1 2
3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 ARTEM BIRUK, CASE NO. C25-0779JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 THE BOEING COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 16 Before the court is Defendant The Boeing Company’s (“Boeing”) motion to 17 dismiss pro se Plaintiff Artem Biruk’s amended complaint. (MTD (Dkt. # 23); see Am. 18 Compl. (Dkt. # 20); see also Am. Compl. Exs. A-B (Dkt. ## 20-1, 20-2); Am. Decl. (Dkt. 19 # 21).)1 Mr. Biruk opposes Boeing’s motion. (See Resp. (Dkt. # 27); Memo. (Dkt. 20 1 In ruling on Boeing’s motion to dismiss, the court considers the contents of Mr. Biruk’s 21 complaint, exhibits attached to his complaint, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & 22 Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322-23 (2007). Because Mr. Biruk is proceeding pro se, the court 1 # 26).)2 To ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action, the 2 court exercises its discretion to decide Boeing’s motion before its noting date. See Fed.
3 R. Civ. P. 1. The court has considered the parties’ submissions, the balance of the record, 4 and the applicable law. Being fully advised,3 the court GRANTS Boeing’s motion to 5 dismiss. 7 The instant action arises out of Boeing’s termination of Mr. Biruk’s employment 8 in January 2024. On April 3, 2025, after exhausting his administrative remedies, Mr.
9 Biruk filed a complaint in the Snohomish County Superior Court alleging he was 10 wrongfully terminated. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1); see Am. Compl. at 5 (citing Exhibits 11 Dkt. ## 8 (sealed), 28 (redacted)) at 47 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 12 (“EEOC”) Charge of Discrimination), 35 (EEOC Notice of Right to Sue Letter).)4 13 Boeing timely removed the action to this District. (See Not. of Removal (Dkt. # 1).)
14 Shortly thereafter, Boeing moved to dismiss Mr. Biruk’s original complaint for failure to 15 state a claim. (1st MTD (Dkt. # 6).) On July 7, 2025, the court granted Boeing’s motion 16
will also consider his “Amended Declaration”—which provides “additional details and context” 17 for his claims—as part of his complaint. (See Am. Decl. at 1.) 18 2 The court considers Mr. Biruk’s “Memorandum in Support of His Claim of Discrimination” as part of his response. (See Memo.) 19 3 The parties do not request oral argument, and the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to its disposition of Boeing’s motion. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 20 4 The court may consider documents incorporated by reference in Mr. Biruk’s complaint without converting Boeing’s motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion. United States 21 v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003). As the court explained in its July 7, 2025 order, it will consider the pages of exhibits that Mr. Biruk cites to in his complaint. (7/7/25 Order at 22 6-7.) 1 to dismiss Mr. Biruk’s original complaint, but granted Mr. Biruk leave to file an amended 2 complaint that corrected the deficiencies identified in the court’s order by August 8,
3 2025. (7/7/25 Order (Dkt. # 16) at 16.) 4 Mr. Biruk timely filed an amended complaint. (Am. Compl.; Am. Compl., Exs. 5 A-B; Am. Decl.) Mr. Biruk alleges claims for (1) national origin discrimination under 6 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Washington Law Against 7 Discrimination (“WLAD”) (RCW 49.60.180); (2) hostile work environment under Title 8 VII and WLAD (RCW 49.60.180); (3) discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and
9 (4) retaliation under WLAD (RCW 49.60.210). (See Am. Compl. at 3-4.)5 10 Mr. Biruk alleges that on January 2, 2024, his co-worker, Vitaly Suslov, called 11 him a “moron” and “made degrading comments” about his Ukrainian national origin. 12 (See Am. Compl. at 5; Am. Compl., Ex. A at 1.) Specifically, Mr. Biruk contends that 13 Mr. Suslov “asserted his pro-Russian position” and said the Ukrainian language is “not
14 real” and that “there is no such country as Ukraine.” (Am. Compl., Ex. A at 1; see id. 15 (alleging that Mr. Suslov “referred to opponents of the Putin regime . . . using vulgar and 16 derogatory language”).) Mr. Biruk contends these statements “exhibited bias” toward his 17 national origin. (Id.) 18
5 In his response to Boeing’s motion to dismiss, Mr. Biruk also asserts claims for civil 20 theft and “misrepresentation regarding insurance and unemployment benefits.” (Resp. at 5.) Because those claims were not alleged in Mr. Biruk’s amended complaint, the court does not 21 consider those claims here. (See generally Am. Compl.); see Riser v. Cent. Portfolio Control Inc., No. C21-5238LK, 2022 WL 2209648, at *4 n.1 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2022) (stating that a 22 plaintiff cannot amend his or her complaint through a response brief). 1 Mr. Biruk further alleges that, when “confronted about his behavior,” Mr. Suslov 2 “attempted to shield himself from accountability by shifting blame” to Mr. Biruk. (Id.)
