Burnett v. SYB LLC, No. 2:2020cv00029 - Document 29 (D. Nev. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss Complaint without Prejudice. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint on or before 10/9/2020. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Burnett v. SYB LLC Doc. 29 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 KALIAH BURNETT, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00029-APG-BNW 4 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff 5 v. [ECF No. 21] 6 SYB, LLC, d/b/a Golden Heart Senior Care, et al., 7 Defendants 8 Kaliah Burnett sues her employer, SYB, LLC, d/b/a Golden Heart Senior Care (Golden 9 10 Heart), alleging that she was constructively discharged after telling her employer she was 11 pregnant. Golden Heart moves to dismiss the complaint. Burnett has failed to plead sufficient 12 facts to support her claims, so I dismiss them without prejudice. 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 Burnett began working for Golden Heart as a full-time personal care giver in May 2018. 15 ECF No. 1-1 at 4. Two months later, she told her employer she was pregnant. Id. Burnett’s 16 superiors told her she would need a doctor’s note clearing her to work. Id. Three weeks later, 17 Burnett presented a doctor’s note. Id. But on August 11, 2018, Burnett discovered that she was 18 scheduled to work only nine hours that week. Id. She immediately quit. Id. 19 In May 2019, Burnett filed a charge of discrimination with the Nevada Equal Rights 20 Commission (NERC) and she received a right to sue letter on September 4, 2019. Id. She filed 21 this lawsuit in state court on December 3, 2019. ECF No. 1-1. The case was removed to this 22 court a month later. ECF No. 1. Burnett raises two claims against Golden Heart. First, she 23 alleges that she was constructively discharged because she was pregnant, in violation of Title VII and corresponding state law. ECF No. 1-1 at 5–6. Second, she claims intentional infliction of Dockets.Justia.com 1 emotional distress (IIED) because of the alleged constructive discharge. Id. at 6–7. Golden Heart 2 moves to dismiss both claims. ECF No. 21. 3 II. ANALYSIS 4 A. 5 A properly pleaded complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim Motion to dismiss standard 6 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 7 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands 8 more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 9 action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint must set forth coherently 10 “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” 11 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995). “Factual allegations must be enough to 12 rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. To survive a motion to dismiss, a 13 complaint must “contain[] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 14 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 696 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 15 I apply a two-step approach when considering a motion to dismiss. Id. at 679. First, I 16 accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences from the 17 complaint in the plaintiff’s favor. Id.; Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 18 2013). Legal conclusions, however, are not entitled to the same assumption of truth even if cast 19 in the form of factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Brown, 724 F.3d at 1248. Mere recitals 20 of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. 21 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Second, I must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint 22 allege a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when it alleges facts 23 that allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged 2 1 misconduct. Id. at 663. Where the complaint does not permit the court to infer more than the 2 mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has “alleged—but it has not shown—that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If the 4 claims do not cross the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint must be dismissed. 5 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief 6 will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the [district] court to draw on its judicial 7 experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 8 B. 9 Golden Heart argues that Burnett’s claim for violations of Nevada Revised Statutes Burnett’s state law discrimination claim is timely 10 § 613.330 must be dismissed as untimely because it was filed more than 180 days after the date 11 of the alleged discrimination. Under Nevada Revised Statutes § 613.430(1), no claim for 12 violations of § 613.330 may be brought more than 180 days after the date of the alleged 13 discriminatory act or more than 90 days after receipt of a right-to-sue letter, “whichever is later.” 14 Burnett sued more than 180 days after the alleged constructive discharge, but her claim is still 15 timely because it was filed within 90 days of her receipt of the right-to-sue letter. I therefore 16 deny the motion to dismiss Burnett’s state law claim on this basis. 17 C. 18 Burnett alleges that she was constructively discharged because she was scheduled to Burnett’s constructive discharge claim is dismissed without prejudice 19 work only nine hours on the August 11 schedule and that the reduction in her hours was because 20 she was pregnant. Golden Heart argues that Burnett’s allegations fail to rise to the level of a 21 constructive discharge. Burnett contends that her allegations that her hours were reduced 22 because she was pregnant are sufficient to state a claim for a constructive discharge under Title 23 VII and corresponding Nevada law. 3 1 “A constructive discharge occurs when, looking at the totality of circumstances, ‘a 2 reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt that he was forced to quit because 3 of intolerable and discriminatory working conditions.’” Watson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 823 F.2d 4 360, 361 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Satterwhite v. Smith, 744 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1984)) 5 (alterations adopted). Generally, a single instance of discrimination is not enough to support a 6 constructive discharge claim. Id. The plaintiff must allege “aggravating factors,” like a 7 “continuous pattern of discriminatory treatment.” Id. 8 As alleged, Burnett’s constructive discharge claim is insufficient. Burnett does not 9 describe a pattern of discriminatory working conditions that made her continued employment 10 intolerable. She simply alleges that she was scheduled for reduced hours on one occasion after 11 she told her superiors she was pregnant and then she immediately quit. A single reduction of 12 hours, without more, does not rise to the level of a constructive discharge. Burnett’s constructive 13 discharge claim, therefore, must be dismissed. 14 However, in Burnett’s response, she suggests that her hours were reduced immediately 15 after telling her superiors she was pregnant, that she went to her superiors to discuss the issue, 16 and that she was rebuffed when she asked for an explanation. Because none of this was in the 17 complaint, I cannot consider these facts when ruling on Golden Heart’s motion to dismiss. 18 Outdoor Media Grp. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2007). The totality of the 19 circumstances alleged in the complaint do not give rise to a claim for constructive discharge, but 20 it appears that Burnett could plead additional facts to support it. So, I dismiss this claim and 21 grant Burnett leave to amend if she can assert sufficient facts to state a plausible constructive 22 discharge claim. 23 4 1 D. 2 In her second claim, Burnett alleges that she suffered “stress, worry, concern, and Burnett’s IIED claim is dismissed without prejudice 3 anxiety” because of her constructive discharge and loss of income. ECF No. 1-1 at 6. Golden 4 Heart argues that Burnett failed to allege extreme or outrageous conduct because the only 5 wrongful conduct alleged is reducing her hours. Burnett responds that Golden Heart’s actions 6 were a “flagrant violation of the law” that rises to the level of extreme and outrageous. ECF No. 7 27 at 9. 8 A claim for IIED requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant engaged in extreme and 9 outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress or bodily 10 harm. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 335 P.3d 125, 147 (Nev. 2014), vacated on other 11 grounds, 136 S. Ct. 1277 (2016). To be extreme and outrageous, the conduct must be “outside 12 all possible bounds of decency and regarded as “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” 13 Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 953 P.2d 24, 26 (Nev. 1998) (citation and internal quotations 14 omitted). Termination of an employee, “even in the context of a discriminatory [employee] 15 policy, does not itself amount to extreme and outrageous conduct actionable under an [IIED] 16 theory.” Hirschhorn v. Sizzler Restaurants Intern., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1393, 1401 (D. Nev. 1995) 17 (citing Brooks v. Hilton Casinos, Inc., 959 F.2d 757, 766 (9th Cir. 1992)). 18 Burnett does not state a plausible IIED claim. She does not detail specific behavior by 19 Golden Heart that could be considered extreme or outrageous, and instead she merely recites the 20 elements of an IIED claim. This does not satisfy Rule 8’s pleading standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 21 678. I therefore grant Golden Heart’s motion to dismiss this claim. 22 But as with her constructive discharge claim, Burnett’s response suggests that she has 23 additional facts that might better support this claim. I cannot consider the facts raised in her 5 1 opposition that are not in the complaint, but I will grant Burnett leave to amend this claim to 2 allege facts to support it if such facts exist. 3 III. CONCLUSION 4 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 21] is 5 GRANTED. Plaintiff Kaliah Burnett’s claims are dismissed without prejudice. 6 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff Kaliah Burnett may file an amended complaint by 7 October 9, 2020 if she can cure the defects described in this order. Failure to do so will result in 8 this case being closed. 9 DATED this 16th day of September, 2020. 10 11 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
