Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Background

Mazen Arakji, representing himself, brought an employment discrimination and harassment action against Microchip Technology, Inc. under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. He alleged that he applied for several firmware-engineering positions and that Microchip discriminated against him based on religious creed, national origin, ancestry, and disability.

The opinion focused on Engineer Position 5244, a Senior Firmware Design Engineer position. Arakji alleged that he met the position’s requirements, participated in a phone interview and an onsite interview, and was later told that the interview had been voided by human resources. He also alleged that Microchip’s career website stated that he did not meet the position’s requirements.

The court had previously dismissed Arakji’s amended complaint without permission to amend for failure to state a claim and entered judgment for Microchip. Arakji then filed objections, which the court treated as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60.

Rule 59(e) analysis

The court denied relief under Rule 59(e). That rule allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, but generally requires newly discovered evidence, a clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, or another recognized basis. The court found that Arakji had not shown any of those grounds. In particular, the argument that the website statement supported an inference that Microchip continued seeking applicants was raised for the first time in the reconsideration motion and could reasonably have been raised earlier.

Rule 60 analysis

The court nevertheless found that relief was warranted under Rule 60(b)(1), which allows relief from a judgment for mistake or excusable neglect. The court treated Arakji’s failure to identify the inference earlier as a mistake and liberally construed his filings because he was representing himself.

Taking the amended complaint’s allegations and reasonable inferences as true, the court held that the website statement could support a reasonable, though subtle, inference that Microchip continued seeking other applicants. The court concluded that Arakji had plausibly alleged the elements needed at the motion-to-dismiss stage for a hiring-discrimination claim concerning Engineer Position 5244: that he belonged to a protected class, applied for the position, was qualified, and was rejected despite his qualifications, with an inference that the employer continued seeking applicants.

Other positions and harassment claim

The court denied reconsideration as to positions other than Engineer Position 5244. The amended complaint did not identify those positions with particularity, state their requirements, or allege that Arakji met those requirements.

The court also denied reconsideration as to the harassment claim. Arakji acknowledged that he had no further input on that claim, and the court determined that he had not requested, and the court had no occasion, to reconsider its earlier ruling on it.

Disposition

The court granted Arakji’s motion for reconsideration in part. It vacated the earlier dismissal order in part, but only as to the Fair Employment and Housing Act discrimination claim related to Engineer Position 5244, and vacated the judgment. Microchip was ordered to answer the amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The ruling allowed that discrimination claim to proceed past dismissal; it did not decide whether Arakji would ultimately win on the claim.