United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND LEAVE TO AMEND
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's Rule 12(c) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #39. Defendant seeks to dismiss all causes of action in this matter for Plaintiff's failure to allege any facts raising a plausible claim for relief. Id. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that her "facts" must be accepted as true for purposes of this motion, and asserting that the motion is improper because the pleadings are not yet closed. Dkt. #52. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion, but allows Plaintiff leave to amend.
Plaintiff Crystal Howery initially filed this action in the District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of, among other statutes, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from her employment with Defendant Boeing Company ("Boeing) in Everett, Washington, and termination therefrom. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has been proceeding pro se, but has not sought in forma pauperis status in this Court. See Dkt. #1, Ex. 2. After Plaintiff filed her action, Boeing filed a motion to transfer venue to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). California District Judge Vince Chhabria granted Defendant's Motion, finding that the case could have been filed in the Western District of Washington and that the relevant convenience factors strongly favored transfer to this District. Dkt. #21. The action was then transferred to this District on October 9, 2014, and assigned to the undersigned Judge. Dkt. #22. Plaintiff thereafter appealed Judge Chhabria's transfer order, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied, entering its mandate on December 29, 2014. This Court then considered Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel and motion to transfer. See Dkts. #35 and #37.
On January 30, 2015, this Court denied Plaintiff's motions. Dkt. #37. The Court determined that Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support any of the factors in favor of appointment of counsel, but informed Plaintiff that she could re-file a motion to appoint counsel should Plaintiff believe in good faith that she is able to meet the relevant criteria. Id. at 4. The Court further found that venue is appropriate in this Court and declined to transfer the matter back to California. Id. at 4-5.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges:
Harassment and Retaliation for opposing and reporting discriminatory practices as well as for participating in investigations regarding discrimination. Violation(s) of: the Equal Pay Act; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Civil Rights Act; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and other violations of the law.
Dkt. #1 at 2.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant discriminated against her based on her race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information and age. Dkt. #1 at 2. In support of her allegations, Plaintiff provides the following "facts":
I was not paid for my hourly work. I was also denied a bonus. Requests for reasonable accommodation were denied. I was harassed. I was placed on leave without pay. I was terminated.
Id. According to Plaintiff, the alleged discrimination occurred between December of 2011 and June 2012. Id. at 3. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), who could not determine whether any violations had occurred, and received a Right-to-Sue Letter on February 9, 2014. Id., Attachment 1. She then proceeded with this lawsuit.
A. Standard of ...