Malaspina v. Airlines

Background

John Malaspina sued American Airlines, Inc., alleging that the company relied on a “100% healed” policy, denied him accommodations, failed to reinstate him, retaliated against him, and terminated his employment. According to the First Amended Complaint, American employed Malaspina from 2007 to 2023. He suffered a traumatic brain injury in 2008 while operating a company vehicle and later sought work restrictions, accommodations, reinstatement, and transfers.

Malaspina asserted three claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): disability discrimination, denial of reasonable accommodation, and retaliation and interference. He asserted four claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation. He also asserted a whistleblower-retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5.

After receiving right-to-sue notices from the California Civil Rights Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Malaspina filed suit in state court on April 15, 2025. American Airlines removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss all claims.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a claim legally plausible. The court also considered a statute-of-limitations defense at the motion-to-dismiss stage because the alleged deadlines and filing dates appeared from the complaint and incorporated documents.

ADA and FEHA claims

The court held that the ADA claims were untimely. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued Malaspina’s right-to-sue notice on June 9, 2023, giving him 90 days to file an ADA lawsuit. The court determined that the deadline was September 11, 2023, at the latest, but Malaspina did not file until April 15, 2025.

The court also held that the FEHA claims were untimely. The California Civil Rights Department issued its right-to-sue notice on May 19, 2023. Even assuming the limitations period was extended while the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reviewed the matter, the court concluded that Malaspina had until June 9, 2024, to sue under FEHA. He filed approximately ten months after that deadline.

The court rejected Malaspina’s argument that he had four years from his termination to bring the FEHA claims. It also rejected his equitable-tolling arguments. The court found that the complaint did not allege specific facts showing that his brain injury prevented him from filing on time or that he acted diligently during the relevant limitations periods. The court further concluded that the earlier class action involving American Airlines could not toll the California claims and began after the ADA deadline had already expired. Malaspina conceded that the earlier Equal Employment Opportunity Commission consent decree did not provide statutory tolling.

California Labor Code section 1102.5 claim

The court denied dismissal of the section 1102.5 claim as time-barred. Malaspina sought damages rather than the civil penalty provided by section 1102.5(f). Applying a three-year limitations period to the damages claim, the court concluded that Malaspina filed within three years of his April 21, 2022 termination.

The court nevertheless dismissed the section 1102.5 claim for failure to state a claim. It applied the same pleading requirements to the FEHA and section 1102.5 retaliation claims: protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. The court found that the eight-month gap between Malaspina’s August 10, 2021 complaint and his termination was too long, by itself, to support causation. It also found that the complaint did not provide enough specific information about later complaints or accommodation requests, such as when they occurred, to whom they were made, or how American responded.

Disposition

The court granted American Airlines’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The first through seventh causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend because the ADA and FEHA claims were time-barred. The eighth cause of action under California Labor Code section 1102.5 was dismissed with leave to amend because it failed to state a claim, although the court found it timely. Malaspina was permitted to file a Second Amended Complaint by December 4, 2025. The court stated that failure to do so would result in entry of judgment for American Airlines on all claims.