Roane v. United Air Lines, Inc., 1:16-cv-01004

Background

Fourteen coordinated cases: African-American United Airlines pilots allege retaliation by United for EEOC activity, association with those who filed EEOC charges, and for participating in this litigation (denial of promotions and an August 2015 letter).
Seven plaintiffs ("settlement plaintiffs") had earlier obtained a 2011 settlement with United that included a non-retaliation clause; several assert breach of that settlement.
Judge Chesney previously dismissed (with prejudice) the settlement plaintiffs’ retaliation claims in Dec. 2013 to the extent based on their 2010 EEOC charges; plaintiffs later reasserted related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law.
United moved to dismiss or strike retaliation claims as barred by res judicata/claim preclusion, Noerr-Pennington, the litigation privilege, and for lack of administrative exhaustion; alternatively moved under California’s anti-SLAPP statute and sought attorneys’ fees and Rule 11 sanctions.
The District Court granted dismissal of claims based on (a) prior EEOC activity and (b) the August 2015 letter; denied dismissal as to claims that United denied promotions in retaliation for participation in the lawsuit; denied Rule 11 sanctions; granted anti-SLAPP attorneys’ fees in reduced amount.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether settlement plaintiffs can reassert retaliation claims under § 1981 based on prior EEOC charges after Judge Chesney dismissed Title VII/FEHA claims	Plaintiffs contend § 1981 permits relitigation of retaliation theory under a different statute	United argues Judge Chesney’s prior dismissal forecloses the same retaliation theory regardless of statutory label	Dismissed with prejudice: prior ruling bars reassertion because retaliation standards are the same
Whether settlement plaintiffs’ breach of the 2011 settlement is barred by Judge Chesney’s prior dismissal	Breach claim distinct from statutory retaliation; contract may cover broader conduct	United contends breach theory rests on same conduct and is foreclosed by prior dismissal	Claim survives: breach-of-contract not coextensive with Title VII analysis; denial of dismissal
Whether non-settlement plaintiffs can state retaliation claims based on association with EEOC filers	Plaintiffs allege denial of promotions due to association with the "Dirty Dozen"	United: allegations are implausible, conclusory, and too attenuated to state a claim	Dismissed with prejudice: allegations insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly
Whether the August 2015 letter can support retaliation claims under § 1981, Title VII, and FEHA	Plaintiffs say the letter was sent for retaliatory purposes and supports claims	United: letter is litigation-related conduct protected by Noerr-Pennington and by California’s litigation privilege; anti-SLAPP applies	Dismissed with prejudice: Noerr-Pennington immunizes letter; anti-SLAPP strike granted; fees awarded
Whether plaintiffs’ claims that United denied promotions in retaliation for participating in this lawsuit are viable and exhausted	Plaintiffs say post-litigation denials are tied to their participation and are reasonably related to exhausted claims	United argues Title VII/FEHA claims are unexhausted	Survives: claims are sufficiently related to exhausted charges; motion to dismiss denied
Whether United is entitled to attorneys’ fees and sanctions for prevailing on anti-SLAPP/strike motion	United seeks fees under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c) and sanctions under Rule 11	Plaintiffs argue claims were nonfrivolous	Anti-SLAPP fees awarded but reduced by 50% for procedural inefficiencies; Rule 11 sanctions denied

Key Cases Cited

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (preclusion principles and respect for prior rulings of the same court)
Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (retaliation standards under § 1981 and Title VII are similar)
Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards for retaliation analysis)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible claim requirement)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: factual plausibility threshold)
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham litigation exception)
Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (application of Noerr-Pennington and sham litigation standards)
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Prof'l Real Estate Investors, Inc., 944 F.2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1991) (petitioning conduct immunity includes conduct incidental to litigation)
United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (foundational Noerr-Pennington doctrine precedent)
Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (Noerr doctrine origins)
Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1990) (exhaustion and relation-back principles for administrative charges)
Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) (California anti-SLAPP framework in federal court)