Cooper v. State of Nevada ex rel its Department of Transporation et al, No. 3:2009cv00640 - Document 11 (D. Nev. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 6 Motion to Dismiss. P's Title VII claim against the individual Ds and 1st Amendment retaliation claim against NDOT are dismissed without leave to amend. P's Title VII claim against NDOT and 1s t Amendment claim against individual Ds are dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint within 15 days of the date this Order is filed. ( Amended Complaint deadline: 7/30/2010.) Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/15/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
l y-----.-..2 .) l 2 . ........ .. j ) I.-..-......-... ; 4 ( ' . ! Jt l t , 1 g , ? ( y : j ; : ) l L è 3 Jk 4 i / .ty C--. .' ,. . ., l . y ' i ! f ' . ...-. S .. ' -L- 5 ; . . ,. ' 6 UN ITED STA TES DISTRICT CO URT 7 DISTRICT O F NEVADA 8 JENNIFER COOPER, f? ) ) ) ) Fllélirltiff, 1 0 v. 11 STATE OF NEVADA,es rel.its ; ) l2 S U SAN MA RT IN OV IC Hw in herindividuaI ;DENN IS TAYLOR,in l ) . , ' -''''-'' -'' ' '. '.. .. ' ''' . .. ) 3:09-cv-OO64O-RCJ-VPC ORDER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ) aqdoffi qialcapacities 13 hIsindivldualandofficijl;caqjcities' ,and CORY PEACOCK,in hIsindlvldualand 1 4 ofhci alcapaci ties,Defendants. 15 16 17 ) ? ) ) CurrentlybeforethisCourtisaMotiontoDismiss(#6)filed bytheNevadaDepadment 18 ofTranspodation(''NDOT' ')andDefendantsSusanMartinovich(''Martinovich''),DennisTaylor 19 (''TayIor')and CoryPeacock('Peacock' ').OnJune 11,2010theCourtheardoralargument Cooper v. State of Nevada ex rel its Department of Transporation et al Doc. 11 20 on this m otion. 21 22 1.BACKG ROUND This m atterarisesofoutofPlaintifflenniferCooper's em ploym entwith N DOT,Cooper 23 has worked w ith N DO T foroverfifteen years,and is currently em ployed as a Transportation 24 Planner Analyst. In the beginning of2007,Plaintiffalleges thatshe observed Defendant 25 Peacock, a supervisor at NDO T,''being verbally abusive and aggressive toward fem ale 26 em ployees,'' Plainti: allegedly com plained to herim m ediate supervisor,DefendantTaylor, 27 whoreassignedPlaintifftobe supervisedby Peacockshortlythereafter.AccordingtoPlaintiff, 28 Peacock started directing his aggressive and abusive behaviortoward her. Plaintifffiled an Dockets.Justia.com l internalcom plaintw ith NDOT and was allegedly told thatshe had d'no case''and there w as no 2 problem w ith Peacock's conduct.Plaintiffw as told by anotherND OT supervisorthatPeacock 3 w as trying to getPlaintiffterm inated and thatTaylorhad reassigned Plaintiffas retaliation for 4 com plaining aboutPeacock's behavior. 5 Plaintifffiled acomplaintwith herunion,theAFSCME LocalUnionNo.4041('Union'') 6 and herclaim s were investigated by the DirectorofN DOT,DefendantM artinovich,w ho found 7 no wrongdoing. Plaintiffasserts that,afterm aking hercom plaints,she has ''been withoutthe 8 properjob dutiesand herability to continue heremploymentand be eligibleforpromotions 9 isinjeopardy.''Plainti#believesDefendants'actionswereinretaliationforhertdexercisingher 10 FirstAm endm entrights to freedom ofassociation ofbeing a union m em ber.'' ll Plainti; initiated this Iaw suit on O ctober 2, 2009, seeking dam ages for gender 12 discrim ination and hostile work environm entunderTitle V IIofthe C ivilR ights Actof1964 and 13 FirstAmendmentretaliation under28 U.S.C.j 1983.Defendantsmoveto dismissPlaintiff's 14 claimspursuantto FederalRule ofCivilProcedure 12(b)(6). 15 II. ANA LYSIS 16 A . Standard of Review 17 The purposeofamotiontodismissunderRule 12(b)(6)istotestthe Iegalsufficiency 18 ofthe complaint.Navarrov.Block,250 F,3d 729,732 (9thCir.2001),DismissalunderRule 19 12(b)(6)isproperwhena complaintexhibitseitheraS'Iackofa cognizableIegaltheoryorthe 20 absence ofsufficientfacts alleged undera cognizable Iegaltheory.'' Balistreriv,Pacifica 21 Police Dept.,901 F.2d 696,699 (9thCir.1988).TheCourtmustacceptas true alImaterial 22 allegations in the com plaintas w ellas alIreasonable inferences thatm ay be draw n from such 23 allegations. LSO,Ltd.v.Stroh,2O5 F.3d 1146,1150 (9th Cir.2000).The Courtmustalso 24 construe the allegations ofthe com plaintin the Iightm ostfavorable to the nonm oving party. 