Flores v. Safeway Inc.

Background

Julieta Flores alleged that she worked as a clerk in Safeway’s bakery department and later took on pastry and baking responsibilities. She alleged that this work contributed to injuries in her hands and wrist. According to the complaint, her doctor recommended that she take two weeks off, but managers told her to return after three days. She also alleged that managers yelled at her, ignored her work limitations, required her to work on a day off, threatened consequences, and reprimanded her over doctors’ notes.

Flores alleged two claims: disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and denial of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The opinion states that she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and then filed this case without a lawyer. Safeway moved to dismiss both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

ADA Claim and Administrative Exhaustion

Safeway argued that Flores had not exhausted her administrative remedies because her complaint included allegations not expressly stated in her EEOC charge. The court explained that an ADA claim may include allegations that are like or reasonably related to the EEOC charge, including additional acts that an EEOC investigation could reasonably be expected to uncover.

The court identified differences involving the timing of the alleged events, the length of leave Flores requested, and allegations that managers harassed her. It nevertheless found that the additional allegations did not introduce a new type of discrimination. The court emphasized that the charge and complaint involved the same disability-related basis, the same managers, the same Safeway store, and substantially the same facts about Flores’s injuries and alleged treatment. The court therefore denied Safeway’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim.

FMLA Claim

The FMLA generally requires an employee to have worked for the employer for at least twelve months before becoming eligible for FMLA leave. The complaint alleged that Flores began working for Safeway in March 2018 and requested leave in February 2019. Based on those pleaded facts, the court found that she had not alleged an FMLA violation during a period when she was eligible for FMLA leave.

Flores’s opposition suggested that she might have requested and been denied leave after March 2019, but the court found that the opposition’s language was unclear and that hypothetical arguments were not additional facts pleaded in the complaint. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the FMLA claim. Because Flores could potentially allege that Safeway denied leave after she had worked there for twelve months, the court granted her leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge Nathanael Cousins denied the motion to dismiss Flores’s ADA claim and granted the motion to dismiss her FMLA claim, with leave to amend. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed within thirty days, by March 4, 2020. The opinion states that if no amended complaint was filed, Safeway would have to answer fourteen days later.