Lobo v. Air-India Ltd.

Background

Neetu Lobo sued Air India Limited and her former supervisor, Anju Sahani, over sixteen employment-related claims. Lobo alleged that she worked beyond her regular hours without pay, used her personal cell phone for work without reimbursement, missed uninterrupted meal and rest periods, was pressured to reduce her claimed overtime, was required to return to office work, and was terminated after complaining about unpaid work and Sahani’s conduct. Her claims included California wage-and-hour claims, unfair competition, paid sick leave, expense reimbursement, wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Air India removed the case from state court under the federal statute governing removal by an instrumentality of a foreign state. The parties agreed that the commercial-activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied. The court found no basis to return the case to state court.

Air India’s motion

Air India moved to dismiss several claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim for relief.

The court denied Air India’s motion as to Lobo’s minimum-wage claim. Although Air India argued that Lobo’s hourly wage exceeded California’s minimum wage, Lobo alleged that unpaid work hours lowered her effective wage rate. The court also declined to dismiss her claims concerning inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide employee records, finding it unclear whether Air India, while operating as a commercial air carrier, qualified for the asserted exemption for a governmental entity. Lobo’s expense-reimbursement claim also remained because she alleged that Air India required her to use her personal cell phone for work.

The court denied the challenge to Lobo’s wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim against Air India at that stage. It found that the record raised questions about whether Lobo’s final employment period was actually governed by a fixed-term contract and whether protections for public entities applied to an instrumentality of a foreign state operating commercially.

The court granted Air India’s motion as to the stand-alone paid-sick-leave claim and allowed Lobo to amend it to clarify whether she was asserting a claim under another law that provides a private right of action. The court also granted the motion as to the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, allowing amendment to add facts showing conduct that was sufficiently extreme and outrageous. The Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against Air India was dismissed with leave to amend because the complaint did not adequately identify a disability or other protected status or otherwise clarify the factual basis for the alleged discrimination.

The court noted that Lobo’s liquidated-damages claim contained references to a different person and different employment dates and directed her to clarify on amendment whether she was pursuing that claim and its legal basis. The court also stated that the unfair-competition claim remained because Air India had not challenged it, while Lobo should clarify whether she intended to assert it against both defendants or only Air India.

Sahani’s motion

Sahani moved to dismiss all claims against her, arguing in part that she was Lobo’s manager rather than her employer. The court dismissed the Labor Code claims against Sahani with leave to amend. Lobo had not alleged facts plausibly showing that Sahani was a “managing agent” under California Labor Code section 558.1—that is, a person with substantial independent authority and judgment over corporate policy. The court allowed Lobo to attempt to plead facts supporting Sahani’s potential liability under that statute for some Labor Code claims.

The court dismissed Lobo’s wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim against Sahani with prejudice. It held that the claim could be asserted only against an employer, not against an individual manager who acted as the employer’s agent.

The court dismissed the Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against Sahani with leave to amend. As with the claim against Air India, Lobo had not adequately pleaded an actionable basis for discrimination, and the court allowed her to clarify the facts and the theory supporting the claim.

Disposition

Air India’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Sahani’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED. Lobo could file an amended complaint within twenty days addressing the claims for which the court allowed amendment. The court’s order was entered by Judge William H. Orrick.

Note on the opinion text

The opinion’s discussion identifies the retaliation claim as the thirteenth cause of action and the wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim as the fourteenth, while the conclusion refers to the fourteenth cause of action as “retaliation discharge.” This summary follows the specific dispositions stated in the conclusion and discussion.