414 F.Supp.3d 1276
S.D. Cal.2019Background
- Eason was employed as a college counselor at Cathedral Catholic High School (CCHS) beginning December 2016 and volunteered to moderate a Gay–Straight Alliance; he disclosed he is gay.
- After the disclosure, Eason alleges repeated discipline for LGBT‑related activities and political support, culminating in nonrenewal of his contract and eventual removal from campus in April 2018.
- Eason alleges unpaid overtime (estimated 174 hours across 16 pay periods), missed meal periods (estimated 10), and lack of wage/hour records.
- The First Amended Complaint asserts claims for adverse employment action (public policy), Cal. Lab. Code violations (including wage, meal‑period, waiting‑time, and wage‑statement claims), FLSA overtime, and a UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) claim; punitive damages were sought against CSE.
- Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th causes of action and the punitive damages claim, arguing (inter alia) that Eason was an exempt employee, UCL remedies were improper, and California CCP § 425.14 bars punitive damages without court leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wage/hour exemption (overtime, meal period, wage‑statement claims) | Eason: exemption is an affirmative defense; burden is on employer; complaint sufficiently pleads claims | Defendants: FAC’s allegations show Eason was an exempt (administrative) employee and thus not covered | Denied — Defendants failed to show an obvious bar on the face of the complaint; factual issues remain, so wage/hour claims survive dismissal |
| Waiting‑time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 203) | Eason: claim derivative of unpaid wages; pleaded adequately | Defendants: § 203 claim is derivative and should be dismissed if wage claims fail | Denied — because wage/hour claims were not shown to be exempt, the § 203 claim survives dismissal |
| UCL remedies (injunctive relief, adequacy of legal remedy, restitution for meal premiums and § 203 penalties) | Eason: may plead UCL in the alternative; seeks restitution for unpaid wages and meal‑period premiums; withdrew UCL injunctive request | Defendants: no standing for injunctive relief; adequate legal remedy at law exists; § 203 penalties are non‑restitutionary and not recoverable under the UCL; meal premiums also not recoverable | Mixed — court accepted alternative pleading of UCL (denied dismissal for lack of adequate legal remedy); Eason withdrew UCL injunctive relief; UCL claim based on § 203 penalties dismissed without prejudice; UCL restitution for meal‑period premiums allowed |
| Punitive damages against CSE (CCP § 425.14) | Eason: § 425.14 does not apply / inapplicable procedural rule in federal court; CSE is not a religious corporation sole | Defendants: § 425.14 bars pleading punitive damages against a religious corporation without prior court approval | Denied — court held § 425.14 is procedural and not applied in federal court, so punitive damages claim survives at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Asarco, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 765 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirmative defense may justify dismissal only if obvious on face of complaint)
- Haro v. City of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2014) (exemptions construed narrowly against employer)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (exemption is an affirmative defense under California law)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (meal/rest‑period premium under § 226.7 is a wage, not a penalty)
- Kirby v. Immoos Fire Prot., Inc., 274 P.3d 1160 (Cal. 2012) (§ 226.7 actions are for nonprovision of breaks, not for nonpayment of wages)
- Pineda v. Bank of Am., N.A., 241 P.3d 870 (Cal. 2010) (§ 203 penalties are not recoverable as restitution under the UCL)
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co., 999 P.2d 706 (Cal. 2000) (overtime pay may be recoverable as restitution under the UCL)
Disposition: Motion GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. UCL claim to the extent premised on § 203 penalties dismissed without prejudice; all other challenged claims and the punitive damages claim survive the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Any amendment must be sought within 30 days.