3 Mr. Biruk directs the court to certain pages of the exhibits he filed with his original 4 complaint, which he represents contain the “results of [Boeing’s] internal investigation” 5 conducted by an individual named Lynn Erickson regarding Mr. Biruk’s incident with 6 Mr. Suslov. (Id. (citing Exhibits at 216; see Exhibits at 215-17 (investigation report).) 7 According to the investigation report, Mr. Biruk asked Mr. Suslov if he was “ready if 8 Ukraine wins th[e] war[.]” (Exhibits at 215.) Mr. Biruk also allegedly stated that
9 Russians would be made “slaves[,]” and that “Russians are bad.” (Id. at 215.) The 10 investigation report also states that Mr. Biruk “acknowledged” telling Mr. Suslov that 11 “Russians come into Ukrain[ian] homes and kill their wives and rape their kids[.]” (Id.) 12 Mr. Biruk alleges that Mr. Suslov “made false statements” and “distorted facts” in 13 connection with this investigation. (Am. Compl., Ex. A at 2.) He further alleges that Mr.
14 Suslov “later boasted” to manager Robin Thorning that he had “insulted” Mr. Biruk and 15 “took pride in his conduct,” including that he had called Mr. Biruk a “very bad word.” 16 (Id.; see also Am. Compl. at 5 (alleging that Mr. Suslov “pleaded guilty” to Mr. Thorning 17 following the incident).) Mr. Biruk also asserts that Mr. Suslov’s “version of events 18 [wa]s a deliberate fabrication intended to get [him] terminated.” (Am. Decl. at 2.) In his
19 amended complaint, Mr. Biruk contends that his “only response was to [Mr. Suslov’s] 20 insults against [Mr. Biruk] and [his] country.” (Am. Decl. at 2.) Mr. Biruk also asserts 21 that his manager was “not on his side[.]” (See Am. Compl., Ex. C (Dkt. # 20-3).) He 22 alleges that he was terminated at the end of January 2024, after the investigation was 1 complete. According to the investigation report, Mr. Biruk was terminated for engaging 2 in harassment in violation of Boeing’s Code of Conduct. (See Am. Decl. at 1-2; Exhibits
3 at 215 (noting “Violation: Harassment (Non-Sexual)”); id. at 216 (noting that harassment 4 is a violation of Boeing’s Code of Conduct).) 5 In addition to his allegations regarding Mr. Suslov, Mr. Biruk pleads various facts 6 without explaining where or how those facts fit into his asserted claims. For example, 7 Mr. Biruk alleges that “problems arose from the actions of Boeing employees in building 8 40-02 who ignored company rules” and that Boeing and its employees were “negligent in
9 not providing a mask” for him, despite that he “expressed dissatisfaction with its 10 absence.” (Am. Decl. at 1-2.) Mr. Biruk also alleges that an individual named Frankie 11 was “reluctan[t]” to allow Mr. Biruk to use a “lift” in his work, and that he was subject to 12 “swearing incidents” from individuals named Spencer, Alyssa, Scott, and Sara—behavior 13 that his manager dismissed as “cultural.” (Id. at 3.) These incidents led Mr. Biruk to
14 believe that the issues he was experiencing were “not just cultural differences” but “more 15 personal and related to [his] national origin[.]” (Id.) 16 On August 21, 2025, Boeing moved to dismiss Mr. Biruk’s amended complaint 17 for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See 18 MTD.) For the reasons explained below, the court GRANTS Boeing’s motion to dismiss.
20 The court first discusses the legal standards applicable to Boeing’s motion to 21 dismiss, and then addresses the parties’ respective arguments. 22 1 A. Legal Standards 2 Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
3 upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 8(a)(2) (requiring the plaintiff to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim 5 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based 6 on “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 7 cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 8 1990). A plaintiff’s complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
9 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 10 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff 11 cannot rely on “allegations that are merely conclusory[.]” In re Gilead Sciences Sec. 12 Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). 13 When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept the nonmoving
14 party’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in 15 favor of the non-moving party. See Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 16 2019). The court must construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally and “afford the 17 [plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt.” Boquist v. Courtney, 32 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 18 2022) (citation omitted).
