Cattoche v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Storm Cattoche sued her employer, United Airlines, Inc., and two individuals under California law. She alleged retaliation, gender discrimination, race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cattoche alleged that she had worked as a flight attendant for United since 1989 and was demoted from her position as an “International Purser” shortly after telling management that she and fellow International Pursers were being assigned duties that would cause them to be misclassified as management officials under an applicable collective bargaining agreement and California law and regulations.

Cattoche also alleged that United subjected her to unusually close scrutiny of her attire and performance compared with non-African-American, male, and non-complaining coworkers. United removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Cattoche did not request that the case be sent back to state court.

Motion and Legal Standards

United moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss the first, second, and third claims. United also argued that the retaliation and discrimination claims depended on interpreting a collective bargaining agreement and were therefore preempted—displaced or controlled by federal law—under the Railway Labor Act. United presented that argument as a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s jurisdiction.

The court applied Rule 8, which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint must include enough factual content to make the claim plausible, meaning the alleged facts must allow a reasonable inference that the defendant may be liable.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5 was not supported by enough facts to be plausible. The complaint made general references to the alleged misclassification of flight attendants as management officials and to Cattoche’s belief that United was violating California laws, regulations, and wage orders. The court concluded that the complaint did not provide the facts needed to show that section 1102.5 applied.

The court reached the same conclusion about the discrimination claims. The complaint alleged in a conclusory way that Cattoche was treated less favorably than her non-female and non-African-American counterparts, but it did not provide specific supporting facts. The court concluded that these allegations were insufficient under Rule 8.

Because the court found that the claims were not plausibly pleaded, it declined to decide whether the Railway Labor Act preempted them. The court said that issue might need to be decided later, particularly because the complaint acknowledged an applicable collective bargaining agreement, but it did not need to decide it at this stage.

Disposition

The first, second, and third claims were dismissed under Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6), with leave to amend. Cattoche could file an amended complaint consistent with the order by November 12, 2021. The court stated that, if she intended to keep the two individual defendants in the case, she had to serve them in a timely manner. United’s request for judicial notice was denied as moot because the court did not consider the materials submitted with that request.