Cadena v. Nextiva Incorporated
2:24-cv-03198
D. Ariz.Jul 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Danielle Cadena was employed by Nextiva Inc. in increasingly senior roles from 2018 until her termination in May 2024.
- In 2023–2024, Cadena experienced serious health issues, including cancer treatment, surgeries, and pneumonia, requiring her to seek leave under company policy and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- Cadena alleges Nextiva failed to offer her FMLA leave on several occasions, even after she notified supervisors of her health conditions and leave needs.
- Cadena was terminated one day after further notifying Nextiva of her ongoing health challenges and leave requests.
- She sued Nextiva for FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, failure to provide leave under the Arizona Sick Leave Statute, and retaliation under the same statute.
- Nextiva moved to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA Interference | She provided notice and was unjustly denied FMLA leave benefits. | Cadena did not provide sufficient notice and was not denied leave after providing notice. | Motion to dismiss denied; claim survives. |
| FMLA Retaliation | She was terminated for using FMLA leave, a protected activity. | No allegation she opposed an unlawful practice; not actionable as retaliation. | Motion to dismiss granted; claim dismissed. |
| Arizona Sick Leave Statute (Failure) | She was denied required sick leave under state law. | Policy offered unlimited leave, exceeding statutory minimum. | Motion to dismiss denied; claim survives. |
| Arizona Sick Leave Statute (Retaliation) | Termination followed exercise of statutory sick leave rights within 90-day protected period. | Termination was for performance, not retaliation. | Motion to dismiss denied; claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting standards for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (distinction between FMLA interference and retaliation claims)
- Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for construing complaints on motions to dismiss)
- Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (analysis of FMLA interference and retaliation claims)
- Burnett v. L.F.W. Inc., 472 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements of FMLA interference claim)