Streets v. SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, LLC

Background

Simon Streets sued Space Systems/Loral, LLC and Maxar Technologies Holdings Inc. He alleged that the defendants were his joint employers and that they discriminated against him because of his age and disability, retaliated against him, terminated him wrongfully, failed to accommodate his disability, engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law, and negligently trained managers.

Streets alleged that he worked for the defendants beginning in 2006, was denied promotions, experienced harassment and discriminatory treatment, and was terminated on June 28, 2018. He also alleged that he applied for his former position after it was posted in March 2019 but was not rehired. He filed administrative charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Rulings on the Claims

The court took judicial notice of the existence of Streets’ administrative proceedings and the agencies’ findings, but not the truth of factual statements contained in those documents.

Age discrimination. Streets’ age-discrimination claim concerned an April 2018 failure to promote, his June 2018 termination, and a March 2019 failure to rehire. The court held that the claims based on the failure to promote and termination were barred by the applicable deadlines. The court rejected Streets’ argument that those events were part of a continuing violation and held that a California emergency rule did not revive claims that had already expired. The court struck the allegations concerning the April 2018 failure to promote and June 2018 termination.

The court held that the March 2019 failure-to-rehire claim was timely under both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It also held that Streets alleged enough facts to state an age-discrimination claim, including that he was over forty, had performed satisfactorily, was not rehired, and was replaced by a person in her mid-twenties whom he had trained. Streets may proceed on that portion of the age-discrimination claim.

Retaliation. Streets alleged that the defendants retaliated against him by terminating him in June 2018 and refusing to rehire him in 2019. The court held that the administrative charges did not adequately exhaust the retaliatory-termination allegation and that the charge was also untimely. The opinion states that Streets could not proceed with that retaliatory-termination claim.

The court held that the retaliatory failure-to-rehire allegation was timely. However, it found that the four-to-five-month gap between Streets’ protected activity and the alleged failure to rehire was insufficient by itself to show a causal connection, and that Streets alleged no other facts showing retaliatory motive. The court therefore found the pleading insufficient as to that theory. In its conclusion, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend only the retaliatory failure-to-rehire portion of the retaliation claim.

Wrongful termination. The court dismissed Streets’ claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. It held that this claim required a viable termination-related theory, and that Streets had not alleged one. The court granted dismissal without leave to amend.

Disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The court held that Streets had not exhausted his administrative remedies for disability discrimination based on his termination. His first administrative charge did not allege disability discrimination, and the disability allegations in his second charge concerned the alleged failure to rehire rather than the termination. The court also held that Streets did not exhaust his failure-to-accommodate claim because neither administrative charge mentioned failure to accommodate or facts suggesting that claim. The court granted dismissal without leave to amend for both claims.

Unfair-competition claim. The court dismissed Streets’ claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law because he did not allege facts supporting either available remedy: restitution or an injunction. The court held that Streets did not allege that the defendants possessed money or property belonging to him, and he did not allege an ongoing or likely-to-recur injury that could support injunctive relief. The court granted dismissal without leave to amend. The court declined to separately address whether the complaint otherwise stated an unfair-competition claim.

Negligence. Streets alleged that the defendants negligently trained managers about responding to discrimination complaints and employee rights. The court rejected the argument that California’s workers’ compensation law preempted the claim because it was based on alleged discrimination. It also rejected the argument that a statutory remedy was exclusive at this stage. Finally, the court held that California’s COVID-19 emergency rule tolled the two-year limitations period and that Streets filed his negligence claim on time. The court denied dismissal of the negligence claim.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to strike, explaining that the rule allowing material to be removed from a pleading is not a method for dismissing claims. The court also denied the motion for a more definite statement because the defendants had identified the claims and legal theories well enough to prepare a response.

Judge Edward J. Davila ordered that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, the motion to strike was denied, and the motion for a more definite statement was denied. Streets could file an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the order, but the order also stated that he could not amend claims that were partially or fully dismissed or add new claims or parties.