Tellis v. Alaska Airlines
Filing
58
ORDER granting Defendant's 47 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)
1
THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
HERMAN CHARLES TELLIS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
Case No. 17-00901-RAJ
v.
ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.,
13
ORDER
Defendant.
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Fourth Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 47. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Dkt. # 50. For
the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. Dkt. # 47.
I.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are set forth in greater detail in a previous Order issued by
the Court. Dkt. # 44. Those facts will not be repeated and are incorporated in this
Order. Plaintiff Herman Charles Tellis was hired by Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. as
a Maintenance and Engineering Mechanic in 1990. Dkt. # 1-3. Prior to his resignation,
Plaintiff made several complaints regarding Defendant to the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Id. On February 8, 2013, Defendant notified
Plaintiff that he could sign a resignation agreement and a settlement and release
agreement in lieu of an involuntary termination. Id. at ¶ 5.8. Plaintiff signed both
agreements. Id. Between February 8, 2013, and May 13, 2014, Plaintiff executed and
ORDER - 1
1
revoked several settlement and release agreements with Defendant. Dkt. # 1-3 Ex. 1, 3;
2
Dkt. # 41 Exs. 1-3. After Plaintiff’s resignation, he filed at least four more complaints
3
against Defendant with the EEOC, most recently on June 15, 2018. Dkt. # 1-3 Ex 3;
4
Dkt. # 25; Dkt. # 45 at ¶¶ 5.13, 5.14.
5
In January of 2017, Plaintiff found employment as an airframe and powerplant
6
technician at Compass Airlines through Aero Tech Technical Employee Services.
7
Dkt. # 45 at ¶ 7A. On or about April 15, 2017, Plaintiff learned that he would be
8
“assigned access Alaska Air in search of a special tool.” Plaintiff was under the
9
impression that he was not allowed to handle Alaska Airlines equipment and was afraid
10
that he would be spotted by Alaska Airlines personnel, so he left his job. Id. In
11
September of 2017, Plaintiff began working as a contractor with Launch Group, and his
12
services were leased to Aviation Technical Services (“ATS”). Dkt. # 45 at ¶ 7B. On or
13
about December 15, 2017, two Alaska Airlines jets pulled into the ATS facility where
14
Plaintiff worked. As Plaintiff did not feel that he was allowed to perform work on
15
Alaska Airlines equipment, and he felt that “being exposed to a lawsuit by Alaska for
16
servicing their products” was “not worth it,” he left his employment at ATS. Id.
17
Plaintiff also alleges that he has been unable to update his training and certification
18
necessary to maintain his status as a FAA certified technician because he did not believe
19
he could participate in training offered by Virgin America, because it is owned and
20
operated by Alaska Airlines. Dkt. # 45 at ¶ 7C. On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff applied
21
for a Supervisor Line Maintenance position with Defendant but “heard nothing
22
favorable from Alaska Airlines with regard to the position.” Id at ¶ 5.13.
23
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his original Complaint in King County
24
Superior Court on May 22, 2017. Dkt. # 1. On May 31, 2018, the Court granted in part
25
and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint. The Order
26
also granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent that
27
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged age discrimination or retaliation claims based on three of
ORDER - 2
1
the settlement and release agreements between the parties. Dkt. # 44. Plaintiff then
2
filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 45. On July 5, 2018, Defendant filed this
3
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
4
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
5
6
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state
7
a claim. The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual
8
allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders
9
v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true
10
conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.”
11
Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The
12
plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
13
its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff
14
succeeds, the complaint avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with the
15
allegations in the complaint” that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563;
16
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
17
A court typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of the
18
complaint, although it may rely on a document to which the complaint refers if the
19
document is central to the party’s claims and its authenticity is not in question. Marder
20
v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may also consider evidence
21
subject to judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
22
23
III.
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff filed two “praecipes” after Defendant filed
24
their Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. ## 48, 49. It appears that these documents are additions
25
and edits to his Fourth Amended Complaint. These praecipes add new claims against
26
Defendant and reintroduce several allegations from prior versions of his Complaint.
27
These are not the type of corrections or errors contemplated by Local Rule 7(m) and
ORDER - 3
1
Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend his Fourth Amended Complaint. While pro se
2
litigants are treated more liberally than litigants with counsel, they must still follow the
3
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567
4
(9th Cir. 1987) overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896
5
(9th Cir. 2012). As Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend and filed these documents
6
after Defendant filed their Motion to Dismiss, to the extent that the praecipes make
7
substantive changes to the Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court will not consider
8
them here.
9
10
A. The No Reemployment Provision
The Court’s May 31, 2018 Order granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on
11
the pleadings to the extent that Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged age discrimination or
12
retaliation claims (Age Discrimination in Employment Act or “ADEA” claims) based
13
on three of the settlement and release agreements between the parties: a general release
14
of claims with a “No Reemployment” provision, signed in February of 2013 (the
15
“February 2013 Agreement”); an “Amendment to Confidential Settlement and Release
16
Agreement,” signed in November of 2013 (the “Amended Agreement”); and a
17
settlement and release agreement covering any ADEA claims, signed in May of 2014
18
(the “May 2014 Agreement”). Dkt. # 44. The No Reemployment provision in the
19
February 2013 Agreement states:
20
21
22
23
24
25
[Plaintiff] understands and agrees that he waives any right that he may have
to reinstatement and/or reemployment by [Defendant] or its affiliates and/or
subsidiaries . . . and that [Plaintiff] has not and will not apply for or seek
future employment with [Defendant], its affiliates and/or subsidiaries.
