Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 21 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MICHELE OBRIEN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 22-cv-00348-JSC
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michele Obrien alleges on behalf of herself and a putative class of Amazon warehouse
`
`workers that Amazon has a policy or practice that has an unlawful disparate impact on employees
`
`over age 40. Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 10.)
`
`After considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is not
`
`required, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff fails to plausibly state a claim for disparate impact discrimination under
`
`FEHA. See Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2021) (“only a
`
`complaint that states a plausible claim for relief with well-pleaded facts demonstrating the
`
`pleader’s entitlement to relief can survive a motion to dismiss”).
`
`First, while she identifies as the discriminatory policy Defendants’ “rate of production
`
`and/or work production quotas,” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶ 21), she alleges no specific facts as to the
`
`“and/or” policy: What is a rate of production? What rate of production, if any, does she
`
`challenge? For what specific tasks? Is there a single rate of production that applies to several
`
`tasks or separate rates for separate tasks? Or, is there no rate and instead a quota? What quota?
`
`The complaint’s reader is left with the impression that the complaint drafter does not even know
`
`what is being challenged. A plaintiff cannot plausibly state a disparate impact claim when the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 21 Filed 04/01/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`policy being challenged is identified so generally. See Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 241
`
`(2005).
`
`Second, Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to support a plausible inference that the
`
`unspecified rate of production and/or quota policies have a disparate impact. Instead, Plaintiff
`
`baldly alleges that older employees, including herself, “suffered transfers or demotions” along
`
`with adverse scheduling and terminations at a higher rate than younger employees. (Dkt. No. 1-1
`
`¶ 47.) She merely alleges conclusions; she does not allege facts supporting an inference that her
`
`conclusion is plausible as opposed to just conceivable. See Whitaker, 985 F.3d at 1176 (the
`
`allegation of a policy of discrimination was inadequate because it “lacked factual allegations that
`
`could nudg[e] [his] claim of purposeful discrimination across the line from conceivable to
`
`plausible.”) (cleaned up).
`
`Plaintiff’s insistence that Defendant’s burden is “to show beyond doubt that Plaintiff can
`
`prove no set of facts in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief” is wrong. See Henry
`
`v. Adventist Health Castle Med. Ctr., 970 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied sub nom.
`
`Henry v. Castle Med. Ctr., 142 S. Ct. 67, 211 L. Ed. 2d 9 (2021) (noting that the “no set of facts”
`
`standard of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), was abrogated by Bell Atl. Corp. v.
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a FEHA claim for failure to prevent or correct
`
`discrimination for the same reason the disparate impact claim fails. See Trujillo v. N. Cty. Transit
`
`Dist., 63 Cal. App. 4th 280, 286-89 (1998).
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff also fails to plead a claim under California’s Unfair Competition law.
`
`Plaintiff’s contention that this claim survives even if the FEHA claim does not is based on her
`
`misapprehension of the pleading standard. Here, too, she must plead facts that plausibly support
`
`an entitlement to relief. The lack of factual allegations that doomed her FEHA claim dooms her
`
`section 17200 claim as well. Plaintiff has also not sufficiently alleged her standing to pursue such
`
`a clam since only equitable relief, not damages, are recoverable. See Ozeran v. Jacobs, 789 F.
`
`App’x 120, 122 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The only remedies available to a private plaintiff under
`
`California's UCL are the equitable remedies of injunction and restitution.”).
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 21 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. are
`
`dismissed for the additional reason that she pleads no facts to support her legal conclusion that all
`
`three named defendants were her “joint employer” or “direct employer” or “actual employer.”
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff’s FEHA disparate treatment claim is dismissed in light of Plaintiff’s
`
`concession that her complaint does not plausibly allege such a claim. (Dkt. No. 11 at 11.)
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is dismissed as she concedes that as she no
`
`longer works for any defendant she has no standing to pursue injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 11 at
`
`19.)
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff’s FEHA claims are dismissed to the extent they arise out of her pre-2019
`
`Amazon employment in light of her concession that any FEHA claims arising out of her earlier
`
`employment are barred by the statute of limitations. (Dkt. No. 11 at 19.)
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff’s request for discovery to determine if she can state a claim is denied. The
`
`Ninth Circuit has explained:
`
`This argument fails because the Supreme Court has been clear that
`discovery cannot cure a facially insufficient pleading. Iqbal
`specifically cautioned that “Rule 8 ... does not unlock the doors of
`discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions,”
`and Twombly went further, observing “[i]t is no answer to say that a
`claim just shy of a plausible entitlement to relief can, if groundless,
`be weeded out early in the discovery process through careful case
`management ...,” Our case law does not permit plaintiffs to rely on
`anticipated discovery to satisfy Rules 8 and 12(b)(6); rather, pleadings
`must assert well-pleaded factual allegations to advance to discovery.
`
`
`Whitaker, 985 F.3d at 1177 (citations omitted).
`
`8.
`
`All of the above claims are dismissed with 30 days leave to amend, except for the
`
`FEHA claim going back to her pre-2019 employment and her injunctive relief claim. The Court is
`
`giving Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her disparate treatment claim. However, as with all
`
`amendments, Plaintiff and her counsel are reminded of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 11.
`
`9.
`
`Having now reviewed and ruled upon the Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that it
`
`is appropriate to continue the case management conference to June 30, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. via
`
`Zoom videoconference with a joint case management conference statement due one week in
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 21 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`advance. Given the lack of specific factual allegations, it is premature to require the parties to
`
`discuss a discovery plan and case schedule at this time. The Court is not staying any initial
`
`disclosure requirements.
`
`This Order disposes of Docket No. 10.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
`United States District Judge
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`