Fagalnifin v. First Technology Federal Credit Union
2:22-cv-00734
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jessica Fagalnifin worked at First Tech Federal Credit Union from 2018 to 2021 and alleges misclassification as an exempt employee, impacting overtime and break protections under California law.
- In 2019, Plaintiff took FMLA leave to care for her ill daughter, alleging later retaliation. In 2020, she sought further leave due to her daughter's COVID-19-related school closure but was told it did not qualify for FMLA, relying instead on paid time off.
- Plaintiff's lawsuit included claims for overtime/payment violations, breaks, FMLA interference/retaliation, PAGA penalties, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The latter two claims were voluntarily dismissed.
- Defendant sought summary adjudication specifically on the FMLA and PAGA claims, asserting Plaintiff could not establish either interference or retaliation under FMLA and arguing various deficiencies and overbreadth in the PAGA claim.
- The Court granted the motion as to the FMLA claims (both interference and retaliation) but denied it for the PAGA claim, allowing the state-law claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA Interference | Denied FMLA leave in 2020 for daughter's school closure | Plaintiff not entitled—employer too large for COVID-related expansion | Court grants summary adjudication—Plaintiff not eligible |
| FMLA Retaliation | Suffered adverse actions after 2019 FMLA leave | No adverse action/casual link; remarks and review insufficient | Court grants summary adjudication—claim dismissed |
| PAGA Claim: Scope (Timeframe and Violations) | Can include violations up to the last day of employment, not just limited | Should restrict PAGA period and scope to one year before notice, overbroad | Court denies limitation—timeframe extends to last employment |
| PAGA Claim: Manageability (Efficiency at Trial) | Manageable using various trial tools; not grounds for dismissal | Too complex to efficiently try; should be dismissed | Court cannot dismiss for manageability under state law |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment; genuine dispute of material fact required)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (burden on nonmoving party to show genuine issue for trial)
- Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867 (harsh words alone do not constitute adverse employment action)
- Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (outlines substantive rights under FMLA)