Cuervo v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying Defendants' 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SB)

Case 2:21-cv-00660-RSL Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Cause No. C21-0660RSL

DIANA CUERVO,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss First Amended

15 Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6).” Dkt. # 30. Plaintiff alleges that she was harassed and
16

discriminated against by her supervisor, defendant Christopher Stoia, because of her race,

17
18

ethnicity, national origin, and gender. In her approximately seven months as an Area Manager of

19 Delivery Operations with Amazon, Stoia stated, among other things, that plaintiff had been hired
20

only to “checkmark the diversity box,” he made it clear that he did not like working with Latinx

21
22

people, that women should not work in a warehouse setting, and that she was expected to fill

23 shortfalls in her white and male coworkers’ performance, and he disparaged her Colombian
23

heritage by comparing plaintiff to Pablo Escobar and attributing her ability to work long hours

25
26

to “coffee and cocaine.” Dkt. # 23 at ¶¶ 43-45. Plaintiff was unsettled, and it showed. After

27 confirming that plaintiff feared that she would lose her job, Stoia warned her against
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

Case 2:21-cv-00660-RSL Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 5

1 complaining to human resources about the way he treated her, assuring her that the company did
2

not like complaints and it would end up in her termination. When she nevertheless complained

3
4

(twice), human resources had her recount her experiences and complaints in front of Stoia, failed

5 to initiate any other investigation, and took no remedial action. Within weeks, plaintiff’s
6

employment was summarily terminated, apparently for safety violations occurring ten days

7
8

earlier during a snow storm when plaintiff was the only manager in the building and was

9 required to handle tasks for which she had never been trained or certified. When Stoia first
10

learned of the problems that occurred on February 14th, he appeared “overjoyed” and said

11
12

“[y]ou finally did something wrong so that I can fire you.” Dkt. # 23 at ¶ 125. 1 The termination

13 came a day after plaintiff had elevated concerns regarding an uncorrected gas leak in the
14

building, and a day before human resources reached out to inquire about her complaint of

15
16
17
18

harassment and discrimination.
Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserts claims of harassment, discrimination, and/or
retaliation under Title VI, Section 1981, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, as

19
20

well as a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendants seek dismissal

21 of all of plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that the allegations of the Amended Complaint do not
22

raise a plausible inference of liability because Stoia’s remarks were “stray,” plaintiff has not

23
23
25

1

Plaintiff affirmatively alleges facts tending to show that the stated justification for her

26 termination was a pretext: she followed the instructions of an upper-level manager throughout the snow
27

day, her alleged infraction was common, and the safety violations committed by white, male employees
did not result in their termination even when they were more egregious than what she did.

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

Case 2:21-cv-00660-RSL Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 5

1 identified appropriate comparators, and there is no connection between Stoia’s comments and
2

her termination for safety violations.2 To make these arguments, defendants ignore the

3
4

complaint as a whole and instead focus on bits and pieces of the story in an attempt to show that

5 each insult or action, standing alone, cannot support a viable claim.
6

The question for the Court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the facts alleged

7
8

sufficiently state a “plausible” ground for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

9 (2007). The Court must “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the
10

pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire &

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Plausibility requires pleading facts, as opposed to conclusory
allegations or the formulaic recitation of elements of a cause of action, and must
rise above the mere conceivability or possibility of unlawful conduct that entitles
the pleader to relief. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely
consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility
and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Nor is it enough that the complaint is
factually neutral; rather, it must be factually suggestive.

21
22
23
23
25
26
27

2

Defendants also point out that certain allegations of discriminatory or harassing conduct were
not included in plaintiff’s original complaint, implying that the new allegations should be discounted or
ignored on that ground. There is no authority for this proposition. “In the Ninth Circuit, the filing of ‘an
amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.’” Umouyo v.
Bank of Am. NA, No. 2:22-CV-00704-JHC, 2022 WL 2392386, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2022)
(quoting Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012)). Defendants have not attempted to
show that judicial estoppel applies or identified any other theory that would justify the striking of
properly alleged facts or claims simply because they are based on allegations that were not included in a
superceded pleading.

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 3

Case 2:21-cv-00660-RSL Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 5

1 Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and
2

citations omitted).

3
4

Having considered the allegations of the Amended Complaint and the memoranda

5 submitted by the parties,3 the Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations, when taken as true, raise a
6

plausible inference of unlawful conduct that would entitle plaintiff to relief under Title VII,

7
8

Section 1981,4 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. In the context of a motion to

9 dismiss, the Court is not free to disbelieve allegations of fact and must draw causal inferences in
10

plaintiff’s favor. With regards to the wrongful termination claim, the Washington Supreme

11
12

Court has been willing to assume “that [the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act] and

13 its accompanying regulations establish a clear public policy of ensuring worker safety and
14

protecting workers who report safety violations,” Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wn. 2d 524, 530

15
16

(2011), overruled on other grounds by Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 184 Wn. 2d 268,

17 (2015)), and “[t]emporal proximity between protected activity and an adverse employment
18

action can by itself constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of retaliation in some cases,”

19
20

Bell v. Clackamas Cnty., 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has plausibly alleged her

21 claims against defendants. If she is unable to produce evidence in support of those allegations,
22
23
23
25

3

This matter can be resolved on the papers submitted. The parties’ requests for oral argument are
DENIED.
26
4
Plaintiff does not dispute that Section 1981 does not comprehend a “failure to prevent
27
discrimination” claim. To the extent she has asserted such a claim, it fails as a matter of law.

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 4

Case 2:21-cv-00660-RSL Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 5

1 defendants may be entitled to summary judgment, but it would be inappropriate to dismiss the
2

claims at this stage of the proceeding.

3
4
5

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 30) is DENIED.

6
7
8

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2023.

9
10

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 5