Fagalnifin v. First Technology Federal Credit Union
2:22-cv-00734
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 23, 2025Background
- Jessica Fagalnifin worked for First Tech Federal Credit Union from 2018 to 2021 and alleges misclassification as exempt, denying her state law protections for non-exempt employees.
- Plaintiff also sought and took FMLA leave to care for her ill daughter in 2019 and attempted to take similar leave in 2020 during the COVID-19 school closures.
- Plaintiff asserts she faced retaliation for exercising FMLA rights and that the employer interfered with her ability to take FMLA leave in 2020.
- Plaintiff brings claims for unpaid overtime, denied meal/rest breaks, FMLA interference/retaliation, PAGA penalties for Labor Code violations, and (now dismissed) libel and emotional distress.
- The case was removed to federal court, where Defendant moved for summary adjudication on the FMLA and PAGA claims.
- The Court granted summary adjudication in part and denied it in part, dismissing all FMLA claims but allowing the PAGA claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA Interference (2020 leave) | Was entitled to FMLA leave for daughter's COVID school closure | Not entitled—FMLA and its expansion didn’t apply to large employers | Defendant granted summary adjudication (no FMLA right) |
| FMLA Retaliation (2019 leave effects) | Faced snide comments and adverse review after taking FMLA leave | Comments/performance review insufficient/misapplied, no causal link | Defendant granted summary adjudication (no adverse action or causal nexus) |
| PAGA claim scope (time window for violations) | Can seek penalties for violations before June 2021 | Time window should be limited to one year prior to notice | Court declined to limit PAGA time window |
| PAGA claim manageability/overbreadth | Claim manageable, supported by misclassification and evidence | PAGA claim is unmanageable and overbroad as it’d require individual analysis | Court denied summary adjudication (Estrada prohibits dismissal for manageability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden)
- Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1998) (adverse employment action must be more than harsh words)
- Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (FMLA substantive employee rights)
- Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2001) (sham affidavit rule summarized for summary judgment)
- Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2021) (summary judgment evidentiary objections)