United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. Dkt. #18. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's
claims should be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice,
because the claims were released in a severance agreement,
Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative
remedies, and Plaintiff's claims are time-barred.
Id. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and appears to ask
that his time for filing and/or failure to exhaust be tolled
and/or excused. Dkt. #21. For the reasons discussed below,
Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed.
filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”), along with his proposed Complaint, on
March 2, 2018. Dkt. #1. After Plaintiff corrected a
deficiency with that motion, the Court granted IFP status,
and the Court filed his Complaint. Dkt. #5. Plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint on March 29, 2018. Dkt. #8.
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he began working as
an employee for ProKarma in October 2015. See Dkt.
#8 at 8. He was hired as a “W2 contractor/employee
status at the offices of T-Mobile in Bellevue, WA. Plaintiff
was hired as a senior lead software architect to
‘mentor' and ‘train' the junior members
of the team, all from ‘India'. Plaintiff was the
only U.S. Citizen along with Levi Ross. . . .”
Id. at 6. Plaintiff's alleged national origin is
American and his race is white. Id. at 7. He asserts
that he is “Type II Diabetic” and is “over
40 years old.” Id. at 5-6.
further alleges that he suffered discriminatory employment
termination on the basis of his age, race and national
origin. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, while he worked
as a contractor at the offices of T-Mobile, the members of
his team, all of whom he alleges were Indian, refused to
follow his direction based on the fact that he was a white
American. Dkt. #8 at 5. He alleges that he asked for
reasonable accommodation based on his stressful and hostile
work environment, but that he was not provided any
accommodation unless or until he provided a doctor's
note, which he was unable to provide. Id. at 5-6. He
alleges that no one at ProKarma or T-Mobile stopped the
unlawful discrimination against him because he was a
non-Indian, and, as a result, he was forced to resign from
employment with ProKarma. Id. at 6-8. His employment
ended two months after he began, in December 2015.
his resignation, Plaintiff signed a Confidential Severance
Agreement and General Release with ProKarma on or about
January 12, 2016. Dkt. #18-1.
24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Dkt. #19,
Exhibit A to Ex. 1. The charge alleged discrimination and/or
harassment on the basis of race, color and national origin in
violation of Title VII. Id. The EEOC closed
Plaintiff's charge on December 4, 2017, stating that
“Charging Party signed a severance agreement with a
release and waiver.” Dkt. #8-15. The instant lawsuit
Motions for Lack of Jurisdiction under 12(b)(1)
courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only
hear cases authorized by the Constitution or a statutory
grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d
391 (1994). The burden of establishing subject-matter
jurisdiction rests upon the party seeking to invoke federal
jurisdiction. Id. Once it is determined that a
federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
has no choice but to dismiss the suit. Arbaugh v. Y &
H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d
1097 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
may bring a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction,
and in such cases the court may consider materials beyond the
complaint. PW Arms, Inc. v. United States, 186
F.Supp.3d 1137, 1142 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (citing Savage v.
Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also McCarthy v. United States, 850
F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Moreover, when
considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) the
district court is not restricted to the face of the
pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits
and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the
existence of ...