Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Background

Gloria Davis filed an employment-discrimination action against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals on September 20, 2019. She brought one claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and alleged that Kaiser discriminated against her based on sex and disability. Her complaint supported that claim with a single sentence stating that it involved “wrongful termination of employment & violation of right to due process.” Davis litigated without a lawyer.

Davis alleged that she received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “on or about” June 21, 2019. The letter filed on the docket was dated June 21, 2019. Kaiser moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was untimely and failed to state a claim.

Timeliness

The court denied Kaiser’s timeliness argument. Title VII generally requires a civil action to be filed within 90 days after receipt of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter. The court held that Davis’s allegation gave only an approximate receipt date. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s presumption that a mailed notice is received three days after it is sent, the court treated June 24, 2019, as the presumed receipt date. That made September 22, 2019 the filing deadline, so Davis’s September 20 filing was timely. The court also noted that Kaiser offered no evidence rebutting those presumptions.

Failure to State a Claim

The court held that Davis’s complaint did not include enough facts to state an employment-discrimination claim. A discrimination claim generally requires facts showing protected-class status, qualification for or competent performance of the job, an adverse employment action, and circumstances suggesting discriminatory motive.

The court found that Davis did not allege facts identifying her protected-class membership, that she was Kaiser’s employee, the position she held, that she performed the position competently, or circumstances suggesting that her termination resulted from sex or disability discrimination. The court did not consider additional facts Davis offered in her opposition because a court generally cannot use material outside the complaint to decide whether the complaint is sufficient. The court directed Davis to include any specific facts about what happened and why she believed Kaiser discriminated against her in an amended complaint.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Kaiser’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court did not say that amendment would be futile and allowed Davis to file an amended complaint by July 30, 2020. The order stated that failing to file an amended complaint, or failing to correct the identified deficiencies, could result in dismissal of the action without further leave to amend.