Rizvanovic v. Amazon.com Servs.

1

MICHELLE RIZVANOVIC, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-01804-JLT-CDB

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 30, 2024

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS OR MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ALLEGATIONS (DOC. 15)

Michelle Rizvanovic is a former employee at one of Amazon.com Services, LLC's Fulfillment Centers in California. She brings this putative class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging several theories of disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, pursuant to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12940 et seq. Pending is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations (“Motion to Dismiss”). (Doc. 15.) The Court finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In October 2020, Plaintiff began her employment with Amazon as a Fulfillment Associate at one of Amazon's California Fulfillment Centers.^[1] (Ex. A, Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 17.) Amazon hired Plaintiff on a “Reduced Time” schedule consisting of five, six-hour shifts. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.) Plaintiff's job duties included assisting in “processing, packaging, and shipping items,” which required Plaintiff to walk and stand for prolonged periods of time. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) At the start of her hire, Plaintiff informed an Amazon representative in the Human Resources (“HR”) Department that she suffers from osteoporosis in her ankles and legs, and has stress fractures in both feet, thereby causing Plaintiff pain when she walks and stands for too long. (Id. at ¶ 21.) “Plaintiff further explained to [HR] that she would not know how her body was going to react until she performed” her work duties. (Id.)

Around four-to-five hours into her second day of work, Plaintiff felt “unbearable” pain and discomfort in her feet, and at the end of her second shift, felt that she could not perform any overtime work due to the pain. (Id. at ¶ 23.) At that time, Plaintiff informed HR that she could not work any overtime hours in the future, and Defendant instructed her to submit a doctor's note indicating the “specific restrictions and/or limitations.” (Id. at ¶ 23.) The next day, on October 31, 2020, Plaintiff requested an accommodation via Amazon's online employee portal. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-25.)

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff's primary care doctor referred her to a podiatrist, whom she consulted on November 5, 2020. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 26-27.) The podiatrist provided her with a note, which stated “Plaintiff's schedule needed to be limited to six (6) hours of standing and walking per day, no more than twenty-five (25) hours per week, and no standing in place for more than fifteen (15) minutes.” (Id. at ¶ 28.) Plaintiff provided the note to Amazon on November 9, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 29.) The same day, Amazon responded and indicated that “she would be receiving a phone call in the next few business days.” (Id.) However, before this could occur, Plaintiff was exposed to COVID, and Amazon told her to quarantine until November 21, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 30.) While in quarantine, Plaintiff contacted Amazon every work day [sic] and she was “told that her request was being escalated to a manager, but Plaintiff received no response.” (Id. at ¶ 31.)

Plaintiff reported to work on November 21, 2020, and worked a six-hour shift without an accommodation, which caused pain and swelling in her feet. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 32.) The next day, Plaintiff again inquired about her requested accommodation, but she did not receive one. (Id. at ¶ 33.) She worked for five hours, but due to pain, she had to leave early. (Id.) She reiterated her need for an accommodation. When she reported for work on November 23, 2020, wearing an orthotic boot, she was informed that she was suspended without pay until her request for an accommodation could be processed, to avoid her becoming injured by working without the accommodation. (Id. at ¶ 34.) The same day, Plaintiff filed her FEHA complaint for discrimination based on “disability and medical condition.” (Id. at ¶ 35).

The next day on November 24, 2020, Plaintiff “missed call from Yaneisy Belette (“Belette”), who left a message stating she would be Plaintiff's case manager in charge of handling Plaintiff's accommodation request. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 36.) Though Plaintiff called Belette several times, she did not reach her. (Id.) On November 26, 2020^[2], Plaintiff emailed Belette and reported that she had tried to reach her and that working had caused her feet to be so swollen that she could not care for herself or her child. (Id. at ¶ 37). Belette responded by email and reported that Plaintiff's case was being evaluated. (Id.) Belette also phoned Plaintiff and told her that Plaintiff needed to take a leave of absence while her accommodation request was pending. (Id. at ¶ 38.) Plaintiff refused and instead indicated that she only needed to be allowed to work not more than four or five hours per day. (Id.) In response, Amazon placed Plaintiff on an involuntary leave of absence retroactive to November 23, 2020 and continuing through December 14, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 39)

