Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Background

Mazen Arakji sued Microchip Technology under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging employment discrimination and harassment based on religious creed, national origin, ancestry, ethnic characteristics, and disability. He alleged that he wore a long beard for Muslim religious purposes, had a musculoskeletal disability affecting his ability to grip and lift heavy objects, and had Lebanese national origin and Arabic ancestry.

Arakji applied for several firmware-engineering positions at Microsemi, which was later acquired by Microchip. He alleged that he was qualified for the positions, had a positive telephone interview, waited several hours after an on-site interview was canceled, and later had another interview canceled. He also alleged that other positions for which he applied were canceled. He claimed these events showed discrimination and harassment.

The court had previously dismissed his original discrimination and harassment claims but allowed him to amend. Arakji then filed a first amended complaint.

Discrimination claim

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It accepted well-pleaded facts as true but did not accept conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences. For a FEHA discrimination claim, the court explained that a plaintiff generally must allege facts showing protected status, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and either more favorable treatment of similarly situated people outside the protected group or other circumstances suggesting discrimination.

The court found that Arakji sufficiently alleged protected status, an adverse employment action, and qualification for at least one position—the Senior Firmware Design Engineer position identified by requisition number 5244. But it found that he did not plausibly allege the required connection between his protected characteristics and Microchip’s actions. He did not allege that the positions remained open or that Microchip continued seeking applicants with his qualifications. The court also found that his allegations that he was clearly qualified, had positive interview experiences, and that Microchip was “revolted” by people with his characteristics were conclusory and did not support a reasonable inference of discrimination.

The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint failed to state a FEHA discrimination claim.

Harassment claim

The court explained that a FEHA harassment claim requires allegations that the plaintiff belonged to a protected group, experienced unwelcome harassment because of that group membership, and was subjected to conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive work environment.

The court found that Arakji alleged no facts showing actionable harassment. His allegations concerned canceled positions, two canceled interviews, and one interview delayed for several hours. Although the events were annoying and inconvenient, the court held that they did not constitute harassment under FEHA. The court also noted that Arakji described his interview experiences as positive and acknowledged that Microchip made no discriminatory comments.

The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint failed to state a FEHA harassment claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court considered whether Arakji should receive another opportunity to amend. It found that further amendment would be futile and unduly prejudicial to Microchip because Arakji had already been told what deficiencies to correct and had not cured the remaining problems. The court denied leave to amend.

The court granted Microchip’s motion to dismiss at ECF 23 without leave to amend. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also vacated the scheduled hearing because the motion was suitable for decision without oral argument.