United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to Amend her Complaint, which seeks permission to add a
retaliatory discharge claim against Defendant. Dkt. #47.
Defendant opposes the motion arguing that Plaintiff's
proposal is prejudicial, futile and unduly delayed. Dkt. #48.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 19, 2018. For the
reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's
an employment action in which Plaintiff raises claims for
violations of Washington's Law Against Discrimination
(“WLAD”) based on sex (female), intentional
infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior,
negligent hiring and supervision and failure to train, and
hostile work environment. Dkt. #1-1. Plaintiff alleges that
she had been hired by Defendant as a flagger and was
subsequently sexually harassed by her male supervisor. Dkt.
#1-1 at ¶ ¶ 1-10. Plaintiff further alleges that
after she reported the harassing behavior to another foreman
and a supervisor, she suffered retaliation, Defendant failed
to take appropriate corrective action, and she was eventually
laid off. Id. at ¶ ¶ 12-32.
Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that [She] complained 
to Mr. Fly on or around August 6, 2015. She was laid off the
following day under the pretense of budget constraints.
Plaintiff alleges that she was in fact fired for her
complaints of Mr. Mel's inappropriate, harassing, and
discriminatory behavior. . . .
Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ 24. She does not address the fact that
she was rehired again on or around September 27, 2015, and
continued working until she was laid off again in late
October 2015, although she included the fact in her
Complaint. Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ 6. Plaintiff did not plead a
cause of action for retaliatory discharge. See Dkt.
#1-1 at ¶ ¶ 33-45.
December 21, 2016, Plaintiff provided her Initial Disclosures
to Defendant. In those Disclosures she stated that she had
“not determined all damages and claims for special and
general damages and Plaintiff will supplement this
information.” Dkt. #38, Ex. 4 at 5. She further stated
that she may seek “compensatory damages for back pay,
front pay, lost benefits and medical expenses.” Dkt.
#38, Ex. 4 at 5. On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff
provided Supplemental Disclosures to Defendant repeating the
same verbiage. Id., Ex. 5 at 4. Subsequently, in her
discovery responses, Plaintiff objected that inquiries about
the amount of her wage loss claim was “beyond the scope
of permissible discovery, ” but answered:
Plaintiff has yet to consult with an economic loss or
vocational expert to determine the actual damages. Plaintiff
will supplement with that information as soon as it becomes
Id., Ex. 6 at 10. Plaintiff has never provided
Defendant with a specific calculation of her alleged wage
October 10, 2017, Defendant moved for partial summary
judgment. Dkt. #36. Defendant argued that Plaintiff's
claim for past and future wage loss should be dismissed
because she failed to plead a cause of action for retaliatory
discharge. Dkt. #36 at 10-11. The Court agreed. Dkt. #43.
First, the Court noted that
Plaintiff did not include an actual Cause of Action for
retaliatory discharge. See Dkt. #1-1 at ¶
¶ 33-45. Instead, she pleaded five causes of action as
follows: 1) violation of Washington's Law Against
Discrimination (“WLAD”) based on sex (female); 2)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; 3) respondeat
superior; 4) negligent hiring and supervision and failure to
train; and 5) hostile work environment. Id.
Dkt. #43 at 6. As a result, the Court found that
[t]he allegations contained in Plaintiff's alleged fact
section of her Complaint do not satisfy the “short and
plain statement” requirement included in Rule 8.
Plaintiff alleges that she was laid off as a result of her
complaints, under the pretext of budgetary constraints. Dkt.
#1-1 at ¶ 24. However, because she failed to plead a
corresponding cause of action for retaliatory discharge, she
does not identify any legal basis for her claim.
Plaintiff's failure to specifically allege the elements
of retaliatory discharge restricted Defendant's ability
to respond to the alleged cause of action or to conduct
discovery on that cause of action, and makes it nearly
impossible for the Court to evaluate the sufficiency of her
allegations. Indeed, the Court cannot even determine whether
she asserts a cause of action under state or federal law.
Id. at 6-7.
addition, the Court determined that Plaintiff will be
precluded from offering evidence of lost past and future
wages because “[a]t no point in this litigation did
plaintiff quantify - even roughly - the amount of actual
damages she suffered as a result of her layoff.” Dkt.
#43 at 7. “In fact, she states she does not intend to
ask for any specific amount at trial. However, making certain
documents available and promising that someone (in this case
Plaintiff) will testify regarding ...