Cattoche v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Defendants United Airlines, Inc., Stephanie Lochmann MacLaran, and Andrew Willson moved to dismiss Storm Cattoche’s claims for retaliation, race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court had previously dismissed the retaliation and discrimination claims but allowed amendment. Cattoche filed a second amended complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed claims one through five under Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide enough factual detail to state a plausible claim. Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal when the complaint does not do so.

For retaliation, the court said Cattoche needed to allege facts showing protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a connection between the two. The complaint referred generally to concerns about assigning management duties, the Labor Standards Act or California law, and an unpaid meeting allegedly covered by California wage rules. The court found these allegations too vague to show that Cattoche reasonably believed a law or regulation had been violated or that an adverse employment action resulted from the alleged protected activity.

The court also found that the race and gender discrimination allegations were conclusory. Although the complaint alleged that Cattoche was treated less favorably than non-female and non-African American counterparts, it did not add facts plausibly connecting the challenged treatment to race or gender.

The hostile-work-environment and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress allegations were likewise too general. The complaint referred to pervasive hostility, heightened scrutiny of performance and appearance, and screenings and evaluations that coworkers allegedly did not face. It also described the defendants’ conduct as extreme and outrageous, but did not provide enough supporting facts to make those claims plausible.

Disposition

The court dismissed the retaliation and discrimination claims with prejudice because Cattoche had received multiple opportunities to plead them plausibly. The court allowed Cattoche to file a third and likely final amended complaint by September 9, 2022, concerning the hostile-work-environment and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. The court stated that no new claims could be added and that doing so would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

The court did not reach the defendants’ arguments that the claims were preempted because it found no plausible claims. It denied United’s request for judicial notice as moot and stated that it had not considered the materials.