Barnes-Perrilliat v. South of Market Health Center

Background

The Health Center hired Anastasia Barnes-Perrilliat, an African-American woman, in September 2015 as a director of nursing and later demoted her to nurse practitioner. She alleged that she received poor work assignments, denied vacation requests, and inferior working conditions. She also alleged that her supervisor and other employees humiliated and harassed her, that the Health Center knew about the conduct, and that she was forced to resign in August 2017 to avoid further discriminatory and retaliatory treatment.

Barnes-Perrilliat further alleged that, after her resignation, Health Center employees made exaggerated and retaliatory claims about her to the California Board of Registered Nursing. She said the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct continued at intervals in 2018, 2019, and through at least August 2020, causing severe emotional distress. Her amended complaint asserted state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), along with federal discrimination and retaliation claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the IIED and NIED claims.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. A complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make liability plausible, not merely possible. When a statute-of-limitations defense is apparent from the complaint, the court may also dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on that ground.

Statute of limitations

California provides a two-year statute of limitations for these state tort claims. The court concluded that the deadline was apparent from the complaint because Barnes-Perrilliat resigned in August 2017 and filed the lawsuit on April 8, 2020, more than two years later.

The court rejected Barnes-Perrilliat’s argument that proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission paused the deadline. It relied on authority holding that filing an employment-discrimination charge with that agency does not pause the deadline for related state tort claims. The court also rejected her argument that later alleged statements to the Board of Registered Nursing created a continuing violation. It held that the claims accrued no later than August 2017, when she left her job.

IIED and NIED allegations

The court said the limitations ruling was dispositive but separately addressed the pleading defects.

For NIED, a plaintiff generally must show a duty, breach, causation, and damages. The court held that Barnes-Perrilliat did not plausibly allege the special duty needed for an employee’s direct claim against an employer based on emotional distress. It also said that, even if such a duty existed, it ended with the employment relationship and the claim would still be untimely.

For IIED, a plaintiff must allege extreme and outrageous conduct, an intent to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing severe emotional distress, severe emotional distress, and causation. The court characterized the allegations as involving personnel actions and intentional conduct by a supervisor. It held that criticizing, disciplining, or firing an employee, including actions allegedly motivated improperly, does not by itself constitute conduct extreme enough to support an IIED claim.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler granted the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the NIED and IIED claims with prejudice and stated that the order disposed of ECF No. 24.