25 Shwarzv.United States,234 F.3d428,435 (9thCir.2000).Accordingly,the Courtmayonly 26 grantamotiontodismissunderRule12(b)(6)ifitiscertainthattheplaintiffwillnotbeentitled 27 to reliefunderany setoffacts thatcould be proven underthe allegations ofthe com plaint. 28 Cahillv.Libertv Mut,Ins.Co.,80 F,3d 336,338 (9thCir.1996), /// 2 1 B. Plaintiff's Title VIlClaim 2 Plaintil alleges thatshe wassubjected to conductby the individualdefendants that 3 supports herTitle VIIclaim ofgenderdiscrimination and hostile work environment. Title VII 4 im poses liability only on em ployers,noton individualem ployees. See M illerv.M axwell's lnt'l 5 Incv,991 F.2d 583,587-88(9thCir.1993). ,seealso Craiqv.M & O Aqencies,Inc.,496 F.3d 6 1047,1053(9thCir.2007)(notingthatthe NinthCircuithas''Iong held thatTitleVIIdoesnot 7 provide a separate cause ofaction againstsupervisors crco-workers''). Consequently, 8 individualem ployees,even ifthey are m anagers orsupen/isors,cannot be held personally 9 Iiable underTitle VIl. Miller,991 F.2d at588. Accordingly,to the extentPlaintiff's Title VlI 10 claim is asserted againstthe individualdefendants,the claim m ustbe dism issed forfailure to ll state a claim . 12 Defendants argue that the facts alleged in Plaintifrs com plaint are insufficient to 13 supporthergenderdiscrim ination/hostile w ork environm entclaim againstNDO T, A hostile 14 environmentsexualharassmentclaim hasthree elements:(1)the plaintiffmustshow ''heor 15 shewassubjectedtosexualadvances,requestsforsexualfavorsorotherverbalorphysical 16 conductofasexualnature,(2)thatthisconductwasunwelcome,and(3)thattheconductwas 17 sufficiently severe orpervasive to alterthe conditions ofthe victim'semploymentand create l8 an abusive working environment.' Fox v.Sierra Developm entCo.,876 F.supp.1169,11?2 19 (D.Nev.1995)(quoting Ellison v.Bradv,924 F.2d 872,875 (9thCir.1991)). 20 The facts alleged in support of Plaintiff's Title V IIclaim are insu#icientto survive a 21 motion to dismiss. Plaintiffmaintainsthatherclaim is viable because she provided 'detailed 22 facts ofwhatwentwrong,ofhow Plaintiffcomplained aboutDefendantPeacock's sexual 23 harassmentandhostiletreatmentofwomen,andhow shewasretaliatedagainst.'(Opp.(#8), 24 p.3).However,theonlyrelevantallegationcontained inthe complaintisathegeneralclaim 25 thatDefendantPeacockwas d 'verbally abusive and aggressive toward female em ployees.'' 26 Plaintifrs vague allegations are insufficientto supporta finding thatthe alleged conductw as 27 sugiciently severe orpervasive to have altered the conditions ofPlaintiff's em ploymentand 28 to have created an abusive working environment. As currently alleged,Plaintiff'sTitle VII 3 l claim against N DOT m ust be dism issed. However, because am endm ent could cure the 2 deficiencies ofthe claim ,the Courtgrants Plaintiffleave to am end it. 3 C. 4 Plaintiff's FirstAmendmentRetaliation Claim Under42 U.S.C.j 1983 Plainti; allegesaclaim under42 U.S.C.j 1983againstaIIDefendants,Theessence 5 of Plaintiff's section 1983 claim is that she was retaliated againstfor exercising her First 6 Am endm ent rights of free speech and association based on her union aliliation. The 7 constitutionalrightto association extends to unions as wellas its m em bers and organizers. 8 Allenv.Medrano,416 U,S.802,819 n.13(1974).In a FirstAmendmentretaliation claim,a 9 plaintig mustshow that(1)she engaged in protected association' ,(2)Defendantstookan 10 adverse employmentaction against her;and (3) her association was a substantialor 11 m otivating factorforthe adverse em ploym entaction. Hudson V.Craven,403 F.3d 691,695 12 (9thCir,2005), 13 1. Eleventh A m endm entIm m unity 14 A s a threshold m atter,Plaintiffs section 1983 claim against NDO T is barred by the 15 Eleventh A m endm entofthe United States Constitution.lThe Eleventh A m endm entbars suits 16 againstthe State or its agencies for aIItypes of relief,absentunequivocalconsentby the 17 state.Romano v.Bible,169 F.3d 1182,1185 (9thCir.1999). Nevada hasnotconsentedto 18 suitbyexpresslywaivingits EleventhAmendmentimmunity.NRS j41.03143).NDOT,asa 19 state agency,istherefore shielded from section 1983 Iiability underthe EleventhA m endm ent. 20 See Stivers v.Pierce,71 F.3d 732,749 (9thCir.1995)(section 1983 does notabrogate 21 Eleventh Amendmentimmunity against a state). The Eleventh Amendmentalso bars 22 Plaintiff's section 1983 claim againstthe individualdefendants in theirogicialcapacities.See 23 Aholeleiv.Dep'tof Public Safety,488 F.3d 1144,1147 (9th Cir,2007) (''The Eleventh 24 Amendmentbars suitsformoney damagesin federalcourtagainsta state,itsagencies,and 25 state officialsacting in theirofficialcapacities.''l' , Romano,169 F.3d at1185. Accordingly, 26 27 1 Itis notclearthatDefendants'Eleventh Amendm entargum entisconfined to Plaintiff's First 28 Amendmentclaim . However,to the extentDefendants challenge Plaintiff's Title VlIclaim ,this claim isnotbarred bysovereignimmunity.SeeChollaReadyMix,Inc.v.Civish,382 F.3d 969,973 (gthcir. 