On November 28, 2020, Amazon sent Plaintiff an email indicating that Plaintiff had requested the leave of absence and telling her that she needed to submit “another medical packet.” (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 40.) Plaintiff replied, “stating that she did not request a leave of absence, was fit for work, and the leave of absence needed to be cancelled.” (Id. at ¶ 40.) Later that day, Belette contacted Plaintiff and reported that she would be temporarily accommodated by transferring her to a light duty, Social Distancer position. (Id. at ¶ 41.) This position would require plaintiff to walk throughout the shift and the distance of the fulfillment center and remind workers to socially distance.^[3] (Id.) Once again, Plaintiff reiterated that rather than a different position, she needed to have her shift limited to four or five hours, rather than the six that had been required of her.^[4] (Id.) Belette told her that the temporary assignment would be her job until her accommodation could be determined. (Id.) Belette told Plaintiff that she needed to provide an updated doctor's note, seemingly to address Plaintiff's statement that she needed her shifts limited to four-to-five hours, which her current doctor's note did not support. (Id.) Plaintiff was instructed to report to work on November 29, 2020 and to bring with her a printed copy of the email indicating that Plaintiff was placed on light duty. (Id. at ¶ 42.) When she reported for work, however, she was told she was suspended. (Id. at ¶ 43.)

The same or the next day, Plaintiff received another email requesting documentation for Plaintiff's unrequested leave of absence. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 44.) When Plaintiff responded, she reiterated that she did not want a leave of absence, that she wanted an accommodation and that she “was ready and willing to work.” (Id. at ¶ 44.) The same day, Amazon cancelled her leave of absence. (Id. at ¶ 45.) Later that day, Belette called Plaintiff and berated her for cancelling her leave of absence and warned Plaintiff that “she could lose her job if she did not take a leave of absence.” (Id. at ¶ 46.) Belette stated that Plaintiff's disability and medical condition made it unsafe for Plaintiff to work, that Plaintiff was not fit for work, despite Plaintiff repeatedly saying that she was fit. (Id.) Belette told her that if she didn't take the leave of absence to await the accommodation, this would mean that Plaintiff would go without a paycheck until December 14, 2020. (Id.)

Plaintiff again visited the podiatrist on December 1, 2020, who issued a new note. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 47.) It modified the original note to indicate that she could work four to five hours per shift, up to 20 hours per week, that her shifts could not be on consecutive days and that she could not stand in place for more than 15 minutes. (Id.) Plaintiff provided it to Amazon the same day. (Id.) Plaintiff's request to return to work that same day was refused because Amazon indicated it needed to evaluate the new note. (Id. at ¶¶ 47-48.) Consequently, Plaintiff did not report to work. (Id. at 49.)

Nevertheless, on December 3, 2020, she was sent an email indicating that she had missed two shifts and that if she missed a third shift, she would be considered to have abandoned her job. (Doc. 1-1 at 50.) Plaintiff contacted Amazon and was told that she had to take a leave of absence or “Defendants' system would assume she quit her job.” (Id.) On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff received another email indicating that she was at risk of losing her job due to abandoning it. (Id. at ¶¶ 52-52.) Consequently, she reported to work and stayed for 4.5 hours, before leaving due to pain.^[5] (Id.) She reported that she was leaving early to HR, and an HR representative yelled at her for working while Amazon was attempting to issue an accommodation that matched her doctor's note. (Id. at ¶ 53.) The HR person told Plaintiff not to return to work until the accommodation request could be completed. (Id.) The next day, “Plaintiff contacted Defendants and explained that she had been instructed not to come to work.” (Id. at ¶ 54.)

On December 11, 2020, another HR person, Alzaga, contacted Plaintiff and told her that “still waiting for a response from the site” and that Alzaga had “resent the accommodation recommendation today.” (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 55.) Alzaga told Plaintiff that Plai...