United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS RE: DKT.
NOS. 13, 18
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge.
before this Court are two motions to dismiss the first
amended complaint, filed by Defendants the Port of Oakland,
Dkt. No. 13, and the City of Oakland, Dkt. No. 18. For the
reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the City of
Oakland's motion and GRANTS the Port of Oakland's
motion in part.
Plaintiff Sherri Jean Parks has been a plumber with the Port
of Oakland for approximately twelve years. Dkt. No. 5
¶¶ 6, 18 (“FAC”). Her job
responsibilities include “installing, maintaining, and
repairing water, sewer, and gas piping for buildings and
grounds at the harbor.” Id. ¶ 6. She also
reads and organizes blueprints, creates rough drawings,
maintains, cleans, and stocks the plumbing shop, reads water
meters, and tests eyewash stations. Id. According to
Plaintiff, she “was able to and did perform [her] job
satisfactorily” and “took on leadership roles and
received good and outstanding in areas on evaluations.”
Id. ¶ 9.
of her employment, Plaintiff alleges that she was required to
become a certified backflow assembly tester in the Spring of
2003. Id. ¶ 12. “When similarly situated
males received their certification they were offered a 6% pay
increase.” Id. Although Plaintiff
“obtained [her] certification, ” she “never
received [a] similar offer or increase.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges that the sole reason she did not receive
this increase is because she is a woman. Id.
¶¶ 10-11, 14-15. When she complained, she was
threatened with termination. Id. ¶¶ 12,
further alleges that in the Spring of 2013, she was scheduled
for surgery for a torn rotator cuff. See Id.
¶¶ 17, 19. At her supervisor's urging, she
requested one shift off a week until her surgery to
accommodate her medical appointments. Id. ¶ 26.
She corroborated her request with a doctor's note.
Id. Once she did so, her employer refused to allow
her to continue working before her surgery. Id.
¶¶ 21-22, 26. She was later told that her medical
appointments had “made scheduling her impossible,
” although she always received prior approval.
Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff further alleges that
another employee with medical appointments was still allowed
to work leading up to his surgery even though she was not.
Port hired a temporary plumber during Plaintiff's
absence. Id. ¶ 26. When she was ready to return
to work, the Port delayed discussing reasonable work
accommodations with her. Id. ¶ 31. When they
finally met with her in January 2014, they would not explore
“even minimal accommodation” and were concerned
about their own liability if she returned. Id.
response, Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination
action on July 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 1. She later amended her
complaint on October 14, 2016, to assert claims for
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (“ADA”), and the Equal Pay Act.
See Dkt. No. 5.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must
dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court may
dismiss a complaint when it does not contain sufficient facts
to state a plausible claim on its face. See Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). This plausibility standard “asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. The Court must accept all the
plaintiff's allegations as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556; Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94
(2007). However, the Court is not required to accept as true
“allegations that contradict matters properly subject
to judicial notice or by exhibit.” In re Gilead
Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument
that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading
for all purposes”). Nor is it required to accept as
true “allegations that are merely conclusory,
unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
brings this case against both the City of Oakland
(“City”) and the Port of Oakland
(“Port”). The Court addresses each Defendant in
City of Oakland
City contends that it is not a proper defendant in this case
because Plaintiff is employed by the Port and not the City.
See Dkt. No. 18 at 5-7. The City relies on ...