Doherty v. Asurion UBIF Franchise, LLC

Background

Matthew Doherty began working for Asurion UBIF Franchise, LLC, as a Retail Store Lead on October 4, 2021. During his first week, he told his supervisor that he needed to leave early for a doctor’s appointment and later said that he was receiving cancer treatment. An area manager then asked whether he had cancer, after hearing about it from human resources. Asurion terminated Doherty on October 11, 2021, after about seven days of employment, citing his failure to complete a Form I-9. Doherty alleged that this reason was false or pretextual because Asurion knew he was born in the United States, had provided documents verifying his identity, and had been trying to complete the form.

Doherty asserted five claims: discrimination based on disability or medical condition under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; retaliation under that law; failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation; violations of California Labor Code sections 1019.1 and 98.6; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Asurion moved to dismiss all five claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

FEHA discrimination. The court denied the motion as to the first claim. It held that the allegations that Asurion employees learned about Doherty’s cancer shortly before his termination, followed by his termination for failure to complete a routine onboarding form, were enough at the pleading stage to support a reasonable inference that his medical condition was connected to the termination.

FEHA retaliation. The court granted the motion as to the second claim, with leave to amend. It held that leaving work early for a doctor’s appointment and informing a supervisor about cancer did not, as alleged, amount to opposing a practice prohibited by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court also expressed skepticism about the alleged connection between the early departure and the termination, but found that further factual amendment might not be futile.

Failure to prevent discrimination and wrongful termination. The court denied the motion as to the third claim for failure to prevent FEHA discrimination and the fifth claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Asurion’s only argument against these claims was that the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims were inadequately pleaded. Because the court found the discrimination claim sufficiently pleaded, it rejected that argument as to both derivative claims.

California Labor Code sections 1019.1 and 98.6. The court granted the motion as to the fourth claim to the extent it asserted violations of both statutes, with leave to amend. Section 1019.1 addresses certain employer practices involving verification of employment authorization, including refusing to honor documents that reasonably appear genuine. The court found that Doherty alleged he had provided documents verifying his identity, but did not allege that he had provided sufficient evidence of employment authorization. Section 98.6 protects employees from retaliation for conduct covered by the Labor Code. The court agreed with Asurion that section 1019.1 regulates employer conduct but, as pleaded, did not establish employee conduct that could serve as protected activity under section 98.6.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Asurion’s motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to the first claim for FEHA discrimination, granted it with leave to amend as to the second claim for FEHA retaliation, denied it as to the third claim for failure to prevent FEHA discrimination, granted it with leave to amend as to the fourth claim under Labor Code sections 1019.1 and 98.6, and denied it as to the fifth claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order.