Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation

Background

Yanira Gonzalez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Apttus Corporation concerning her employment. Her initial complaint asserted federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, along with claims under New York law. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

The court previously ruled that Gonzalez’s Title VII, age-discrimination, and disability-discrimination claims were untimely because she filed her administrative charge more than 300 days after the conduct at issue. The court dismissed the Title VII claim with prejudice after Gonzalez did not add allegations supporting tolling of that deadline, and it found that the age and disability claims were no longer part of the case because she omitted them from her first amended complaint. The court allowed the federal Equal Pay Act claim to proceed.

Gonzalez later received a right-to-sue letter from California’s Civil Rights Department. The court then allowed her to amend only to add newly exhausted claims. Her second amended complaint asserted an Equal Pay Act claim; sex discrimination under Title VII; age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; retaliation under Title VII; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and, in another section, referenced the California Fair Pay Act and Title VII claims. It did not assert claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Apttus’s Motion

Apttus moved to strike or dismiss the claims under Rules 12(f) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(f) permits a court to remove redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material from a pleading. Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief.

Apttus argued that Gonzalez had exceeded the court’s permission to amend, that the Title VII sex-discrimination claim had already been dismissed with prejudice, and that the age-discrimination and Title VII retaliation claims had been abandoned when they were omitted from the first amended complaint. Apttus also argued that the California Fair Pay Act and wrongful-termination claims were untimely and that Gonzalez should not receive another opportunity to amend.

Federal Claims

The court found that the federal claims in the second amended complaint, other than the Equal Pay Act claim, were barred by the court’s prior orders and by the court’s instruction that Gonzalez could add only newly exhausted claims. It found Claims Two, Three, and Four—Title VII sex discrimination, age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Title VII retaliation—redundant and impertinent under Rule 12(f), and it granted Apttus’s motion as to those claims and struck them.

The court also stated that, even if those federal claims were not stricken under Rule 12(f), they would be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) as untimely. The Equal Pay Act claim was not dismissed or stricken and could be included in the amended complaint.

State-Law Claims

The court struck the California Fair Pay Act and wrongful-termination claims under Rule 12(f) because they were not subject to administrative exhaustion and therefore were not newly exhausted claims covered by the court’s permission to amend.

The court further explained that both claims would be untimely even if considered under Rule 12(b)(6). Gonzalez alleged that Apttus terminated her in December 2019 and first asserted these claims in the second amended complaint filed in March 2023. The court stated that the California Fair Pay Act claim was untimely even under its longer three-year period for a willful violation, and that the wrongful-termination claim was subject to a two-year limitations period. The court did not decide whether tolling could apply, but found that Gonzalez had alleged no facts supporting a plausible inference that either deadline was tolled.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although the court struck or dismissed the claims in the second amended complaint as described above, it allowed Gonzalez to file a third amended complaint. The court permitted only these four California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims against Apttus: gender discrimination, age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. It also permitted Gonzalez to assert the federal Equal Pay Act claim.

The court granted Apttus’s motion except that Gonzalez could file the permitted third amended complaint by July 7, 2023. The amended pleading had to include all permitted claims and supporting facts, could not incorporate earlier pleadings by reference, and could not assert claims that the court had not expressly authorized. The court warned that failure to follow those instructions could result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.