Gammon v. Granholm

Background

Stuart Gammon alleged that he worked as an SES Chemist at Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) and that he had Attention Deficit Disorder. He asserted claims against Chris Wright, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Department of Energy, and the National Nuclear Security Administration (collectively, the Federal Defendants) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and the Whistleblower Protection Act. He asserted similar claims against LLNS under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Labor Code section 1102.5.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Federal Defendants’ Motion

The court granted the Federal Defendants’ motion. It explained that claims against the federal government or its agencies generally require a waiver of sovereign immunity. The Federal Defendants argued that Gammon had not alleged that he was a federal employee. Gammon clarified that he was relying on a joint-employment theory, under which an individual may have more than one employer.

The court found that Gammon’s allegations—that LLNS received directions through the Federal Defendants, that the Department of Energy issued clearances, that the National Nuclear Security Administration directed needed projects, and that it funded certain audits—were insufficient to plead that either Federal Defendant was his employer. The court did not decide the Federal Defendants’ alternative argument that Gammon failed to exhaust his Whistleblower Protection Act claim. It stated that Gammon would need to address that issue if he filed an amended complaint.

LLNS’s Motion

The court granted LLNS’s motion to dismiss Gammon’s disability-discrimination claim. Gammon alleged that LLNS officials required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination based on his mental health, with the intent to revoke his security clearance. The court did not decide whether the examination was job-related or a business necessity. Instead, it found that Gammon did not allege facts showing that the examination materially affected his employment; for example, he did not allege that his clearance was revoked or that he was disciplined or demoted.

The court granted LLNS’s motion to dismiss the sex-discrimination claim. Gammon alleged that male employees were denied job-sharing opportunities and that female employees received other favorable treatment, but he did not allege that he requested job sharing, identify similarly situated female employees who received it, or connect the other allegations to an adverse employment action affecting him.

As to the race-discrimination claim, the court denied LLNS’s exhaustion argument without prejudice to renewing it in a later motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. However, the court granted LLNS’s motion to dismiss the claim on the merits of the pleading. Gammon’s allegations that several employees were treated more favorably lacked facts about the alleged adverse actions or the different treatment. His allegation that non-white female employees received tuition reimbursement did not plausibly show different treatment based on race.

The court granted LLNS’s motion to dismiss the hostile-work-environment claim because Gammon did not connect the alleged unsafe work environment and near physical altercation to any protected trait, such as race, sex, age, or disability.

The court also granted LLNS’s motion to dismiss the whistleblower-retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5(b). Gammon alleged that he reported problems involving Lithium Hydroxide disposal, laboratory waste-management guidelines, and safety protocols, but he did not identify any federal or state law that he reasonably believed the conduct violated.

Leave to Amend and Case Management

The court granted Gammon leave to amend because it could not conclude that amendment would be futile. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed by March 25, 2025, and that defendants answer or otherwise respond by April 15, 2025. It also ordered the parties to appear for an initial case-management conference on May 2, 2025, with a joint conference statement due April 25, 2025.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court’s order did not resolve the underlying discrimination and retaliation allegations after a trial or other merits determination; it ruled on the sufficiency of Gammon’s pleadings and allowed him to amend.