United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
CORMAC
J. CARNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Herbert Cofer brought this action against his former
employer, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (Parker), and Parker
employees David Conlon, Kim Melton, and Frank Dubey. Mr.
Cofer filed his complaint in Orange County Superior Court in
February 2016 and Parker removed the action to federal court
based on diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1.) Mr. Cofer is
asserting a harassment claim against all defendants, as well
as claims for race discrimination, age discrimination,
failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination
and harassment, retaliation, and wrongful discharge against
Parker only. All claims have been brought under California
state law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in
the Complaint, (Dkt. 11), and the Court granted it in part.
Mr. Cofer has now filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC),
(Dkt. 23), and Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss only
his claims for harassment and failure to prevent harassment,
as well as his pleadings seeking punitive damages. (Dkt. 24.)
As
explained below, though Mr. Cofer has alleged facts that
state a plausible case of workplace discrimination, he has
not stated viable claims for harassment or failure to prevent
harassment. The Court therefore DISMISSES the claims for
harassment and failure to prevent harassment. The Court
DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss the portions of Mr.
Cofer's complaint pertaining to punitive damages.
Mr.
Cofer has filed a motion to remand this case to state court
on the basis that there is not complete diversity between
himself and Defendants. (Dkt. 25.) Though Parker is not a
citizen of California, Mr. Cofer and the individual
defendants are. Nonetheless, the only claims against the
individual defendants are the harassment claim and the
failure to prevent harassment claim. Both of those claims
were dismissed in the first motion to dismiss and Mr. Cofer
was given leave to amend his complaint. Mr. Cofer's FAC
has again failed to state a valid claim for harassment or
failure to prevent harassment. California law on the issue is
sufficiently settled for this Court to conclude that the
joinder of the individual Defendants is fraudulent. The only
defendant left in the case after dismissal, Parker, is not a
California citizen and therefore does not defeat diversity.
Accordingly, Mr. Cofer's motion to remand is DENIED.
Because
Mr. Cofer has already been given leave to amend his complaint
once and has shown no sign that he is able to add sufficient
facts to state a plausible claim for harassment, his
harassment-related claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.[1]
II.
BACKGROUND
In
1990, Parker hired Mr. Cofer, a black man, as a Senior
Contract Administrator, and Mr. Cofer was promoted many times
until he eventually became Staff Program Administrative
Manager in 2010. (FAC. ¶¶ 10, 14.) In March or
April of 2012, Mr. Cofer applied for the position of Director
of Program Management. (FAC. ¶18.) Though Mr. Cofer had
over 32 years' experience in the aerospace industry and
had worked at Parker for over 20 years, he was not
"given a serious interview" for the position.
(Id.) In October 2012, defendant Conlon, a white
man, was hired for the Director of Program Management
position and became Mr. Cofer's supervisor. (FAC ¶
19.) Another Parker employee, defendant Melton, did not
interview Mr. Cofer for the positions to which he applied,
and refused to evaluate his qualifications for promotions.
(FAC ¶¶ 19.)
Mr.
Cofer filed an EEOC charge against Parker, alleging race
discrimination, in November 2012. (FAC ¶ 22.) He asserts
that he applied for advancement within the company and was
falsely told that he was not qualified, and that the people
who were ultimately hired to the positions he sought were
white. (Id.)
In
November 2013, Mr. Cofer was denied training on a new
software tool and not allowed to attend various program
reviews, program meetings, and meetings wit upper management,
even though one of his direct subordinates was included in
the meetings. (FAC ¶26.) From 2012 through 2014, Mr.
Cofer applied for several other positions at Parker, but was
never hired, and was also passed over for several internal
transfers. (FAC ¶¶ 21, 23, 25, 28, 29.) He remained
employed, but was not given a performance review he was due
on July 21, 2015. (FAC ¶ 35.)
Mr.
Cofer's complaint alleges that in addition to being
passed up for promotions and denied the opportunity to
interview, defendants Conlon, Melton, and Dubey den him
training and planned to terminate him without ever initiating
an investigation in claims. (FAC ¶ 36.) Parker
terminated Mr. Cofer and three other employees age 55 over in
August 2015. (FAC ¶37.)
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
The Motion to Dismiss
1.
...