Devi v. Stanford Health Care

Background

Sanjeshni Devi worked for Stanford Health Care from 2019 until her termination in May 2024. The opinion states that Stanford Health Care terminated her for using a racial epithet and other inappropriate language at work. Devi’s original complaint asserted several employment-related claims. Her first amended complaint added five causes of action:

Devi alleged that her supervisor, Rozin Nisha, harassed and retaliated against her after Devi dated Nisha’s son, Mohammed Khan, who was also a Stanford Health Care employee. She also alleged that someone sent employment-related information to a supervisor at Kaiser Santa Rosa and that people connected to the dispute engaged in phone, social-media, and other harassment.

Stanford Health Care moved to dismiss the ninth through thirteenth causes of action and to strike related allegations. The court considered the motion without oral argument.

Motion to Dismiss

The court rejected Stanford Health Care’s argument that the new allegations should be dismissed because they were known before the amended-pleading deadline. Stanford Health Care had seen a redlined version of the proposed amended complaint and stipulated to the amendment. The court therefore declined to dismiss any portion of the amended complaint on that ground.

Ninth Cause of Action: Failure to Prevent FEHA Violations

The court held that this claim, as pleaded, required an underlying actionable discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claim. Devi argued that the alleged conduct amounted to sex, gender, or marital-status harassment. The court disagreed. It found that the allegations described a personal conflict arising from Devi’s romantic involvement with Nisha’s son, not conduct based on Devi’s gender, sex, or marital status.

Devi also relied in her opposition on allegations concerning race discrimination and participation in a coworker’s race-discrimination investigation. The court held that incorporating earlier paragraphs by reference did not give fair notice that those facts supported this specific cause of action. Because the scheduling order required good cause to amend after the pleading deadline and the relevant facts were already known when the amended complaint was filed, the court found that Devi could not show the required diligence. The ninth cause of action was dismissed without leave to amend in the body of the discussion, and the order’s conclusion states that it was dismissed with prejudice.

Tenth and Twelfth Causes of Action: Intentional Torts

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim and the claim concerning distribution of private sexually explicit materials. Under the principles discussed by the court, an employer generally is not responsible for an employee’s intentional tort when the conduct has no causal connection to the employee’s work and instead arises from purely personal reasons.

The court found that the alleged harassment was rooted in the personal conflict among Devi, Nisha, Khan, and Madina Azam. The fact that the people involved worked for Stanford Health Care was not enough to place the conduct within the scope of employment. The court also noted that the alleged social-media harassment occurred after Devi’s termination. Both causes of action were dismissed without leave to amend in the discussion, and the order’s conclusion states that the tenth and twelfth causes of action were dismissed with prejudice.

Eleventh Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court dismissed the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. Devi argued that Stanford Health Care owed her a duty after her termination to prevent the alleged harassment. The court rejected that argument and dismissed the eleventh cause of action without leave to amend in the discussion. The order’s conclusion states that the ninth through twelfth causes of action were dismissed with prejudice.

Thirteenth Cause of Action: Blacklisting

Devi alleged that Stanford Health Care and unidentified employees or agents tried to prevent her from obtaining full-time employment by misrepresenting her qualifications, background, and experience to Kaiser Permanente. She later clarified that the alleged communication included information from her personnel file, the reason for her termination, and accusations that she harassed Azam.

The court found that the allegations did not clearly identify which information was false, whether Devi suffered harm connected to the alleged misrepresentations, or whether the communication was sent before or after Kaiser employed her. The court explained that a blacklisting claim requires a false representation to a prospective employer, rather than a current employer, and a resulting harm. It dismissed the thirteenth cause of action but granted leave to amend. The court directed that any second amended complaint be filed within 14 days and cautioned that Devi should not file one unless she could plausibly allege every required element.

Motion to Strike and Disposition

Because the court dismissed the claims concerning Devi’s interpersonal relationship with Khan and the resulting events, it granted Stanford Health Care’s motion to strike paragraphs 23 through 32 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The court found those paragraphs immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous.

In its conclusion, the court granted the motion to dismiss; dismissed the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth causes of action with prejudice; dismissed the thirteenth cause of action with leave to amend; granted the motion to strike; and struck paragraphs 23 through 32. If Devi did not timely file a second amended complaint, Stanford Health Care was required to answer the first amended complaint within 15 days after the amendment deadline.