King v. C&K Mkt., Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:16-cv-00559-TLN-DMC,2:16-cv-00559-TLN-DMC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | DEBORAH KING, Plaintiff, v. C&K MARKET, INC. dba RAY'S FOOD PLACE #25, Defendant. |
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant C&K Market, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff Deborah King ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion (ECF No. 23) and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 24). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend in part, as described herein. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 22) is hereby DENIED.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
This is a wrongful termination case in which Plaintiff alleges Defendant improperly terminated her employment following Plaintiff's requests for leave and accommodations due to her alleged disability. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in June 2003, at its Etna, California store and last worked for Defendant on July 3, 2014. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant operates over two dozen stores throughout California and Oregon and has over 15 employees. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 3). She also alleges Defendant had over 50 "employees on the payroll during each of any twenty or more calendar weeks in the current calendar year or preceding calendar year." (ECF No. 19 ¶ 3.)
At the beginning of her employment, Plaintiff worked as a clerk cashier and stocker, and later worked as a night manager and file maintenance manager. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 6.) Her essential duties were as follows:
At the time of her alleged termination, Plaintiff was working as a File Maintenance Manager. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 8.) She also performed some of the tasks required of the clerk, cashier, stocker, and night manager positions. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 8.) John Cluckert ("Cluckert") supervised Plaintiff. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 9.)
On April 18, 2005, Plaintiff alleges she injured her back when lifting heavy bags of dog food while working as a clerk and stocker. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges she had back surgery in March 2006 but the surgery did not completely cure her pain. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 10.) Plaintiff thereafter returned to work, and in September 2006, she tore the meniscus in her leftknee while working at Defendant's store. (ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff alleges she eventually had surgery on her knee but continued to experience pain as a result of the injury. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 14.)
In approximately 2008, Plaintiff began experiencing pain in her fingers and hands, which was diagnosed as carpal tunnel and other nerve injuries. (ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 15-16.) Plaintiff asserts the injuries interfered with her ability to work and she needed and requested a reasonable accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). (ECF No. 19 ¶ 17.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant agreed to provide an accommodation to Plaintiff but continued to require her to work without accommodation. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 17.)
On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff alleges she had a knee replacement surgery but continued to have pain, which was aggravated when she worked. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 18-19.) Plaintiff asserts that beginning in December 2013, she began to experience pain and numbness in both of her legs while working for Defendant. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 20.) She claims the pain and numbness interfered with her ability to work and she had difficulty with the following tasks: carrying groceries, stocking, cashiering for long periods of time, and lifting/carrying any merchandise. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 20.) Plaintiff asserts she again needed and requested a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and FEHA. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 20.) According to the operative complaint, Plaintiff's manager purportedly told her he would accommodate her such that she would not perform the above tasks but never provided an accommodation. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 20.) Plaintiff further alleges Defendant continued to require her to work without accommodation. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 20.)
Also beginning in December 2013, Plaintiff asserts she began to experience left hip pain. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 21). Similar to the pain and numbness in her legs, the hip pain interfered with her ability to work and Plaintiff claims she needed and requested an accommodation. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 21.) Again, Plaintiff asserts her manager told her he would accommodate her but never provided an accommodation. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 21.)
Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges Defendant refused to accommodate her, engage in the interactive process, or inadequately accommodated despite her repeated requests foraccommodation under the ADA and FEHA. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 23.) She alleges all her injuries and pain resulted from work at Defendant's store. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 22.) She argues Defendant's failure to accommodate her further exacerbated her injuries, increased her disability, and resulted in an occasional need for time off work. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 23-24.)
According to the operative complaint, on July 3, 2014, Plaintiff's physician ordered her to be off work immediately due to her disability. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 25.) Plaintiff claims she requested an accommodation of leave under the ADA and the California Family Rights Act/Family and Medical Leave Act ("CFRA/FMLA") by giving a note to her employer. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 26.) Plaintiff alleges that she and her physician both indicated Plaintiff would be able to return to work with reasonable accommodations and would be able to perform the essential functions of her job. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 27.) Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the request she had worked for Defendant for twelve months and for at least 1,250 hours within the twelve months prior to her leave request. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff asserts Defendant did not respond to her request for leave under FEHA or an accommodation under the ADA, and no interactive process was held. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 28.)
Shortly after providing the note to Defendant, Plaintiff alleges Cluckert falsely told Human Resources that Plaintiff had quit her job. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 31-32.) Plaintiff states that it was not until August 20151 when Plaintiff realized Defendant had terminated her employment. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 34.) At that time, Plaintiff requested reinstatement to her job but was denied. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 35.)
Plaintiff asserts she filed charges of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Plaintiff further alleges that on or about January 2016, the EEOC and DFEH both issued her right to sue letters. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 38.)
Plaintiff alleges she has a physical impairment that substantially limits her life activities ofwalking and working. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 39.) She also alleges that she could have performed the essential functions of the multiple jobs she held with Defendant, with accommodation. (ECF No. 19 ¶ 40.)
On March 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for violation of the ADA and California Government Code. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on May 26, 2016 (ECF No. 5), to which Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 9), seeking leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The parties thereafter stipulated to the filing of the FAC, which the Court approved. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.)
On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed the FAC alleging thirteen causes of action against Defendant. (ECF No. 13.) Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 14.) On February 15, 2018, the Court issued an order granting Defendant's motion and dismissing the FAC with leave to amend eleven of the causes of action. (ECF No. 18 at 14.) Two causes of action were dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 8, 13.)
On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") re-alleging eleven causes of action. (ECF No. 19.) On April 6, 2018, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 22.)
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Under notice pleading in federal court, the complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim . . . is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). "This simplified notice pleading standard relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002).
On a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). A court is bound to give plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the "well-pleaded" allegations of the complaint. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n.6 (1963). A plaintiff need not allege "'specific facts' beyond those necessary to state his claim and the grounds showing entitlement to relief." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial