Hess v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Desdnie Hess was a former UPS employee who worked as a local sort supervisor at UPS’s distribution center in Santa Maria, California, from about October 2019 to May 2020. She alleged that UPS failed to take reasonable steps to limit COVID-19’s spread among employees. Her allegations included inadequate social distancing, cleaning, personal protective equipment, face coverings, ventilation, employee training, contact tracing, and notification of close contacts. She also alleged that employees had to buy sanitizer, masks, cleaning supplies, and other protective items themselves.

Hess filed a putative class action on behalf of current and former non-exempt UPS workers employed throughout California. Her complaint asserted four types of relief: public nuisance under California Civil Code section 3480; unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200; reimbursement of business expenses under California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; and declaratory relief. UPS removed the case from state court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing and jurisdiction

The court held that Hess’s increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 could qualify as an injury for constitutional standing purposes, even though she did not allege that she contracted COVID-19. But because she was no longer employed by UPS, she lacked standing to seek an injunction or other prospective relief directed at UPS’s employment practices. The court nevertheless denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Hess also sought compensatory damages and civil and statutory penalties, and UPS did not argue that those remedies could not redress her alleged injury.

Unfair-competition claim

The court dismissed Hess’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court explained that private plaintiffs’ remedies under that law are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution. Hess could not seek injunctive relief because she was no longer a UPS employee. She also did not plausibly allege a restitution claim because the money she spent on protective items did not pass to UPS, meaning UPS had not acquired money or property through the alleged unfair competition. The court did not address UPS’s other arguments for dismissing this claim.

Public-nuisance claim

The court dismissed the public-nuisance claim under California’s workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy rule. It concluded that the alleged harm arose out of and occurred during Hess’s employment and was caused by that employment. UPS represented that Hess and UPS were subject to the workers’ compensation law when the injury occurred, and Hess did not dispute that representation. The court held that the rule barred Hess from pursuing a tort claim or tort damages based on the alleged workplace violations. The court did not address UPS’s other dismissal arguments concerning this claim.

The court also stated that the exclusive-remedy rule applies to damages claims, not equitable relief, but concluded that Hess had not stated a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act to enforce an employer’s duty to provide a safe and healthful workplace.

Business-expense reimbursement

The court dismissed Hess’s claim under California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802(a). Hess sought reimbursement for face coverings, masks, hand sanitizer, and cleaning supplies. The court reasoned that the applicable mask requirement was imposed by law and did not require employers to supply masks or reimburse employees for their costs. It further concluded that Hess had not shown that she incurred the expenses for UPS’s benefit and had identified no law specifically requiring UPS to reimburse her.

Declaratory relief and disposition

The court concluded that declaratory judgment is a remedy, not an independent claim, and that Hess had stated no separate claim for relief supporting it. In its conclusion, the court dismissed the complaint. It allowed Hess to seek leave to amend by filing a motion within 14 days of the order, with a proposed amended complaint attached. The order directed that any amended complaint contain only colorable claims and explain how the proposed amendments addressed the defects identified in the order and potentially relevant issues raised by UPS that the order did not address.