Amador v. Holland Residential, LLC

Background

Cheveyo Amador sued Holland Residential, LLC, his former employer, for state-law claims involving alleged wrongful termination and missed rest breaks. He alleged that his termination was retaliation for complaints about unsafe working conditions. After Holland removed the case to federal court, Amador sought permission to amend his complaint to add his supervisor, Jamie Wessels, as a defendant.

The opinion incorporates an earlier order’s discussion of Amador’s work history and allegations. The amended complaint continued to allege that Amador had received good performance evaluations, had been allowed to use a storage room at the property for about three years, and that Wessels fired him after complaints concerning conditions involving homeless people at his workplace.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Wessels was not a proper defendant. For the wrongful-termination claims under California Labor Code sections 631 and 6311, the court followed persuasive authority holding that a supervisor has no individual liability because the supervisor is not the employer. For the missed-rest-break claim under California Labor Code section 558.1, the court held that Wessels was not a managing agent and therefore was not liable under that statute.

The opinion also states that Amador did not dispute that Wessels was diverse, even though he had tried to add her because he believed she was a California citizen who would defeat diversity jurisdiction.

Ruling

The court granted Holland Residential’s motion on the ground that Amador could not state claims against Wessels. The order is titled “Order Dismissing Claims Against Jamie Wessels.” It does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and the order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.