Strifling v. Twitter Inc.

Background

Carolina Bernal Strifling and Willow Wren Turkal filed claims against Twitter, Inc. alleging sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court previously granted Twitter’s motion to dismiss the original complaint in part, concluding, among other things, that Strifling and Turkal lacked standing to challenge a policy Twitter implemented after a reduction in force because they were no longer Twitter employees when the policy was implemented. The court gave them leave to amend, but stated that they could file an amended complaint “solely to cure the deficiencies identified” in that order.

The amended complaint added X Corp. as a defendant and Sydney Frederick-Osborne as a new plaintiff. It also added individual and class claims for age discrimination under Title VII and the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Twitter moved to strike Frederick-Osborne, those age-discrimination claims, and the allegations supporting them.

Parties’ Arguments

Twitter argued that the amended complaint exceeded the scope of the court’s earlier order. The plaintiffs argued that Frederick-Osborne was added to address Strifling’s and Turkal’s lack of standing to challenge the post-reduction-in-force policy. They also argued that Frederick-Osborne’s claims were added to avoid possible claim-splitting problems and that judicial economy supported keeping the amended complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that its earlier order allowed Strifling and Turkal to amend their existing allegations, but did not allow them to add new parties or claims. Adding Frederick-Osborne did not cure Strifling’s or Turkal’s lack of standing. The court also found that concerns about claim splitting did not change whether the amended complaint exceeded the permission to amend.

The court noted that the plaintiffs could have sought permission to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, but they did not do so. It declined to treat their opposition to the motion to strike as a separate motion for leave to amend. The court also found that the new age-discrimination claims and allegations had no basis in the original complaint, which concerned sex-based discrimination.

Disposition

The court granted Twitter’s motion to strike. It struck Frederick-Osborne, claims three and four, and the corresponding age-discrimination allegations from the amended complaint. It did not strike X Corp. because Twitter’s motion did not request that relief. The opinion’s concluding sentence refers to “Plaintiff’s motion,” although the caption, analysis, and ruling identify the motion as Twitter’s motion to strike.