Yeh v. Mayorkas

Background

Jennifer Yeh alleged that she experienced discrimination, harassment, retaliation, disability-related conduct, and interference with medical leave during her employment as an attorney at the Federal Emergency Management Agency from 2014 until her termination in 2018. Her first amended complaint asserted 37 causes of action against Alejandro Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, and several individual defendants.

Yeh had previously pursued an administrative equal-employment-opportunity proceeding. The administrative judge found in FEMA’s favor on the merits of her claims but awarded $10,000 in nominal damages because FEMA did not complete its investigation and timely provide her a report of investigation. The Office of Federal Operations affirmed that decision, and the agency denied Yeh’s request for reconsideration.

Judicial notice

The court granted defendants’ request to take judicial notice of three official documents from Yeh’s administrative proceeding. The court stated that these documents were public administrative records and that Yeh did not oppose the request.

Rule 8 and Rule 12 dismissal

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8. Although it contained 190 pages of allegations, it did not clearly identify the legal violation, the facts supporting each claim, the date of each incident, the people involved, the defendants sued on each claim, or how the alleged facts satisfied the elements of a viable claim. The court also stated that several claims were repetitive and should be combined, such as separate retaliation claims based on individual incidents.

Because the complaint failed to comply with Rule 8, the court declined to address each of the 37 causes of action on the merits.

Employment-discrimination claims

The court explained that federal employees’ employment-discrimination claims based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin generally must proceed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It also identified the Rehabilitation Act as the applicable exclusive remedy for federal disability-discrimination claims and the Family and Medical Leave Act as a possible source of claims concerning interference with covered leave rights.

The court ruled that, to the extent Yeh asserted employment-discrimination claims under other statutory or constitutional theories—including the California Labor Code and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985—those claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court ordered that Yeh not include those claims in a second amended complaint.

The court also ruled that Yeh could not bring federal employment-discrimination claims against the individual defendants. For Title VII and Rehabilitation Act claims, the proper defendant is the head of the relevant agency. The court stated that Yeh could potentially allege separate tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but she could not use those claims to assert employment discrimination against the individual defendants.

Federal Tort Claims Act claims

Defendants argued that Yeh’s tort claims failed because she had not named the United States as the proper defendant and had not shown that she exhausted the required administrative process. The court explained that a Federal Tort Claims Act case generally cannot be filed unless the claimant first presents a written claim to the appropriate federal agency, including a specific claim for money damages, and the agency finally denies the claim in writing.

The court found it unclear whether Yeh had presented a formal tort claim or had instead made informal complaints about workplace discrimination. It granted leave to amend so she could allege exhaustion and add the United States as a defendant for Federal Tort Claims Act claims. The court stated that she should not include those tort claims if she could not allege compliance with all presentment requirements.

Administrative Procedure Act claims

The court dismissed all claims under the Administrative Procedure Act with prejudice. Yeh confirmed that she sought review of the final agency decision in her discrimination proceeding, but the court concluded that she already had an adequate remedy through her federal employment-discrimination lawsuit. The court therefore found that the Administrative Procedure Act did not provide an additional actionable remedy for the claims described.

Family and Medical Leave Act claims

Defendants argued that the Family and Medical Leave Act’s provisions covering federal employees do not provide a private right to sue. The court stated that federal employees generally covered by Title II of that law cannot bring such private suits because the government has not waived its immunity for them.

The court concluded that Yeh had not adequately alleged that she was a Title I employee rather than a Title II employee. It granted her leave to amend to allege facts establishing Title I coverage. If she could not do so, the court stated that she should not include Family and Medical Leave Act claims in the second amended complaint.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Yeh was required to file a second amended complaint by July 3, 2025. She was not permitted to add new claims or new parties, except for adding the United States in connection with claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court also continued the case-management conference from June 24, 2025, to September 23, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. by videoconference.