Wilson v. Kootenai Health

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JOAN W. WILSON,
Case No. 2:11-CV-288-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
KOOTENAI HEALTH,
Defendant.

Before the Court is defendant Kootenai Health’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion is fully
briefed and at issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion
without leave to amend.
BACKGROUND
Pro se plaintiff Joan Wilson sues her employer, Kootenai Health (1) “to resolve a
charge of discrimination based on Age and beliefs (i.e., Religion),” (2) “to recover
damages for ongoing harassment,” and (3) for “punitive damages.” See Compl., Dkt. 1, at
1; Am. Compl., Dkt. 13, at 1. The Court dismissed Wilson’s complaint but allowed
Wilson the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Defendants contend that plaintiff’s
amended complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
In her amended complaint, plaintiff continues to allege that a third party – now
identified as Dr. Barbara Wilson1 – is primarily responsible for the “ongoing harassment”
she allegedly experiences in the workplace. Dr. Wilson is not affiliated with Kootenai
Health in any way. She is plaintiff’s former counselor. Plaintiff alleges that she ended
the counselor/client relationship many years ago and that she has not “laid eyes on” Dr.
Wilson since 1986. Am. Compl., Dkt. 13, at 4.
Nonetheless, plaintiff is convinced that Dr. Wilson is harassing her both in and out
of the workplace. As for the workplace harassment, plaintiff continues to rely on the
same instances alleged in the first complaint. Specifically, she alleges that (1) Dr. Wilson
called plaintiff’s co-workers and hung up without talking; (2) plaintiff’s manager made
her work from 8:30 to 4:00 p.m., rather than allowing a more flexible schedule; (3)
plaintiff’s co-worker sent a work request via an email address plaintiff did not often use,
forcing plaintiff to rush to complete an assignment. See Am. Compl., Dkt. 13, ¶ 2-3.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint adds new examples of “harassment,” including these: (1)
“the Library Technical Assistant can’t bring herself to look up her from her work or
acknowledge me.”; and (2) “she frequently only gives me a short curt answer . . . .” Id.
¶ 1.

1

In her first complaint, plaintiff did not identify Dr. Wilson. She alleged only that this
third party “lived in Seattle” and was “empowered years ago by high ranking people in her
church and in politics . . . .” Compl., Dkt. 1, at 2.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

LEGAL STANDARD
Wilson argues that because her complaint is so unusual and complex, it should not
be governed by the Iqbal/Twombly standard explained in the Court’s previous order. See
Order, Dkt. 12, at 3-5 (citing inter alia, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554
(2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662 (2009)). The Court rejects this argument.
Plaintiff’s complaint is not complex and, more to the point, the Iqbal/Twombly standard
originated in a complex antitrust litigation. See Twombly, 550 U.S. 554.
ANALYSIS
The Court will dismiss Wilson’s amended complaint because it fails to cure the
deficiencies of her prior complaint. As the Court previously explained, Wilson’s age
discrimination claim fails because she has not alleged any adverse employment action
based on her age.2 Further, to the extent plaintiff relies on a hostile work environment
theory, she has not alleged conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet the legal
standard for such a claim. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998)
(“offhand comments . . . and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount
to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 652 (9th
Cir. 2003) (describing elements of hostile work environment).
The new examples of “harassment” in the amended complaint (a co-worker’s

2

In opposing this motion, plaintiff indicates that she does not intend to pursue a
discrimination claim based on religious beliefs. See Plaintiff’s Response, Dkt. 19, at 1.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

alleged refusal to make eye contact and her alleged penchant for curt answers) do not
come close to supporting a hostile work environment claim and plaintiff concedes this
point in her opposition. See Plaintiff’s Response, Dkt. 19, at 2 (“I concede that my
allegations and evidence for age discrimination against the Library Technical Assistant is
insufficient to bring before the Court, even though the information that I provided is
true.”). Plaintiff then argues that some additional facts – which are not set forth in the
amended complaint – support a hostile work environment claim. For example, plaintiff
alleges that her former manager: (1) “wore all black to our One-on-One meeting”; (2)
changed the time of a library staff lunch, thus requiring plaintiff to rush through what was
supposed to be a “leisurely” lunch; and (3) increased plaintiff’s workload and assigned
additional performance goals; and (4) became intolerant of “normal, minor fluctuations”
in plaintiff’s daily work schedule. Id. at 6.
These factual allegations do not support a claim that the workplace at Kootenai
Health was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult . . . that is
sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment.” Harris v.
Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. at 17, 21 (1993). The Court will therefore dismiss plaintiff’s
amended complaint. Further, because plaintiff has had ample opportunity to cure the
deficiencies in her complaint and has failed to do so, the Court will dismiss the complaint
without leave to amend.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

DATED: April 16, 2012

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5