Kabasele v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-07458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kabasele v. Ulta, Judge Chesney denied Ulta’s motion to dismiss Kabasele’s claim that it failed to prevent workplace harassment and retaliation.
The ruling preserves Dorcas-Cothy Kabasele’s third FEHA claim against Ulta for failure to prevent alleged harassment and retaliation; it does not determine whether the alleged conduct occurred or whether Kabasele will prevail.
What happened
Kabasele v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. concerns a former Ulta employee’s claim that the company failed to prevent alleged workplace harassment and retaliation. Kabasele brought three claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Ulta asked the court to dismiss the third claim.
Ulta argued that failure-to-prevent harassment or retaliation is not a separate claim and that Kabasele’s requested damages could improperly duplicate damages for the underlying conduct. The court rejected both arguments at this stage because Ulta had not challenged the underlying harassment and retaliation claims and had not shown that the damages would necessarily overlap.
Judge Chesney denied Ulta’s motion to dismiss the third claim and vacated the scheduled hearing. The ruling did not decide whether the alleged harassment or retaliation actually occurred.
The detailed version
- Kabasele v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-07458
- Maxine Chesney
- Dec. 10, 2021
Background
Dorcas-Cothy Kabasele was formerly employed by Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. and worked at one of its retail stores in San Ramon, California. Her complaint asserted three causes of action under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA):
- harassment based on race under California Government Code § 12940(j);
- retaliation under § 12940(h); and
- failure to prevent harassment and retaliation under §§ 12940(j)(1) and 12940(k).
The third cause of action alleged that Ulta failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the alleged harassment and retaliation. Ulta moved to dismiss only that third cause of action.
Arguments and analysis
Ulta first argued that failure to prevent harassment or retaliation is not a separate cause of action apart from the underlying harassment or retaliation. The court explained that cases supporting this argument involved plaintiffs who failed to establish the underlying harassment or discrimination. In those circumstances, a failure-to-prevent claim also fails because it requires an underlying claim of harassment or discrimination.
Here, however, Ulta had not challenged Kabasele’s first and second causes of action. The court therefore concluded that Ulta had not shown that Kabasele lacked a viable underlying harassment or discrimination claim. The court cited a prior decision denying dismissal of a failure-to-prevent claim in similar circumstances.
Ulta also argued that Kabasele sought duplicative damages for the alleged harassment and retaliation and for Ulta’s alleged failure to prevent that conduct. The court recognized that a plaintiff may not obtain more than one recovery for each distinct item of compensable damage. But at this early stage, Ulta had not shown that the damages for the alleged harassment or retaliation necessarily would duplicate damages for the alleged failure to prevent that conduct.
Ruling
The court held that Ulta had not shown that the third cause of action was subject to dismissal. It denied Ulta’s motion to dismiss and vacated the hearing scheduled for December 17, 2021. The order did not resolve the truth of Kabasele’s allegations or decide whether she would ultimately prevail on any claim. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order as the United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.