Hawkins v. Transdev Services, Inc.

Background

Katera Hawkins worked for Transdev Services, Inc. as a driver transporting people with disabilities to appointments. Hawkins alleged that Transdev learned she had diabetes, gave her inconsistent schedules and nonconsecutive days off, issued disciplinary write-ups after she requested a consistent schedule as a disability accommodation, and terminated her after her doctor placed her on medical leave because of COVID-19 risks associated with her diabetes.

Hawkins filed the case in California state court. Defendants removed it to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on wage-and-hour claims involving collective bargaining agreements and federal statutes. The parties later stipulated to dismiss five wage-related causes of action and three individual defendants. Hawkins continued to oppose dismissal of her Eighth Cause of Action for work-environment harassment and her Fourteenth Cause of Action for unfair and unlawful business practices.

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants moved to dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action, which Hawkins asserted against Mary McLain, the remaining individual defendant. Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, workplace harassment based on physical disability, age, or gender must involve conduct outside ordinary personnel management that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter working conditions.

The court held that Hawkins’s allegations about irregular schedules, disciplinary write-ups, instructions to return to work, and termination described personnel-related actions, not actionable harassment. Hawkins did not identify a separate hostile message, hostile conduct or comments unrelated to personnel management, or facts showing that the alleged harassment was based on her age or disability. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action.

Motion to Remand

Hawkins argued that the case should be returned to state court because she and McLain were both California citizens. Defendants argued that McLain had been fraudulently joined, meaning that her citizenship should be disregarded because Hawkins could not possibly state a claim against her in state court.

The court found that Hawkins had failed to state a harassment claim against McLain. At the hearing, Hawkins’s counsel represented that the complaint already included all facts regarding McLain’s conduct. Because Hawkins had no additional facts to allege and the pleading deficiency could not be corrected, the court concluded that amendment would be futile. It found that McLain was fraudulently joined as a sham defendant and that her citizenship did not defeat diversity jurisdiction. The court therefore denied the motion to remand.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action, dismissed that workplace-harassment claim with prejudice, and denied Hawkins’s motion to remand. The opinion states that Defendants did not seek dismissal of the Fourteenth Cause of Action to the extent it was based on discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination.