Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Background

Mazen Arakji, representing himself, sued Microchip Technology, Inc. under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He alleged that Microsemi Corporation, which Microchip later acquired, unlawfully denied him employment and harassed him because of his religious creed, national origin, ancestry, ethnic characteristics, and musculoskeletal disability.

Arakji alleged that he applied for several Firmware Engineer positions at Microsemi between January and April 2017. He described a telephone interview and an on-site interview as positive experiences, but said the on-site interview was later declared void by human resources. He also alleged that a later interview was canceled and that responses to applications for other positions stated that those positions had been canceled. He claimed that Microchip intentionally denied him employment despite his qualifications.

Arakji alleged that he received right-to-sue notices from California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) on March 3, 2018. He initially filed suit in California state court, and Microchip removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The court had previously denied Arakji’s motion to send the case back to state court. Microchip then filed an unopposed motion to dismiss.

Discrimination claim

For a FEHA employment-discrimination claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege facts showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action such as denial of an available job, and circumstances suggesting a discriminatory motive.

The court found that Arakji adequately alleged membership in several protected classes and that he suffered an adverse employment action when he was denied a job. But the court found two important pleading deficiencies. First, although Arakji listed his technical education and experience, he did not identify the requirements for the Firmware Engineer positions, so the complaint did not establish that he was qualified for them. Second, the complaint did not allege facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The court noted that Arakji described his interactions with Microchip or Microsemi as positive and found that his statement that the company was “revolted by people” like him was a conclusion rather than sufficient supporting facts.

The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a FEHA discrimination claim upon which relief could be granted.

Harassment claim

A FEHA harassment claim requires allegations that the plaintiff belonged to a protected group, experienced unwelcome harassment because of that membership, and was subjected to harassment severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.

The court found that Arakji alleged no facts showing that Microchip or Microsemi said or did anything offensive or unwelcome. Apart from the two interactions he described as positive, the complaint did not suggest that he experienced unwanted behavior, much less conduct that was severe or pervasive. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a FEHA harassment claim.

Administrative exhaustion

Before bringing a FEHA claim, a person generally must file an administrative complaint with the DFEH and receive a right-to-sue letter. Microchip argued that the DFEH had no record of a discrimination charge against Microchip or Microsemi and argued that Arakji had not provided details supporting his allegation that he received right-to-sue notices.

The court did not take judicial notice of Microchip’s correspondence with the DFEH. It nevertheless found reasonable Microchip’s request that Arakji attach the right-to-sue notices to an amended complaint, particularly because exhaustion was a potentially dispositive issue, Arakji had not opposed the motion, and he had not responded to Microchip’s assertion that no DFEH charge could be located.

Disposition

The court granted Microchip’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Arakji could amend his complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the order by December 16, 2019, and was ordered to attach his DFEH right-to-sue notices. The order states that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline or failure to cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of his claims with prejudice.