19 B. Boeing’s Motion to Dismiss 20 Below, the court addresses the parties’ arguments with respect to each of Mr. 21 Biruk’s claims in turn. 22 1 1. National Origin Discrimination Under Title VII and WLAD6 2 Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to, in pertinent part, discharge or
3 discriminate against an employee because of that employee’s national origin. 42 U.S.C. 4 § 2000e-2(a)(1). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must 5 plausibly plead that he or she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was performing 6 his or her job duties according to his or her employer’s expectations; (3) suffered an 7 adverse employment action; and that (4) a similarly situated individual outside his or her 8 protected class was treated more favorably, or that other circumstances give rise to an
9 inference of discrimination. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th 10 Cir. 2010) (describing elements in a Title VII claim). In the instant case, Mr. Biruk 11 alleges that he is of Ukrainian national origin and that he was terminated from Boeing, 12 therefore satisfying the first and third elements of a Title VII discrimination claim. (See 13 Am. Compl.) The parties dispute, however, whether Mr. Biruk has plausibly pleaded the
14 second and fourth elements. (See MTD at 6; see Resp. at 3; Memo. at 2.) 15 With respect to the second element, Boeing contends that Mr. Biruk failed to 16 allege that he was performing his job duties according to Boeing’s expectations. (MTD 17 at 6.) In his amended complaint, Mr. Biruk alleges that he was “engaged in [his] work, 18 diligently studying, completing required tests, and [was] fully committed to his position.
19 (Am. Compl., Ex. A.) But these allegations do not show that Mr. Biruk was qualified for 20 6 Because WLAD closely parallels Title VII, the court addresses Mr. Biruk’s national 21 origin discrimination claims under Title VII and WLAD together. See Graves v. Dep’t of Game, 887 P.2d 424 (1994); Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 2002) 22 (considering plaintiff’s state and federal discrimination claims together). 1 his position or that he was performing according to Boeing’s expectations. In his 2 response to Boeing’s motion to dismiss, Mr. Biruk argues that he was “qualified” and that
3 he “had successfully passed the first stage of the promotion and was preparing for the 4 second.” (Memo. at 2.) Mr. Biruk, however, cannot amend his complaint through his 5 response brief. See Riser, 2022 WL 2209648, at *4 n.1. 6 Even if Mr. Biruk had plausibly alleged that he was qualified for his role, 7 however, he fails to allege sufficient facts supporting the fourth element of his national 8 origin discrimination claim. Here, Mr. Biruk asserts that Mr. Suslov subjected him to
9 “degrading comments” that “exhibited [] bias” toward Mr. Biruk’s national origin and 10 that this incident would not have happened “if [Mr. Biruk] had been born in . . . another 11 country.” (Am. Compl., Ex. A.) And in his response, Mr. Biruk asserts that he was 12 “uniquely prohibited from recording at [the] office and subjected to disproportionate 13 criticism[,]” (Memo. at 3), and “assign[ed] less favorable work duties compared to
14 similarly situated employees of other national origins[,]” (Resp. at 2 (citing Exhibits at 15 45-70)). But neither these assertions nor the Exhibit pages cited by Mr. Biruk allege any 16 nonconclusory facts showing that these employees were indeed similarly situated or that 17 they were treated more favorably. Furthermore, Mr. Biruk does not allege any other 18 circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Indeed, his discrimination
19 allegations center on statements made by Mr. Suslov—his coworker. Mr. Biruk does not 20 plead any facts showing national origin discrimination by his manager or other Boeing 21 supervisors who were involved in the decision to terminate him. (See generally Am. 22 Compl.; Am. Compl., Exs. A-B; Am. Decl.) Accordingly, Mr. Biruk has not plausibly 1 alleged the fourth element of his discrimination claim. See Abdullah-El v. Bon Appetit 2 Mgmt. Co., No. C15-1946JLR, 2016 WL 1756630, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2016)
3 (citing Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 755 (9th Cir. 2006)). 4 Notably, Mr. Biruk does not allege any facts showing that he was terminated 5 because of his national origin. Indeed, the facts alleged in Mr. Biruk’s complaint show 6 that he was terminated for violating Boeing’s Code of Conduct in connection with the 7 incident with Mr. Suslov. (See Am. Compl., Ex. A (citing Exhibits at 215-17).) Even 8 accepting as true Mr. Biruk’s allegations that Mr. Suslov made “derogatory” comments
