This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Retaliation
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Haoning Richter v. Oracle America Inc.

Published: May 12, 2023 | Result Date: Jan. 31, 2023 | Filing Date: Aug. 22, 2022 |

Case number: 5:22-cv-04795-BLF Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Beth L. Freeman

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gautam Dutta
(Business, Energy, and Election Law PC)


Defendant

Brendan G. Dolan
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Lucky Uyen P.N. Meinz
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Lowell B. Ritter
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)


Facts

Haoning Richter was born in China, but she is a California resident. In June 2013, she began working at Oracle America, Inc., as an audit director in its Santa Clara County office. As part of her employment, Richter signed an arbitration agreement with Oracle. On November 7, 2017, Richter was terminated.

On October 29, 2018, Richter sued Oracle in Santa Clara Superior Court, alleging claims for retaliation and other violations of the labor code, but the state court determined that Richter was bound by an arbitration agreement. Accordingly, it transferred her claims to arbitration. Richter appealed, but the transfer was affirmed.

On August 22, 2022, Richter filed suit against Oracle.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that she had a contractual right to litigate her claims in court; that she had been retaliated against for exercising her rights under the Fair Employment and Housing Act; that she had been retaliated against in violation of California Public Policy; that Oracle had intentionally inflicted emotional distress; that Oracle had discriminated against her in violation of the FEHA; that Oracle had failed to pay her all wages she was due; that Oracle had failed to produce employment records as required by law; that Oracle had failed to provide wage statements as required by law; and that Oracle had violated the Unfair Competition Law.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiff's material allegations. Moreover, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had entered into an arbitration agreement with it, and all her claims were subject to arbitration.

Result

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.


#140714

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390