Khankin v. CSL Behring, L.L.C.

Background

Eliyahu Khankin alleged that he began working remotely for CSL Behring, L.L.C. in July 2021 and that the company terminated his employment in October 2023. He filed a discrimination charge with the California Civil Rights Department, which issued him a notice of right to sue. He then filed this lawsuit in state court, and CSL Behring removed it to federal court.

Khankin’s First Amended Complaint asserted twelve causes of action, including promissory estoppel; retaliation; wrongful termination; discrimination and harassment; failure to prevent and investigate discrimination and harassment; failure to provide reasonable accommodation; intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unfair business practices; invasion of the constitutional right to privacy; and defamation. CSL Behring moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The company challenged every cause of action except promissory estoppel.

Request for judicial notice

Khankin asked the court to take judicial notice of documents from a state-court case. The court denied that request because it was not necessary to decide the motion and because Khankin’s brief did not provide a citation for the purported reference to that case in the court’s earlier order.

Court’s analysis

Sixth cause of action: failure to provide reasonable accommodation

The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend. It held that Khankin had not adequately alleged that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his position. The court also found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that CSL Behring failed to provide a reasonable and effective accommodation for his hearing impairment. The complaint stated that the company offered to seat him at the front of the room at future meetings, that he explained this would reduce his ability to read lips, and that he said sitting in the back would be easiest. But it did not state that the company refused to let him sit in the back or otherwise failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Tenth cause of action: unfair business practices

The court held that the claim was sufficient under the California Unfair Competition Law’s “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs. It dismissed the claim in part with leave to amend under the statute’s “fraudulent” prong because the complaint did not adequately identify fraudulent or deceptive conduct. The court stated that a second amended complaint must either provide additional support for that prong or remove those allegations.

Eleventh cause of action: invasion of constitutional privacy rights

The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend. Khankin alleged that a personality test might reveal disabilities or expose sensitive medical details. The court found those allegations conclusory and speculative. It also found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that CSL Behring disclosed private information or intruded on Khankin’s privacy in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Remaining claims and punitive damages

The court denied the motion to dismiss the retaliation, wrongful-termination, discrimination-and-harassment, failure-to-prevent-and-investigate, intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress, breach-of-contract, breach-of-implied-covenant, and defamation claims. CSL Behring did not challenge the first cause of action for promissory estoppel in this motion. The court also denied the motion as to punitive damages, finding that, assuming the factual allegations were true at this stage, it was plausible that Khankin could receive punitive damages.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered that: