Ambuhl v. SAP Labs, LLC et al
Filing
20
Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion to Dismiss.(rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
ELIZABETH AMBUHL,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
Case No. C-13-04866-RMW
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND
DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
SAP LABS, LLC, a corporation, DOE ONE
through ONE HUNDRED, inclusive,
[Re Docket No. 14]
Defendants.
17
18
19
In this employment dispute, defendant SAP Labs moves to dismiss Elizabeth Ambuhl’s
20
claims, which are based on allegedly unlawful harassment and discrimination. SAP argues that
21
most of Ambuhl’s claims are untimely and that the remaining cause of action fails to state a claim.
22
For the reasons explained below, the court denies the motion as to timeliness, but grants the motion
23
to dismiss the emotional distress claim.
24
25
I. BACKGROUND
Ambuhl started working at SAP in 1995. Compl. ¶ 4. In 1998, Ambuhl was diagnosed with
26
fibromyalgia. Id. Over the next ten years, she received some accommodations for her medical
27
condition from SAP including reduced travel demands and being allowed to work from home when
28
needed. Id. In 2008, Ambuhl was assigned to a new supervisor, Alice Heidinger. Heidinger
ORDER
Case No. C-13-04866-RMW
SW
-1-
1
allegedly began a “campaign of harassment” and stopped allowing Ambuhl any accommodations.
2
Id. at ¶ 5. Ambuhl alleges that Heidinger demanded that Ambuhl “remain at her desk for extended
3
periods of time and stay at the office the entire work day.” Id. Heidinger allegedly micromanaged
4
Ambuhl and “criticized her work without justification.” Id. Ambuhl claims that she became ill
5
because of her mistreatment and lack of accommodations and, as a result, she had to go on disability
6
leave after the human resources department did not address her complaints. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.
7
Ambuhl eventually returned to work, but SAP allegedly refused to accommodate her
8
disability and quizzed her “in minute detail about her illness.” Id. at ¶ 7. SAP also allegedly
9
demanded a statement from a physician. Id. Ambuhl again went on disability leave, which she
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
claims was a result of the lack of accommodations. Id. When she returned to work, SAP allegedly
11
required that she complete a detailed medical questionnaire and release her medical records to SAP.
12
Id. at ¶ 8.
13
In 2011, the parties reached a partial resolution to the dispute, and Ambuhl returned to work
14
with accommodations. Id. at ¶ 13. While they were negotiating a settlement, the parties agreed to
15
toll the statute of limitations as to Ambuhl’s possible claims. Id. at ¶ 12. After failing to reach an
16
agreement as to the remaining issues, Ambuhl sued in state court, and then SAP removed the case to
17
federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1 (SAP is a citizen of Delaware and
18
Pennsylvania while Ambuhl is a citizen of California). SAP now brings the current motion to
19
dismiss.
20
21
II. ANALYSIS
SAP moves to dismiss Ambuhl’s first through eighth cause of action based on the statute of
22
limitations. It also moves to dismiss Ambuhl’s ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of
23
emotional distress for failure to state claim.
24
A. Statute of Limitations
25
SAP argues that the statute of limitations bars all of Ambuhl’s claims. The parties agreed to
26
toll the statute of limitations until “thirty (30) days from the date either party declares in writing to
27
the opposing party . . . that the matter cannot be settled.” Riechert Decl. Ex. A, Dkt. No. 16. SAP
28
argues that a June 28, 2013 email from Ambuhl’s counsel to SAP ended the tolling, and because
ORDER
Case No. C-13-04866-RMW
SW
-2-
1
Ambuhl did not file her complaint until August 26, 2013, her complaint is untimely. Although the
2
June 28, 2013 email implies that negotiations were almost at an end, the email states that Ambuhl
3
would consider another settlement offer if SAP “wants to make a good faith offer to resolve the
4
remaining issues.” Id. at Ex. B. SAP never responded to this email indicating whether they would
5
be making another offer. The last email appears to have left open the possibility of continued
6
negotiations. Although a jury might find otherwise, on either a motion to dismiss or summary
7
judgment standard, the court cannot find that Ambuhl’s June 28, 2013 email was a declaration “in
8
writing to [SAP] that the matter cannot be settled.” Id. at Ex. A.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
SAP also moves to strike portions of Ambuhl’s complaint arguing they are irrelevant
because the claims were untimely. The court denies this motion for the same reasons.
11
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
12
SAP also moves to dismiss Ambuhl’s ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of
13
emotional distress (“IIED”). IIED requires “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant
14
with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress;
15
(2) the plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) the plaintiff’s injuries were
16
actually and proximately caused by the defendant's outrageous conduct.” Cochran v. Cochran, 65
17
Cal. App. 4th 488, 494 (1998). Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct “so outrageous in
18
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be
19
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. at 496 (quoting
20
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, com. d).
21
In Schneider v. TRW, the Ninth Circuit found that a supervisor’s yelling and screaming while
22
criticizing an employee’s performance was not outrageous behavior, even when the supervisor
23
threatened to throw the employee out of the department and made threatening gestures. 938 F.2d
24
986, 992 (9th Cir. 1991) (granting summary judgment for the defendant). The court found that
25
“rude” or “insensitive” remarks were not enough to support an IIED claim. Id. SAP’s behavior, as
26
alleged by Ambuhl is not even as extreme as Schneider. Although unjustified criticism of her
27
performance and consistent refusal to give her accommodations may be wrong, the behavior does
28
not go beyond all possible bounds of decency. Further, personnel management activity, even
ORDER
Case No. C-13-04866-RMW
SW
-3-
1
improperly motivated and poorly considered activity, is generally not actionable as intentional
2
infliction of emotional distress. See Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics, 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 80
3
(1996); Zhang v. Walgreen Co., No. C 09-05921 JSW, 2010 WL 4174635, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20,
4
2010) (listing cases following Janken). But see, Jelincic v. Xerox Corp., No. C-04-2930 (EMC),
5
2004 WL 2217643, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2004) (finding Janken only limited the liability of
6
individual supervisors for personnel management decisions, but not employers).
7
Although, as Ambuhl argues, discrimination and harassment can form the basis of an IIED
8
claim, she needs to allege more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” or
9
legal conclusions presented as facts. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Ambuhl states
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
that she was harassed and discriminated against, but her only statements substantiating these
11
allegations are that: (1) she was not allowed to work from home while other team members were;
12
(2) she was required to remain at her desk during the work day; (3) she was required to provide
13
documentation about her medical condition; and (4) her work was criticized. Compl. ¶¶ 5-8. These
14
allegations are not enough to state a claim for IIED based upon discrimination or harassment.
15
16
III. ORDER
The court denies SAP’s motion to dismiss Ambuhl’s first through eighth causes of action, but
17
grants SAP’s motion to dismiss Ambuhl’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress,
18
without prejudice. Ambuhl must file any amended complaint by January 13, 2014.
19
20
21
Dated: December 13, 2013
_________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
Case No. C-13-04866-RMW
SW
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?