Hukman v. Alaska Airlines Incorporated

Filing 22

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 1/3/19. (CLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Sheida Hukman,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01104-PHX-DLR

Alaska Airlines Incorporated,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Sheida Hukman alleges that Defendant Alaska Airlines Incorporated

17

violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire her on account of her

18

national origin, retaliating against her for engaging in protected activity, and interfering

19

with her relationship with her former employer. On November 7, 2018, the Court granted

20

Defendant’s motion to dismiss on all of Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 19.) The Court based its

21

decision on three independent reasons. First, it concluded that Plaintiff failed to timely file

22

her charge with the EEOC. (Id. at 2-4.) Second, the Court determined that, even if Plaintiff

23

had timely filed her EEOC charge, her complaint failed to comply with Rule 8.

24

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against in retaliation for reporting

25

that other employees were practicing the “Art of Invisibility,” which is so “sufficiently

26

fantastic to defy reality as we know it.” (Id. at 4.) Finally, the Court found that even if it

27

could extricate allegations regarding national origin discrimination from those involving

28

invisibility, the allegations were insufficient to state a claim for relief. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff

1

now seeks reconsideration of that order. (Doc. 20.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s

2

motion for reconsideration is denied.

3

I. Legal Standard

4

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.

5

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere

6

disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong

7

v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).

8

reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing

9

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

10

reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). Further, the motion must “point out with specificity

11

the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any

12

new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they

13

were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court's

14

Order.” Id. Finally, “[n]o motion for reconsideration . . . may repeat any oral or written

15

argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in

16

the Order.” Id. The court may deny a motion for reconsideration if it fails to comply with

17

these rules. Id.

18

II. Discussion

A motion for

19

Plaintiff argues that the Court manifestly erred in finding that she failed to file a

20

timely charge with the EEOC. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or

21

refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex,

22

or national origin . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Before bringing a Title VII claim in

23

district court, a plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies by timely filing a charge

24

with the EEOC, thereby affording the agency an opportunity to investigate the charge. See

25

B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002). Timely exhaustion of

26

administrative remedies is a statutory requirement to filing suit under Title VII. See

27

Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 708 (9th Cir. 2001). Under § 2000e-5(e)(1), a

28

plaintiff has three hundred days after the date on which the alleged unlawful practice

-2-

1

occurred to file a charge with the EEOC. In failure to hire claims, accrual of a claim begins

2

on the date that the plaintiff received notice that she was not hired. See Lukovsky v. City

3

and Cty. of S.F., 535 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008).

4

The Court found Plaintiff’s claim untimely because, according to her complaint, she

5

learned that she was being denied the position on February 22, 2017, and therefore she was

6

required to file her EEOC charge no later than December 19, 2017, which she failed to do.

7

(Doc. 19 at 3-4.)

8

Plaintiff challenges this finding, arguing that the Court incorrectly calculated the

9

deadline for filing her charge with the EEOC. In support, Plaintiff attaches an October

10

2017 letter, which purportedly reflects the date her application was rejected. (Doc. 20-6.)

11

But Plaintiff fails to explain why this letter was neither mentioned nor attached to either

12

her complaint or her response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Nor does Plaintiff

13

explain why this matter could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier. The

14

Court did not manifestly err by not considering allegations not before it. Moreover, after

15

reviewing the contents of the letter, the Court is unconvinced that it evidences the date of

16

Plaintiff’s rejection. Rather, the letter states that Defendant conducted a thorough review

17

of Plaintiff’s concerns about the application process, but found no evidence supporting her

18

allegations.

19

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s argument for reconsideration pertains only to the portion of

20

the Court’s order finding that Plaintiff’s EEOC charge was untimely filed. Plaintiff does

21

not ask the Court to reconsider its independent and alternative conclusions that, even if

22

Plaintiff’s EEOC charge was timely filed, her complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 or to

23

allege sufficient facts plausibly entitling her to relief. Thus, even if the Court erroneously

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

-3-

1

determined that Plaintiff’s EEOC charge was untimely, such error was harmless.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 20) is DENIED.

4

Dated this 3rd day of January, 2019.

5
6
7
8
9

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-