[Plaintiff] agrees that [Defendant], including its affiliates and subsidiaries,
has no obligation to consider [Plaintiff] for future employment or
assignment. [Defendant], its affiliates, and/or subsidiaries may reject any
future applications by [Plaintiff] without recourse.
26
27
ORDER - 4
1
Dkt. # 41 Ex. 1. The February 2013 Agreement was revoked by Plaintiff, however,
2
Defendant contends that this No Reemployment provision was revived by the
3
subsequent Amended Agreement. Id.
4
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint makes many of the same allegations as
5
his previous Complaint. Plaintiff again contends that the February 2013 Agreement, the
6
Amended Agreement, and the May 2014 Agreement are “unlawful,” and that Defendant
7
engaged in age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADEA. Dkt. # 50 at 5.
8
The Court reiterates that to the extent that Plaintiff alleges any ADEA discrimination or
9
retaliation claims based on the February 2013, Agreement, the Amended Agreement
10
(this includes the No Reemployment provision), or the May 2014 Agreement, in his
11
Fourth Amended Complaint, those claims are untimely and are DISMISSED.
12
Dkt. # 44.
13
B. Failure to Hire
14
Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s failure to hire him as a Supervisor of Line
15
Maintenance in January of 2018 was age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. To
16
state a claim for age discrimination, Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. In a
17
“failure to hire” context, a prima facie case consists of a showing that: (1) Plaintiff was
18
in the protected class of persons, (2) Plaintiff applied for a position for which he was
19
qualified, and (3) a younger person with similar qualifications received the position.
20
Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff, who is over
21
the age of 40, alleges that he was qualified for the position he applied for because he
22
worked in Defendant’s Line Maintenance department for over 15 years. Dkt. # 45 at
23
¶ 5.13. While working in a Line Maintenance department for such an extended period
24
of time would provide Plaintiff relevant experience, Plaintiff does not make any
25
allegations regarding the requirements for a Supervisor of Line Maintenance at Alaska
26
Airlines or whether he meets those requirements 1. Even if the Court makes an inference
27
1
Plaintiff makes several allegations in his Response to Defendant’s Motion that are not
ORDER - 5
1
that the only requirement for a Supervisor of Line Maintenance is several years of
2
experience working in that department, Plaintiff does not allege that a younger applicant
3
with similar qualifications received the position. At most, it appears that Plaintiff
4
assumes that his failure to obtain an interview supports an inference that a younger
5
applicant was hired for the position. This not sufficient to establish the third element.
6
Even accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Fourth Amended Complaint fails to
7
state a claim that Defendant engaged in age discrimination by failing to hire him.
8
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s ADEA
9
“failure to hire” claim.
10
C. Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
11
Plaintiff also claims that the No Reemployment provision, revived by the
12
Amended Agreement, violates the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”).
13
29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1). The OWBPA imposes restrictions on when an employee can
14
validly waive his right to bring an ADEA claim. Plaintiff appears to allege that the No
15
Reemployment provision is an ADEA waiver, that as an ADEA waiver the provision is
16
in violation of the OWBPA, and that this violation establishes that Defendant engaged
17
in age discrimination. Defendant argues that a violation of the OWBPA does not
18
provide an independent cause of action separate from an age discrimination claim under
19
the ADEA. While the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on this issue, other courts have
20
found that a violation of the OWBPA wavier provisions does not, by itself, establish age
21
discrimination. See Whitehead v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 187 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir.
22
1999). The “OWBPA governs the effect under federal law of waivers or releases on
23
ADEA claims.” Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427, 118 S.Ct. 838,
24
included in his Fourth Amended Complaint. This is Plaintiff’s third attempt to bring his
claims, not including his attempt to further amend this version of his Complaint by filing two
praecipes after the filing of this Motion. As noted above, pro se litigants must still follow the
same rules of procedure as other litigants, and Plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his
Complaint at will. To the extent that Plaintiff makes factual allegations in his Response that
are not in his Fourth Amended Complaint and cannot be inferred from the allegations in the
Fourth Amended Complaint, they will not be considered for the purposes of this Motion.
ORDER - 6
25
26
27
1
139 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998). It follows that the purpose of the OWBPA is to determine
2
whether an employee has waived the right to bring an ADEA claim and not to
3
determine whether age discrimination has actually occurred. Plaintiff does not cite to
4
any legal authority supporting that theory and offers no response to Defendant’s
5
argument. Further, the Court notes that legislative history specifically states that the
6
waiver provisions of the OWBPA protect the rights of older workers by “ensur[ing] that
7
older workers are not coerced or manipulated into waiving their rights to seek legal
8
relief under the ADEA,” establishing a clear distinction between an ADEA-based age
9
discrimination suit, and a violation of the OWBPA. 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1509, 1510.
