Wondeh v. Change Healthcare Practice Management Solutions, Inc.

Background

Ruth Wondeh sued Change Healthcare Practice Management Solutions, Inc. in California Superior Court for Marin County. She alleged that her former employer discriminated against her in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Her complaint asserted six claims: age and disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to provide employee records under California Labor Code § 1198.5.

The opinion states that Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain cases between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. A footnote states that the removing entity asserted Wondeh had sued it under the wrong name, and that Wondeh appeared to agree.

Motion to Remand

Wondeh asked the court to return the case to state court, arguing that the amount in controversy had not been shown to exceed $75,000. The court found that the parties did not dispute complete diversity: the opinion states that Wondeh was a California citizen and that Change was a citizen of Delaware, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas.

The court concluded that the amount-in-controversy requirement was also satisfied. Wondeh sought lost wages and benefits, emotional-distress damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Change submitted evidence about Wondeh’s wages and verdicts in other employment cases involving emotional-distress and punitive damages. The court accepted Change’s allegations and proof and denied Wondeh’s motion to remand.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. It granted Change’s motion to dismiss Wondeh’s first through fifth claims. The court found that the FEHA claims relied on thin and conclusory allegations and did not plausibly connect the alleged workplace conduct to Wondeh’s age or medical condition. The court also found no adequate factual allegations showing that Change failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because Wondeh’s allegations that Change’s conduct was extreme and outrageous were conclusory. The alleged supervisor comment that Wondeh was a “weak person who ran around like her head was cut off” was insufficient, in the court’s view.

The court denied Change’s request to dismiss the sixth claim under California Labor Code § 1198.5. That statute gives current and former employees a right to inspect and receive copies of certain personnel records. Change argued that Wondeh admitted receiving the records, but the court read her complaint as alleging that the records she received did not include details about the investigation into her complaint. The court therefore found that Change’s characterization of the complaint was inaccurate for purposes of dismissal.

Disposition

The court denied Wondeh’s motion to remand. It granted Change’s motion to dismiss Wondeh’s first through fifth claims and denied the motion as to the sixth claim. The court allowed Wondeh to amend the five dismissed claims by October 8, 2020. The amended complaint could not add new defendants or claims without express permission from the court. Judge James Donato signed the order.