Obrien v. Amazon.Com Inc.

Background

Michele Obrien alleged that Amazon had a policy or practice involving production rates or work-production quotas that had an unlawful disparate impact on employees over age 40. She brought the action on behalf of herself and a proposed class of Amazon warehouse workers. The opinion identifies claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Defendants moved to dismiss under the pleading standard requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than merely possible.

Rulings

The court granted the motion to dismiss the FEHA disparate-impact claim. It held that Obrien did not identify the challenged policy with enough specificity: the complaint did not clarify what production rate or quota was at issue, which tasks it covered, or whether one or multiple policies were involved. The court also held that the complaint offered conclusions—not supporting facts—to show that the policy disproportionately harmed older employees.

The court dismissed the FEHA claim for failure to prevent or correct discrimination for the same reason. It also dismissed the California Unfair Competition Law claim because the complaint lacked factual allegations plausibly supporting relief. In addition, the court stated that Obrien had not sufficiently alleged standing to seek relief under that law because a private plaintiff could recover only equitable relief, not damages.

Claims against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. were dismissed for the additional reason that Obrien pleaded no facts supporting her legal conclusions that the three named defendants were her joint, direct, or actual employers. The court dismissed the FEHA disparate-treatment claim based on Obrien’s concession that the complaint did not plausibly allege it. The court dismissed the request for injunctive relief because Obrien conceded that she no longer worked for any defendant and therefore lacked standing to seek that relief.

The court dismissed FEHA claims arising from Obrien’s employment before 2019 because she conceded that those claims were barred by the statute of limitations. It denied her request for discovery to determine whether she could state a claim, explaining that discovery cannot cure a facially insufficient complaint and that pleadings must contain adequate factual allegations before the case proceeds to discovery.

Disposition

The court stated that all of the above claims were dismissed with 30 days leave to amend, except the FEHA claims arising from pre-2019 employment and the injunctive-relief claim. The court gave Obrien an opportunity to amend the disparate-treatment claim, while reminding her and her counsel of their obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court continued the case-management conference and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 10.