9 about Ukraine or made false statements in the investigation and later “boasted” to Mr. 10 Thorning that he “insulted” Mr. Biruk (Am. Compl., Ex. A at 1-2, 5), these allegations do 11 not link Mr. Suslov’s statements about Mr. Biruk’s national origin to Boeing’s decision 12 to terminate Mr. Biruk. And in his response, Mr. Biruk also asserts that he was “denied a 13 fair opportunity to present his account” during his interview with Ms. Erickson and that
14 she “inaccurately recorded and mispresented the exchange.” (Resp. at 3.) But Mr. Biruk 15 does not plead any facts showing that this alleged misconduct occurred because of his 16 national origin. See Mendy v. Larson, No. C22-1426LK, 2025 WL 2509024, at *8 n.9 17 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2025) (citing cases showing that false or incorrect accusations and 18 subsequent disciplinary action do not establish a Title VII discrimination claim in the
19 absence of evidence that plaintiff’s employer terminated plaintiff on the basis of a 20 protected characteristic). 21 22 1 In accepting Mr. Biruk’s well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concludes that 2 he has failed to plausibly allege that Boeing terminated him because of his national
3 origin. 4 2. Hostile Work Environment Under Title VII and WLAD 5 Mr. Biruk also alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment under 6 Title VII and WLAD. (See Am. Compl. at 3-4.) The court addresses these claims 7 together. See Little, 301 F.3d at 966. To state a hostile work environment claim, a 8 plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the defendant subjected him or her to verbal or
9 physical conduct based on a protected characteristic; (2) the conduct was unwelcome; and 10 (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his or her 11 employment and create an abusive working environment. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. 12 Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008). “The required severity for harassing conduct 13 varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.” Fried v. Wynn Las
14 Vegas, LLC, 18 F.4th 643, 649 (9th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up and citation omitted). 15 Additionally, in cases where a co-worker allegedly created the hostile work environment, 16 such as in this case, the plaintiff must also show that the “the employer knew or should 17 have known of the harassment but did not take adequate steps to address it.” Swinton v. 18 Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Fuller v. Idaho Dep’t of
19 Corr., 865 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (holding that an employer 20 21 22 1 may be liable for creating a hostile work environment either through the acts of a 2 supervisor or by “failing to correct or prevent discriminatory conduct by an employee”).7
3 Here, Mr. Biruk alleges that the incident with Mr. Suslov occurred over one day— 4 January 2, 2024. (See Am. Compl. at 5.) Accordingly, Mr. Suslov’s comments must be 5 “proportionately more severe to make up for their relative infrequency.” Fried, 18 F.4th 6 at 649. Mr. Biruk asserts that Mr. Suslov “asserted his pro-Russian position,” by calling 7 Mr. Biruk a “moron,” stating that the Ukrainian language is “not real” and that “there is 8 no such country as Ukraine,” and “refer[ring] to opponents of the Putin regime and
9 independent journalists using vulgar and derogatory language.” (Am. Compl., Ex. A at 10 1.) Mr. Biruk further alleges that Mr. Suslov’s statements created an “intimidating and 11 offensive environment[,]” and “demonstrate a clear pattern of . . . national origin 12 harassment.” (See id.) But denigrating or offensive utterances generally do not rise to 13 the level of a hostile work environment, particularly when such comments are made on
14 only one occasion. See Fried, 18 F.4th at 649; see also Manatt v. Bank of America, NA, 15 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that “offensive and inappropriate” racial 16 comments and gestures did not create a hostile work environment). Accordingly, these 17 allegations do not state a hostile work environment claim. 18 As he did in his original complaint, Mr. Biruk alleges that he was subject to
19 “swearing incidents[,]” without describing the details of those incidents. (See Am. Decl. 20 at 3; see 7/7/25 Order at 12 (addressing Mr. Biruk’s allegation that he was subjected to 21
7 Similarly, under WLAD, a plaintiff must also demonstrate that the alleged harassment is 22 imputable to his or her employer. Antonius v. King Cnty., 103 P.3d 729, 732 (Wash. 2004). 1 “swear words”).) But crass language generally will not create an actionable hostile work 2 environment unless such conduct is sufficiently pervasive or severe. See Kortan v.
