United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Cora Lasham, was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter. Dkt.
#2. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that Defendants
violated federal discrimination statutes, breached an
employment agreement, and injured her. Dkt. #3. The Court
dismissed Plaintiff's first complaint as wholly deficient
because it provided no indication of the relief sought and
did not contain necessary factual allegations (including
Plaintiff's age, injury/disability, the existence of an
employment contract, or allegations that certain defendants
were responsible for her injuries). Dkt. #6. The Court
granted leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
curing the identified deficiencies and Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint. Dkt. #7. The Court now considers
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Amended Complaint repeats and expands on her allegations of
discrimination. Plaintiff indicates that she is a
Filipina-American female over the age of 40. In December
2012, she began working under a new supervisor who treated
her disparately and used racial epithets to refer to
Plaintiff. When she reported the discriminatory treatment,
her employer did nothing and she was forced to continue
working in a hostile work environment and encounter further
discrimination. Dkt. #7 at 4-5. At some point Plaintiff was
injured from a fall and, in conjunction with panic attacks
and depression from the discrimination, her doctor advised
her to work light duty at times. Id. at 5.
Defendants refused to accommodate Plaintiff and instead
terminated her in May 2015. Id. at 3. Plaintiff
brings claims for (1) racial discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17) (“Title VII”);
(2) retaliation under Title VII and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 to
12117) (“ADA”); and (3) hostile work environment
under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
§ 701), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634)
(“ADEA”). Id. at 5-6.
is proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to
that section, the Court shall dismiss an action if at any
time it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (clarifying
that § 1915(e) applies to all IFP proceedings, not just
those filed by prisoners). A plaintiff's complaint must
allege sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that
the plaintiff is entitled to relief or rise above speculation
that he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
Amended Complaint does not appear to adequately state a claim
because the claims alleged appear to be barred by her failure
to exhaust administrative remedies and timely file this
action. Plaintiff does not allege that she exhausted her
administrative remedies prior to initiating this action.
Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002)
(EEOC charge required prior to initiating Title VII action);
Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1176
(9th Cir. 2000) (EEOC charge required prior to initiating ADA
action); Wilson v. MVM, Inc., 475 F.3d 166, 173 (3rd
Cir. 2007) (Rehabilitation Act adopts Title VII procedures);
Forester v. Chertoff, 500 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.
2007) (ADEA action requires prior filing with EEOC). Further,
Plaintiff was required to file her claims with the EEOC
within a specific period following the time the unlawful
employment practice occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)
(180 or 300-day period for Title VII, ADA, and Rehabilitation
Act claims); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) (180-day period for ADEA
claims). Further still, Plaintiff was required to file her
action within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from
the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); 42 U.S.C. §
12117; 29 U.S.C. § 626(e). On the Amended Complaint
alone, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has satisfied
the statutory prerequisites to initiating this action.
the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff must SHOW CAUSE why
this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and why this action is timely filed.
Plaintiff shall respond to this Order no later than
twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order.
Plaintiff's response shall not exceed five (5)
double-spaced pages. Failure to respond to this Order will
result in dismissal of this case.
Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to 14235 59th Ave. S.,
Tukwila, WA 98168.
 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
refers to other possible claims, but only lays out three
causes of action, mislabeling them as claims one, three, ...