Edward Galloway, Jr. v. Jeh Charles Johnson et alNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Claims Challenging 2010-11 Employment Actions and Doe DefendantsC.D. Cal.April 24, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, General Civil Section GARRETT COYLE (CA Bar No. 308177) Assistant United States Attorney Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-6167 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 E-mail: garrett.coyle@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant Secretary Kelly UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Edward Galloway, Jr., Plaintiff, – v. – John F. Kelly,1 Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. No. 16-cv-9315 TJH (PLAx) Notice of Motion for Partial Dismissal [Memorandum of points and authorities, declaration of Karen E. Hickey, and proposed order filed concurrently] Hearing: May 22, 2017 Time: Under submission Honorable Terry J. Hatter Jr. United States District Judge 1 John F. Kelly became Secretary of Homeland Security on January 20, 2017, and is therefore automatically substituted as a party in place of former Secretary Jeh Johnson under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:34 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of Motion for Partial Dismissal Please take notice that defendant Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly will bring a motion for partial dismissal on May 22, 2017, before the Honorable Terry J. Hatter Jr., United States District Judge. In accordance with Judge Hatter’s procedures, no appearance will be necessary unless the Court notifies the parties. Secretary Kelly moves for partial dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that plaintiff Edward Galloway, Jr.’s claims based on events in 2010 and 2011 are barred by the statute of limitations. This motion is based on the concurrently filed memorandum of points and authorities and on such other grounds as may be advanced in the future. This motion is made following the pre-filing conference required by Local Rule 7- 3, which occurred on April 10, 2017. Dated: April 24, 2017 SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, General Civil Section /s/ Garrett Coyle GARRETT COYLE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant Secretary Kelly Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12 Filed 04/24/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, General Civil Section GARRETT COYLE (CA Bar No. 308177) Assistant United States Attorney Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-6167 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 E-mail: garrett.coyle@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant Secretary Kelly UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Edward Galloway, Jr., Plaintiff, – v. – John F. Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. No. 16-cv-9315 TJH (PLAx) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal Hearing: May 22, 2017 Time: Under submission Honorable Terry J. Hatter Jr. United States District Judge Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:36 ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Table of Contents Table of Authorities .......................................................................................................... iv I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 II. Alleged Facts ........................................................................................................... 1 A. Plaintiff Edward Galloway, Jr. is hired as a transportation security officer at Long Beach airport in 2007 ........................................................... 1 B. The allegedly discriminatory employment actions in 2010–11 .................... 1 C. Galloway completes the administrative process for the 2010–11 claims ............................................................................................................. 2 D. Galloway is terminated for a ticket screening issue in 2013 ........................ 2 E. Galloway begins the administrative process for the 2013 claims ................. 2 F. Galloway files this lawsuit ............................................................................ 3 III. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard ............................................................................................ 3 IV. Argument ................................................................................................................. 4 A. Galloway’s claims based on 2010–11 events are time-barred ...................... 4 B. The Doe defendants should be dismissed ..................................................... 5 V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 5 Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:37 iv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Table of Authorities Cases Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................................... 3 Gengler v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 12-cv-1936, 2013 WL 12144092 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013).................................. 3 Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................... 3 Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 788 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 4 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) ....................................................................................................... 4 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 3 Molina v. Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, 58 F. App’x 311 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 3, 4 Payan v. Aramark Management Services Limited Partnership, 495 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................... 4 Romain v. Shear, 799 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................... 5 Scholar v. Pacific Bell, 963 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................... 4 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 3 St. Amand v. Block, 00-cv-5963, 2009 WL 1219972 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) ............................................ 3 United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) ....................................................................................................... 4 Statutes and Regulations 5 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................................................................................................... 5 5 U.S.C. § 105 ..................................................................................................................... 