Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation

Background

Yanira Gonzalez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Apttus Corporation. The court had previously allowed her to amend her complaint to add claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) after California’s Civil Rights Department issued a right-to-sue letter. The Third Amended Complaint asserted four FEHA claims—gender, age, and disability discrimination claims under California Government Code section 12940(a), as well as another FEHA claim identified in the court’s prior order—and an Equal Pay Act claim.

Gonzalez alleged that she lived in New York, worked for Apttus as an Engagement Manager from 2017 until her termination in December 2019, and was paid less than male Engagement Managers in salary, incentives, bonuses, and shares. She also alleged that a substantial part of the events occurred in the San Mateo, California, district and that Apttus’s worldwide headquarters was in San Mateo. The complaint did not provide specific facts about where Gonzalez performed her work or where the conduct supporting her FEHA claims occurred.

Equal Pay Act claim

Apttus argued that the Equal Pay Act claim should be treated as a California claim because the Third Amended Complaint did not identify a federal statute. It also argued that a California claim exceeded the court’s permission to amend and waived Gonzalez’s federal claim.

The court rejected those arguments. It noted that Gonzalez had asserted an Equal Pay Act claim in earlier complaints, and both Apttus and the court had consistently understood that claim to be federal. The court concluded that the substantially similar claim in the Third Amended Complaint should likewise be construed as a federal Equal Pay Act claim. It therefore rejected Apttus’s challenge to that claim and did not reach Apttus’s waiver argument.

FEHA claims

Apttus argued that FEHA does not apply to conduct occurring outside California and that Gonzalez had not alleged that she worked in California, visited California, or experienced an adverse employment action there. The court explained that a plaintiff who lives outside California must plead, at minimum, that the plaintiff was employed in California or that the discriminatory conduct occurred in California.

The court found Gonzalez’s allegations too vague. Her statements that a substantial part of the events occurred in the San Mateo district and that Apttus was headquartered there did not provide specific facts showing that the conduct supporting the FEHA claims occurred in California. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the FEHA claims for failure to state a claim.

Leave to amend and counsel referral

Apttus asked the court to deny further leave to amend. The court declined to do so. It found no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, and noted that Gonzalez had not previously been given leave to correct this particular pleading defect. Allegations in earlier versions of the complaint and in her opposition suggested that she might be able to state valid FEHA claims by adding specific facts about California-related conduct.

The court granted leave to amend the FEHA claims, but only to add specific facts establishing that the conduct supporting those claims occurred in California. Gonzalez could not assert new claims, but she could include the federal Equal Pay Act claim in her Fourth Amended Complaint. The court stated that the deadline for the Fourth Amended Complaint would be set after counsel was appointed.

The court also referred Gonzalez to the Legal Help Center to determine whether she qualified for appointment of pro bono counsel under General Order 25. The referral was for an eligibility determination; the opinion does not state that counsel had already been appointed.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Apttus’s motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to Claim One, the federal Equal Pay Act claim, and granted it as to Claims Two through Five, the FEHA claims. Claims Two through Five were dismissed with leave to amend.