Maguire v. Teletech Customer Care Management

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 18 Findings and Recommendations. ORDER DISMISSING CASE; granting 2 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 12/28/2011. (CDH, ) Modified on 12/28/2011 to reflect NEF mailed to pro se Plaintiff (CDH, ).

FILED

UNlTED STATES DISlRICT COURT
FOR THE DISlRICT OF MONTANA

DEC 282011
:'ATRJCK E. OUf"FY, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK. MISSOULA

MISSOULA DMSION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

SHELLEY MAGUIRE
Plaintiff,
vs.
TELETECH CUSTOMER CARE
MANAGEMENT
Defendant.

CV ll-149-M-DWM-JCL

ORDER

-------------------------)

Plaintiff Shelley Maguire, appearing pro se, claims that Teletech Customer
Care Management discriminated against her in violation of Montana Code
Annotated § 39-2-215, which requires public employers to "have a written policy
supporting women who want to continue breastfeeding after returning from
maternity leave" and prohibits public employers from discriminating "against an
employee who expresses milk in the workplace." (Dkt # 1). The matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Lynch under 28 U.s.c. § 636(b).
Teletech moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(bX6). (Dkt # 2). Judge Lynch issued his Findings and
Recommendations for that motion on December 12, 2011. (Dkt # 18).
Judge Lynch recommends granting Teletech's motion because Teletch is not
I

a public employer and, thus, is not bound by Montana Code Annotated §
39-2-215. IQ. Ms. Maguire timely objected to Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendation. (Dkt # 22). She is therefore entitled to de novo review of the
specified findings or recommendations to which she objects. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)( 1). The Court reviews portions ofthe Findings and Recommendation not
specifically objected to for clear error. McDonnell Douglas COW. v. Commodore
Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Since the parties are familiar with the facts ofthis case, they are restated
here only as necessary to explain the Court's decision.
The Court agrees with Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation and
adopts them in full. The plain language of Montana Code Annotated § 39-2-215
dictates that it applies to only public employers. It does not apply to private
employers, such as Teletech.
In her objections, Ms. Maguire argues that Teletech is a public employer
because, as she claims, Teletech is a publicly traded company. But the fact that a
company is publicly traded does not mean it is a public employer. The term
"public employer," as used in Montana Code § 39-2-215, refers to "state and
county governments, municipalities, and school districts and the university
system." IQ. The fact that a company is publicly traded means only that the
company offers its securities (e.g., stocks) for sale to the general public, typically
2

through a stock exchange.
Ms. Maguire also argues that Colorado law should apply because Teletech
claims it is a "Colorado-based" limited liability company. 1 (Dkt # 22). The Court
need not address this argument, though, because Ms. Maguire raised it for the first
time in her objections. Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002)
(holding that a district court has discretion to not address new facts or arguments
raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge's findings and
recommendation); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000)
(same). Indeed, up to this point, Ms. Maguire has argued that Montana law
applies.!
In summary, Ms. Maguire has failed to show that Montana Code Annotated

§ 39-2-215 applies to Teletech. As a result, her claim fails.
The Court fmds no clear error in the portions of Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendation to which the plaintiffs do not object.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Teletech Customer Care Managment's
motion to dismiss (dkt # 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to enter,
by separate document, judgment in favor of Teletech.

Regardless, Ms. Maguire's argument fails on the merits. Colorado law
does not apply merely because Teletech is a Colorado-based company.~
Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 6 (1971).
I

3

~{h~

DATED this:fa day of

....

Hoy, District Judge
"strict Court

4