5 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 .................................................................................................. 1, 4, 5 Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:38 v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rules Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ................................................................................ 3, 4 Other Authorities Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5B Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (3d ed. 2004) .............................................. 4 Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:39 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. Introduction Plaintiff Edward Galloway, Jr., a former transportation security officer at Long Beach airport, brings this employment discrimination case against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). He challenges employment actions from two separate time periods. First, in 2010–11, he alleges that he was reprimanded for working excess overtime, suspended after an altercation with a coworker, and reprimanded for storing an unauthorized item in the TSA closet at the security checkpoint. Second, in 2013, he alleges that he was placed on administrative leave and ultimately terminated for a “ticket screening issue.” Galloway’s claims based on the 2010–11 allegations are time-barred. A Title VII plaintiff must file suit in district court within 90 days after the EEOC’s final decision on his appeal. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).2 Here, the EEOC denied Galloway’s request for reconsideration of its decision on the 2010–11 allegations on March 23, 2016, and said he had 90 days to file suit in district court. Yet Galloway did not file this lawsuit until December 16, 2016 — some six months after the limitations period had expired. Galloway also names ten Does as defendants. The only proper defendant in a Title VII case, however, is the head of the employee’s department, agency, or unit. The 2010–11 claims and the Doe defendants should be dismissed with prejudice, leaving Galloway’s 2013 claims against Secretary Kelly to go forward. II. Alleged Facts A. Plaintiff Edward Galloway, Jr. is hired as a transportation security officer at Long Beach airport in 2007 The complaint alleges that Galloway started working for TSA as a transportation security officer at Long Beach airport in 2007. Compl. ¶ 34, ECF No. 1. B. The allegedly discriminatory employment actions in 2010–11 Galloway alleges that his supervisor reprimanded him in February 2010 for 2 For the Court’s convenience, citations to legal authorities in the PDF version of this brief are hyperlinked to the cited authority in Westlaw. Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:40 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 working too much overtime. Compl. ¶¶ 37–40. Galloway was also suspended for three days in December 2010 after an altercation with a coworker. Compl. ¶ 41. In addition, Galloway was reprimanded in June 2011 for keeping an unauthorized item in the TSA closet at the security checkpoint. Compl. ¶ 43. Galloway alleges that these adverse employment actions were taken because of his race (African American) and national origin (West Indian). Compl. ¶¶ 39, 42, 44, 51–59. C. Galloway completes the administrative process for the 2010–11 claims Galloway consulted an EEO counselor about these 2010 and 2011 employment actions, then filed a formal EEO complaint with TSA. Compl. ¶¶ 10–12. TSA issued a final agency decision finding no discrimination. Compl. ¶ 13. Galloway appealed the agency’s final decision to the EEOC. Compl. ¶ 15. The EEOC denied his appeal. Compl. ¶ 15. Galloway sought reconsideration. Compl. ¶ 15. The EEOC denied Galloway’s request for reconsideration on March 23, 2016. Compl. ¶ 15; see also Decl. of Sozit Mohamed ¶ 4 & Ex. A. The EEOC’s denial said that Galloway had the right to file suit in federal district court within 90 days of his receipt of the denial. Mohamed Decl. Ex. A. D. Galloway is terminated for a ticket screening issue in 2013 Galloway was placed on administrative leave in August 2013 while TSA investigated a “ticket screening issue.” Compl. ¶ 48. After the investigation, Galloway was terminated for unprofessional conduct. Compl. ¶ 50. Galloway alleges that these adverse employment actions were in retaliation for his prior EEO activity. Compl. ¶¶ 49, 60–66. E. Galloway begins the administrative process for the 2013 claims Galloway consulted an EEO counselor about his 2013 administrative leave and termination, then filed a formal EEO complaint with TSA. Compl. ¶¶ 16–19. TSA issued a final agency decision finding no discrimination. Galloway appealed the final agency decision to the EEOC on January 25, 2015. Compl. ¶ 20. Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:41 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. Galloway files this lawsuit Galloway filed this lawsuit on December 16, 2016. The complaint asserts two Title VII claims: 1. Race discrimination for the 2010–11 employment actions (Compl. ¶¶ 51– 59) 2. Retaliation for prior EEO activity for the 2013 employment actions (Compl. ¶¶ 60–66) The complaint names as defendants the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and ten Does. Compl. ¶¶ 5–6. III. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard Rule 12(b)(6) requires dismissal of a complaint if, “tak[ing] all allegations of material fact in the complaint as true and constru[ing] the allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” the Court concludes the complaint fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Gengler v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 12-cv-1936, 2013 WL 12144092, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (Hatter, J.) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Court considers not only the complaint itself on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but also matters subject to judicial notice and exhibits attached to or incorporated by reference in the complaint, like the EEOC’s denial of Galloway’s request for reconsideration. See St. Amand v. Block, 00-cv-5963, 2009 WL 1219972, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) (Hatter, J.) