Arakji v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

Mazen Arakji, representing himself, sued Abbott Laboratories, Amazon, Apple Inc., and Intel Corporation. He alleged that the companies failed to hire him because of a visible musculoskeletal disability in his left hand, his Arabic and Muslim name, Lebanese national origin, and Arabic ancestry and ethnic characteristics. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Arakji alleged that he had applied for many positions at each company and was qualified but was not hired. He also alleged that he disclosed his disability during the application process and received right-to-sue notices from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Complaint Correction

Arakji filed a document titled “Complaint Correction of Docket #1” while the motions were being briefed. The clerk’s office told him to refile it as an amended complaint, but he did not do so. Arakji later stated that he did not intend to file an amended complaint and was only correcting one paragraph. Because he was representing himself and the change was minor, the court treated the filing as an errata, meaning a correction that did not replace the original complaint.

Motions to Dismiss

Apple, Intel, and Abbott moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court found three principal pleading deficiencies.

First, the complaint did not give the defendants enough information to understand the claims. Arakji did not identify the positions he sought, when he applied for each position, when each company rejected his applications, or how and when he told the companies about his disability. The court also could not determine from the complaint whether the applications involved positions in California or whether the alleged injuries occurred within the applicable time limits.

Second, Arakji did not allege facts supporting a reasonable likelihood of discriminatory bias. The court explained that alleging membership in protected groups, qualifications, and failure to receive job offers was not enough by itself to support an inference that the companies acted because of those characteristics.

Third, the court found that Arakji did not sufficiently plead that he had completed the required administrative process for his Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims. Although he alleged that he received right-to-sue notices, he did not allege what his administrative charges said or attach those charges. The court therefore could not determine whether the claims in the lawsuit were within the scope of the matters presented to the administrative agencies.

The court granted Apple, Intel, and Abbott’s motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) without prejudice. Because the court could not determine whether additional facts might cure the deficiencies, it allowed Arakji an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

Improper Joinder

Intel separately moved to dismiss the claims against it without prejudice for improper joinder. Joinder concerns whether multiple parties or claims may properly be included in one lawsuit. The court found that Arakji alleged separate applications, at separate times, for separate jobs, followed by separate decisions by each company. He did not allege joint or collective action among the defendants.

The court granted Intel’s motion to drop Intel from the case without prejudice. It also dropped Amazon and Apple without prejudice under Rule 21, which permits a court to add or remove a party. If Arakji chose to amend his claims, the court required him to file three separate new lawsuits against Amazon, Apple, and Intel. He could file an amended complaint against Abbott under the existing case number.

Request for Security

Abbott asked the court to require Arakji to furnish security for costs because a California state court had declared him a vexatious litigant. The court denied the request at this time. It explained that federal law, rather than California law, governs whether a litigant may be treated as vexatious in federal court, and Arakji had not been declared vexatious in this federal court. The court also stated that Abbott had not identified a federal case requiring a plaintiff appearing in federal court for the first time to provide security based on a state-court vexatious-litigant finding.

Summary-Judgment Motions and Disposition

Arakji filed four motions for summary judgment against the defendants. Because the court granted the motions to dismiss, it terminated those motions as moot, meaning it did not decide them because they no longer required a ruling in light of the dismissals.

The court’s final disposition was to grant the motions to dismiss without prejudice, deny Abbott’s motion requiring Arakji to furnish security, and terminate Arakji’s summary-judgment motions as moot. The court set October 24, 2024, as the deadline for an amended complaint against Abbott under the current case number and required any amended claims against Amazon, Apple, or Intel to be filed in separate new cases.