Opinion
No. C09-4593 BZ.
April 9, 2010
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint ("complaint") for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or in the alternative for a more definite statement. For the following reasons, defendant's motion is DENIED.
All parties have consented to my jurisdiction, for all proceedings including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff brought this Title VII action on behalf of seven Hispanic individuals ("charging parties") and alleges claims for race/national origin discrimination and retaliation. FAC ¶¶ 4, 7-8, 14. Defendant's principal argument is that the complaint contains "mere recitations" that should be "entitled to no weight" at this stage, and that under the pleading standard adopted in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the complaint is insufficient because it "fails to allege claims that plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Motion at 2; Reply at 5.
Having reviewed the complaint, I find that it provides enough information to state a facially plausible claim of discrimination and gives defendant fair notice of the basis of the claim. The complaint alleges specific discriminatory acts, including the "replacement" of Hispanic employees with non-Hispanic employees, unjustified, constant "criticism," threats of termination, recruitment of security guards "to complain" about the employees' performance, and "forcing [the employees] to re-clean areas they had already cleaned." FAC ¶ 10. These allegations are more than "labels" or general assertions of discrimination. Plaintiff lists discrete acts that specify the form of the alleged harassment, as well as the nature of the job discrimination — removal and replacement by non-Hispanic employees. The complaint alleges that these acts were committed by "defendant's supervisors and foremen" starting "no later than February 15," and it specifies which charging parties claim injury from each act. FAC ¶¶ 8-10. This provides defendant with enough information to investigate the claim and answer the complaint. No further specificity is required. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 508 (2002); Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 974 (9th Cir. 2009); Williams v. Boeing, 517 F.3d 1120, 1130 (9th Cir. 2008).
I am mindful that by law, the EEOC files a complaint only after having investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe the charge was true and failed to eliminate the problem by "informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (f)(1).
Plaintiff sufficiently states a retaliation claim for the same reasons. The FAC alleges that the harassment complained of by Gomez, Rodas, and Hernandez is retaliatory, in addition to being discriminatory. It also alleges that defendant is responsible, that the retaliation began on April 14, 2005, and that the reason for the harassment was because the charging parties "complained" about their treatment "and/or because they filed charges" with the EEOC. FAC ¶ 15. These allegations are sufficiently specific to give defendant notice of the conduct at issue.
I find no need for argument and VACATE the hearing scheduled for May 5, 2010. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and that defendant shall answer by April 30, 2010.