Rankins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Tami Rankins sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) under California law. Her amended complaint asserted five causes of action: three claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for age and gender discrimination, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a breach-of-contract claim. Rankins alleged that coworkers made gender- and weight-related comments, used racial slurs, threatened physical violence, and continued harassing her despite her complaints to UPS employees.

Rankins filed an administrative complaint with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in September 2019. The agency sent her a right-to-sue letter on September 24, 2020, but she did not file a lawsuit within the required one-year period. Rankins filed a second DFEH complaint on October 7, 2022, and received an immediate right-to-sue letter the same day. She filed this action in California state court on August 11, 2023, within one year of the second letter. The second administrative complaint identified various types of discrimination but did not provide factual details about the alleged conduct or refer to the 2019 complaint.

Rankins’s contract claim relied on a collective bargaining agreement. She alleged that UPS breached the agreement by failing to provide a safe workplace and by engaging in discrimination and other violations. The complaint did not allege that Rankins used any grievance process in the agreement or that her union breached its duty to represent her fairly.

FEHA Claims

The court held that Rankins failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for the first three causes of action. Her 2019 DFEH complaint could not support the current lawsuit because she did not sue within one year after receiving the September 24, 2020, right-to-sue letter. The court rejected Rankins’s argument that internal workplace complaints equitably tolled the deadline because those complaints were not a formal legal proceeding or established alternative remedy.

The court also held that the continuing-violation doctrine did not save claims already covered by the first right-to-sue letter and subject to the one-year deadline for filing suit. Rankins therefore could not sue based on conduct occurring before September 24, 2020.

The court further held that Rankins’s 2022 DFEH complaint did not provide fair notice of the claims. It did not identify factual details that would allow the agency to investigate, did not state the particulars of the alleged discrimination, and did not incorporate or refer to the 2019 complaint. Receiving an immediate right-to-sue letter did not eliminate the requirement that the administrative complaint provide enough information for an investigation.

The court therefore GRANTED UPS’s motion to dismiss the first three causes of action and DISMISSED those claims WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court concluded that Rankins adequately alleged potentially outrageous conduct for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Her allegations included a coworker’s threat to beat her, the presence of a supervisor who did not intervene, security’s refusal to respond, and UPS’s failure to act despite complaints to numerous employees. The court also held that UPS had not established at this stage that California’s workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy rule barred the claim.

However, Rankins did not allege facts showing that she suffered severe or extreme emotional distress, which is an element of this claim. Her allegations referred generally to emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish, and possible conditions suffered by harassment victims, but did not specifically describe her own emotional distress.

The court’s order therefore GRANTED UPS’s motion to dismiss the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Breach of Contract

The court held that Rankins’s breach-of-contract claim depended on the collective bargaining agreement and was preempted by section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act. Federal preemption means that federal law displaces the state-law claim. The court rejected Rankins’s argument that the alleged discrimination and harassment were outside the agreement because the agreement specifically prohibited illegal discrimination, and the contract claim itself relied on the agreement.

The court also noted that Rankins did not allege that she exhausted the agreement’s grievance procedures or that the union breached its duty of fair representation. The court dismissed the contract claim WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Disposition

The court GRANTED UPS’s motion to dismiss. The first three FEHA causes of action and the breach-of-contract claim were dismissed WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was dismissed WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, and the court directed Rankins to file any amended complaint by May 9, 2024. The order disposed of Docket No. 30.