Daramola v. Oracle America, Inc.

Background

Tayo E. Daramola alleged retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. He also brought related claims under the California Labor Code and California’s Unfair Competition Law, plus a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The defendants seeking dismissal were Oracle America, Inc., Douglas Harris, and Patrick Merrell.

The second amended complaint alleged that Daramola lived in Montreal, Canada, worked for Oracle Canada, and resigned by sending a letter to Oracle Canada in Montreal. It did not allege that he worked or was paid in California, experienced an adverse employment action there, or had another meaningful employment connection to California. Daramola alleged that Oracle Canada was a wholly owned subsidiary of Oracle America, which is headquartered in Redwood City, California, and argued that he therefore was employed by Oracle America. The court rejected that conclusion because the complaint did not allege facts supporting disregard of the separate legal identities of the parent and subsidiary corporations.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the federal retaliation claims could not be applied to Daramola’s employment outside the United States based on the allegations in the complaint. It relied on decisions from the Second Circuit and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board stating that the employee’s permanent or principal worksite is the key factor in deciding whether a retaliation claim is domestic or extraterritorial. Communications with supervisors or customers in the United States, travel within the country, alleged misconduct occurring in the United States, or effects on U.S. securities markets did not change the court’s analysis.

The court applied a similar reasoning to the California claims. It explained that California statutes generally are presumed not to apply outside California and that California labor laws do not generally apply to work performed outside the state by a nonresident, even when the work involves activities or people in California. It said the same principle applied to the Unfair Competition Law, particularly because the complaint lacked facts tying Daramola’s claims to California.

The court found that the RICO claim failed for separate reasons. Under cited Ninth Circuit precedent, an employee who is allegedly wrongfully discharged for refusing to participate in racketeering generally lacks standing to sue under the provisions invoked here. Daramola did not contest that argument. The court also found that the complaint did not satisfy the heightened pleading requirements for a civil RICO claim, including requirements concerning the alleged criminal enterprise, predicate acts, injury, and causation.

Disposition

The court determined that the second amended complaint was Daramola’s third attempt to allege plausible claims and that he had received multiple opportunities to do so. Although Daramola submitted a declaration stating that he had been asked to work in New York for part of his employment with Oracle Canada, the court said that allegation had not been included in any version of the complaint and would not alter the fact that he was a Canadian employee who lived in Canada during the relevant period. The court found that further amendment was not warranted.

The second amended complaint was dismissed, and the case was closed. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.