Taft v. Administrative Office of the Courts
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 15 Motion to Dismiss ; dismissing Plaintiff's Third and Fourth Causes of Action and any claims in the First Cause of Action for damages. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Nuffer on 03/14/2012. (asp) Modified on 3/15/2012 ; added docket relationship to 15 (asp).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
JOLENE K. TAFT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UTAH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF THE COURTS and DANIEL J.
BECKER, in his official capacity as
Administrator of the Administrative Office of
the Courts,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PARTIAL
DISMISSAL OF FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-cv-00331 DN
Magistrate Judge David Nuffer
Defendants.
This memorandum decision and order deals with a motion to dismiss 1 selected claims in
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 2
Background Facts
Plaintiff, Jolene K. Taft (Taft), a former employee of the Utah Administrative Office of
the Courts (AOC), alleges that the AOC and Daniel J. Becker (Becker), in his official capacity as
Administrator of the Administrative Office of the Courts, discriminated against her on the basis
of a perceived disability. Taft began working for the AOC as an accounting technician in 2007. 3
On February 14, 2008 Taft received a letter from her supervisor concerning her “very deep
cough” 4 and indicating that the AOC intended to “work to develop a performance plan that is
1
Motion for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint (Motion for Partial Dismissal), docket no.15, filed
November, 7, 2011.
2
First Amended Complaint, docket no. 13, filed October 24, 2011.
3
First Amended Complaint ¶ 8.
4
Id. ¶ 9.
mutually beneficial to her and to the [AOC].” 5 On February 15, she was placed on administrative
leave until she signed a medical records release form that had been provided to her. 6 Even
though Taft’s supervisor requested that she receive a tuberculosis test 7 when she saw her doctor
on February 20, 2008, a test was not ordered because the doctor did not believe it was
necessary. 8 Ms. Taft was terminated on February 21, 2008 because she had not signed her
medical release form by a due date of February 20, 2008. 9
In Taft’s First Cause of Action, 10 she claims the AOC's actions violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
11
In her Third Cause of Action, Taft claims that the AOC breached
her employment contract, 12 and her Fourth Cause of Action claims that the AOC breached the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract. 13 Taft seeks back pay; front
pay; reimbursement of pecuniary losses, including lost benefits; reinstatement of her
employment with AOC; punitive damages; and other relief. 14 The AOC is now seeking to
dismiss Taft’s First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action. 15
Standard for Decision
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a claim may be
dismissed for “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Accordingly, a Court “must dismiss
5
Id. ¶ 12.
6
Id. ¶ 13.
7
Id. ¶ 17.
8
Id. ¶ 18.
9
Id. ¶ 22.
10
Id. ¶¶ 23-38.
11
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq.
12
Id. ¶¶ 49-54.
13
Id. ¶¶ 55-59.
14
Id. at 9.
15
Motion for Partial Dismissal at 1-2.
2
the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is
lacking.” 16
To withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 17 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal 18 require that “a complaint must have enough
allegations of fact, taken as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 19 And
while “a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint [, this rule] is
inapplicable to legal conclusions.” 20 “[A] plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to
support each claim.” 21 Only “a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” 22
First Cause of Action
Plaintiff’s ADA claim must be evaluated in light of the Eleventh Amendment which bars
suits against states by their own citizens unless the state consents, or Congress abrogates
immunity, or the claim against state officials seeks solely prospective relief for ongoing
violations of federal law. 23
While the First Cause of Action seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages, 24
Taft concedes that she cannot seek monetary damages. 25 Any claims for monetary relief on the
16
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
17
550 U.S. 544 (2007).
18
556 U.S. 662 (2009).
19
Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011) (citations and quotations omitted).
20
Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
21
Id.
22
Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
23
Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001).
24
First Amended Complaint ¶ 36.
25
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition of [sic]: 1) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal and 2)
Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Amended Complaint (Opposition Memorandum) at 4, docket no. 17,
filed November 7, 2011.
3
First Cause of Action are therefore dismissed. In their reply, 26 Defendants argue that Taft’s claim
for reinstatement should be dismissed because it duplicates relief sought for her claim under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 27 However, that Rehabilitation Act claim is not the subject of this
motion and that “duplication” argument was not raised in the original memorandum on this
motion. The First Cause of Action will be limited to a claim for reinstatement but the damages
claims are dismissed.
Third and Fourth Causes of Action
Taft claims that the administrative rules of the Utah Department of Human Resource
Management and the AOC’s personnel manual create a contract that was breached by the AOC’s
alleged discriminatory conduct. 28 She specifically states that “[b]y engaging in discrimination
based on Ms. Taft’s perceived disability, and [in] retaliation for opposing this discrimination,
AOC breached its contract with Ms. Taft.” 29 Taft therefore attempts to state a claim for breach of
contract, based on a supposed contractual right against discrimination.
The Utah Anti-Discrimination Act (ADA) pre-empts this contract claim raised in the
Third Cause of Action. The Utah ADA provides that it is the “exclusive remedy under state law
for employment discrimination based upon disability.” 30 Because the Utah ADA is the exclusive
remedy for employment discrimination, any further contractual rights created by the
administrative rules or personnel manuals are void as a matter of law. Any provisions in a
handbook or policy or rule “purporting to vest [an] employee with additional contractual rights
26
Reply Memorandum In Support of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal at 2-3, docket no. 20, filed
November 21, 2011.
27
29 U.S.C. § 7701.
28
First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 50-54.
29
Id. ¶ 52 (emphasis added).
30
Utah Code Ann. § 34-A-5-107(15)(i).
4
against discrimination would be contradictory to these statutory provisions – specifically the
exclusivity mandate – and would necessarily be invalid.” 31 Taft claims that the Court must
compare the policies and regulations at issue to the rights granted in the statute, 32 but this
comparison is unnecessary because any additional contractual rights regarding discrimination
would be inconsistent with the Utah ADA.
Because any claim for breach of the implied covenant and fair dealing is dependent on
the existence of a contract into which such a term may be implied, the Fourth Cause of Action
must also fail.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third, and Fourth Causes of Action and any
claims in the First Cause of Action for damages are DISMISSED.
Signed March 14, 2012.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
Magistrate Judge David Nuffer
31
Code v. Utah Dep’t of Health, 2007 UT App 390, ¶ 10, 174 P.3d 1134.
32
Opposition Memorandum at 6.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?