Mayes v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
917 F. Supp. 2d 1074
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Mayes filed suit in Solano County (May 14, 2012) alleging termination from Kaiser Vallejo; case removed to federal court (June 28, 2012).
- Second Amended Complaint (Sept. 21, 2012) identified seven causes of action, including FLSA retaliation and various state and federal discrimination claims.
- Plaintiff was a 2006-employee RN on Kaiser Vallejo's fifth floor, one of two male RNs, and African-American.
- In 2010, duties around FW (patient) showers; audits of payroll/acuity were sought; CNA representatives raised concerns at a Nov. 8, 2010 meeting.
- Plaintiff faced investigations and suspensions in 2010-2011, culminating in termination July 1, 2011 over missing medications.
- Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss some claims, allowed amendment for discrimination claims, and addressed NLRA preemption and potential CBA reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of state wrongful-termination claims by NLRA | Plaintiff contends state claims not preempted by NLRA. | Defendants argue NLRA preempts wrongful-termination claims as concerted activity. | Preempted; Tameny claims preempted. |
| Adequacy of pleading discrimination (Title VII/FEHA/§1981) | Plaintiff describes events suggesting race/sex discrimination. | Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing discriminatory motive. | Dismissed for lack of adequate pleading; leave to amend. |
| FLSA retaliation plausibility against individual defendants | Plaintiff alleged audit request and protected activity. | Aids only that retaliation against the employer, not individuals, is pleaded. | Plaintiff may plead retaliation against the employer; insufficient for individuals; leave to amend. |
| Complaints about acuity/staffing ratios as basis for retaliation | Complaints about staffing safety are protected activity. | Claims fall under NLRA preemption as concerted activity. | Preempted; dismissible as preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (Supreme Court 2002) (pleading standard relaxed; no prima facie proof required for Title VII)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (Supreme Court 2011) (oral complaints suffice for anti-retaliation claim under FLSA)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Dist. Council, 436 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court 1978) (Garmon preemption depends on relation to NLRA jurisdiction)
- Garmon v. San Diego Building Trades Council, 359 U.S. 236 (Supreme Court 1959) (establishes NLRA preemption framework)
- Paige v. Henry J. Kaiser Co., 826 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1987) (removal/preemption discussion; safety-related claims debated)
- Misericordia Hospital Medical Center v. N.L.R.B., 623 F.2d 808 (2d Cir. 1980) (mutual aid/protection relevance to safety/work conditions)
- City Disposal Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 465 U.S. 822 (Supreme Court 1984) (concerted activity and NLRA enforcement relation)
- Yurosek v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 261 (9th Cir. 1995) (concerted activities affecting terms/conditions of employment)