Rankins v. United Parcel Serv.

1

TAMI RANKINS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.

No. 3:23-cv-05785-JSC

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 19, 2024

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

RE: DKT. NO. 30

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Tami Rankins sues United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) for discrimination because of her age and gender, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for a breach of her employment contract with the company, in violation of California laws. (Dkt. No. 26.)^[1] Now pending before the Court is UPS's motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No 30.) Having carefully considered the briefing, and with the benefit of oral argument on April 18, 2024, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion. Plaintiff failed to exhaust her FEHA claims, and her contract claim is preempted; so, both claims are dismissed without leave to amend. Because Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim could be saved with additional factual allegations, that claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Rankins “is a woman over forty years of age” who lives in California. (Dkt. No. 26 ¶ 10.) She is “a large African American woman.” (Id. ¶ 90.) She “was hired by UPS on March 15, 1989, for the position of an International Auditor and Irregular Pick Off.” (Id. ¶ 29.) She has “worked at UPS for over 32 years.” (Id. ¶ 30.)

On September 14, 2017, Vince Owens “made a comment that Rankins need keep her ass on the other side of the unload,” and said, “Don't do anything she [Rankins] says because she doesn't run shit!” (Id. ¶ 32.) In October of 2017, Owens “continued making various jeers and comments aimed at Rankins during their work.” (Id. ¶ 34.) “Many of these comments pertained to Rankins' gender.” (Id.) The situations continued for the following several months. (Id. ¶ 37.)

On May 1, 2018, “Rankins was called to the office of a superior who questioned why she had not reached out to her if the situation was continuing.” (Id. ¶ 38.) “Rankins expressed that her past attempts had yielded no results or improvements to her work life and that she had lost faith in the system that was allowing her abusers to get away with it.” (Id.) “Rankins was told that someone would be contacting her.” (Id.)

On May 10, 2018, Moses Young “threatened to physically beat Rankins as well as insulted her for her weight calling her a ‘fat bitch.'” (Id. ¶ 40.) Rankins reported the incident to the “Oakland Hub Steward Ed Haynes and Dave Warren.” (Id. ¶ 42.) “Incidents between Rankins” and Owens and Young “did not improve.” (Id. ¶ 44.) “April and May of 2019 saw repeated incidents with Moses [Young].” (Id. ¶ 49.)

In March 2020, Rankins told Angel Dunn, who worked in Human Resources, about the situation with Owens and Young. (Id. ¶ 51.) In March, Dunn and Rankins spoke, and Dunn “apologized on behalf of UPS and stated that this should have been solved a long time ago, and that this was a hostile work environment.” (Id. ¶ 52.) Dunn also said Rankins' “boss and the union would be notified.” (Id.)

Despite that meeting, “[h]arassment against Rankins did not stop,” even though “Plaintff has attempted to make complaints to no less than 25 of Defendant's employees that were in a position to assist Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶¶ 53, 165.) “On May 20, 2020, Vince [Owens] called out to Moses [Young] and nodded toward Rankins and made a fat person gesture with his hands in motion.” (Id. ¶ 53.) “On May 22, 2020 Vince [Young] walked by Rankins leering and taunting.” (Id.) “Behavior like this continued daily for the proceeding months.” (Id.)

Sometime in 2021, Moses Young pointed Rankins and stated, “Mirror Mirror on the wall, whos' the fattest of them all?” (Id. ¶ 54.) Moses Young retired early 2023. (Id. ¶ 59.)

Plaintiff filed this action in California state court on August 11, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2.)

DISCUSSION

I. FEHA CLAIMS

Plaintiff's first three causes of action allege violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov't Code § 12900 et seq. Defendant moves to dismiss these claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Rankins failed to meet the deadline to sue for her first administrative complaint, and her second administrative complaint failed to provide fair notice of her claims.

“Before filing a civil action alleging FEHA violations, an employee must exhaust his or her administrative remedies.” Wills v. Superior Ct., 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 153 (2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (May 12, 2011); see also Cal. Gov't Code § 12965. “[I]t is plaintiff's burden to plead and prove timely exhaustion of administrative remedies, such as filing a sufficient complaint with [DFEH] and obtaining a right-to-sue letter.” Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc., 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1345 (2014) (cleaned up).

