Stewart v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc
3:21-cv-00587
S.D. Cal.Jun 4, 2021Background:
- Stewart previously sued in 2019 (against franchisee 3 Little Cows and CFA); the First Amended Complaint omitted CFA and CFA was dismissed from the 2019 action.
- The court limited the 2019 case to a retaliation claim against 3 Little Cows, denied Stewart leave to re-add CFA, and the 2019 action later settled and was dismissed with prejudice.
- Stewart filed a separate 2020 state-court complaint against Chick‑fil‑A, Inc.; CFA removed to federal court and moved to dismiss; Stewart moved to remand but did not oppose the dismissal motion.
- Applying Rule 12(b)(6) and the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard, the court found Stewart failed to allege CFA was her employer or a joint employer; her allegation of an "operators agreement" only showed employment by a franchisee.
- The complaint also failed to allege Stewart personally suffered harassment/discrimination or how she was harmed, and the asserted claim under California Government Code sections 12940(k)/12950 lacks a private right of action.
- This was Stewart’s third attempt to state a claim against CFA; she conceded she had no additional facts to plead, so the court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend and denied the remand motion as moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart stated FEHA employment discrimination/harassment claims against CFA | Stewart asserts CFA is liable for FEHA violations | CFA argues Stewart never alleges CFA was her employer or joint employer | Dismissed: Stewart failed to plead CFA was employer or joint employer |
| Whether allegations show Stewart personally suffered harassment/retaliation/harm | Stewart alleges statutory violations but provides few facts of personal harm | CFA contends allegations are conclusory and fail plausibly to show harm or adverse action | Dismissed: allegations are conclusory and lack plausible factual detail |
| Whether an operators agreement plausibly establishes joint-employer status | Stewart points to an operators agreement between CFA and franchisee | CFA and court treat franchise relationship as insufficient to show control over employment conditions | Dismissed: operators agreement does not establish joint-employer liability (Salazar applied) |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Stewart implicitly seeks another chance to plead CFA claims | CFA argues prior denials and lack of new facts make amendment futile | Denied: court found further amendment futile and dismissed without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual matter sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires more than bare conclusions)
- Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., 939 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2019) (franchisor’s brand-control does not necessarily make it an employer or joint employer)