Alexander v. Siemens Healthineers

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 4, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00148
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 CHRISTOPHER T. ALEXANDER, CASE NO. C21-0148-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on motion of Defendants Timothy Hauser, John 16 Mathews, Siemens Healthineers, and Laura Timmons to dismiss (Dkt. No. 39) the amended 17 complaint (Dkt. No. 24-1); in which Defendant Lincoln Financial Group joins (Dkt. No. 43); and 18 Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45). Having considered the parties’ 19 briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss, GRANTS the 20 motion to join the motion to dismiss, and DENIES the motion for partial summary judgment for 21 the reasons explained below. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff Christopher Alexander filed a complaint for employment discrimination against 24 Defendants Siemens Healthineers, HR Specialist Laura Timmons, Lincoln Financial Group 25 (“Lincoln”), Direct Service Manager John Mathews, and Regional Service Manager Timothy 26 Hauser. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants Hauser, Mathews, Timmons, and Siemens Healthineers 1 moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Dkt. 2 No. 18 at 7–13.) Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend, which the Court granted. (Dkt. Nos. 3 24, 28.) 4 In his proposed amended complaint,1 Plaintiff asserts employment discrimination claims 5 under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 (“Title VII”) and violations of the Family Medical 6 Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (Dkt. No 24-1 at 3–4.) 7 He provides the following statement of his claim: 8 I filed a Wage and Income Complaint with the State of Washington, due to my employer removing hours to reduce Overtime from my timecard. I also opened an 9 investigation into a coworker who I believed was harassing a customer. I was subsequently denied promotion, belittled, intimidated, the target of malicious 10 gossip, and eventually forced to leave the company. My Family Leave request was 11 denied, by Laura Timmons, who was involved in all levels of the investigation. I was, in short, retaliated against in a systemic way, due to my complaints. 12 (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also indicates that he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity 13 Commission and Washington State Department of Labor. (Id. at 6.) 14 Defendants move to dismiss the proposed amended complaint under Federal Rules of 15 Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 41(b). (See Dkt. No. 39.) Plaintiff moves for partial 16 summary judgment on his FMLA claims. (Dkt. No. 45 at 1.) 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 A. Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6) 19 A defendant may move for dismissal when a plaintiff “fails to state a claim upon which 20 relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must 21

22 1 Plaintiff has not complied with this Court’s order to serve and file his amended complaint. Defendants address the proposed amended complaint, and this Court denied their previous 23 motion to dismiss because the original complaint was no longer operative. (See Dkt. Nos. 28, 24 39.) Defendants request dismissal with prejudice and, as discussed infra, the Court agrees they are entitled to that relief. Despite Defendants’ contention, dismissal under 41(b)(1) is not merited 25 because Plaintiff has not been afforded an opportunity to demonstrate why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. LCR 41(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 39 at 6.) So, the Court will consider 26 Defendants’ motion rather than order Plaintiff to show cause. See id. 1 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its 2 face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the 3 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 4 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 678. Although the Court must accept as true 5 a complaint’s well-pleaded facts, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will 6 not defeat an otherwise proper Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Vasquez v. L.A. Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 7 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). The 8 plaintiff must provide grounds for her entitlement to relief that amount to more than labels and 9 conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atl. Corp. v. 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). 11 Because Plaintiff is pro se, his pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than 12 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). But he 13 “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of 14 Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 15 By even the most lenient standards, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. He alleges no 16 facts or arguments beyond the five-sentence passage quoted above. (See Dkt. No. 24-1.) Nor has he 17 filed any further supporting documents.2 These threadbare statements are not enough to make out any 18 of the claims, as discussed below. 19 1. FMLA Claim 20 To establish a prima facie case under the FMLA, Plaintiff must establish that: “(1) he was 21

