Borodaenko v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

Dmitry Borodaenko and Abhijit Mehta filed a putative class action on behalf of former Twitter employees who were disabled or were on, or preparing to take, family or medical leave when Elon Musk purchased the company. They alleged that Twitter’s new requirements to work from company offices and work long hours at high intensity led to terminations, resignations, or constructive discharges. They asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the California Family Rights Act.

Twitter filed a motion to compel arbitration as to Mehta and a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs agreed that Mehta had not opted out of Twitter’s arbitration agreement and that his claims should be sent to arbitration.

Arbitration of Mehta’s Claims

The court granted the motion to compel arbitration as to Mehta and stayed the action as to his claims. The parties must file a status report every 120 days describing the progress of the arbitration and must notify the court within 48 hours after the arbitration is completed. Mehta’s family-leave claims remain stayed pending arbitration.

Borodaenko’s Disability-Discrimination Claims

The court denied Twitter’s argument that Borodaenko’s Americans with Disabilities Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims had to be dismissed for failure to complete administrative procedures. Although Borodaenko had not initially obtained right-to-sue notices, he received notices from the relevant federal and California agencies after the motion briefing ended. The court held that those notices established administrative exhaustion and declined to disregard them because they had not been filed earlier with a request for permission.

The court nevertheless granted the motion to dismiss Borodaenko’s disparate-treatment claims. Disparate treatment is intentional unequal treatment because of a protected characteristic. The court found that the complaint described workplace rules applying to all employees, such as requirements to return to the office and work at high intensity, but did not plausibly show that Twitter terminated Borodaenko or other class members because of disability. The court concluded that the allegations suggested employees were terminated for refusing to return to the office, not because of a disability.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss the disparate-impact claims. Disparate impact concerns a facially neutral practice that disproportionately harms a protected group without sufficient business justification. The court found that Borodaenko had not plausibly alleged that disabled employees actually resigned or were terminated at higher rates than nondisabled employees. His own termination was only one data point and did not establish a disparity.

Family-Leave Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Borodaenko’s Family and Medical Leave Act and California Family Rights Act claims to the extent he asserted them himself. The amended complaint did not allege that Borodaenko was on leave or intended to take leave when the events occurred, and he acknowledged that he lacked standing to bring those claims. Mehta’s corresponding claims were not dismissed in this ruling; they remained stayed pending arbitration.

Declaratory-Judgment Claim

Borodaenko sought an injunction under the Declaratory Judgment Act that would have prohibited Twitter from soliciting separation agreements from disabled employees without first notifying them about this case. The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim because Borodaenko acknowledged that the requested relief had already been effectively addressed in a separate case in which Twitter agreed to include notice of this case with its severance-agreement distribution.

Class Allegations and Disposition

The court did not decide Twitter’s arguments against the class allegations because it had dismissed all of Borodaenko’s claims. It noted that motions to strike class allegations are often premature before class certification is considered.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action as to Mehta’s claims. He also granted the motion to dismiss as to Borodaenko’s claims and allowed Borodaenko to file an amended complaint within 21 days. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.