(1) First Claim, titled “Retaliation in Violation of
[Title VII]
(2) Second Claim, titled “Retaliation in Violation of
[FEHA]
(3) Third Claim, titled “Race Discrimination in
Violation of Title VII
(4) Fourth Claim, titled “Violation of [FEHA],” in which
plaintiffs allege race discrimination
(5) Fifth Claim, titled “Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981,”
in which plaintiffs allege race discrimination
(6) Sixth Claim, titled “Harassment in Violation of
[Title VII] and
(7) Seventh Claim, titled “Harassment in Violation of
[FEHA]
Judge Chesney stated the pilots lacked adequate support
to prove that the pilots were adversely affected when
United Continental doesn’t post some positions and were
precluded from applying to certain positions. Judge
Chesney ruled that
United Continental Holdings motion to dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part, as follows:
-
The First Claim is dismissed in its entirety, with leave
to amend.
-
The Second Claim is dismissed in its entirety. Such
dismissal is with leave to amend except to the extent
the claim is brought on behalf of Johnson and against
UCH.
-
The Third Claim is dismissed, with the exception of
Montgomery’s disparate treatment claim based on his
failure to receive a promotion to Hub Operations
Area Manager at Dulles, Virginia, in September 2011.
Such dismissal is with leave to amend, except to the
extent the claim is based on a theory of disparate
impact and is brought on behalf of Crocker, Gadson,
John, Johnson, Jones, Montgomery, Noble, and Roane.
-
The Fourth Claim is dismissed in its entirety. Such
dismissal is with leave to amend except to the extent
the claim is based on Montgomery’s failure to receive a
promotion to Hub Operations Area Manager at Dulles,
Virginia, in September 2011, based on a theory of
disparate impact and is brought on behalf of Crocker,
Gadson, Haynie, John, Jones, Montgomery, Noble, Roane,
and Tom, brought on behalf of Johnson, and brought
against UCH.
-
The Fifth Claim is dismissed, with the exception of
Montgomery’s disparate treatment claim based on the
failure to be promoted to Hub Operations Area
Manager at Dulles, Virginia, in September 2011. Such
dismissal is with leave to amend.
-
The Sixth Claim is dismissed to the extent it is alleged
against UCH, with leave to amend.
-
The Seventh Claim is dismissed in its entirety. Such
dismissal is with leave to amend except to the extent
the claim is brought against UCH. UCH s’ motion to
strike is denied. Any Third Amended Complaint shall be
filed no later than May 20, 2013. In any Third Amended
Complaint, the pilots may amend to cure the deficiencies
noted in any or all of the claims identified above that
have been dismissed with leave to amend. The pilots may
not, add new claims, new plaintiffs, or new defendants
without leave of court. It is so ordered April 24, 2013.
|