10
As noted above, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts that this provision is the basis for an
11
ADEA discrimination or retaliation claim, his claim is barred as untimely. Therefore, to
12
the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the No Reemployment provision constitutes age
13
discrimination due to an alleged violation of the OWBPA, Defendant’s Motion is
14
GRANTED.
Plaintiff alleges that the No Reemployment provision violates the OWBPA
15
16
because he was not allowed 7 days to revoke the provision, in violation of 29 C.F.R. §
17
1625.22 (e)(2). Plaintiff makes no factual allegations to support this statement.
18
Plaintiff executed three settlement agreements in November of 2013, one of which was
19
the Amended Agreement. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff revoked one of those settlement
20
agreements. Dkt. # 1-3 Ex. 1. Plaintiff makes no allegation that he was prevented from
21
revoking the Amended Agreement at the same time, or that he was led to believe that he
22
was unable to do so. The Court notes that Plaintiff exercised his right to revoke
23
settlement agreements on several occasions during the time period relevant to this
24
claim.
25
Plaintiff also contends that all ADEA waivers of future rights are prohibited by
26
the OWBPA, and that restrictions on Plaintiff’s “future rights, including the right to
27
apply for and secure and maintain employment” are unlawful, and that Plaintiff believed
ORDER - 7
1
he had surrendered his right to “protest the enforcement of his ADEA waiver or assert
2
his ADEA claims” because he would be forced to pay back the money he received in
3
settlement from Defendant. None of these allegations support Plaintiff’s claim that the
4
No Reemployment provision violates the OWBPA. Plaintiff cites to no legal authority
5
that No Reemployment provisions constitute a per se violation of the OWBPA, or that
6
any waiver of rights and claims under the ADEA are unlawful. The OWBPA was
7
enacted to set out the minimum requirements for determining whether an ADEA waiver
8
is knowing and voluntary. If all ADEA waivers were unlawful, Congress would not
9
have amended the ADEA to better regulate them. Plaintiff also provides no explanation
10
as to how any tender-back provisions in his settlement agreements violate the OWBPA.
11
To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the No Reemployment provision violates the
12
OWBPA, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
13
D. Resignation of Employment
14
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant engaged in age discrimination and retaliation
15
when he was forced to resign his positions with Compass Airlines and ATS in 2017.
16
Dkt. # 45 at ¶¶ 7A, 7B. Plaintiff alleges that he resigned these positions due to the No
17
Reemployment provision because he was under the impression that he was unable to
18
work on Alaska Airlines equipment. The No Reemployment only applies to waive
19
Plaintiff’s right to reemployment, reinstatement, assignment as an independent
20
contractor, and future employment with Defendant or its affiliates and subsidiaries.
21
Dkt. # 41 Ex. 1. Plaintiff does not allege that either Compass Airlines or ATS is an
22
affiliate or subsidiary of Defendant, merely that while employed there, there was a
23
possibility that he may need to work on Alaska Airlines Equipment. Plaintiff does not
24
allege that either employer intended to assign him to or on behalf of Defendant as an
25
independent contractor. Plaintiff makes no allegations that support his claim that
26
Defendant is liable for Plaintiff’s voluntary resignations, or that they had any
27
involvement in the termination of his employment. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff
ORDER - 8
1
claims that the No Reemployment provision is in itself age discrimination in violation
2
of the ADEA, that claim is again untimely. To the extent that Plaintiff claims that
3
Defendant engaged in age discrimination and retaliation resulting in the termination of
4
his employment with Compass Airlines and ATS, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
5
E. Equitable Tolling
6
As with Plaintiff’s previous Complaint, the Fourth Amended Complaint appears
7
to allege that Plaintiff is entitled to equitable tolling or equitable estoppel of the
8
limitations period for bringing this suit. Under federal law, equitable tolling is applied
9
“sparingly.” Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112
10
L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). The equitable tolling doctrine focuses on whether there was
11
excusable delay by the plaintiff. Lukovsky v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 535 F.3d
12
1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). “Equitable estoppel, on the other hand, focuses primarily
13
on actions taken by the defendant to prevent a plaintiff from filing suit, sometimes
14
referred to as ‘fraudulent concealment.’” Id.
15
For the same reasons stated in the Court’s previous Order, equitable tolling and
16
equitable estoppel do not serve to excuse Plaintiff’s failure to file his claim within the
17
limitations period. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that Defendant acted to delay his
18
“discovery” that he had a right to bring these claims but makes no factual allegations to
19
support this assertion. Plaintiff alleges that the “ADEA waiver documents” were
20
misleading, coercive and threatening, but again, does not allege that Defendant acted to
21
prevent Plaintiff from filing suit. Plaintiff makes no argument that he diligently pursued
22
his claims or that the delay of over a year to file this lawsuit constitutes excusable delay.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
27
ORDER - 9
1
2
3
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 47.
Dated this 25th of October, 2018.
5
6
A
7
8
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER - 10
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?