DeLarge v. Walmart Inc.

Background

Demetria DeLarge filed the case against Walmart Inc. in state court on May 22, 2019. Walmart removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. DeLarge’s complaint asserted four claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and a claim for wrongful termination.

According to the complaint, DeLarge began working as a Walmart cashier in 1999. After she injured her shoulder around 2010, she had difficulty using some cash registers. She alleged that Walmart managers refused her requests for a register that would not cause pain, told her to use assigned registers or go home, and warned that going home would count against her attendance. She alleged that Walmart terminated her employment effective June 19, 2013, after she requested an accommodation and filed a workers’ compensation claim.

DeLarge filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in June 2014. The DFEH issued a right-to-sue notice on June 12, 2015, stating that a civil action had to be filed within one year. The notice also said that DeLarge could appeal the DFEH’s closure decision. DeLarge appealed and continued communicating with the DFEH through 2017 and 2018. In December 2017, according to her declaration, a DFEH representative told her that the agency would not file a lawsuit on her behalf. On February 28, 2018, the DFEH changed the stated reason for closing the case but said that the original closure date and right-to-sue information remained unchanged.

Motion and Arguments

Walmart moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court explained that this motion uses the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true but does not accept conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences.

Walmart argued that the FEHA claims were barred by FEHA’s one-year deadline after the right-to-sue notice. Walmart also argued that the wrongful termination claim was barred by California’s two-year limitations period. DeLarge argued that equitable tolling—a court-created extension of a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances—should apply while she pursued the DFEH’s internal appeal process.

Court’s Analysis

For equitable tolling of the FEHA deadline, the court identified three requirements: timely notice to the defendant through the first claim, lack of prejudice to the defendant, and the plaintiff’s good-faith and reasonable conduct in filing the later lawsuit. The court found it unnecessary to decide the prejudice issue because it concluded that DeLarge had not acted reasonably.

The court rejected DeLarge’s reliance on a California Supreme Court decision involving an employee and employer pursuing an internal workplace grievance. The court distinguished that situation from DeLarge’s voluntary appeal to the DFEH after receiving a right-to-sue notice. The court also emphasized that the DFEH notice clearly stated that DeLarge had one year to file suit, did not say that an administrative appeal was required before suing, and did not say that a DFEH appeal would pause the deadline.

The court further reasoned that, even accepting DeLarge’s account of her communications with the DFEH, she knew by December 2017 that the DFEH would not sue on her behalf. She nevertheless waited until May 22, 2019 to file this case. The February 28, 2018 DFEH letter also stated that the original right-to-sue information remained unchanged. The court therefore concluded that equitable tolling was not appropriate for the FEHA claims. It also found no basis to apply equitable tolling to the wrongful termination claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it found amendment would be futile. Even if DeLarge added allegations that the deadline should be extended until May 22, 2018, the court concluded that waiting until May 22, 2019 was unreasonable in light of what she had been told in December 2017 and the February 2018 notice.

Judge Susan Illston granted Walmart’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The court ruled that DeLarge’s FEHA and wrongful termination claims were untimely and that she had not adequately shown that she was entitled to relief.