3 California Youth Authority, 217 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Fernandez v. 4 FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 20-00031 HG-RT, 2021 WL 4305259, at *10 (D. Haw. 5 Sept. 3, 2021) (“Occasional uses of profanity and yelling do not constitute severe or 6 pervasive conduct that would support a hostile work environment claim.”). Setting that 7 aside, even if Mr. Biruk could plausibly show that the “swearing incidents” were 8 sufficiently pervasive or severe, he alleges no facts showing that Boeing was aware of
9 this conduct yet failed to address it. See Swinton, 270 F.3d at 803; Fuller, 865 F.3d at 10 1164.8 11 Additionally, in his response, Mr. Biruk asserts that he was subjected to a hostile 12 work environment because his manager “dismissed” his complaints about “headaches 13 caused by a lack of a respirator, and the absence of necessary tools.” (Resp. at 4.) The
14 court, however, is unaware of any legal authority providing that such conduct supports a 15 hostile work environment claim under Title VII or WLAD. 16 On the allegations as pleaded, Mr. Biruk has failed to state a plausible hostile work 17 environment claim under Title VII or WLAD. 18
19 20
21 8 In his response, Mr. Biruk asserts that his manager “dismissed” his complaints about “offensive language,” (see Resp. at 4), but it is not clear whether or not he is describing the 22 “swearing incidents.” 1 3. Discrimination Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 2 Mr. Biruk also asserts a § 1981 claim. Section 1981 provides that all persons
3 “shall have the same right . . . to the full and equal benefit of all laws . . . as is enjoyed by 4 white citizens[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In a § 1981 action, a plaintiff must show 5 discrimination on account of race. Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1989). 6 Here, Mr. Biruk alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his 7 Ukrainian national origin. (See Am. Compl. at 5.) But § 1981 does not create a cause of 8 action for discrimination on the account of national origin. See Johnson v. Riverside
9 Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1123 (9th Cir. 2008). Consequently, Mr. Biruk 10 cannot state a plausible § 1981 claim. 11 4. Retaliation Claim Under WLAD 12 Mr. Biruk also alleges a claim for retaliation under WLAD. (Am. Compl. at 4.) 13 The applicable section provides, in pertinent part, that:
14 [i]t is an unfair practice for any employer . . . to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any 15 practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter. 16 RCW 49.60.210(1). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under WLAD, a 17 plaintiff must show that (1) he or she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) he or 18 she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal link between his 19 or her activity and the employer’s adverse action. See Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 430 20 P.3d 229, 234 (Wash. 2018). 21 22 1 Mr. Biruk’s complaint is devoid of any allegations explaining his retaliation claim. 2 In his response to Boeing’s motion to dismiss, however, he asserts that he experienced
3 “adverse employment actions, including termination” after he reported “toxic chemicals, 4 workplace safety concerns, and ethical violations[.]” (See Resp. at 3-4.) Mr. Biruk, 5 however, does not plead any facts connecting his termination to these activities. (See 6 generally Am. Compl.; Am. Compl. Exs. A-B; Am. Decl.) Accordingly, Mr. Biruk has 7 failed to plausibly plead a retaliation claim under WLAD. 8 C. Leave to Amend
9 Ordinarily, courts must provide a pro se litigant with an opportunity to amend his 10 or her complaint prior to dismissal unless amendment would be futile. See McGurkin v. 11 Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court’s discretion to deny 12 leave to amend is particularly broad where, as here, a plaintiff previously has been 13 granted leave to amend. See Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051-52 (9th
14 Cir. 2008) (concluding amendment would be futile where plaintiffs already filed an 15 amended complaint containing the same defects as their original complaint). 16 Because Mr. Biruk asserts a national origin discrimination claim, he cannot state a 17 claim for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Accordingly, amendment of that claim 18 would be futile and the court dismisses Mr. Biruk’s § 1981 claim with prejudice. As to
19 his claims for national origin discrimination and hostile work environment under Title 20 VII and WLAD, and his retaliation claim under WLAD, Mr. Biruk was previously 21 granted leave to amend these claims, but his amended complaint continues to suffer from 22 many of the same deficiencies identified in the court’s July 7, 2025 order. Accordingly, 1 the court concludes that further amendment of these claims would be futile and dismisses 2 these claims without prejudice and without leave to amend.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Boeing’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5 # 23). The court DISMISSES Mr. Biruk’s amended complaint. Specifically, the court 6 DISMISSES Mr. Biruk’s 42 U.S.C § 1981 discrimination claim with prejudice. The 7 court DISMISSES Mr. Biruk’s national origin discrimination and hostile work 8 environment claims under Title VII and WLAD, and his retaliation claim under WLAD,
9 without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. 10 Dated this 12th day of September, 2025. A 11 JAMES L. ROBART 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22