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2001), and Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Molina v. L.A. Cnty. Dep’t of Mental Health, 58 F. App’x 311, 313–14 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of limitations grounds by considering EEO complaint referenced in but not attached to complaint). Affirmative defenses like the statute of limitations are a proper basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where, as here, they are “‘clearly indicated’ and ‘appear[] on the Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:42 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 face of the pleading.’” Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 788 F.3d 916, 943 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5B Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (3d ed. 2004)), rev’d on other grounds, 136 S. Ct. 758 (2016); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (“If the [complaint’s] allegations … show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim ….”). Courts thus routinely dismiss employment discrimination claims as untimely under Rule 12(b)(6). E.g., Molina, 58 F. App’x at 313–14. IV. Argument A. Galloway’s claims based on 2010–11 events are time-barred Galloway’s claims challenging the 2010–11 employment actions are barred by Title VII’s statute of limitations for filing suit in federal court after the EEOC’s final decision. Under the Title VII administrative remedy process, once the EEOC issues a final decision on an appeal from a federal agency’s determination of an employment discrimination complaint, the employee must file suit in federal district court within 90 days of receiving notice of the EEOC’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Any claim not filed in district court within 90 days is barred. See Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 266–67 (9th Cir. 1992) (90-day period for filing suit “constitutes a statute of limitations” and “[i]f claimant fails to file within 90-day period, the action is barred”); Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (pro se plaintiff’s Title VII suit filed three days after 90-day period was time-barred). Like all statutes of limitations, this time limit reflects the balance Congress struck between “affording plaintiffs … a reasonable time to present their claims” and “protect[ing] defendants and the courts from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading memories, disappearance of documents, or otherwise.” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979). Here, the complaint alleges that the EEOC denied Galloway’s request for Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:43 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reconsideration of its decision on the 2010–11 employment actions on March 23, 2016. Compl. ¶ 15; see also Mohamed Decl. Ex. A. Galloway then had 90 days — or until June 24, 2016 — to file suit in federal court asserting his 2010–11 claims. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Yet he did not file this case until December 2016 — well after the limitations period had run. His 2010–11 claims are therefore barred and should be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). B. The Doe defendants should be dismissed Besides the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, the complaint also names ten Does as defendants who were allegedly responsible for Galloway’s termination. Compl. ¶ 6. The only proper defendant in a Title VII claim, however, is “the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Those statutory terms are defined to mean the head of the cabinet-level department in which the plaintiff worked. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a) (incorporating definition of “agency” from 5 U.S.C. § 105); 5 U.S.C. § 105 (incorporating definition of “Executive agency” from 5 U.S.C. § 101); 5 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “Executive department” as any of the 15 cabinet-level departments); see generally Romain v. Shear, 799 F.2d 1416, 1418 (9th Cir. 1986). The Doe defendants should therefore be dismissed. V. Conclusion Secretary Kelly’s motion for partial dismissal should be granted, leaving Galloway’s 2013 claims against Secretary Kelly to proceed. Dated: April 24, 2017 SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, General Civil Section /s/ Garrett Coyle GARRETT COYLE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant Secretary Kelly Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:44 Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-2 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:45 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-2 Filed 04/24/17 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:46 Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-2 Filed 04/24/17 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:47 Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-2 Filed 04/24/17 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:48 Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-2 Filed 04/24/17 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, General Civil Section GARRETT COYLE (CA Bar No. 308177) Assistant United States Attorney Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-6167 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 E-mail: garrett.coyle@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant Secretary Kelly UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Edward Galloway, Jr., Plaintiff, – v. – John F. Kelly,1 Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. No. 16-cv-9315 TJH (PLAx) [Proposed] Order Honorable Terry J. Hatter Jr. United States District Judge 1 John F. Kelly became Secretary of Homeland Security on January 20, 2017, and is therefore automatically substituted as a party in place of former Secretary Jeh Johnson under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-3 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:50 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The motion for partial dismissal filed by defendant Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, the Court having considered the pleadings, supporting declaration, memorandum of points and authorities, and any opposition and reply, It is hereby ordered that the motion be granted and: 1. The complaint’s first claim, based on employment actions in 2010–11, is time-barred and is therefore dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6); and 2. The Doe defendants are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Dated: , 2017 Honorable Terry J. Hatter Jr. United States District Judge Presented by: SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, General Civil Section /s/ Garrett Coyle GARRETT COYLE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant Secretary Kelly Case 2:16-cv-09315-TJH-PLA Document 12-3 Filed 04/24/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:51