Thomas v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Background

Adrienne Thomas worked for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGE) from January 10, 2005, until PGE terminated her employment on January 5, 2022. She worked as a Senior New Business Representative in a bargaining unit represented by Engineers and Scientists of California, Local 20 IFPTE, and her employment was covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Thomas alleged that she complained about the treatment she received from a supervisor, reported what she believed was financial misconduct by other PGE employees, and was bullied and harassed by her supervisor and other employees. She alleged that employees retaliated against her after she complained. She represented herself in the case.

PGE moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court considered the allegations in the amended complaint as true for purposes of the motion and construed Thomas’s self-represented filing liberally, but explained that it could not supply essential facts that she had not alleged.

Federal claims

Thomas asserted claims under the Dodd-Frank Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The court granted PGE’s motion to dismiss the Dodd-Frank claim without leave to amend. Thomas alleged that PGE terminated her because she made complaints, but she did not allege facts showing that she was a “covered employee,” that PGE was a “covered person” or “service provider,” or that PGE offered or provided a consumer financial product or service as those terms are defined by the Dodd-Frank Act. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.

The court also granted PGE’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, which was based on alleged racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, but granted Thomas leave to amend. Title VII generally requires a civil action to be filed within 90 days after receipt of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter. The court noted that Thomas’s letter was dated November 23, 2022, and that her original complaint was filed on January 5, 2023, but she did not add the Title VII claim until April 27, 2023. The court could not determine from the record whether the claim could relate back to the original complaint or whether the allegations in her administrative complaint were sufficiently related to the amended complaint. If she amended, the court directed her to identify the protected class involved and the adverse actions allegedly taken because of that protected status.

State-law claims

Thomas asserted claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5, for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, under California’s Unfair Competition Law, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for breach of a union contract, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for defamation, and for declaratory relief.

The court granted PGE’s motion to dismiss the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of the union contract without leave to amend. It held that those claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, meaning federal labor law displaced them because they depended on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The court also dismissed, without leave to amend, the section 1102.5 retaliation claim to the extent it was based on complaints about overtime because that part was preempted under section 301.

For any remaining portion of the section 1102.5 claim, the court granted the motion because Thomas did not identify the local, state, or federal rule or regulation that PGE employees allegedly violated. The court allowed one final opportunity to amend that portion of the claim.

The court dismissed Thomas’s wrongful-termination and Unfair Competition Law claims because it treated them as derivative of her first three claims. Because the court could not say amendment would be futile, it allowed Thomas one final opportunity to amend those claims consistently with the requirements stated for the Title VII and section 1102.5 claims.

The court granted PGE’s motion to dismiss the defamation, intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress, and declaratory-relief claims because the allegations were insufficient to state those claims. The court allowed Thomas one final opportunity to amend them.

Disposition

The court granted PGE’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint as described above. Thomas could file a second amended complaint by September 29, 2023. PGE’s response would then be due within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated that if Thomas did not file a second amended complaint by that date, it would dismiss the case without further notice. Judge Jeffrey White signed the order.