King v. Praxair Distribution, Inc.

Background

Troy King, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Praxair Distribution, Inc., and other defendants over the termination of his employment. He asserted several California discrimination and retaliation claims. Praxair removed the case from California Superior Court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. After the court requested clarification about defendant Whaley’s citizenship, Whaley submitted a declaration establishing Texas citizenship. The court concluded that the parties were completely diverse and that federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed.

Praxair filed the same motion to dismiss twice, apparently after the case was reassigned from a magistrate judge. King filed oppositions requesting permission to amend his complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint with the more flexible approach generally given to complaints filed by people without lawyers and granted dismissal with leave to amend.

For King’s claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the court said California law generally requires an employee to file an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and obtain a notice allowing suit before bringing a FEHA claim in court. King did not attach a DFEH right-to-sue notice or allege that he had one. The court said a letter from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not substitute for the required DFEH notice. King also did not allege that he had filed a DFEH complaint that remained unresolved for more than one year, which could have provided an alternative basis for proceeding without a notice. The FEHA claims were dismissed.

For the claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the court said King was required to give written notice through an online filing to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and by certified mail to the employer before filing suit. The complaint did not say whether he had completed those steps. The PAGA claim was dismissed.

The court also addressed timeliness. It stated that the limitations period for slander is one year and for wrongful termination is two years. Because the complaint alleged events in 2017, stated that King was terminated in January 2017, and was filed in August 2020, the court concluded that the slander and wrongful-termination claims appeared untimely on their face. The court said an amended complaint would need facts explaining why the periods should be paused or otherwise showing that the claims were timely.

Regarding retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5(b), the court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to plausibly allege a violation. That statute protects an employee who reports a violation of a state or federal statute or a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. The court said it was unclear what legal violations King reported and explained that reports about internal personnel matters are not protected activity under the statute. The court allowed amendment of this claim with facts consistent with the statute’s scope.

King’s Unfair Competition Law claim was based only on his other claims. Because those claims had been dismissed, the court dismissed the Unfair Competition Law claim as well.

Disposition

The court granted dismissal with leave to amend. It dismissed the FEHA, PAGA, and Unfair Competition Law claims and identified pleading and timeliness deficiencies in the slander, wrongful-termination, and Labor Code section 1102.5(b) retaliation claims. King could file an amended complaint consistent with the order by October 1, 2021, but could not add new claims or parties without prior court approval.