Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vincent Alvarado, a Costco meat cutter, alleges he has had chronic migraines since childhood and that from 2011 through 2024 he regularly requested and used medical leave, at least some of it supported by documentation. In 2024, Costco allegedly learned from his provider that he might need intermittent absences over a one-year period starting in February 2024. Costco told him he was not eligible for federal or state leave because he had not worked 1,250 hours in the prior twelve months. It said it would excuse two full days or four partial days of absence per month unless other leave became available or he took a separate Personal Medical Leave. He alleges Costco enforced those limits, managers treated his medical need as an attendance problem, and he was told upper management wanted his manager to find reasons to terminate him.
In June 2024, Costco investigated two workplace interactions: a joking gesture or comment about size, and a pat on a coworker's lower back area that Alvarado describes as a nonsexual good-job gesture. He alleges the second coworker was pressured by management into a formal complaint. He was fired on June 18, 2024. He alleges the Meat Department manager later told a coworker, in words to the effect of, that Costco had finally gotten him for missing all those hours. He sued in state court in March 2026, pleading FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, FEHA retaliation, CFRA retaliation, and Labor Code section 1102.5 retaliation. After removal, the court dismissed an earlier complaint with leave to amend because it merely recited elements. Costco then moved under Rule 12(b)(6) against the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The court took the SAC's allegations as true, and none are findings.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Freeman denied the motion as to Counts I through IV. The court found that migraines, pleaded as a neurological condition with specific symptoms limiting work, concentration, sleep, driving and safe handling of knives and saws, adequately allege a FEHA disability. It found a plausible inference of discriminatory motive in the alleged pressure to find reasons to fire him and the post-termination remark. Costco's contention that the investigations were the real reason raised factual disputes that could not be resolved on the pleadings. On accommodation, the SAC identified the accommodation sought as leave beyond Costco's monthly limits. The court inferred a request from allegations that Costco knew his provider had certified a greater need. Whether Costco's offer of Personal Medical Leave and discussion of alternatives satisfied its duty is a factual issue, and thirteen years of granting leave does not show later compliance because the duty may be continuing. The interactive-process claim survived for the same reasons. The FEHA retaliation claim survived because the SAC now identifies the decisionmakers, their alleged knowledge and animus, and a causal link. Costco's summary-judgment authorities did not control at the pleading stage.
The court dismissed Count V, CFRA retaliation, with leave to amend, because the only eligibility allegation merely recited the element. Amendment was not futile because Alvarado's opposition pointed to a written CFRA eligibility notice for a March 2023 leave. He may file an amended complaint limited to Count V within 21 days. Costco may then move to dismiss within 14 days, with a five-page limit for the motion and opposition and three pages for the reply. The court dismissed Count VI, Labor Code section 1102.5 retaliation, with prejudice as futile. It reasoned that accommodation requests are not disclosures of reasonably believed legal violations, citing a Central District of California decision. It also held that adding a statement that discipline would be unlawful does not convert a FEHA theory into a whistleblower claim. The Count VI discussion contains wording slips, referring to the CFRA and to Count V, but the heading and ordering paragraph show Count VI is dismissed with prejudice. This is not a final judgment: Counts I-IV proceed, and Count V remains open.
Key Takeaways
- A complaint that describes specific symptoms and how they limit work and job tasks can plead a FEHA disability, even where earlier conclusory pleading failed.
- Allegations that an employer capped excused absences below a level its employee's provider certified can support a failure-to-accommodate claim at the pleading stage, despite years of granted leave.
- Whether an employer's offered leave or alternative accommodations were reasonable, and whether the interactive process was in good faith, are fact questions that generally cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.
- Naming the decisionmakers and pleading their knowledge, animus and causal link can save a FEHA retaliation claim even where the employer offers a legitimate alternative reason.
- A CFRA claim must plead facts showing eligibility, not just the element, while a section 1102.5 claim resting on accommodation requests was held legally deficient and dismissed with prejudice.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it carries no binding precedential weight. It is nonetheless a useful illustration of how federal courts in the Northern District of California apply pleading standards to FEHA claims once a plaintiff supplies concrete facts about disability, requests, decisionmakers and motive. It also shows the court treating the employer's competing explanation for the firing as a matter for later proceedings.
The ruling is also a reminder that FEHA, CFRA and whistleblower theories are analyzed separately. Section 1102.5 was held not to reach accommodation requests, and the CFRA claim remains pending only if an amended complaint pleads eligibility facts. The court has not found that Costco violated any law, and the merits of Counts I-IV remain for discovery and later motions.