Mahone v. Amazon.com, Inc.

668 F.Supp.3d 1152

Yasmine MAHONE and Brandon Tole, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. C22-594 MJP

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Signed April 10, 2023

Brian J. Lawler, Pro Hac Vice, Pilot Law PC, San Diego, CA, Gene J. Stonebarger, Pro Hac Vice, Stonebarger Law APC, Folsom, CA, Kevin L. Wilson, Pro Hac Vice, Kevin Wilson Law PLLC, Louisville, KY, Daniel Kalish, Hkm Employment Attorneys LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs.

Brian A. Richman, Pro Hac Vice, Jason C. Schwartz, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, DC, Lauren M. Blas, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew E. Moriarty, Heather L. Shook, Shannon McDermott, Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, for Defendant Amazon.com Inc.

Andrew E. Moriarty, Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, for Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com.dedc LLC, Amazon.com.kydc LLC.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com.dedc, LLC and Amazon.com.kydc LLC (collectively "Amazon"). (Dkt. No. 45.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 49), the Reply, and all supporting materials, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and DENIES the Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs¹ Yasmine Mahone and Brandon Tole are a former and a current employee of Amazon, respectively, who have filed claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. ("USERRA") alleging that Amazon discriminated against them based on their military service. Mahone alleges that Amazon willfully discriminated against her on account of her military service and that Amazon failed to offer her reemployment. Tole alleges that Amazon violated USERRA by failing to reemploy him with appropriate seniority upon his return from a two-and-a-half year military obligation. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.

The Court previously granted in part Amazon's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (Order (Dkt. No. 34).) The Court found that Mahone lacked standing to assert claims for back or front pay, but granted her leave to amend her claim that Amazon willfully violated USERRA and her claim for reemployment. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) that added Tole's claims. (Dkt. No. 44.) Amazon moves to dismiss Mahone's amended claims and Tole's new claims. The Court reviews the new allegations in the SAC.

A. Mahone

Mahone worked for Amazon from July 16, 2020 until she was terminated on October 18, 2020. (SAC ¶ 27.) While employed for Amazon, Mahone performed various periods of military service that required her to take unpaid military leave. (Id. ¶ 27.) She participated in military service obligations from October 16 through October 18, 2020. (Id. ¶ 31.) She gave timely notice to Amazon of her service obligations and took military leave without pay from October 15-18, 2020. (Id. ¶ 32.) "On Sunday, October 18, 2020, Plaintiff Mahone was performing military service obligations when she received an email from Amazon terminating her employment because her UTP [unpaid time off] balance was 36 hours, which was a direct result of the three shifts she missed for the military drill weekend." (Id. ¶ 33.) Mahone alleges that all of the unpaid time off she took was for military obligations. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Mahone newly alleges that on "October 22, 2022" (which the Court construes as October 22, 2020 given the other allegations in the SAC) an Amazon case manager emailed to "confirm if [Mahone] believe[d her termination] . . . had anything to do with un-reported Military leave dates." (SAC ¶ 34.) Four days later, Mahone responded that she was performing military drills when she was terminated and then provided a copy of the drill schedule the following day. (Id. ¶ 35.) The Amazon "case manager" took this information and "escalate[d] the case to our specialist for a review." (Id. ¶ 36.) Roughly two weeks later, the case manager informed Mahone that: "our escalations department evaluated your termination case and informed us that since documentation was not provided timely, the leave time was not coded causing the negative UPT hours" and that Amazon's Disability and Leave Services (DLS) team "will not proceed with the reinstatement request." (Id. ¶ 37.) It is unclear from this quoted statement whether the untimely "documentation" to which the manager referred was Mahone's pre-leave notice or the request for reemployment.

After Mahone filed suit in September 2022, Amazon advised Mahone's counsel that she had been terminated due to "successive technical and human errors." (SAC ¶ 41.) Amazon's outside counsel states that after Mahone filed suit, "Amazon investigated her claim" and "acknowledged that Ms. Mahone had been mistakenly terminated due to an administrative error and apologized for the error." (Declaration of Lauren M. Blas ¶ 5 (Dkt. No. 29).) Amazon then "unconditionally offered Ms. Mahone reinstatement on June 30, 2022" and paid Mahone $47,880. (Id. ¶ 6.) This sum included "all of the wages that Ms. Mahone would have earned between October 18, 2020 [and] . . . December 2, 2021—the date she began working for a new employer" and, as "a goodwill gesture, . . . all of the wages that Ms. Mahone would have earned between the date she started her new employment and June 30, 2022—the date Amazon offered her unconditional reinstatement, with no offset of earnings from Ms. Mahone's new employment." (Id.)

B. Tole

Tole was employed as an Outbound Area Manager with Amazon through its Military Leaders Program (now named "Amazon Pathways"). (SAC ¶ 52.) Through the Pathways program, members are expected over four years to "gain experience in as an Area Manager (L5), Operations Manager (L6), Senior Operations Manager (L7), and then 'graduate' the Program to the position of General Manager (L8)." (Id.) In December 2017, Tole was promoted to Operations Manager (L6) and remained in that position at the time he took military leave in May 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 53, 60.) In January 2019, Tole provided written notice that he had accepted military deployment that was to last from May 2019 to the fall of 2021. (Id. ¶ 54.) Tole alleges that he received positive performance reviews in the first quarter 2019 and that he believed he was eligible for promotion to L7 in the spring of 2019. (Id. ¶ 56.) But after he provided notice of his military service, he alleges that he "was pulled from consideration for L7 by his supervisor." (Id.) Tole alleges that other individuals who were part of the Pathways Program who started around the same time he did, but did not take military leave, were promoted. (Id. ¶¶ 57-59, 79-82.)

After Tole took military leave, he was given a negative performance rating and put on a "focus plan," though he was not notified of the reasons negative rating or focus plan. (SAC ¶ 62.) While on leave, he received no bonus or increase in compensation. (Id. ¶ 64.) Amazon's policy on "Position Reinstatement" for those returning form military leave provides for "reinstatement to prior position, or position that you would have been in had you not taken military leave[.]" (Id. ¶ 67.) Tole returned to work for Amazon in November 2021 and was assigned the position of Inbound Operations Manager (L6) and scheduled for a night shift. (Id. ¶ 69.) Tole's supervisor informed him in January 2022, that he was starting with a "clean slate," and that none of the progress he made before taking military leave could towards his L7 promotion. (Id. ¶ 70.) Tole was also told in January 2022 that he had received a negative rating while on leave, but that he would not receive the basis for this rating. (Id. ¶ 71.) At this same meeting, a manager told Tole that he was " 'too new to rate' " and that he would be given an introductory rating that negatively impacted his bonus and eligibility for promotion. (Id. ¶ 72.) Tole was told that he was next eligible for promotion in August 2022. (Id. ¶ 73.) Tole alleges that in the spring 2022, his supervisor told him that he might be removed from the Pathways Program for not being promoted to L7 within thirty-six months given that his pre-leave work did not count towards his promotion. (Id. ¶ 75.) Tole has not been given an opportunity to interview for a promotion and remains the longest tenured L6 at his location—twenty-eight months at the same pay grade. (Id. ¶ 76.)

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Amazon moves to dismiss under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). The Court reviews the applicable standards.

Amazon's Rule 12(b)(1) motion asserts a factual challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction premised on the theory that Mahone's claims are moot because her injuries are not redressable. (Mot. at 5-7.) "[I]n a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction." Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) "In resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the district court may review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment." Id. And "[t]he court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations." Id. Instead, "the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction." Id. (citation and quotation omitted). The Court applies this standard only to Amazon's Motion to Dismiss concerning Mahone's standing.

Amazon seeks dismissal of the balance of the SAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable...