- Little’s conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to qualify as workplace harassment under California law.
- The claims against Little were merely routine personnel management decisions, which do not constitute harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
However, Judge Joseph C. Spero rejected State Farm’s fraudulent joinder claim, ruling that Duncan had sufficiently pled a harassment claim against Little under California law. The court emphasized that:
- The allegations suggest a deliberate effort to undermine Duncan’s career by blocking promotions, unfairly assigning work, and using racial stereotypes to justify negative reviews.
- Harassment claims can include discriminatory employment decisions if they contribute to a hostile work environment.
- Given the allegations, it was not obvious that a California court would dismiss the claim against Little, meaning she was not fraudulently joined.
Since Little remained a valid defendant, the court ruled that complete diversity of citizenship did not exist, necessitating that the case be heard in California state court. This ruling marks a significant procedural victory for Duncan, as California state courts typically offer a more favorable environment for employment discrimination plaintiffs compared to federal courts.
The case will now proceed in Alameda County Superior Court, where Duncan will continue to pursue claims of:
