King v. Praxair Distribution, Inc.

Background

Troy King, representing himself, filed an amended complaint against Praxair Distribution, Inc. He alleged race discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to investigate and prevent discrimination and harassment, wrongful termination, and constructive discharge under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He also alleged retaliation under California Labor Code § 1102.5.

The court had previously dismissed King's original complaint and allowed amendment. King filed the amended complaint after receiving extensions. Praxair moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal claims were filed too late and that the California retaliation claim was not adequately stated.

Section 1981 claims

The court held that King's Section 1981 claims for hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination were subject to a four-year limitations period. The other portions of his Section 1981 claim were subject to a two-year limitations period. King's original complaint was timely under the four-year period but not under the two-year period.

Praxair argued that the amended complaint was late and that the new claims did not relate back to the original complaint for limitations purposes. The court declined to penalize King for the late amended filing because it had granted him extensions in light of his self-represented status. The court also rejected Praxair's relation-back argument, explaining that an amended claim may relate back when it arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original pleading. The court said King did not need to have successfully stated a claim in the original complaint for the Section 1981 claims to relate back.

The court therefore denied dismissal of the Section 1981 wrongful-termination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims. It dismissed the remaining Section 1981 claims on limitations grounds.

California Labor Code claim

California Labor Code § 1102.5(b) prohibits retaliation against an employee who reports a violation of a state or federal statute, rule, or regulation. A claim requires protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between them.

King alleged that he reported unsafe equipment to supervisors and filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The court found that the amended complaint did not allege that his supervisors knew about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration complaint or took action against him because of it. King also alleged that he reported derogatory and unethical conduct by other employees, but the court held that these internal personnel matters were not protected activity under Section 1102.5.

The court dismissed the California Labor Code § 1102.5 claim. Because the court found that King failed to state that claim, it did not reach Praxair's separate argument that the claim was untimely.

Disposition

The court granted dismissal of the California Labor Code claims and the Section 1981 claims other than wrongful termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The court denied dismissal of the three specified Section 1981 claims. The dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice after the prior dismissal and opportunities to amend.