Rockymore v. Eurofins Donor & Product Testing, Inc.

Background

Monette Rockymore sued Eurofins Donor & Product Testing, Inc., other Eurofins entities, and individual defendants after her employment ended. She alleged that the defendants treated her improperly because she is a woman, identifies as Pacific Islander/Asian, and had cervical lymphadenopathy and a later illness involving liver and kidney inflammation and a high fever. She alleged that she was placed on medical leave and then terminated on September 18, 2020.

Rockymore filed the case in California state court on December 6, 2021. The entity defendants removed it to federal court in January 2022. Rockymore moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Remand and diversity jurisdiction

The court denied the motion to remand. Federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the plaintiff and every defendant be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be in dispute.

The court found that Rockymore was a California citizen. It concluded that the defendants had adequately shown, at this stage, that the entity defendants were incorporated outside California and had principal places of business outside California. The court applied the “nerve center” test, which looks to where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. The court also found that the defendants had made a sufficient initial showing that the individual defendants were citizens of Colorado.

The court further found that more than $75,000 was in controversy. The defendants calculated that Rockymore’s lost wages alone exceeded $260,000 based on her salary at the time of termination, and Rockymore did not dispute that part of the calculation.

Motion to dismiss

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim legally plausible; it does not decide whether the allegations will ultimately be proved.

Race and gender discrimination

The court denied dismissal of the discrimination claim to the extent it was based on race or gender. Rockymore alleged that she was performing her job competently, was terminated, and was treated differently after O’Neale became her supervisor. She also alleged that male and non-Asian managers received support that she did not receive and that she was the only manager affected by a reduction in workforce. The court found these allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to support a reasonable inference of discriminatory motive and possible pretext.

Disability discrimination

The court granted dismissal with leave to amend as to disability discrimination. Although the court assumed that Rockymore’s cervical lymphadenopathy and September 2020 illness could qualify as a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the complaint did not plausibly connect the alleged adverse employment action to disability discrimination. The complaint did not allege discriminatory statements about disability or facts showing that similarly situated employees without disabilities were treated more favorably.

Hostile work environment

The court granted dismissal with leave to amend on the hostile-work-environment harassment claim. Most of the conduct Rockymore identified—termination, requests to perform work while ill, a reprimand, and refusal to hire additional employees—was described as ordinary personnel management. The court found that the alleged sarcastic comment about whether the team had anything to “brag about” was a single, relatively minor, and not facially discriminatory statement. The allegations therefore did not show harassment that was sufficiently severe, repeated, or connected to a protected characteristic.

Retaliation

The court denied dismissal of the FEHA retaliation claim to the extent it relied on Rockymore’s complaints to human resources that she received less support than male and non-Asian employees. The court found that this was plausibly a complaint about allegedly unlawful discrimination. The court rejected the argument that the time between the complaints and Rockymore’s termination automatically defeated a causal connection.

The court did not treat Rockymore’s request that others help with work while she was on medical leave as protected activity under FEHA as currently pleaded. That request did not indicate that she was opposing discrimination or another unlawful practice.

Disability accommodation and interactive process

The court denied dismissal of the claims against the entity defendants for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the required interactive process. The defendants challenged only whether Rockymore had alleged a qualifying disability. The court found that her allegations about the disease, its effects, her medical leave, and the defendants’ knowledge were sufficient for these claims to proceed at this stage. The court did not address other possible elements or issues because the defendants had not raised them as grounds for dismissal.

Failure to prevent discrimination or harassment

The parties agreed that the failure-to-prevent claim rose or fell with the related discrimination and harassment claims. The court’s conclusion therefore denied dismissal of this claim to the extent the underlying claim survived and granted dismissal with leave to amend to the extent the underlying claim was dismissed.

Breach of contract

The court granted dismissal with leave to amend on the express and implied breach-of-contract claims. Rockymore alleged that she could be terminated only for good cause, but the complaint provided only a vague and conclusory allegation about an oral agreement or oral assurances. The court held that she needed to plead factual details supporting the existence of an enforceable agreement.

Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim on the arguments presented. It rejected the argument that the claim was merely derivative of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims because the legal questions were different. The court also found that the complaint identified O’Neale as the employee who allegedly harmed Rockymore. The court did not address other possible issues with the claim.

Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

The parties agreed, or appeared to agree, that the wrongful-termination claim was derivative of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. The court’s conclusion addressed this claim to the extent the underlying claims survived or were dismissed, granting or denying dismissal on that corresponding basis.

Whistleblower retaliation

The court denied dismissal of the whistleblower-retaliation claim. The defendants argued that Rockymore had not adequately alleged protected activity, but the court relied on its earlier conclusion that her complaint to human resources about O’Neale’s allegedly discriminatory conduct was plausibly actionable.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that workers’ compensation exclusivity barred Rockymore’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the claim was based on alleged discrimination. The court nevertheless granted dismissal with leave to amend because the alleged conduct did not meet the required level of outrageousness. Most of the conduct involved managerial actions, and O’Neale’s isolated comment was not extreme enough to exceed the bounds of conduct generally tolerated in a civilized community.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick denied the motion to remand. He denied the motion to dismiss as to race and gender discrimination, the retaliation and whistleblower-retaliation claims, the reasonable-accommodation and interactive-process claims, and the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim. He granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to disability discrimination, hostile work environment, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and applied the corresponding outcome to the derivative failure-to-prevent and wrongful-termination claims. The court ordered Rockymore to file an amended complaint within 20 days.