Sonico v. City of Brawley
3:25-cv-00515
| S.D. Cal. | Jul 1, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Paul Sonico, a police officer with the City of Brawley, was promoted to Range Master, a position with a 2.5% pay increase.
- Sonico did not receive the promised pay raise and formally complained to his employer.
- After complaining, Sonico received the missing pay but was subsequently removed from the Range Master position, given written reprimands, negative reviews, and ultimately terminated.
- Sonico alleges the adverse actions followed his complaint about unpaid wages, which he asserts was protected activity under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California Labor Code § 1102.5.
- Defendants City of Brawley and Shirley Bonillas moved to dismiss Sonico's retaliation claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The court considered the motion on the papers and assumed the complaint’s plausible allegations were true, as is standard at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protected Activity under FLSA § 215(a)(3) | Sonico's wage complaint was a clear assertion of FLSA rights | No specific FLSA provision violated; raise not covered by FLSA | Plaintiff plausibly pled protected activity |
| Specificity of FLSA violation | Reasonable belief of FLSA violation suffices | Plaintiff failed to cite which FLSA provision was violated | Plaintiff not required to cite provision |
| Causation of Adverse Action | Temporal proximity and prior clean record show causal link | No argument specified on causation | Temporal proximity supports causation |
| Protected Activity under Lab. Code § 1102.5 | Complaint about wage violations suffices for protected activity | Plaintiff did not identify a specific law provision | Plaintiff’s claim plausibly stated |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) motion standard: plausible allegations required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state a plausible claim, not just legal conclusions)
- Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997 (protected activity under FLSA must clearly assert FLSA rights)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (oral and written complaints may constitute protected activity under FLSA)
- Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802 (temporal proximity can support causation in retaliation claims)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (temporal proximity and other evidence support causation in retaliation claims)
- Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66 (employee need not prove actual law violation for Labor Code § 1102.5 claim)