Farr v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

Background

Cynthia Farr alleged that she was injured at work in May 2017, took time off after an automobile accident in April 2018, and witnessed a live-shooter incident at work in July 2018. She filed a claim against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in bankruptcy court on October 21, 2019, concerning alleged wrongful acts from May 2017 through the date of that claim. The company fired her the next day. Farr then complained about the termination to company counsel and sent additional copies to the State Labor Commissioner and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. She also alleged that the retaliation was reported to the National Labor Relations Board and that she filed a complaint directly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The company moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court considered the allegations in the complaint, documents incorporated into it, and matters subject to judicial notice.

Claims and analysis

Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Farr alleged that the company fired her in retaliation for filing her bankruptcy-court claim and that the termination violated public policy. She conceded that this was a California employment-law claim. The court concluded that the claim did not establish a federal cause of action and, without federal jurisdiction over the remaining claims, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. The court dismissed the first cause of action for failure to state a claim under federal law.

Title VII discrimination. Farr alleged discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court explained that a person generally must first file a timely discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, if the agency issues a right-to-sue letter, file the federal lawsuit within 90 days after receiving that letter. Farr did not submit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint to the court and did not allege that she received a right-to-sue letter or filed this case within the required period. The court therefore concluded that she had not adequately pleaded exhaustion of administrative remedies and that it lacked jurisdiction over this claim. It dismissed the second cause of action.

Occupational Safety and Health Act retaliation. Farr alleged retaliation for protected disclosures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The court stated that this law provides administrative enforcement procedures but does not create a private cause of action for retaliation. The record also did not make clear that Farr had filed the required complaint with the Secretary of Labor. The court explained that copying the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on an email to the company’s counsel did not constitute the required formal complaint. It dismissed the third cause of action. The opinion includes a footnote indicating that the claim might be treated differently if Farr could show that she had complained to the agency and satisfied the applicable requirements, but the provided text of that footnote is incomplete.

National Labor Relations Act claim. Farr alleged that the company violated a grievance settlement connected to her termination. The court explained that the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive authority to adjudicate unfair labor practices. To the extent Farr intended to assert that the company breached a collective-bargaining agreement, the court stated that such a direct claim generally requires proof both that the company breached the agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. This type of combined claim is called a hybrid labor-contract action and must be filed within six months after the contractual grievance process ends. The court found no indication that Farr had alleged a breach of the union’s duty or that such a claim was timely. It dismissed the fourth cause of action for violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

Disposition

The court granted Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. Although it dismissed each of Farr’s four causes of action, it granted Farr leave to amend. The amended complaint was due no later than May 27, 2022. The order does not state that the dismissals were with prejudice or without prejudice.