Sims v. Salem Health Hosps. & Clinics

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Civ. No. 6:17-cv-00404-MC

Motions

Motion for correction : In Part Plaintiff

Motion to dismiss : In Part Defendant

Attorney(S)

Judges

Michael Jerome McShane

Acts

The Public Health And Welfare — Civil Rights — Equal Employment Opportunities — Definitions
Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — District Courts; Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction And Venue — Supplemental Jurisdiction

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Claudia Sims, a registered nurse, was employed by defendant Salem Health from January 3, 2011 until her discharge on May 21, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that the reasons given for her discharge were pretextual and constituted disparate racial treatment. She filed a complaint alleging two claims: (1) federal race discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and (2) state race discrimination under OR. REV. STAT. § 659A.030(a) and (b).

Following her termination, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). On December 12, 2016, BOLI found insufficient evidence to continue its investigation and issued a Notice of Right to File a Civil Suit, instructing Plaintiff she had 90 days to file suit from the date of the letter. The court docket initially reflected that this case was filed on March 15, 2017, but Plaintiff contends the complaint was electronically filed on March 13, 2017. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the federal claim was time-barred.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Plaintiff's Title VII federal race discrimination claim is barred by failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies.
Whether the court should correct the docket to reflect the actual filing date of the complaint as March 13, 2017.
Whether the court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law race discrimination claim after dismissal of the federal claim.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on grounds that the federal Title VII claim is time-barred due to Plaintiff's failure to timely file an EEOC charge or equivalent administrative complaint within the statutory deadline.

Plaintiff's Arguments

Plaintiff contends that her complaint was timely filed on March 13, 2017, supported by a declaration from her attorney’s assistant stating she uploaded the complaint that day and evidence of payment processed on that date.
Plaintiff moves to correct the docket to reflect the March 13 filing date, asserting that a system error prevented the complaint from being received on that date.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)	Subject matter jurisdiction requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability.	Outlined the standard for evaluating subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)	Complaint must state a plausible claim for relief to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).	Guided the standard for plausibility in evaluating Plaintiff’s claims.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)	Factual allegations must show more than mere possibility of misconduct.	Applied to assess sufficiency of Plaintiff’s factual allegations.
Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000)	At motion to dismiss stage, allegations must be accepted as true and construed in favor of non-movant.	Supported the court’s approach to Plaintiff’s factual allegations.
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)	Court not bound to accept legal conclusions as true.	Clarified limits on assuming truth of legal conclusions.
Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1995)	Leave to amend should be granted unless pleading cannot be cured by additional facts.	Informed the court’s discretion on leave to amend.
Grove City Veterinary Serv. LLC v. Charter Practices Int'l LLC, No. 3:13-cv-02276-AC, 2014 WL 3371918 (D. Or. July 9, 2014)	Timely filing of EEOC charge is prerequisite to Title VII claim.	Supported dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claim as time-barred.
Ariz. ex rel Horne v. Geo Group, Inc., 816 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2016)	Failure to timely file EEOC charge bars Title VII lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.	Confirmed dismissal of untimely federal claim.
Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2001)	Federal court must decline supplemental jurisdiction if no original jurisdiction exists.	Supported dismissal without prejudice of state law claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first analyzed subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), emphasizing the plaintiff's burden to establish jurisdiction by demonstrating injury, causation, and redressability as articulated in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. The court then applied the plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6), referencing Twombly and Iqbal, to assess whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a viable claim.

Regarding the Title VII claim, the court found Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Plaintiff filed with BOLI more than 300 days after termination, exceeding the statutory deadline for filing an EEOC charge or equivalent state charge. The court relied on relevant precedent, including Grove City Veterinary Serv. LLC and Ariz. ex rel Horne, to conclude the federal claim was time-barred and dismissed it with prejudice.

On the motion to correct the docket, the court credited Plaintiff’s attorney’s assistant’s declaration and supporting evidence of payment on March 13, 2017, concluding that the complaint was effectively filed on that date but not received due to an unknown electronic filing system error. The court ordered the docket corrected to reflect the March 13 filing date.

With the dismissal of the federal claim, the court found it lacked original jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, dismissing the state claim without prejudice.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff's federal Title VII race discrimination claim with prejudice as time-barred. The court granted Plaintiff's motion to correct the docket to reflect the complaint filing date as March 13, 2017. The remaining state law race discrimination claim was dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Implications: This decision terminates Plaintiff's federal claim on procedural grounds for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies, while permitting correction of the docket to accurately reflect the filing date. The dismissal without prejudice of the state claim leaves open the possibility for Plaintiff to pursue that claim in state court or another proper forum. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies existing legal standards strictly to the facts presented.

Show full summary ...

CLAUDIA SIMS, Plaintiff, v. SALEM HEALTH HOSPITALS AND CLINICS, Defendant.

MCSHANE, Judge

OPINION AND ORDER MCSHANE, Judge:

Plaintiff Claudia Sims is a registered nurse who worked for defendant Salem Health in various positions from January 3, 2011 until her discharge on May 21, 2015. Compl. ¶ 5-6. Plaintiff alleges that the reasons provided by Salem Health for her discharge were a pretext to justify disparate racial treatment. Compl. ¶¶ 8-12. She alleges two claims in her complaint: (1) Title VII race discrimination under federal law, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and (2) state race discrimination under OR. REV. STAT. § 659A.030(a) and (b).

Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Because plaintiff's federal claim is time barred, defendant's motion (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED in part. Because plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence in the record to support the contention that the federal court's electronic filing system failed to accept her complaint on the day it was submitted, Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's employment was terminated on March 21, 2015. Compl. ¶ 6.Plaintiff filed a complaint with the state's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). By letter dated December 12, 2016, BOLI found insufficient evidence to continue their investigation and provided a NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL SUIT. Decl. Reeves Ex. D, ECF No. 6. The BOLI letter correctly instructed Plaintiff that she had 90-days to file suit from the date of the letter.

The court docket reads that this case was filed on March 13, 2017. The complaint was not uploaded into the electronic filing system until March 15, 2017, when the court clerk contacted the Plaintiff's attorney's office and informed them that the complaint had not been received with the case filing.

STANDARD OF REVIEW I. Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

This Court must dismiss a claim if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). First, the plaintiff must prove that he has suffered an injury in fact, which is a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest. Id. at 560. This injury must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Second, there must be a causal connection, meaning the injury must be fairly traceable to the conduct cited in the Complaint. Id. And third, there must be redressability, or a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury. Id. at 561.

II. Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that "state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual allegations allow the court to infer the defendant's liability based on the alleged conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The factual allegations must present more than "the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 678.

While considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the Court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). If the complaint is dismissed, leave to amend should be granted unless the court "determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Title VII Claim is time-barred

A plaintiff must file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC as a prerequisite to bringing an action under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Grove City Veterinary Serv. LLC v. Charter Practices Int'l LLC, No. 3:13-cv-02276-AC, 2014 WL 3371918 at *2 (D. Or. July 9, 2014). Where a plaintiff fails to timely file an EEOC charge, their judicial claims must be dismissed. Ariz. ex rel Horne v. Geo Group, Inc., 816 F.3d 1189, 1202 (9 Cir. 2016) ("An individual's failure to file a charge with the agency within [the] time frame [set out in § 2000e-5(e)(1)] will usually operate to bar that person from bringing a lawsuit for failure to exhaust their administrative remedies."). The timeline for filing a charge with EEOC is 180 days from the day the allegedly discrimination took place. The 180-day filing deadline is extended to 300 days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

Plaintiff concedes that Ms. Sims did not initiate a BOLI filing within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct, but filed with BOLI on May 12, 2016, more than 300 days after her employment had ended. Def. Resp. 1-2, ECF No. 7; Decl. Reeves Ex. C, ECF No. 6. Because Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies within the statutory timeline, Plaintiff's first claim for relief is dismissed with prejudice. II. Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket

Plaintiff moves the court for an order correcting the docket entry to reflect that the complaint was filed on March 13, 2017. Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 8. The court docket currently reflects that the complaint was filed on March 15, 2017.

Plaintiff's attorney asserts that his office electronically filed the complaint on March 13, 2017. Tamie Sanderson, an assistant to Plaintiff's attorney, submitted a declaration that on March 13 she started the electronic filing process. Decl. Sanderson 1-2, ECF No. 9. In her declaration she states that she did, in fact, upload the complaint as part of the filing process on that day. Specifically, she states that "[I] distinctly remember uploading the complaint and reading the notification that the Summons and Civil Cover Sheet had to be attachments."

I have no reason on this record to doubt the declaration of Ms. Sanderson. Her declaration is supported by the fact that the credit card payment that would typically accompany such a filing was processed on March 13 as shown by the credit card receipt. Decl. Sanderson Ex. 1, ECF No. 9. It is also clear that the court assigned this litigation a case number on March 13.

On March 15, 2017, the court clerk contacted Ms. Sanderson informing her that the March 13, 2017 filing contained a 'shell' in that the complaint was not attached. Decl. Sanderson 1-2, ECF No. 9. Ms. Sanderson then re-filed the complaint. Id.

At my request, the court's Operations Support Specialist reviewed the transaction history report for this case and confirmed that the 'shell' of the case was opened on March 13, 2017 using the attorney's login. When a complaint is filed, the person must first go through pay.gov to the pay the filing fee. Ms. Sanderson's declaration and credit card receipt show payment was made on March 13, 2017.

On the record before us I find that the civil action was commenced and Plaintiff's complaint was filed on March 13, 2017, and but for some unknown computer or system error, the complaint was not received. Plaintiff's motion to correct docket is GRANTED. The docket shall be corrected to reflect that the complaint was filed March 13, 2017. III. Supplemental Jurisdiction

Whether the 90

The remaining claim in this suit is for state race discrimination under OR. REV. STAT. § 659A.030(a) and (b). Because there is no longer a federal claim, this Court lacks original jurisdiction. Without original jurisdiction, this court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001). Because this court lacks jurisdiction, Plaintiff's claim for state race discrimination is dismissed without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion to correct docket (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED in part. The court docket shall be corrected to reflect the complaint filing date of March 13, 2017.

Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief: federal race discrimination is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief: state race discrimination is dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 7th day of June, 2017.

/s/Michael J. McShane

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge