Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03923-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISRAEL PENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03923-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 42

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Israel Pena, pro se, asserts that Defendants the United States Postal Service and 

Postmaster Megan J. Brennan (collectively, “USPS”) discriminated against him based on race, 

disability, and age. The Court previously dismissed Pena’s first amended complaint for failure to 

meet deadlines for filing his administrative and judicial claims. USPS moves once again to 

dismiss Pena’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court

found the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and vacated the hearing on USPS’s 

motion. See Clerk’s Notice (dkt. 45). For the reasons discussed below, USPS’s motion is 

GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History, First Amended Complaint, and Previous Order

Pena’s first amended complaint asserted six claims under the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). See

Order Granting Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s 1st Am. Compl. (“Order re MTD FAC,” dkt. 38) at 4–

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 13
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5 (summarizing Pena’s first amended complaint (“FAC,” dkt. 7)).

2

 Pena, a sixty-year-old 

Hispanic man and longtime USPS letter carrier, alleged that he had surgery for a knee injury in 

2010 and resumed normal work in January of 2011. Id. at 1–2. In March of 2011, he had a 

dispute with a supervisor about whether he could take on a new route that required more walking, 

and was allowed to remain on his existing route after he obtained a doctor’s note.

3

 Id. at 2. In 

early 2012, a new supervisor required Pena to take on a route incompatible with his medical 

restrictions, resulting in further injuries to Pena’s knee in March of 2012. Id. Pena was assigned 

office duties in lieu of his usual route into April of 2012, and requested mediation from the USPS 

Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) office, which resulted in Pena and his supervisors 

signing an EEO mediation agreement to place Pena on “modified work activity” until May 15, 

2012. Id. at 2–3. Pena experienced “additional acts of discrimination and harassment” in June, 

and in October of 2012 received a new doctor’s note restricting his work activities. Id. at 3. Pena 

was required to perform work in excess of those restrictions through 2013 and had his vehicle 

vandalized in what he suggests was an act of retaliation. Id. The alleged discrimination and 

retaliation continued until Pena began medical leave in October of 2014, at which time he received 

75% of his regular wages as disability pay. Id. at 3–4.

Pena may have contacted either the USPS EEO office or the Equal Opportunity 

Employment Commission (“EEOC”) on November 29, 2017,

4 and he filed a formal administrative 

2 Pena v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 18-cv-03923-JCS, 2019 WL 634645 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019). Citations herein to the Court’s previous order refer to page numbers of the version filed in the

Court’s ECF docket.

3 For ease of reading, and because a plaintiff’s allegations are generally taken as true in the context 

of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), some of Pena’s allegations are summarized in this 

order as if true. Nothing in this order should be construed as resolving any issue of fact that might 

be disputed if the case were to proceed beyond the pleading stage. 4 Paragraph 13 of the first amended complaint reads as follows: “On or about November 29, 2017 

Plaintiff contacted the Postal Service Equal Opportunity Office (‘EEOC’) thereby initiating 

contact with a counselor pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105(a)(2) through written letter charging 

Defendant with unlawful discriminatory employment practices based on disability, national origin, 

and race/color.” FAC ¶ 13. The Court understood that allegation as referring to contact with the 

USPS EEO office, but Pena states in his response to the Court’s previous order that the Court was 

mistaken. See Pl.’s Answer to Order (dkt. 39) at 2 ( “The statement ‘Pena notified the EEO about 

his claims on November 29, 2017’ is untrue. That is when I ordered paperwork for my EEOC

[sic], which I received in December 2017 and which I filled out and returned to Florida at the EEO 

Office . . . .”).

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 13
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint in March of 2018 after receiving notice of his right to do so in February. See id. at 4; 

FAC ¶ 13. USPS reached a final decision in early April of 2018 dismissing Pena’s administrative 

complaint and granting him a right to sue in court or appeal to the EEOC. Order re MTD FAC at 

4. Among the reasons for USPS’s decision was Pena’s years-long delay in initiating EEO contact. 

See Riddle Decl. Ex. A at 3–4.

5 Pena filed this action on June 29, 2018. See generally Compl. 

(dkt. 1).

Pena filed his first amended complaint on August 6, 2018, before USPS answered or 

otherwise appeared in this action. See generally FAC. USPS moved to dismiss the first amended 

complaint. The Court dismissed Pena’s Title VII and Rehabilitation Act claims for failure to 

contact an EEO counselor or similar officer within forty-five days of the conduct giving rise to his 

claims, and dismissed his ADEA claims for failure either to pursue administrative relief through 

the EEOC or to notify the EEOC of his intent to sue within 180 days of the conduct at issue. 

