Folk v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 2:13-cv-00124

Folk filed an EEOC discrimination complaint against Petco in June 2011; EEOC granted right to sue but did not sue Petco itself.
Akiko Folk and Randy Folk (husband) filed suit in March 2013 asserting eleven claims: four federal Title VII-based claims, four Idaho Human Rights Act claims, plus tort claims for negligent hiring/supervision, negligence per se, and IIED.
Petco moved to dismiss Randy as a misjoined party and to dismiss Counts Three, Five–Eight, Nine–Eleven under Rule 21, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6).
Court analyzed exhaustion/notice/relatedness of EEOC charges, and whether state claims were properly administratively exhausted; it also weighed duplicative tort theories against statutory remedies.
Court granted in part and denied in part: Randy dismissed; Counts Three, Seven, Nine, Ten dismissed; Counts Five, Six, Eight, Eleven preserved; Counts One, Two, Four, and others not separately addressed above survive for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Misjoinder of Randy Folk	Folk argues Randy has interests at stake.	Randy lacks relief against Petco and is misjoined.	Randy dismissed under Rule 21.
Subject matter jurisdiction over Counts Three and Seven	Gender discrimination claims relate to original EEOC charges.	Gender claims not reasonably related/not exhausted.	Counts Three and Seven dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction over Counts Five, Six, Eight	EEOC dual-filing exhausted with IHRC.	IHRC exhaustion unclear.	Counts Five, Six, Eight preserved; subject matter jurisdiction grounded in dual filing.
Count Nine: Negligent hiring/supervision preemption	Tort claim separate from discrimination claims.	Remedy available under statute; tort duplicative.	Count Nine dismissed as duplicative preempted by discrimination claims.
Count Ten: Negligence per se based on discrimination statutes	Statutes define duty of care; can support negligence per se.	Cannot found negligence per se on rights created by statutes granting damages.	Count Ten dismissed.
Count Eleven: IIED viability	Allegations of racial harassment, slurs, humiliation; plausibility shown.	Standards of IIED not met.	IIED claim survives for further factual development.

Shah v. Mt. Zion Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 642 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1981) (liberal EEOC notice; related claims may be included)
Green v. Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 883 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1989) (claims must be reasonably related to original EEOC charge)
Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion under EEOC/FEPA framework; dual filing context)
Mullis v. United States Bank, N.A., 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987) (judicial notice and standard for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Diaz v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2007) (contextual plausibility standard; Twombly/Iqbal guidance)
Steed v. Grand Teton Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 172 P.3d 1123 (Idaho 2007) (negligence per se; using statutes to define standard of care; not actionable where statute creates its own damages)
Brown v. Caldwell School Dist. No. 132, 898 P.2d 43 (Idaho 1995) (redundant tort preemption where statute provides remedy)
Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 1997) (avoidance of needless discovery where clear defense)