Hernandez v. Golden Gate Regional Center

Background

Juana Lorena Hernandez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC) and Aveanna Healthcare, LLC. She asserted a Title VII employment claim and state-law claims. The opinion states that James Cheng, who was not a defendant, was alleged to have been Hernandez’s employer along with the defendants and to have engaged in alleged physical abuse of a disabled adult and alleged sexual harassment.

The defendants separately moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The court decided the motions based on the parties’ written submissions and vacated the hearing scheduled for November 22, 2024.

Title VII claim

The court dismissed Hernandez’s Title VII claim for several independent reasons stated in the opinion:

- As to GGRC, Hernandez did not plead facts supporting her conclusory allegation that GGRC was her employer. Title VII imposes liability for discrimination on employers. - To the extent Hernandez claimed that she was terminated because of her sex, she did not allege facts supporting that theory. Instead, she alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for reporting Cheng’s alleged physical abuse of a disabled person. - To the extent Hernandez claimed retaliation for making that report, she did not allege facts showing that the report opposed a practice made unlawful by Title VII or concerned a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing. - To the extent Hernandez alleged that Cheng sexually harassed her during her employment, she did not plead facts showing that Aveanna or GGRC, assuming they were joint employers with Cheng, knew or should have known about the alleged conduct and failed to take prompt corrective action. - The court also held that the Title VII claim was time-barred based on the allegations that Hernandez was terminated in May 2022 and filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge on April 15, 2024. The court assumed, for purposes of the motions, that the claim accrued on May 31, 2022. The court stated that the charge was filed more than 300 days after the termination and that Hernandez alleged no facts supporting an exception to the filing deadline. The opinion notes Hernandez stated in her oppositions that she submitted a charge to California’s Civil Rights Department on January 27, 2023.

State-law claims and disposition

Because the Title VII claim was subject to dismissal and the case remained at an early stage, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hernandez’s state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to reasserting them in an amended complaint or in state court.

The order granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, afforded Hernandez leave to amend, and required any First Amended Complaint to be filed by December 13, 2024. The opinion does not state a separate prejudice designation for the dismissal of the Title VII claim.