2004)(notingthatCongress hasabrogated EleventhAmendmentimmunitywith respectto Titl e VII claims). 4 l Defendants'motion to dism iss is granted with respectto Plaintiff's section 1983 claim for 2 damages againstNDOT and againstthe individualdefendants in theirofficialcapacities. 3 2. Liabilitv oflndividualDefendants UnderQ 1983 4 The caption to this action indicates thatPlaintiffhas broughtsuitagainstthe individual 5 defendants in theirindividualcapacities as well.The Eleventh Am endm entdoes notbarsuits 6 against state officials in theirindividualcapacities. Stivers,71 F.3d at749. Section 1983 7 Iiability attaches to a public o#icerin his individualcapacity ifthe plaintiffis able to show that 8 the officialacted undercolorofstate law in deprivation ofa federalright. Rom ano,169 F.3d 9 at1185-86.Inordertosurvivea Rule 12(b)(6)motiontodismiss,aplaintiffmustallegefacts 10 suggesting thatthe defendants w ere acting undercolorofstate Iaw atthe tim e ofthe alleged ll constitutionalviolation. See Gritchenv.Collier,254 F.3d 807,812 (9thCir.2001). 12 Plaintiffalleges she was ''subjectto disparate and discriminatory treatment' by 13 Defendants and ''said actions by Defendants w ere in retaliation forherexercising her First 14 A mendm ent rights to freedom of association of being a Union m em ber,'' These general 15 allegations are insuficientto state a claim underSection 1983 because Plaintiffhas failed to 16 allege facts show ing how Defendants individually deprived PlaintiffofherFirstA m endm ent 17 rights,while acting undercolorofstate Iaw orauthority.The com plaintdoes noteven contain 18 the conclusory statementindicating thatthe individualDefendants were acting underd'color 19 ofstate law.''Accordingly,Plaintifrs FirstAmendmentretaliation claim againstthe individual 20 Defendants is insufficiently pled.Defendants'm otion to dism iss on this ground w illbe granted 21 w ith Ieave to am end. 22 23 3. Qualified Immunit: Defendants M adinovich,Taylorand Peacock argue thatthey are entitled to qualified 24 im munity.Q ualified immunity protects'governm entofficials .,.from Iiabilityforcivildamages 25 insofaras theirconductdoes notviolate clearly established statutory orconstitutionalrights 26 ofw hich a reasonable person would have know n.'' Harlow v.Fitzqerald,457 U.S.800,818 27 (1982).However,atthisstage,amotion todismissonqualified immunitygroundsplacesthe 28 Courtin the difficultposition ofdeciding d'far-reaching constitutionalquestions on a non- 5 l existentfactualrecord.'' See KwaiFun W onq v.United States,373 F.3d 952,957 (9thCir. 2 2004),Althoughgovernmentofficialshavethe righttoraisequalified immunityona motionto 3 dismiss,itisnotnecessarilyadvisableineverycase.J#-u;Morleyv,W alker,175F.3d756,761 4 (9thCir.1999)(holding that,''in lightofthe factthataIIallegationsin the complaintmustbe 5 regarded as true on a m otion to dism iss,dism issalon qualified im m unity grounds forfailure to 6 statea claim under12(b)(6)isinappropriate.'').Assuch,Defendants'motiontodismissonthe 7 basisofqualified immunityisdenied,withoutprejudiceto renew the motionon thisbasisata 8 latertim e. 9 10 111. CO N CLUSIO N Fortheforegoing reasons,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED thatthe Motion to Dismiss(#6) l1 is G RANTED IN PA RT and D EN IED IN PA RT. Plaintifrs Title V IIclaim againstthe individual 12 Defendants and FirstA m endm entretaliation claim againstN DO T are dism issed w ithoutIeave 13 to am end. Plaintiffs Title VIIclaim againstN DOT and First Am endm ent claim against the 14 individualDefendantsaredismissedwithoutprejudice,withIeavetofileanamendedcomplaint 15 w ithin 15 days ofthe date this O rderis filed. 16 DATED:This 15thday ofJuly,2010, 17 18 19 20 , - * UN ITED STA 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 S DISTR ICT JUDG E
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
