Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garcia v. Honeywell International Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 3, 2014

MIGUEL GARCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND [Doc. No. 18]

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff Miguel Garcia, who is proceeding pro se, commenced this action arising out of his prior employment with and subsequent termination by Defendant Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell"). Honeywell now moves to dismiss Mr. Garcia's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f).

The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Honeywell's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND[1]

In June 2007, Mr. Garcia was hired to work for Honeywell Aerospace de Meixco, s.a. / Business & General Aviation ("Honeywell Mexico") as a Service Sales Specialist in a facility located in Mexicali, Mexico. (FAC ¶¶ 5, 11-13.) Mr. Garcia alleges that he was subject to harassment and discrimination based on his national origin after he informed his supervisor that he intended to apply for a lateral transfer to a position with Honeywell in the United States. ( Id. ¶¶ 25-34.)

Thereafter, in August 2008 and again in May 2009, Honeywell instructed Mr. Garcia to sign a performance-review document, titled Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). (FAC ¶¶ 31-53.) Plaintiff refused both times. ( Id. ¶¶ 35, 57.) On June 9, 2009, after refusing to sign a resignation letter, Mr. Garcia was terminated from his employment. (FAC ¶¶ 68, 71.)

A. Mexican Labor Board Action

On June 12, 2009, Mr. Garcia filed a complaint with the Mexican Labor Board for "wrongful termination and/or reinstatement." (FAC ¶ 77.) Honeywell responded by stating, among other things, that it had not terminated Mr. Garcia. ( Id. ¶ 84.) Consequently, Mr. Garcia alleges that the labor board reinstated his employment. ( Id. ¶ 85.) During a meeting with Honeywell representatives on March 16, 2010, Mr. Garcia alleges that he was told that it would not be possible for Mr. Garcia to return to work at Honeywell, and instead Honeywell wanted to reach a monetary agreement in order for Mr. Garcia to resign. ( Id. ¶¶ 89-91.) He further alleges that Honeywell "threatened that if [he did] not sign a resignation letter, Honeywell was not going to issue a reference letter an[d] instead was going to put plaintiff on a non-grata employee list and that plaintiff was not going to be hired by any American Company in Mexicali again." ( Id. ¶ 92 (emphasis removed).) Mr. Garcia refused to sign the resignation letter, and was allegedly once again terminated from his employment. ( Id. ¶¶ 93-94.)

On the same day, Mr. Garcia filed a new complaint with the Mexican Labor Board.[2] (FAC ¶ 97.) In response, Honeywell "affirm[ed], again, that [Mr. Garcia] was not terminated from his job on March 2010 after reinstatement, and offered reinstatement once again." ( Id. ¶ 98.) Mr. Garcia maintains that Honeywell and Honeywell Mexico are engaged in a conspiracy to, among other things, fabricate facts and discriminate against him. ( Id. ¶¶ 130-32.) According to Mr. Garcia, the case before the Mexican Labor Board has not yet been resolved. ( Id. ¶ 136.)

B. EEOC Action

On December 25, 2010, Mr. Garcia filed a complaint before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in Phoenix, Arizona, asserting claims for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. (FAC ¶ 115.) In response to the charge that Mr. Garcia was unlawfully terminated, Honeywell stated that "Mr. Garcia failed to make the needed improvements to his performance, and his employment was terminated in June 2009." (FAC Ex. 17.) Honeywell denied the allegation that it terminated Mr. Garcia for improper reasons. ( Id. ) It also contended that the allegation that Mr. Garcia "was reinstated to his position on March 16, 2010 after filing a complaint with the labor board in Mexico only to be discharged again that same day" was false and misleading. ( Id. ) According to Honeywell, "[t]he Mexican Labor Board did not award Mr. Garcia severance, but agreed he could return to work." ( Id. ) However, "after being allowed to return to his position by [Honeywell Mexico], Mr. Garcia walked off his job and never returned to work; later claiming he was terminated." ( Id. )

The EEOC later requested, among other things, that Honeywell submit a copy of the Mexican Labor Board decision. (FAC Ex. 18.) In response, Honeywell explained that "[t]he Mexican Labor Board declined to take [Mr. Garcia's] case; therefore, no record exists, " and "[a]ny documentation of the claim would be in [Mr. Garcia's] possession." ( Id. ) Mr. Garcia contends that Honeywell's representations are false, and put forth for the purpose of deceiving the EEOC. ( Id. ¶ 158.)

The EEOC later issued a right-to-sue letter to Mr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.