Rankins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Tami Rankins sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) in California state court. She alleged age and gender discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of an employment contract under California law. UPS removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Rankins alleged that, beginning in 2017, coworkers verbally assaulted and threatened her, made gender-related comments, questioned her seniority, threatened physical violence, and taunted her about her weight. She alleged that these events caused health deterioration, loss of her job, and loss of salary, wages, bonuses, and benefits.

Rulings on the Claims

First cause of action. The first cause of action was labeled “Retaliatory Disparate Treatment in Violation of Public Policy” in one part of the complaint and “Disparate Treatment in Violation of Public Policy” in another. The court concluded that the complaint did not show whether Rankins intended to assert a common-law claim or a claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The complaint also did not identify which FEHA provision was allegedly violated. Because the court could not determine the basis of the claim, it dismissed the first cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement of a claim. The court directed Rankins to clarify the claim if she amended her complaint.

Second and third causes of action. These causes of action alleged FEHA violations. The court explained that a person generally must first exhaust FEHA’s administrative process before filing a civil lawsuit. Rankins alleged that she filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on February 24, 2020 and received a right-to-sue notice. But the exhibit attached to the complaint was instead a DFEH complaint filed October 7, 2022, alleging adverse actions on October 6, 2022. Rankins did not attach the alleged 2020 complaint or a related right-to-sue letter. Because of this inconsistency and uncertainty about which administrative complaint supported the lawsuit, the court dismissed the FEHA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Fourth cause of action. Rankins alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming that UPS’s conduct in allowing the alleged abuse was extreme and outrageous. The court recognized that threats of physical violence can qualify as extreme and outrageous conduct. However, the complaint did not allege facts supporting a plausible inference that UPS allowed the conduct. The court therefore dismissed the claim as not plausibly pleaded. It did not reach UPS’s argument that workers’ compensation exclusivity barred the claim because the court did not yet understand the basis of the claim.

Fifth cause of action. Rankins alleged that UPS breached an employment contract under which it agreed to pay her hourly wages. The court found that she did not identify the contract’s specific terms, explain how UPS breached the wage-related provision, or identify any other breached provision. Her allegations about wrongful termination also lacked specific facts, including when the termination occurred and whether she was terminated from UPS entirely or only from a particular position. The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim. It declined to address UPS’s preemption argument because UPS relied on a declaration asserting that Rankins was a union employee, and the court found no basis to consider that declaration on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court granted UPS’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Rankins was permitted to file an amended complaint by February 16, 2024. The order stated that if no amended complaint was filed by that date, the action would be dismissed with prejudice. The court also continued the initial case-management conference from February 15, 2024 to March 21, 2024.

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley cautioned Rankins to ensure that any amended complaint referred to allegations specific to her and accurately described any attached exhibits.