary judgment or trial.

Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation

Because the court found that Sangster adequately alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, it also found that her allegations of repeated misconduct over several years sufficiently supported her claim that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent that conduct.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the claim was barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. Relying on California authority, the court stated that discrimination and retaliation violating the Fair Employment and Housing Act fall outside the workers’ compensation bargain. The court also found that Sangster alleged more than ordinary personnel-management decisions: she alleged unequal pay, more demanding performance measures, and ostracism and exclusion. Those allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal, although the court did not decide whether she could ultimately prove the claim.

Constructive discharge

A constructive-discharge claim alleges that an employer’s conduct effectively forced an employee to resign. The defendants argued that the time between the alleged discriminatory conduct and Sangster’s resignation undermined this claim. The court held that the timing was not automatically decisive and that whether the working conditions were intolerable was normally a question of fact. Because Sangster alleged a continuing pattern of discriminatory treatment, including unequal opportunities and higher performance standards, the court found that she alleged enough to support the claim at the pleading stage.

California Equal Pay Act

The court held that Sangster adequately alleged that she and male coworkers performed substantially similar work but received different pay because of gender. She alleged that male sales employees received lighter sales goals that enabled them to earn more, while she was the lowest-paid member of her team despite performing similar work and having the highest goals. The court stated that identical jobs were not required at this stage.

Disposition

The court DENIED the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It also DENIED the defendants’ request for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), finding the complaint’s allegations adequate. The court set a case management conference for July 30, 2024, with a joint case management statement due July 23, 2024. This order addressed whether the complaint was sufficiently pleaded; it did not decide whether Sangster will ultimately prevail.

Name discrepancy

The caption identifies the plaintiff as “EILEEN SANGSTER,” while the background section refers to “Ellen Sangster.” This summary follows the caption’s name.