Goins v. United Parcel Service Inc

Background

Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint filed by Galena Goins and the other plaintiffs. The motion was heard on December 8, 2022. The plaintiffs appeared through counsel, and the defendants appeared through counsel.

The court stated that the first amended complaint was unclear and contained conclusory statements without a basic factual explanation of the elements of each claim. Because the complaint did not clearly identify what each plaintiff and defendant allegedly did or which specific policies were challenged, the court could not determine whether the claims had been properly exhausted, whether they were adequately pleaded, or whether the class allegations could proceed.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that discrimination claims based on disparate treatment require allegations that an employer treated a person less favorably because of a protected trait. The plaintiff must allege that she belongs to a protected class, was qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and was treated less favorably than similarly situated people outside the protected class. The plaintiff must also show discriminatory intent or motive. Disparate-impact claims require allegations of a significant disparity affecting a protected group, a specific employment practice or set of practices, and a causal connection between the practice and the disparity. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ counsel said the first two causes of action were intended to include both theories, but that this was not clear from the complaint; the court directed that the theories be pleaded separately.

For claims under the federal and California Equal Pay Acts, the court stated that the plaintiffs needed to compare substantially equal work performed by employees of opposite sexes. The first amended complaint did not provide details about the work performed by the plaintiffs or by the alleged comparators. The court also explained that the California unfair-competition claim depends on the viability of the other claims because it treats violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful business practices.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Although defendants requested dismissal with prejudice, the court granted leave to amend the first six causes of action, including the federal Equal Pay Act claim, the California Equal Pay Act claim, and the claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. “Leave to amend” means the plaintiffs were permitted to file a revised complaint addressing the pleading problems.

The court dismissed the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim with prejudice, finding that any attempt to amend that claim would be futile. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegations under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the order does not state that this dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice. The court said those allegations were intended only to extend the limitations period for the Equal Pay Act claims and should not be listed as a separate cause of action in an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs had to file a second amended complaint by January 23, 2023, and the defendant’s responsive pleading was due by February 24, 2023. The order stated that no new claims or parties could be added without leave of court or consent of the remaining defendant. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.