United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. Coughenour United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant General Services
Administration's (“GSA”) motion to dismiss
(Dkt. No. 18). Having thoroughly considered the parties'
briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the
motion for the reasons explained herein.
Court has previously set forth the underlying facts of this
case and will not repeat them here. (See Dkt. No.
40.) Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against
Defendants Relay Resources and GSA, who she claims were her
joint employers. (Id. at 11-12.) Plaintiff brings
disability discrimination claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C § 12101-02; the
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAA),
42 U.S.C § 12101-02; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S.C §§ 701, 791 (Section 501), and 793
(Section 503). (Id. at 12-17.) Plaintiff also brings
claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress
(IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED);
a claim for unpaid wages under both the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C § 203, and the Unpaid Wages Wage
Prohibition Act (Unpaid Wages Act); a breach of contract
claim; and a claim for wrongful termination in violation of
public policy. (Id. at 17-21.) GSA moves to dismiss
all of Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. No. 18.)
Motion to Dismiss Legal Standard
defendant may move to dismiss an action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1)
challenge to jurisdiction may be facial or factual. Safe
Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.
2004). A moving party factually attacks the allegations by
“disputing the truth of the allegations that, by
themselves, would otherwise invoke federal
jurisdiction.” Id. Once a defendant challenges
the alleged facts underlying jurisdiction, the plaintiff
bears the burden of establishing that subject matter does in
fact exist. St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d
199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). A federal court is presumed to lack
subject matter jurisdiction until a plaintiff establishes
otherwise. Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes,
873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). If a plaintiff fails to
exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing a claim
under the Rehabilitation Act, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the claim. Boyd v. U.S. Postal
Service, 752 F.2d 410, 414 (9th Cir. 1985).
defendant may also move to dismiss a complaint that
“fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-78 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 678. A plaintiff
is obligated to provide grounds for his or her entitlement to
relief that amount to more than labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545
(2007). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does
not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it
demands more than an unadorned,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
ADA, ADAA, and Wrongful Termination
alleges that GSA discriminated against her in violation of
the ADA and the ADAA. (Dkt. No. 3 at 12-16.) Plaintiff also
alleges she was wrongfully discharged because of her
disability in violation of public policy. (Id. at
20.) The exclusive remedy for a federal employee claiming
disability discrimination is under the Rehabilitation Act.
Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1418-19 (9th Cir.
1989); see Cornette v. Potter, No. C09-5373-BHS,
Dkt. No. 48 at 5 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (dismissing the
plaintiff's ADA claim as preempted by the Rehabilitation
Act). Plaintiff was a federal employee because she was
employed by GSA, which is an agency of the executive branch
of the federal government. See 40 U.S.C. § 302.
Therefore, Plaintiff's discrimination claims under the
ADA and the ADAA, and her wrongful termination claim, are
preempted by the Rehabilitation Act. See Cornette,
No. C09-5373-BHS, Dkt. No. 48 at 5. GSA's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's ADA, ADAA, and wrongful termination
claims is GRANTED. Because GSA cannot be held liable on these
facts under these causes of action, the claims are DISMISSED
alleges that GSA discriminated against her on the basis of
her disability in violation of Section 501. (Dkt. No. 3 at
16.) Section 501 requires federal employers to develop and
implement affirmative action plans for disabled employees,
and provides a private cause of action for violations.
Johnston, 875 F.2d at 1418. Plaintiffs pursuing a
disability discrimination claim under Section 501 must follow
the procedures laid out by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C § 2000(e).
See Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976).
“Title VII provides the exclusive judicial remedy for
claims of discrimination in federal employment.”
Id. Title VII requires a plaintiff to exhaust her
administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit.
Vinieratos v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force through
Aldridge, 939 F.2d 762, 768 (9th Cir. 1991).
exhaust her administrative remedies, a plaintiff must: (1)
file a pre-complaint within 45 days of the alleged
discriminatory behavior; (2) file a formal complaint with the
agency alleged to have participated in the discrimination;
and (3) receive a notice of final agency decision from the
agency or an administrative law judge. Vinieratos,
939 F.2d at 768-69. A plaintiff has 90 days after receiving
the notice of final agency ...