Rahman v. Google LLC

Background

Eric Rahman sued Google LLC over the termination of his employment in March 2023. The opinion states that Rahman worked for Google from June 2020 through March 2023, was an enlisted Army reservist, and worked remotely from Florida. He alleged that he helped secure a software sale to the U.S. Army worth nearly $19 million, was removed from work on that sale, and was fired while away on military duty.

Rahman asserted claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, military-status discrimination under that Act, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, breach of contract, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Google moved to dismiss all claims except the USERRA claim.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and viewed them in Rahman’s favor, but it did not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

California employment and unfair-competition claims

The court held that Rahman did not allege enough facts to support applying California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA, to his employment. The court explained that this question depends on both the location of the employment and the location of the key conduct underlying the claim.

The opinion states that Rahman worked primarily from Florida and alleged only two specifically identified meetings at Google’s Mountain View, California office. He did not allege where his principal work occurred, where the decision-makers were located, or where the conduct underlying his termination took place. The court therefore dismissed his FEHA claims with leave to amend.

The court also dismissed Rahman’s California Unfair Competition Law claim with leave to amend because that claim depended on an underlying FEHA violation.

Breach-of-contract claim

The court held that Rahman did not adequately plead a breach-of-contract claim. He alleged that Google denied him a commission connected to the Army Workspace deal and relied on a “Sale Bonus Plan” included in his offer letter. But he did not explain the relationship between that plan and the commissions he claimed were owed, how any quarterly bonus would be calculated, or whether he satisfied the plan’s conditions.

The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim with leave to amend.

Statute of limitations

The court held that Rahman’s wrongful-termination, intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. The opinion states that Rahman’s last day of employment was March 31, 2023, and that he filed suit on May 12, 2025, more than two years later. Elsewhere, the opinion states that he filed suit on June 18, 2025.

Rahman argued that his administrative claim with the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service paused the limitations period. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the administrative claim did not give Google notice of the later termination-related claims because the termination occurred after the administrative complaint. As to intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court concluded that the administrative process and the common-law claim involved separate procedures and remedies, and that Rahman identified no California authority requiring tolling in these circumstances.

The court dismissed all three common-law claims without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss. The dismissal was with leave to amend except as to the common-law claims. Rahman had 35 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. If he did not do so, the order stated that his non-USERRA claims against Google would be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not state that the USERRA claim was dismissed; Google’s motion did not seek dismissal of that claim.