Hunter v. ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC

Background

James Hunter brought six California-law claims arising from the termination of his employment by ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC: retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; retaliation and wrongful termination under California’s Whistleblower Protection Act; wrongful termination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act; and battery. Hunter amended his complaint to add his former supervisor, Raymond Torres, as a defendant and asserted the battery claim against Torres alone.

Hunter alleged that Torres touched his shoulder, stood very close to him, and looked toward his crotch area. Hunter reported Torres’s conduct to supervisors and human-resources personnel. He alleged that these reports and related follow-up discussions occurred electronically or while employees were working remotely. Hunter was later told that his position had been eliminated, and his employment ended around December 2020.

The court had previously dismissed Hunter’s complaint with leave to amend after finding that Moffett Federal Airfield was a federal enclave and that the facts then alleged plausibly showed Hunter worked there. The amended complaint alleged that Hunter worked remotely, was generally required to be at Moffett only one day per week, and worked away from the airfield during later periods.

Joinder of Raymond Torres

The court denied Hunter’s attempt to add Torres as a defendant. Because Torres was alleged to work in California like Hunter, adding him would destroy diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), a plaintiff may not unilaterally add a non-diverse defendant after removal; the court must decide whether to allow the joinder.

The court concluded that none of Hunter’s proposed claims against Torres would survive a motion to dismiss. It held that the battery claim was time-barred under California’s two-year limitations period. Even assuming the claim could relate back to the original complaint, the court reasoned that the limitations period had expired before Hunter filed suit.

The court also held that Hunter could not bring the Fair Employment and Housing Act retaliation, wrongful-termination, or age-discrimination claims against Torres because California law does not impose liability for those claims on individual supervisors. The court rejected Hunter’s reliance on individual liability for harassment because he had not pleaded a harassment claim. The court likewise held that Torres, as a nonemployer, could not be liable under the California Whistleblower Protection Act claim or for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Because all claims against Torres failed on the face of the amended complaint, the court found that Torres was not needed for a just adjudication. It also noted that Hunter had not explained his delay in seeking joinder and would not be prejudiced by denial because he had not stated a facially valid claim against Torres. The court therefore denied the attempt to add Torres and retained diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.

ASRC’s Motion to Dismiss

The court denied ASRC’s motion to dismiss all of Hunter’s claims under the federal enclave doctrine. That doctrine can apply federal law, and certain state laws that existed when federal ownership began, to claims arising from conduct and injuries occurring on federal property. The court explained that the relevant question was where the pertinent events for each claim occurred and that claims too remote from the federal enclave are not barred at the pleading stage.

The amended complaint plausibly alleged that many important events occurred away from Moffett Federal Airfield. Hunter reported Torres’s conduct electronically, followed up with Qadir while Qadir was allegedly at home, communicated with Lansdon while employees were working remotely, and participated in a remote meeting with Lansdon and Grau after remote work became mandatory. The court also found it reasonable to infer that Hunter’s termination occurred away from the airfield.

For the Fair Employment and Housing Act retaliation claim, the court held that the location of the conduct Hunter reported was not a pertinent event because the claim depended on whether ASRC retaliated against him for making a protected report, not on whether the reported conduct actually occurred. The court reached similar conclusions for the related wrongful-termination claims. For the Whistleblower Protection Act claim, the underlying conduct was pertinent because Hunter had to reasonably believe that his report disclosed unlawful activity. Even so, ASRC had not shown that one pertinent event on the enclave, when the other pertinent events occurred elsewhere, barred the claim as a matter of law.

Whistleblower Claim

The court separately denied ASRC’s argument that Hunter’s Whistleblower Protection Act claim was insufficiently pleaded. A claim under California Labor Code § 1102.5 requires an adverse employment action after protected activity and a causal connection between the two. Protected activity can include reporting information to someone authorized to investigate or correct a violation, and the employee need not identify a specific law allegedly violated.

Although Hunter described Torres’s conduct as “improper” and “unprofessional,” the complaint also alleged conduct that could plausibly support Hunter’s belief that he was reporting unlawful activity. Drawing reasonable inferences in Hunter’s favor, the court held that the complaint adequately alleged protected activity. Accordingly, it denied ASRC’s motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court denied Hunter’s attempt to add Raymond Torres as a defendant and denied ASRC’s motion to dismiss. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 29.