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.

Barrett v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Northwest

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 1, 2015

DAVID BARRETT, Plaintiff,
v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST d/b/a KAISER PERMANENTE, Defendant.

William J. Macke, WILLIAM J. MACKE & ASSOCIATES, Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Laura E. Rosenbaum and Edward A. Piper, STOEL RIVES LLP, Of Attorneys for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.

Plaintiff, David Barrett ("Plaintiff"), brings this action against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest ("Defendant"). Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 13) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. 12). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is granted.

STANDARDS

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint "may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). All reasonable inferences from the factual allegations must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). The court need not, however, credit the plaintiff's legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).

A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to "plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. "A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant as a courier. While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff was disciplined on multiple occasions for allegedly unacceptable performance of his duties. Plaintiff signed a resignation agreement with Defendant on December 13, 2013. Five days later, Plaintiff rescinded the agreement, and Kaiser changed the reason for his termination from resignation to involuntary termination.

On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ("BOLI") alleging age and race discrimination by Defendant. Plaintiff's BOLI complaint did not include any allegations related to disability discrimination by Defendant. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case on December 17, 2014 and filed his Amended Complaint on February 5, 2015. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes three claims: (1) race discrimination under Title VII; (2) state disability discrimination under Or. Rev. Stat. ("ORS") § 659A.112; and (3) age discrimination under the ADEA.[1] In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant makes two arguments: (1) Plaintiff's state-law disability discrimination claim is time-barred; and (2) Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court addresses each argument in turn.

A. Time-Barred Claim

Plaintiff's second claim for relief asserts that Defendant discriminated against him because of his disability, thereby violating ORS § 659A.112. ...


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.