United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael J. McShane United States District Judge.
Claudia Sims is a registered nurse who worked for defendant
Salem Health in various positions from January 3, 2011 until
her discharge on May 21, 2015. Compl. ¶ 5-6. Plaintiff
alleges that the reasons provided by Salem Health for her
discharge were a pretext to justify disparate racial
treatment. Compl. ¶¶ 8-12. She alleges two claims
in her complaint: (1) Title VII race discrimination under
federal law, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.,
and (2) state race discrimination under Or. Rev. Stat. §
659A.030(a) and (b).
moves for dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Because plaintiff's
federal claim is time barred, defendant's motion (ECF No.
5) is GRANTED in part. Because plaintiff has provided
sufficient evidence in the record to support the contention
that the federal court's electronic filing system failed
to accept her complaint on the day it was submitted,
Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket (ECF No. 8) is
GRANTED in part.
employment was terminated on March 21, 2015. Compl. ¶
6.Plaintiff filed a complaint with the state's Bureau of
Labor and Industries (BOLI). By letter dated December 12,
2016, BOLI found insufficient evidence to continue their
investigation and provided a NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL
SUIT. Decl. Reeves Ex. D, ECF No. 6. The BOLI letter
correctly instructed Plaintiff that she had 90-days to file
suit from the date of the letter.
court docket reads that this case was filed on March 13,
2017. The complaint was not uploaded into the electronic
filing system until March 15, 2017, when the court clerk
contacted the Plaintiff's attorney's office and
informed them that the complaint had not been received with
the case filing.
OF REVIEW I. Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
Court must dismiss a claim if it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The party invoking
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that
subject matter jurisdiction exists. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). First, the plaintiff
must prove that he has suffered an injury in fact, which
is a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally
protected interest. Id. at 560. This injury must be
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
Id. Second, there must be a causal connection,
meaning the injury must be fairly traceable to the conduct
cited in the Complaint. Id. And third, there must be
redressability, or a likelihood that a favorable decision
will redress the injury. Id. at 561.
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter that “state[s] a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual
allegations allow the court to infer the defendant's
liability based on the alleged conduct. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The factual allegations
must present more than “the mere possibility of
misconduct.” Id. at 678.
considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all
allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the non-movant. Burgert v.
Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663
(9th Cir. 2000). However, the Court is “not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286 (1986). If the complaint is dismissed, leave to amend
should be granted unless the court “determines that the
pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of
other facts.” Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d
494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotation
Title VII Claim is time-barred
plaintiff must file a timely charge of discrimination with
the EEOC as a prerequisite to bringing an action under Title
VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Grove City
Veterinary Serv. LLC v. Charter Practices Int'l LLC,
No. 3:13-cv-02276-AC, 2014 WL 3371918 at *2 (D. Or. July 9,
2014). Where a plaintiff fails to timely file an EEOC charge,
their judicial claims must be dismissed. Ariz. ex rel
Horne v. Geo Group, Inc., 816 F.3d 1189, 1202
(9th Cir. 2016) (“An individual's
failure to file a charge with the agency within [the] time
frame [set out in § 2000e- 5(e)(1)] will usually operate
to bar that person from bringing a lawsuit for failure to
exhaust their administrative remedies.”). The timeline
for filing a charge with EEOC is 180 days from the day the