Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation

Background

Yanira Gonzalez, representing herself, sued her former employer, Apttus Corporation. She alleged discrimination based on age, sex, and a mental-health-related disability; failure to accommodate her disability; and retaliation for reporting discrimination. She also alleged that she was paid less than a similarly qualified man, was denied a request to work temporarily from England even though a male director received a similar accommodation, and was fired in December 2019 for performance concerns and misrepresentation of her work location.

Gonzalez filed an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), also addressed to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, on December 8, 2020. The charge described the same facts and theories as her complaint. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on December 14, 2020, and Gonzalez stated that she received it on January 1, 2021. She filed this action on February 10, 2021, initially in the Southern District of New York; that court transferred the case to the Northern District of California because the alleged employment conduct occurred in California and the case lacked a sufficient connection to New York.

Motion and legal standard

Apttus moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This procedure asks whether the complaint’s alleged facts, accepted as true, provide a legal basis for relief. The court also applied the general rule that pleadings filed by a person without a lawyer should be read liberally, while noting that the court could not supply essential facts that Gonzalez had not alleged.

Federal claims

The court held that Gonzalez’s EEOC charge was filed 361 days after the firing she identified, while Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act generally require the charge to be filed within 300 days of the challenged conduct in the circumstances applicable here. The court noted that the filing deadline can sometimes be extended under equitable doctrines such as tolling, but that such relief is applied sparingly.

In her opposition brief, Gonzalez asserted that she had first successfully filed a charge in New York on November 23, 2020 and that serious health problems in 2020 impaired her ability to pursue her claims. The court did not decide whether those facts would justify extending the deadline because they were not alleged in the complaint, and Gonzalez had not meaningfully addressed their legal significance. The court therefore granted Apttus’s motion as to the federal claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, without prejudice to Gonzalez pursuing them in an amended complaint containing sufficient facts to support extending the EEOC deadline.

New York claims

Gonzalez also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court stated that some connection to New York was required, but her complaint alleged only that she was employed by Apttus in San Mateo, California. Although she said in her opposition brief that she was hired in New York and performed some work remotely from New York, those assertions were not part of the complaint. The court granted Apttus’s motion as to the New York claims, without prejudice to including them in an amended complaint that alleged a sufficient connection to New York. The court did not decide the precise application of New York antidiscrimination law to remote workers.

Other potential claims and disposition

Gonzalez’s opposition suggested that she might pursue claims under California law or the federal Equal Pay Act, but those claims were not in her existing complaint. The court did not decide whether those or any other potential claims would be legally viable and stated that they could be included in an amended complaint. The court also stated that discovery concerns raised in the opposition were not properly presented through that filing.

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Apttus’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Gonzalez’s claims without prejudice. The court permitted an amended complaint to be filed no later than April 1, 2022, subject to the stated filing requirements and without adding new parties unless the court gave permission.