Castillo v. The Well Cmty. Church

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01460-ADA-BAM
• Parties: KRYSTAL CASTILLO, Plaintiff, v. THE WELL COMMUNITY CHURCH, a California Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

KRYSTAL CASTILLO, Plaintiff,
v.
THE WELL COMMUNITY CHURCH, a California Corporation, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-01460-ADA-BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 13, 2022

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(ECF NOS. 6, 9)

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant The Well Community Church.^[1] (ECF No. 6.) For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant, in part, and deny, in part, Defendant's motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Krystal Castillo filed a Complaint for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; interference with prospective economic relations; and defamation; under federal question jurisdiction on September 29, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Prior to her Complaint, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

1

against Defendant on July 19, 2021. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The EEOC instructed Plaintiff of her right to sue on September 24, 2021. (Id.) On October 20, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure state a claim. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff opposed on November 23, 2021 (ECF No. 8), and requested judicial notice of her Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (ECF No. 9). Defendant replied on November 30, 2021, silent concerning Plaintiff's request for judicial notice.^[2] (ECF No. 10.)

B. Factual Background

The following facts are reproduced from Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1): Defendant employed Plaintiff, who is a Hispanic female, from June 22, 2020, until her discharge on June 3, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff, a duly qualified Licensed Marriage Family Therapist, performed in a satisfactory manner. (Id. at 2.) Defendant hired Plaintiff to replace a White woman, Wendi Mooney, who left voluntarily. (Id. at 3.) During her employment, Plaintiff observed Defendant treated her and other Hispanic employees differently than White employees. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) For example, Plaintiff observed that Defendant allotted less funding to its Hispanic ministry and it gave less access to resources and provided work facilities that were less desirable to its Hispanic employees. (Id.) Plaintiff also observed that Defendant failed to act on a complaint concerning a White employee's racist comments about a Black employee; however, when a White employee later made a baseless complaint about Plaintiff's conduct, Plaintiff was reprimanded and terminated. (Id.)

In February 2021, a White male coworker made offensive, sexually-oriented comments to Plaintiff, including telling Plaintiff that he viewed pornography and asking her if she had sex with her husband. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff was offended and distressed and complained to Chris Shultz, Defendant's Executive Pastor of Ministry, about sexual harassment. (Id.) To Plaintiff's knowledge, Defendant took no action despite several requests from Plaintiff. (Id.)

2

In April 2021, Wendi Mooney returned. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Mooney subjected Plaintiff to unwarranted criticism and treated her in a condescending manner. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Mooney's treatment was motivated by animus toward Hispanics. (Id.) Plaintiff complained about Mooney's conduct, but Defendant ignored her complaints. (Id.) After Plaintiff complained, Jeremy Vanderlinden, Executive Pastor of Operations and Development, told Plaintiff to put her “big girl pants on.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges this statement demonstrated bias against females and was offensive to Plaintiff. (Id.)

Brad Bell, Defendant's Lead Pastor, Mooney, and possibly others made false statements about Plaintiff to others, including, but not limited to, the Board of Directors of The Well Counseling Center, Inc., to the effect that: (1) Plaintiff was incompetent; (2) Plaintiff was not “teachable”; (3) Plaintiff never “stepped up”; and (4) Plaintiff was “just not The Well-type staff.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Vanderlinden made false statements about Plaintiff to others, including, but not limited to, Cindy Karraker, to the effect that: (1) Plaintiff was a poor leader; (2) Plaintiff was not a team player; and (3) Plaintiff was punitive toward staff of the counseling center. (Id.) On June 3, 2021, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment without giving a reason. (Id.) Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant terminated her employment because she is Hispanic, it wanted to replace her with a White person, and because she complained about sex discrimination and harassment. (Id.)

After Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment, it cancelled all the appointments Plaintiff had with clients without telling them how to contact her to be treated at her independent therapy practice if they chose to do so. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Defendant contacted at least one of Plaintiff's clients and suggested that they could continue counseling with another of Defendant's therapists. (Id.) This client was a community-based referral to Plaintiff and was not originally a client of The Well Counseling Center, Inc., therefore, Plaintiff alleges, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's independent therapy practice. (Id.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. See N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal can be

3

based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Though Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (Twombly); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (Iqbal). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the Court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded her discrimination claim.

The Title VII statutory scheme makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to [their] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of that individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To prevail in a Title VII case, Plaintiff must establish a prima facie discrimination case. Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir. 2003). A prima facie case of unlawful race or sex discrimination requires Plaintiff to show (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she qualified for her position and satisfactorily performed her job; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that either similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably, or that other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 355 (2000). When deciding Title VII matters on a question of law, “minimal proof' is necessary to establish a prima facie case; it “does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994).

4

Defendant argues Plaintiff's “vague and conclusory allegations” fail to plead the requisite fourth element of unlawful discrimination; therefore, Plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts to state a claim for relief from unlawful race or sex discrimination. (ECF No...