Loza v. Intel Americas, Inc.

Background

Thomas Loza alleged that Intel Americas, Inc. employed him from 1997 until terminating him in September 2019. The complaint alleged that he was over 45, performed his work well, and was terminated because of his age. It also alleged that Intel’s “Rule of 75” provided full retirement benefits when an employee’s age plus years of service equaled at least 75, and that Intel terminated Loza when he was four years short of that threshold to prevent him from reaching the benefits.

Loza brought claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Intel moved to dismiss all of the claims as inadequately pleaded and/or barred.

Judicial Notice

The court granted Intel’s requests for judicial notice of the parties’ tolling agreement and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice of the right to sue because the complaint referred to those documents and Loza did not dispute their authenticity. The court denied Intel’s requests concerning third and fourth amended complaints from another case because they were unnecessary to deciding the motion.

ADEA Claim

Intel argued that Loza’s ADEA claim was untimely because he filed the complaint after the 90-day period stated in the EEOC’s notice. The parties had entered a tolling agreement covering September 4 through September 25 and agreeing not to sue during that period. Loza filed suit on September 24, one day before the agreement expired.

The court rejected Intel’s argument that this filing required dismissal. It concluded that Loza substantially complied with the agreement, that Intel was not prejudiced by the one-day timing, and that dismissing the claim would be unfair in the circumstances alleged. The court held that the ADEA claim was timely at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Intel was given 28 days to waive its limitations argument; otherwise, the court stated that full discovery would be allowed into the circumstances.

The court also held that the complaint plausibly alleged age discrimination. It relied on allegations that Loza was at least 40, performed his job satisfactorily, was discharged, and was terminated under circumstances supporting an inference of age discrimination. The court pointed to allegations that Intel displaced older leaders, treated Loza differently from similarly situated employees, demoted or terminated older employees, and hired younger employees for management positions. The court therefore denied Intel’s motion to dismiss the ADEA claim for failure to state a claim.

FEHA Claim

Intel argued that FEHA did not apply because Loza worked remotely while residing in Texas. The court agreed that FEHA does not apply outside California, but explained that the relevant question was whether the conduct giving rise to liability occurred in California, rather than simply where the employment or contract was located.

The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to connect Loza’s termination to conduct in California. It alleged that Intel’s principal place of business was in Santa Clara and that Loza reported to a manager who worked there, but it did not allege who made the termination decision or where that person was located. The court therefore granted Intel’s motion to dismiss the FEHA claim.

ERISA Claim

The parties focused on Section 510 of ERISA, which prohibits an employer from terminating or discriminating against an employee for the purpose of interfering with the employee’s attainment of rights under an employee-benefit plan. Intel argued that Loza was four years away from eligibility for the relevant benefits and that the complaint did not plausibly allege a specific intent to interfere with his ERISA rights.

The court rejected those arguments at the pleading stage. It held that the allegations that Intel terminated Loza after 22 years of employment, shortly before he could attain benefits under the Rule of 75, did not give a sufficient basis to dismiss the claim. The allegations that Intel gave an untruthful reason for the termination, did not follow its discipline process, and intentionally prevented Loza from reaching full retirement benefits stated a plausible Section 510 claim. The court therefore denied Intel’s motion to dismiss the ERISA claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Intel’s motion to dismiss. It denied dismissal of the ADEA and ERISA claims and granted dismissal of the FEHA claim. The court invited Loza to move for leave to amend by January 5, 2021, at noon, and ordered that any such motion explain how a proposed amended complaint would correct the deficiencies identified in the order.