Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holmes v. Tacoma Public School District No. 10

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

August 9, 2017

SANDRA HOLMES, Plaintiff,
v.
TACOMA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Tacoma Public School District No. 10's (“District”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 30). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On January 29, 2016, Plaintiff Sandra Holmes (“Holmes”) filed a complaint against the District in Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-1. Holmes asserts causes of action for wrongful termination and discrimination on the basis of her race, disability, and age. Id.

         On April 29, 2016, the District removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1.

         On June 28, 2017, the District filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 30. On July 17, 2017, Holmes responded. Dkt. 34. On July 21, 2017, the District replied. Dkt. 35.

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Holmes was an elementary school teacher for the District from 2006 until the District placed her on administrative leave on February 10, 2014. Dkt. 1-1, ¶ 6. On May 13, 2014, the District officially terminated Holmes. Dkt. 31-2. Holmes appealed the termination that same day. Dkt. 31-3. On March 5, 2015, Hearing Officer Robert Peterson upheld the termination. Dkt. 31-4.

         On October 5, 2015, Holmes filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Dkt. 31-5. Holmes alleged that the discrimination took place from February 10, 2013, to February 7, 2014. Id. On November 2, 2015, the EEOC notified Holmes that her charge “was not timely filed with the EEOC.” Dkt. 31-6.

         III. DISCUSSION

         The District argues that Holmes's claims are barred by her failure to timely exhaust her administrative remedies. Dkt. 30. The Court agrees.

         A. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). There is no genuine issue of fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (nonmoving party must present specific, significant probative evidence, not simply “some metaphysical doubt”). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or jury to resolve the differing versions of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

         The determination of the existence of a material fact is often a close question. The Court must consider the substantive evidentiary burden that the nonmoving party must meet at trial - e.g., a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254; T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630. The Court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the nonmoving party only when the facts specifically attested by that party contradict facts specifically attested by the moving party. The nonmoving party may not merely state that it will discredit the moving party's evidence at trial, in the hopes that evidence can be developed at trial to support the claim. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630 (relying on And ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.