One Fair Wage, Inc. v. Darden Restaurants Inc.

Background

One Fair Wage, Inc. asked for leave, or permission, to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order concerning statutory standing. Statutory standing asks whether a statute permits a particular plaintiff to bring the type of claim asserted. The earlier order addressed whether One Fair Wage could raise rights connected to alleged discrimination affecting Darden employees.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), which identifies circumstances supporting reconsideration. One Fair Wage argued that there was a material difference in the law because of a cited 2011 case and Title VII legislative history. The court found that One Fair Wage had not shown that it could not have discovered those authorities earlier through reasonable diligence. The court also said the cited case was distinguishable because the plaintiff there suffered direct retaliation, while One Fair Wage’s injury was essentially derivative. The court further stated that the New Deal statutes and Title VII did not appear to concern similar subjects for statutory-interpretation purposes.

One Fair Wage also argued that new material facts existed because both Darden employees and One Fair Wage itself allegedly suffered harm from Darden’s discrimination. The court found no new material facts, explaining that it had never understood One Fair Wage to deny that it was claiming harm from Darden’s actions.

Finally, One Fair Wage argued that the court had overlooked two legal arguments: that One Fair Wage and Darden employees arguably shared an interest in employment nondiscrimination, and that statutory standing followed from the text of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a). The court rejected both arguments. It explained that sharing an interest does not establish that One Fair Wage falls within Title VII’s protected zone of interests, because the issue was whether Title VII allowed One Fair Wage to assert rights belonging to Darden employees who allegedly suffered the direct harm. The court also said its prior analysis did not depend on whether One Fair Wage was an entity rather than an individual. Instead, the analysis rested on the collateral nature of One Fair Wage’s asserted harm.

Ruling

The court denied One Fair Wage’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. It directed the clerk to enter a final judgment and close the case. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 65. Judge Edward Chen signed the order.