Pruitt v. Bayer U.S. LLC

Background

Leroy L. Pruitt, appearing without a lawyer, sued his former employer, Bayer U.S. LLC. He alleged that Bayer employees and managers discriminated against and harassed him because he is homosexual and lives with HIV and AIDS. He also alleged retaliation and stalking-related conduct. Bayer removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court to federal court.

Pruitt’s amended complaint asserted three causes of action: discrimination and harassment; harassment; and retaliation and stalking. The opinion states that the first two claims did not identify the governing statute, while the third appeared to rely on California Labor Code section 1102.5. Bayer moved to dismiss the second and third causes of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Bayer also moved to strike several portions of the complaint.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted Bayer’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, as to the second and third causes of action.

For the second cause of action, Pruitt’s response suggested that he intended to assert a workplace-harassment claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, although the statutes he cited did not apply to his allegations. The court found that Pruitt had generally exhausted his administrative remedies because his charge filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing discussed disability discrimination, sexual-orientation discrimination, and retaliation, even though he checked only the disability-discrimination box.

The court nevertheless dismissed the second cause of action. To the extent it was based on disability or sexual-orientation discrimination, the claim appeared duplicative of the first cause of action. To the extent it alleged racial discrimination, Pruitt had not raised that issue with the Department or pleaded facts showing that a reasonable investigation would have uncovered it. The court allowed amendment if Pruitt could plausibly allege that the claim was not duplicative and was based on allegations presented to the Department or reasonably discoverable through its investigation. The court also directed him to identify the statute supporting the claim if it was not California Government Code section 12940.

For the third cause of action, the court found that Pruitt had not identified the specific unlawful conduct he reported to Bayer or the underlying statute, rule, or regulation that Bayer allegedly violated. His response cited several statutes, but it did not connect his reports to specific unlawful conduct, and the response was not itself a pleading. The court also found that Pruitt had not identified a statute authorizing damages for the alleged stalking. The court dismissed the third cause of action and allowed amendment to correct these defects.

Motion to Strike

The court denied Bayer’s motion to strike. Bayer sought to remove a reference to a person who was not a defendant in the federal case, allegations concerning procedures under a collective bargaining agreement, and references to defamation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

The court concluded that the reference to the former state-court defendant appeared to be a typographical error and was unlikely to create litigation over an improper issue. It found that the collective-bargaining-agreement allegations did not appear to assert a claim for breach of that agreement and could be relevant to Pruitt’s other claims. Finally, the court concluded that the references to defamation and wrongful termination did not themselves add causes of action; if Pruitt wanted to add such claims, he would need to seek permission to do so. The court therefore denied the motion to strike.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was granted, with leave to amend, and the motion to strike was denied. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying discrimination allegations.