Jones v. Lewis

Background

Dollene Jones, who was representing herself, sued Jeffrey Lewis, Davis Riemer, Hugo Wildmann, and Curtis Lim. She alleged that the defendants were members of the AC Transit Retirement Board and that she was a former AC Transit District employee who retired in 2010.

Jones alleged discrimination based on race, color, and gender or sex. She said that the defendants temporarily withheld part of her retirement benefits because she had previously registered two same-sex domestic partnerships with the AC Transit Employees’ Retirement System. She also alleged that it took four or five months to receive the withheld amount and that her retirement-benefit calculations failed to account properly for part-time hours and used an incorrect pension start date.

Her amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Title VII claim

The defendants argued that Jones had not shown compliance with the required Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge process, that the EEOC right-to-sue letter identified AC Transit rather than the individual defendants, and that the allegations did not show intentional discrimination. The court explained that the charge-filing requirement is mandatory but is not a jurisdictional limit on the court’s authority. Because Jones did not attach the underlying EEOC charge, the court said it could not determine whether she had satisfied that requirement.

The court also held that the amended complaint did not allege intentional discrimination based on race, color, or sex or gender. It found that the alleged withholding appeared to result from a facially neutral policy concerning retirement benefits and previously registered domestic partners, rather than an allegation that the defendants acted because Jones was a lesbian. The court further noted that individual supervisors cannot be held liable under Title VII.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Title VII claim. It instructed Jones that any amended Title VII claim must attach the EEOC charge and specifically allege how the defendants intentionally discriminated against her because of a protected characteristic.

ERISA claim

The court found Jones’s ERISA theory unclear. It appeared to be based on the alleged failure to credit part-time hours and the use of an incorrect pension start date. The defendants argued that the AC Transit District Retirement Plan was a public-employee plan governed by California law rather than ERISA. Jones’s opposition did not address the ERISA claim, although it continued to assert that her retirement benefits had been calculated improperly.

The court did not decide whether the plan was subject to ERISA or whether defendants violated ERISA. It directed Jones to identify specifically how defendants violated ERISA, including relevant statutory provisions, if she chose to pursue that claim in an amended complaint. The court also stated that any renewed motion to dismiss should cite authority for the defendants’ argument that the plan was not subject to ERISA.

State-law claims and other motions

The provided opinion text states that the court did not address the defendants’ arguments for dismissing the state-law claims and discusses the court’s authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing claims within its original jurisdiction. The separate disposition of those state-law claims is not clear from the provided text.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted Jones leave to amend. It denied Jones’s request for appointment of counsel. It also denied her motion to compel discovery as premature because discovery would be scheduled only if she stated a viable claim. The court set November 2, 2020, as the deadline to amend and vacated the scheduled hearing.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Jones leave to amend. She denied the request for appointment of counsel and denied the motion to compel discovery as premature.