Mayes v. Amazon et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting Defendant's 21 Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Title VII national original discrimination claim and ADA disability discrimination claim will be DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MARK MAYES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. C18-176 MJP
ORDER ON PARTIAL MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.
AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC,
Defendant.

15
16

The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:

17

1. Defendant Amazon.com.dedc LLC’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

18
19
20
21
22
23

Complaint (Dkt. No. 21),
2. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
(Dkt. No. 32 and 34),
3. Defendant Amazon.com.dedc LLC’s Reply in Support of Its Partial Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 35),
all attached declarations and exhibits, and relevant portions of the record, rules as follows:

24

ORDER ON PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

1
2

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s claims for Title VII national
origin discrimination and ADA disability discrimination are DISMISSED with prejudice.

3
4

Discussion
A. Legal Standard

5

Faced with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court

6

must determine whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient “to state a claim for relief that is

7

plausible on its face.” Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). A

8

court reviewing a motion to dismiss must accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true, but

9

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

10

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

11

Ordinarily, a Court may only consider the pleadings in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion.

12

However, “documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party

13

questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a

14

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss” without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for

15

summary judgment. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other

16

grounds by Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). With this in

17

mind, the Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s public EEOC documents in reaching its

18

decision on this motion.

19
20

B. Partial motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s amended complaint includes claims for relief under the Americans with

21

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and under both Title VII and Section 1981 for disparate treatment,

22

hostile work environment and discrimination based on national origin. (Dkt. No. 19, ¶¶ 19-23.)

23

The Court has no jurisdiction over ADA claims unless a plaintiff has first exhausted all

24

ORDER ON PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

1

administrative remedies. EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1994). Also, a

2

plaintiff cannot sue under Title VII without first filing a charge with the agency charged with

3

oversight (in this case, the EEOC). Surell v. Cal. Water Service Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th

4

Cir. 2008)(citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)).

5

In the EEOC “Charge Form” (the formal prerequisite to filing a lawsuit under Title VII),

6

Plaintiff did not check either of the boxes labeled “National Origin” or “Disability” in the

7

“Discrimination Based On” portion of the form. Nor, in the “Particulars” section of that form,

8

did he make any mention of discriminatory conduct based on national origin or disability. (Dkt.

9

No. 22, Ex. A.) The result of this omission is unavoidable:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Allegations of discrimination not included in the plaintiff’s administrative charge may
not be considered by a federal court unless the new claims are like or reasonably related
to the allegations contained in the EEOC charge.
B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept, 276 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations
concerning discrimination based on national origin and disability are not “like or reasonably
related to” his allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. Therefore, the Court cannot
consider them.
Defendant’s motion will be GRANTED: Plaintiff’s Title VII national original
discrimination claim and ADA disability discrimination claim will be DISMISSED with
prejudice.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and to all counsel.
Dated October 23, 2018.

22

A

23

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Court Judge

21

24

ORDER ON PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS - 3