Ezeokoli v. Youth Employment Partnership

Background

Plaintiff Chidimma Ezeokoli is a former employee of Defendant Youth Employment Partnership, Inc. (YEP). YEP terminated her employment in November 2025. Ms. Ezeokoli filed suit alleging: (1) retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) violation of California Labor Code §§ 226 (accurate itemized wage statements) and 227.3 (payment of accrued vacation upon termination); and (3) violation of California Labor Code §§ 1198.5(a) and 432, relating to an employee's right to inspect and receive copies of personnel records and signed employment instruments. Ms. Ezeokoli is proceeding pro se (without a lawyer). YEP moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court held a hearing on August 20, 2026.

Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief — not merely recite elements of a cause of action. The court accepts all factual allegations as true and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The plausibility standard, established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, requires more than a sheer possibility of unlawful conduct.

Retaliation and Wrongful Termination (Count 1)

Ms. Ezeokoli alleged she engaged in protected activity by complaining about disparate treatment — specifically, that older men received more favorable leave treatment — and that YEP terminated her in retaliation. To state a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) engagement in a protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the two.

The court agreed with YEP that Ms. Ezeokoli failed to adequately plead these claims. Her October 29, 2025 email referred to differential treatment but did not assert discrimination on the basis of sex, which is the protected characteristic under Title VII. Accordingly, the timing of her termination (several days after the email) did not give rise to a reasonable inference of retaliation for protected activity under Title VII.

Although Ms. Ezeokoli's complaint did allege she made verbal complaints to her supervisor (identified only as "Melissa") about sex-based disparate treatment in leave enforcement, the complaint did not identify when those verbal complaints were made or how they related temporally to her termination. The court noted that Ms. Ezeokoli attempted to supplement these allegations in her opposition brief, but the court's review under Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to the four corners of the complaint, not assertions made in briefing.

The court dismissed the retaliation and wrongful termination claims but granted leave to amend. The court cautioned that any repleading must comply with Rule 11 — meaning factual allegations must have evidentiary support or a reasonable basis for belief that such support will emerge through discovery.

Wage Statements and Vacation Benefits (Count 2)

Ms. Ezeokoli alleged YEP violated California Labor Code § 226, which requires employers to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and § 227.3, which requires payment of all vested vacation time as wages upon termination.

YEP argued the claim failed because the complaint alleged that YEP sent, and Ms. Ezeokoli received, four paychecks at the time of termination. The court rejected this argument, noting that YEP ignored Ms. Ezeokoli's implicit contention that YEP's assessment of what it owed her was inaccurate.

However, the complaint itself lacked specific details about how YEP underpaid her — such as allegations about the amount of vacation time owed versus paid. Ms. Ezeokoli's opposition brief provided more specific figures (e.g., that YEP paid approximately $1,617.28 out of $3,234.55 owed for vacation benefits, and that YEP allegedly applied vacation time to prior absences without her knowledge), but these allegations were not in the complaint. The court also noted that Ms. Ezeokoli's brief raised a potential new claim for failure to reimburse business expenses, which was not pled in the complaint.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Count 2 with leave to amend. In any amended complaint, Ms. Ezeokoli must explain specifically how her wage statements were inaccurate and why she was not paid her full vacation benefits. She may also add a new claim for failure to reimburse business expenses, if she can do so consistent with Rule 11.

Employment Records (Count 3)

Ms. Ezeokoli alleged violations of California Labor Code § 1198.5(a), which gives employees the right to inspect and receive copies of their personnel records, and § 432, which requires employers to give employees a copy of any instrument they signed related to obtaining or holding employment, upon request.

YEP moved to dismiss on the grounds that it had provided all requested records within the statutory timeframe, relying on a declaration from its Director of Finance and Administration. The court rejected this basis for dismissal, holding that the declaration was outside the four corners of the complaint and therefore could not be considered at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.

Nevertheless, the court found the claim as pled to be vague. Ms. Ezeokoli's opposition brief provided additional specifics — including that YEP failed to provide a complete employee handbook, disciplinary policies, and leave balance documentation, and that YEP allegedly altered a timecard by adding approximately thirteen hours of vacation time after Ms. Ezeokoli had already reviewed and initialed it. However, these allegations were not in the complaint, and the court also observed it was unclear how an alleged alteration of records would constitute a violation of the specific statutes at issue.

The court dismissed Count 3 with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted YEP's motion to dismiss all claims, with leave to amend. Ms. Ezeokoli has until October 19, 2026, to file an amended complaint. If she fails to timely file, the court stated it will automatically dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning the case would be permanently closed and could not be refiled). The court directed Ms. Ezeokoli, as a pro se litigant, to resources on the court's website, including the Legal Help Centers and the District's Pro Se Handbook.