Esselstrom v. Tempus AI Inc
2:24-cv-01319
| W.D. Wash. | Nov 13, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Alicia Esselstrom, a former Senior Director at Tempus AI, alleges employment discrimination and retaliation based on sex/gender under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
- Esselstrom claims she faced a hostile, sexist work environment favoring male employees and that her complaints about disparities in treatment and compensation were ignored.
- Approximately 10 months after hire, Esselstrom was terminated and claims the termination was retaliatory.
- She sued for sex/gender discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and sought punitive damages.
- Tempus AI filed a partial motion to dismiss, arguing two claims failed to state a claim and that punitive damages are unavailable under WLAD.
- The motion was technically untimely, but the court exercised discretion to consider it on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Discrimination Claim | Facts show plausible claim under WLAD | Complaint lacks detail, fails to state claim | Sufficient as pleaded; motion denied |
| Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy | WLAD not exclusive; tort claim can proceed | WLAD provides exclusive remedy, bars tort claim | Claim can proceed; motion denied |
| Request for Punitive Damages | Sought as remedy | Punitive damages not allowed under Washington law | Dismissed with prejudice; motion granted |
| Timeliness of Motion to Dismiss | Motion was procedurally barred | Filing answer did not prevent subsequent motion to dismiss | Considered on the merits under Rule 12(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets facial plausibility pleading standard under federal law)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (prima facie case not required at pleading stage)
- Dailey v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 129 Wn.2d 572 (Wash. 1996) (punitive damages prohibited unless statutorily authorized)
- Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439 (Wash. 2014) (gender as 'substantial factor' in termination under Washington law)