Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC

Background

Michael Devin Floyd alleged that, after visiting Planet Fitness gyms in the Bay Area, he was watched by staff, called a “bum,” accused of conduct involving employees and other members, denied the opportunity to purchase a lock, asked to stop speaking with another gym member, and eventually banned from all Planet Fitness locations in the Bay Area. Floyd alleged that he is African-American and that the treatment was intentional discrimination. He also alleged that Saber did not notify him about or investigate reports concerning his conduct before ending his membership.

Floyd’s Second Amended Complaint asserted four claims: violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act; violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law; negligent training and supervision; and violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Saber moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim.

Unruh Act claim

The court held that Floyd’s Unruh Act claim was sufficiently pleaded at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court accepted his factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and found that his allegations—including that staff were instructed to watch him closely, that he was called a “bum,” and that he was accused of harassment without notice or investigation—provided a concrete factual basis supporting a plausible claim of intentional discrimination. The court denied Saber’s motion to dismiss this claim.

Unfair-competition claim

Floyd based his unfair-competition claim on the same conduct underlying his Unruh Act claim. The court concluded that, because the Unruh Act claim could proceed, Floyd had also sufficiently alleged an unfair-competition claim under California’s unfairness standard. The court denied Saber’s motion to dismiss this claim. The court also explained that damages generally cannot be recovered under California’s Unfair Competition Law, which is equitable in nature.

Negligent training and supervision claim

The court construed Floyd’s claim, despite the title used in the complaint, as a claim for negligent training and supervision. California law can impose liability when an employer knew or should have known that retaining an incompetent or unfit employee created a particular risk and that the particular harm occurred. The court found that Floyd again failed to allege facts showing Saber knew or should have known that its employment decisions were negligent. The court said dismissal was appropriate and, because Floyd was proceeding without a lawyer, gave him a final opportunity to amend this claim to allege those facts plausibly.

Fair Employment and Housing Act claim

The court granted Saber’s motion to dismiss Floyd’s Fair Employment and Housing Act claim. The court reasoned that the statute prohibits employment discrimination and that Floyd alleged he was a gym member, not an employee; he did not allege an employment relationship with Saber. The dismissal was with leave to amend, but only if Floyd could plausibly allege that Saber discriminated against him in his ability to seek, obtain, or hold employment because of a protected status.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Saber’s motion to dismiss. Floyd was permitted to file a Third Amended Complaint by September 20, 2024. The provided opinion text also discusses Saber’s request for a more definitive statement under Rule 10, but the excerpt is truncated before the court’s disposition of that request is shown.