Plaintiff Brooklynn Desirae Forbes sued defendant BG3 Capital Group, LLC d/b/a R Bar & Grill in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims under the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act). Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Forbes alleged she was an employee of R Bar from August 2022 to July 2023. After giving birth in January 2023, she returned to work in March and needed to use a breast pump twice each shift. Forbes claimed R Bar management provided an office for her to pump but informed her that others could walk in if they needed access. She alleged other employees walked in on her multiple times while she was pumping. Forbes further claimed R Bar monitored her by security camera while pumping, asked her to pump only during certain times, and treated her with hostility when she needed to pump. Forbes left employment in July 2023 due to these working conditions.
Forbes initially filed a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act § 7(r), 29 U.S.C. § 207(r). R Bar moved to dismiss, pointing out that Congress repealed § 207(r) on December 29, 2022, and replaced it with the PUMP Act. Forbes then amended her complaint, adding references to the PUMP Act and expanding her allegations about R Bar’s actions. R Bar again moved to dismiss, asserting Forbes failed to state a claim because she did not allege she provided the required pre-suit notification under the PUMP Act.
Legal Analysis
Pre-Suit Notification as a Condition Precedent: The court first addressed whether the PUMP Act’s pre-suit notification requirement is an element of the cause of action, a condition precedent, or an affirmative defense. The court found that the pre-suit notification requirement is a condition precedent to suit for which the plaintiff bears the burden. The court reasoned that the notification requirement is in a section that delineates steps a prospective plaintiff must satisfy before filing a complaint, similar to other federal statutes with notice and opportunity to cure provisions.
Pleading Standard for Conditions Precedent: The court then examined the pleading standard for conditions precedent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(c). The court rejected the argument that plaintiffs must plead facts plausibly showing that all conditions precedent have been met. Instead, the court held that conditions precedent may still be pled generally, as Rule 9(c) allows.
Adequacy of Plaintiff’s Allegations: The court found that Forbes adequately alleged that the pre-suit notification condition precedent did not apply in her case. The court pointed to Forbes’ allegations that R Bar stated it would comply with her right to pump but also said she had to allow others into the office, monitored her by security camera, and treated her with hostility when she needed to pump. The court concluded that these allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to Forbes, sufficiently alleged that R Bar indicated it had no intention of providing a space that complied with the PUMP Act.
Claim Under Repealed Statute: The court agreed with R Bar that Forbes failed to state a claim under the repealed 29 U.S.C. § 207(r), as her claims relate to actions allegedly taken after the statute’s repeal.
The court denied R Bar’s motion to dismiss Forbes’ claims under the PUMP Act but granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice any claims under the repealed 29 U.S.C. § 207(r).
Schrag on Law 