Yoon v. Intuit Inc.

Background

John Yoon originally filed the case in California state court. After Yoon filed a First Amended Complaint, Intuit removed the case to the Northern District of California, asserting federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.

Yoon alleged that Intuit hired him as a remote Senior Machine Learning Engineer in December 2020. He alleged that he later developed depression, generalized anxiety disorder, an immune disorder, and an attention deficit disorder after his mother’s death. He took medical leave, temporarily relocated to Texas, and later sought to relocate there permanently. Intuit denied that request, ended his remote-work status, and required him to work in person in Mountain View. Yoon then requested remote work as a religious accommodation. Intuit allowed him to work remotely through January 8, 2024, but told him that his employment would end on December 22, 2023, for administrative reasons. Yoon alleged that his termination was discriminatory and retaliatory.

The First Amended Complaint asserted eight causes of action under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Labor Code section 1102.5, and California public-policy law. The claims included disability or medical-condition discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation, retaliation, retaliation related to family and medical leave, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Motion to Remand and Attorneys’ Fees

Yoon argued that the case lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction because there were no federal claims and both parties were California citizens. Intuit argued that Yoon was domiciled in Texas and that the First Amended Complaint appeared to allege a claim under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

The court granted Intuit’s request for judicial notice of a Texas property record showing Yoon as the owner and overruled Yoon’s objections to Intuit’s declarations and exhibits. The court found that the evidence showed Yoon was domiciled in Texas. The court relied on evidence that Yoon had not lived in California since at least July 2023, maintained no California residence, owned property in Texas, had described his move to Texas as permanent or indefinite, worked in Texas, voted in Texas, had a Texas driver’s license, and had family in Texas. The court found that Yoon’s California doctor’s appointment and his statement that he considered California his permanent home did not overcome that evidence.

The court also held that Yoon had waived the forum-defendant rule. That rule generally limits removal based on diversity jurisdiction when the defendant is a citizen of the state where the lawsuit was filed. The court treated the rule as a procedural, non-jurisdictional requirement that had to be raised within 30 days after removal. Because Yoon filed his motion to remand more than 30 days after Intuit removed the case, the court found that he waived the rule. The court therefore found removal based on diversity jurisdiction proper and denied Yoon’s request for attorneys’ fees.

Motion to Dismiss

Intuit’s motion targeted portions of two of Yoon’s eight claims: his FEHA failure-to-accommodate claim based on religious practices and his FEHA retaliation claims to the extent they were based on religious beliefs.

For the religious-accommodation claim, Intuit argued that it had reasonably accommodated Yoon by allowing him to work remotely during November and December 2023. Yoon argued that the accommodation was inadequate because Intuit terminated him during December. The court held that the First Amended Complaint showed Intuit allowed Yoon to work remotely during the relevant period and that the termination occurred only after that period of accommodation. The court found that Yoon had not alleged facts showing that Intuit failed to accommodate his religious practices. It granted dismissal of that portion of the claim with leave to amend.

For the religious-retaliation claim, Intuit argued that Yoon based the claim on a complaint to Intuit’s ethics investigator after his employment had already ended. Yoon argued that Intuit’s failure to rehire him after that complaint could constitute retaliation. The court found that the post-termination ethics complaint and alleged failure to investigate could not support the retaliation claim as pleaded. It also found that Yoon did not allege that he applied for an open position or otherwise sought employment with Intuit after his termination. The court stated that Yoon might be able to plead a retaliation claim based on events occurring before his termination and granted dismissal of the religious-retaliation portion with leave to amend.

Order

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Yoon’s Motion for Order Remanding Case to State Court and for Attorneys’ Fees of $5,400. The court granted Intuit’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Yoon was ordered to file an amended complaint by September 30, 2025, and could not add claims or parties without further court approval.