Johnson v. Ahtna Technical Services Incorporated

Filing 47

ORDER granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12 as to Counts 2 and 4 of the Complaint. See order for details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 9/20/2018. (LMR)

WO
1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Linda Johnson,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
vs.
Ahtna Technical Services
Incorporated,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-18-00053-PHX-SPL
ORDER

Plaintiff Linda Johnson (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against defendant Ahtna
Technical Services Incorporated (the “Defendant”) alleging violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the
“Rehabilitation Act”), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Title VII”). (Doc.
1) The Defendant moved to dismiss counts 2, 4 and 5 (the “Motion”) of the Plaintiff’s
complaint for the claims related to the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII. (Doc. 12) The
Court’s ruling is as follows.
I.

Background
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant, and she is diabetic. (Doc. 1 at

2) The Plaintiff suffered certain symptoms from diabetes that required her to have frequent
access to a restroom. (Doc. 1 at 3) The Plaintiff states that she provided the Defendant
with multiple doctor’s notes to make the Defendant aware of her need to be assigned to
tasks that gave her necessary access to the restroom. (Doc. 1 at 3) The Defendant did not

1

oblige the Plaintiff’s requests and continued to assign her to tasks without regard to her

2

disability. (Doc. 1 at 5)

3

On January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit (the “Complaint”) alleging

4

violations of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII. (Doc. 1) On February 12,

5

2018, the Defendant filed the Motion seeking dismissal of certain of the Plaintiff’s claims.

6

(Doc. 12) The Defendant initially sought to dismiss Counts 2, 4 and 5 of the Complaint,

7

with Counts 2 and 4 arising under the Rehabilitation Act and Count 5 arising under Title

8

VII. The Defendant has withdrawn its Motion as to Count 5. (Doc. 20 at 1) Accordingly,

9

the Court only addresses the Defendant’s Motion on Counts 2 and 4.

10

II.

Legal Standard

11

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “a short and plain

12

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” such that the defendant

13

is given “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl.

14

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Conley v.

15

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a

16

claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory,

17

and (2) insufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacificia

18

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

19

In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court must “accept as true all well-pleaded

20

allegations of material fact, and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-

21

moving party.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). In

22

comparison, “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or

23

unreasonable inferences” are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and “are insufficient

24

to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Id.; In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610

25

F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff need not prove the case on the pleadings to

26

survive a motion to dismiss. OSU Student All. v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1078 (9th Cir. 2012).

27
28
2

1

III.

Analysis

2

The Defendant moves to dismiss Counts 2 and 4 of the Complaint arguing that the

3

Plaintiff cannot bring any claims against the Defendant under the Rehabilitation Act

4

because the Defendant does not receive “federal financial assistance” as required by the

5

Rehabilitation Act.

6

disability by “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any

7

program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal

8

Service.” 29 U.S.C. § 794. The Defendant argues that it does not receive any financial

9

assistance from the federal government, and, therefore, the Plaintiff cannot establish the

10

elements necessary to bring any claim against the Defendant pursuant to the Rehabilitation

11

Act. (Doc. 12 at 4)

The Rehabilitation Act prevents discrimination on the basis of

12

In response, the Plaintiff concedes that the Defendant is not receiving any direct

13

financial assistance from the federal government. (Doc. 14 at 6) Instead, the Plaintiff

14

argues that the Defendant’s website states that the Defendant participates in the U.S. Small

15

Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program (the “SBA”), and that the

16

Defendant’s participation in the SBA constitutes an indirect federal benefit to the

17

Defendant that should qualify as federal financial assistance for the purposes of the

18

Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 14 at 7–8) The Defendant acknowledges past participation in the

19

SBA, but states that it discontinued its involvement in the program in 2010. (Doc. 20 at 2)

20

The Court finds that the Defendant’s involvement in the SBA is not sufficient to

21

subject the Defendant to the Rehabilitation Act. While there is precedent to support the

22

argument that indirect financial assistance may subject a party to the Rehabilitation Act,

23

the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the financial federal assistance portion

24

of the Rehabilitation Act is intended to cover “those who receive the aid, but does not

25

extend as far as those who benefit from it,” drawing a line between the recipients of federal

26

financial assistance and those who benefit economically from federal funds. Castle v.

27

Eurofresh, Inc., 2010 WL 797138, at *6 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2010); Sharer v. Oregon, 581

28

F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009); Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459,
3

1

467 (1999). The Court finds that the Defendant’s participation in the SBA, while entirely

2

speculative at this point and not addressed in the Complaint, is insufficient to bring the

3

Defendant under the umbrella of the Rehabilitation Act. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s

4

request for discovery on the issue of whether the Defendant received non-monetary

5

assistance through the SBA is improper. The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is to enable

6

defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting themselves

7

to discovery. Castle, 2010 WL 797138 at 6 (citing Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo

8

Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir.1987)).

9
10
11
12

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is granted as to
Counts 2 and 4 of the Complaint (Doc. 1).
Dated this 20th day of September, 2018.

13
14
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4