22 2 Plaintiff’s declaration related to his motion for summary judgment introduces two exhibits: a Washington Paid Family & Medical Leave Act “certificate of serious health form” sent to 23 Defendant Lincoln and a copy of an email sent to Defendants Lincoln, Timmons, Hauser, and 24 Mathews. (See Dkt. 46.) Neither document supports his claims. Plaintiff does not explain how the existence of this form proves any of his allegations. (See id. at 3–5.) In the email, Lincoln 25 informs Plaintiff that he did not attach any documentation and explains how to attach supporting medical documentation. (Id. at 7.) This, if anything, demonstrates that as of September 30, 2020, 26 Plaintiff had not sent adequate documentation to an assigned leave specialist. 1 eligible for the FMLA's protections, (2) his employer was covered by the FMLA, (3) he was 2 entitled to leave under the FMLA, (4) he provided sufficient notice of his intent to take leave, 3 and (5) his employer denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.” Sanders v. City of 4 Newport, 657 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to 5 satisfy this standard. His sole allegation that his family leave request was denied does not allow 6 the Court to reasonably infer that he was entitled to such leave. (Id.) 7 2. FLSA Claim 8 The FLSA makes it unlawful “to discharge [or take other adverse action against] . . . any 9 employee because such employee has [among other things] filed any complaint . . . under or 10 related to this chapter.” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). Where a plaintiff relies on circumstantial 11 evidence to prove that retaliatory animus motivated the employer to take an adverse employment 12 action, she must proceed under the conventional burden shifting scheme articulated in 13 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). To make out his FLSA case under the 14 McDonnell Douglas scheme, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in activities protected by 15 the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision; (2) an adverse employment action was taken against him; 16 and (3) his protected activities were a substantial motivating factor underlying the adverse 17 employment action. See Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1008 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to 19 produce evidence of a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer 20 offers such a reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence that the 21 employer's proffered reason for the challenged action is pretextual. Conner v. Schnuck Markets, 22 Inc., 121 F.3d 1390, 1394 (10th Cir. 1997). 23 Plaintiff alleges his employer retaliated against him after he complained that it removed 24 hours to reduce overtime from his timecard. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 4.) These allegations do not 25 provide a basis to find retaliation was a substantial motivating factor in any adverse employment 26 actions. But even if they were, his employer provides a legitimate reason for his departure from 1 the company which cannot be cured: he resigned.3 (See Dkt. No. 46 at 12.) Plaintiff thus fails to 2 state a claim that Defendants violated the FLSA. 3 3. Title VII Claim 4 A plaintiff must file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC as a prerequisite to 5 bringing suit under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e). A claimant must file a civil lawsuit within 6 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1). 7 Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint indicates he received a notice-of-right-to-sue 8 letter related to his EEOC charge on November 9, 2020. (Dkt. No. 94-1 at 6.) Plaintiff filed his 9 initial complaint on February 4, 2021, within the 90-day window. But Plaintiff cannot assert 10 Title VII claims that he did not assert in his EEOC charge until he has exhausted his 11 administrative remedies as to those claims. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In the charge, Plaintiff 12 claimed only that Siemens Healthineers retaliated against him for filing a first charge of 13 discrimination by restricting his job duties and mandating retraining. (Dkt. No. 40-6 at 2.). 14 Similar to his FLSA claim, if Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing that: 15 (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; and 16 (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision, 17 then McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting is appropriate. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 18 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). But the Court finds he has not done this. He pleads no facts 19 beyond conclusory allegations. See Vasquez, 487 F.3d at 1249. Further, the record indicates the 20 3 The Court considers, for the limited purpose of determining whether leave to amend would be 21 futile, a resignation email sent by Plaintiff cited in his summary judgment declaration. (Dkt. No. 46 at 12.) It also takes judicial notice of several documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 22 201. First, a copy of what appears to be an unauthorized second amended complaint mailed to Defendants in which Plaintiff provides a timeline for alleged changes in job duties. (Dkt. Nos. 40 23 at 1; 40-1 at 11.) And second, Plaintiff’s two EEOC charges and related right-to-sue notices. (See 24 Dkt. Nos. 40-2, 40-4, 40-5, 40-6, 40-7.) The authenticity of these documents is not disputed. Further, the documents are essential to Plaintiff’s claim and thus taking notice of them prevents 25 plaintiff “from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting reference to documents upon which their claims are based.” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705–06 (9th Cir. 1998), 26 superseded by statute on other grounds. 1 changes in job duties occurred before he filed an EEOC charge, (see Dkt. No. 40-1 at 11), and 2 retraining does not constitute an “adverse employment action” because it does not affect 3 compensation, workplace conditions, responsibilities, or status. See Kwesele v. King Cty., 2019 4 WL 266450, slip op. at 7 n.4 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a Title VII claim upon which relief can be granted.4 6 Defendants request dismissal with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 39 at 27.) “Leave to amend 7 should be granted unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts, 8 and should be granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 9 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 10 1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, a court can still order 11 dismissal with prejudice. Romero v. Countrywide Bank, N.A., 740 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1135 (N.D. 12 Cal. 2010). “[T]he district court’s discretion in denying amendment is ‘particularly broad’ when 13 it has previously given leave to amend.” Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th 14 Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). 15 Here, the Court finds that leave should not be granted to file a second amended 16 complaint. For one thing, Plaintiff has failed to file his first amended complaint after being 17 granted leave to do so. (See Dkt. No. 28.) Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is materially 18 the same as the initial complaint, as is the unauthorized further-amended complaint mailed to 19 Defendants. (Compare Dkt. No. 1, with Dkt. Nos. 24-1, 40-1.) And while the Court’s 12(b)(6) 20 analysis naturally focused on Plaintiff’s factual allegations, the Court notes that Defendants have 21 proffered evidence establishing that amendment would be futile.5 The complaint will be 22 dismissed with prejudice. 23 B. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 24

25 4 Because the Court finds the amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, it declines to analyze Defendant’s arguments under Rules 12(b)(2). 26 5 See documents discussed supra at n.3. 1 “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine 2 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute about a 4 material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the 5 non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). As the Court finds 6 that Plaintiff’s FMLA claim does not survive summary judgment, it follows that Plaintiff has not met 7 his countervailing burden to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the same. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 10 amended complaint (Dkt. No. 39), GRANTS Defendant Lincoln Financial Group’s motion to 11 join the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 43), and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 12 judgment (Dkt. No. 45). It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 13 24-1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 14 DATED this 4th day of March 2022. A 15 16 17 J ohn C. Coughenour 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26