Under FEHA, employees who believe they have suffered discrimination first file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081-82 (2003), as modified (Dec. 23, 2003). This complaint “must . . . identify[] the conduct alleged to violate FEHA.” Wills, 195 Cal.App.4th at 153. “The purpose of FEHA's administrative exhaustion requirement is to ensure DFEH is provided the opportunity to resolve disputes and eliminate unlawful employment practices through conciliation.” Wills v. Superior Ct., 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 156 (2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (May 12, 2011). Therefore, “[t]o exhaust his or her administrative remedies as to a particular act made unlawful by the [FEHA], the claimant must specify that act in the administrative complaint, even if the [administrative] complaint does specify other cognizable wrongful acts.” Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC, 83 Cal.App. 5th 320, 355 (2022), reh'g denied (Oct. 6, 2022) (quoting Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, 1724 (1994)).

Before January 1, 2020, individuals had one year from the unlawful practice to file a complaint with the DFEH. See former Cal. Gov't Code § 12960(d). Since January 1, 2020, a “complaint alleging a violation of [FEHA] shall not be filed after the expiration of three years from the date upon which the unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred,” so long as that claim had not previously lapsed under the one-year statute of limitations. Cal. Gov't Code § 12960(e)(5);); 2019 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 709 (A.B. 9) (West) §§ 1, 3 (extending the statute of limitations from one year to three but indicating the amendment does not “revive lapsed claims”); see also Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Servs., Inc., 11 Cal. 5th 918, 931 (2021) (explaining the 2020 amendment to FEHA's statute of limitations “uses virtually identical language” as the previous statute-of-limitations “but allows for a period of three years”).

There are two types of FEHA complaints: individuals can file a complaint “for investigation,” requesting the DFEH investigate the allegations, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 10004(a); or individuals can file a complaint requesting “an immediate right-to-sue notice,” in which case DFEH does not investigate the claims. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 10004(c). After receiving the complaint, DFEH provides the complainant with a “right-to-sue letter”-either after an investigation or immediately when the complainant forgoes the DFEH investigation process. Once the complainant receives the right-to-sue letter, she can bring her claims as a civil action in court. Schifando, 31 Cal.4th at 1082. The ensuing “civil action's permissible scope” is limited “to the information brought to DFEH's attention when it conducts an administrative investigation, or to information DFEH reasonably should have discovered during its investigation.” Wills, 195 Cal.App.4th at 153. Finally, “the person claiming to be aggrieved may bring a civil action . . . within one year from the date of” the right-to-sue letter. Cal. Gov't Code § 12965(c)(1)(C).

So, FEHA is governed by two statutory deadlines: since 2020, an individual can bring a complaint to the DFEH for any unlawful action that occurred within the previous three years (and before 2020, within one year). Cal. Gov. Code § 12960(e)(5). After the complainant receives a right-to-sue notice, that complainant has one year to file a civil action arising from any of the events in her DFEH complaint. Cal. Gov't Code § 12965(c)(1)(C).

Plaintiff “filed two complaints with the DFEH.”^[2] (Dkt. No. 26 ¶ 23.) Each is discussed below.

A. Rankins' First Administrative Complaint

Plaintiff filed her first administrative complaint on September 26, 2019-when the one-year statute of limitations applied. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26.) Plaintiff's first DFEH complaint alleged:

From September 2017 to the present [e.g., September, 2019], I have been sexually harassed by Moses Young (Irregular Packages/Unloader) and Vincent Owens (Irregular Packages/Pick-Off) which is discrimination due to my gender (female) and I have been subjected to workplace harassment due to race (African American). The harassment was verbal in nature and occurs on a weekly basis. Examples include but are not limited to the following: Both Moses Young and Vincent Owens have used the “N” word, they have called me a fat bitch, and Moses has threatened to beat my ass like a man and said that he would unzip his pants and show his manhood. (Details on file with DFEH). I have reported the harassment to Dave Warren (Manager), Lori Seymor (Labor Relations), Tim Brown (Manager), Marlow Austin (Human Resources Manager), Chris Vigil (Union Steward), Dee Carter (Security Manager), Ace Last Name Unknown (Supervisor), April Williams (Manager), Brandi Vargas(Supervisor), Tom Kelley (Manager), and

...