78 F. Supp. 3d 1021
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Minor was hired by FedEx Office in August 2006 as a store manager and faced demotion after raising concerns about altered time cards in October 2006.
- Minor briefly transferred in January 2007 and lost duties as an assistant manager; he took a medical leave in October 2007 for a right hip replacement and returned in March 2008.
- Minor filed a DFEH complaint on May 19, 2008; the DFEH denied the claim on June 19, 2008.
- Minor was injured in June 2008 and placed on disability leave; he later had knee surgery and returned in January 2009.
- In 2009, Minor served as class representative in a wage-and-hour class action settled in November 2012 for $9.625 million, with carve-out provisions for five DFEH complaints.
- Minor filed the instant action in 2013; after removal, the Court granted FedEx Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowing amendment to address exhaustion and the wrongful termination release, and Minor subsequently filed a Third Amended Complaint in September 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Has Minor exhausted FEHA administrative remedies? | Minor allegedly exhausted remedies via DFEH actions (despite confusion on dates). | Minor failed to exhaust; the pleaded post-termination filing is incorrect and no proper exhaustion occurred. | Minor failed to allege proper exhaustion; FEHA claims dismissed. |
| Does the settlement carve-out exempt the wrongful termination claim from release? | Carve-out language preserves certain DFEH claims; wrongful termination may be exempt. | Settlement released all claims not carved out; wrongful termination not within carved-out scope. | Wrongful termination claim barred by the settlement's limited carve-out; release valid. |
| Are FedEx Corporation and Federal Express Corporation proper defendants and/or properly before the court? | FedEx Corporation and Federal Express Corporation were improperly dismissed or misnamed entities. | FedEx Corporation and Federal Express Corporation were either dismissed with prejudice or not properly named; need to limit to FedEx Office. | FedEx Corporation and Federal Express Corporation dismissed with prejudice. |
| Should Minor be allowed to amend to cure deficiencies? | Amendment could cure exhaustion and misnaming issues. | Amendment would be futile; deficiencies cannot be cured. | Leave to amend denied; claims dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65 (Cal. 1990) (administrative exhaustion required before FEHA suit)
- Romano v. Rockwell Int’l, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 479 (Cal. 1996) (exhaustion deadlines and notice requirements under FEHA)
- Miller v. United, Airlines, Inc., 174 Cal.App.3d 878 (Cal. App. 1985) (lack of exhaustion jurisdictional issue)
- Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling of FEHA exhaustion factors)
- Stroman v. West Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1989) (release validity in settlement contexts and exhaustion considerations)
- Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006) (documents considered on motion when referenced by complaint)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (pleading standards and notice pleading context)