Order re MTD FAC at 15–21. The Court granted Pena leave to file a second amended complaint 

if he was aware of additional facts he could allege to cure those defects, such as facts supporting 

an equitable tolling doctrine. See id.

B. Pena’s Response to the Court’s Order

On March 15, 2019, Pena filed a document captioned as “Plaintiff’s Answer to Order 

Granting Defendant’s Motion[ ]to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,” which the Court 

construes as the second amended complaint authorized by the previous order.6 See Pl.’s Answer 

to Order (“SAC,” dkt. 39). In that document, Pena asserts that he “did not know there was a 45 

day window in which to file [his] claim” and that he “made every effort to get someone who could 

help . . . immediately after [his] injury [on] March 15, 2012.” Id. at 1. The allegations of Pena’s 

5 The Court takes judicial notice of the EEO decision as incorporated by reference by Pena’s 

complaint.

6 The Court’s previous order authorized Pena to file a second amended complaint, not any other 

form of response. If the response were construed strictly as a new complaint, it would not 

incorporate any of the substance of the first amended complaint, because an amended complaint 

generally supersedes an earlier complaint in its entirety. That alone would likely be grounds for 

dismissal, albeit with further leave to amend if it appeared that combining the substance of the two 

filings would be sufficient to state a claim. As discussed below, however, dismissal with 

prejudice is warranted because even reading the two filings together, Pena has not cured or shown 

that he could cure the defects in timeliness identified in the previous order.

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 13
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

response are as follows.

Pena asked the president of his union branch to conduct an investigation in April of 2012, 

but that she did not do so because she said “management was going to lie.” Id. Not knowing what 

else to do, Pena “filed for an EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) that took place on May 4, 

2012.” Id. He was late for that meeting because of “delaying tactics that Anna Carmelita, the 

Postmaster, used to prevent [him] from meeting with the EEO officials on time,”—specifically, 

“work orders” that Carmelita gave him—but not so late that he missed the meeting. Id. at 1–2. At 

the meeting with the EEO office, Carmelita was ordered to sit down with Pena and the shop 

steward on July 1, 2012 to “fix the numbers” for Pena’s delivery route, but she did not do so. Id.

at 2. Pena was on vacation for much of July and called an EEO officer, Trent Andrews, when he 

returned in early August to report that Carmelita failed to meet with him. Id. After Andrews did

not return Pena’s initial call, Pena called again and Andrews told him he would speak to Carmelita 

and respond to Pena the following week. Id. “To this day, Mr. Andrews never called [Pena] back 

and also, to this day, the EEO office has not contacted [Pena] or written with an answer to [his] 

EEO [complaint].” Id.

In March of 2015, Pena requested a copy of his employment filed from Postmaster 

LaTenya Desgraffenteev, who initially said that she would make copies within seventy-two hours, 

but later said she did not have time to do so and asked Pena to meet her on March 30, 2015. Id. at 

4. When Pena did so, Desgraffenteev told him that she had found time to make the copies and had 

mailed them to him, but Pena never received those copies. Id. More than a year later, in August 

of 2016, Pena gave a different postmaster, Ted Viray, a written request for a copy of his file, but 

he still has not received the file. Id.

Pena met with union branch president Lili Beaumont in September of 2016 and “asked her 

to give [him] all [his] statements for [his] EEO,” but Beaumont never did so, which led Pena to 

believe that Beaumont was “not working on behalf of the members, but with management.” Id. at 

3. Pena filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in March of 2017 

but the NLRB ultimately told Pena it was closing the case because the union did not have 

documentation to support Pena’s allegations. Id.

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 13
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

November 29, 2017 was not the date that Pena informed the EEO of his claims, but rather 

the date that he requested relevant paperwork. Id. at 2. Pena received the paperwork in December 

of 2017 and submitted it, along with a statement describing his ordeal, to the EEO office in 

Florida. Id. Pena’s EEO complaint was accepted in January of 2018 “and the EEO [sic, 

presumably referring to a mediation or some other conference] was supposed to take place on 

February 26, 2018,” but did not take place because a representative of the EEO office told Pena 

that he could not call in retired employees or non-management employees named in Pena’s 

complaint. Id. at 3. The EEO representative told Pena that he could give him paperwork to file 

this action and Pena could then subpoena the relevant employees. Id. On April 2, 2018, Pena was 

granted the right to file this action, and he did so within ninety days. Id.

In closing, Pena asserts that he has “had two federal investigations by the Post Office and 

the results were that [he] was threatened,” as shown in exhibits to his response. Id. at 5.

The first exhibit is a December 2017 email from an EEO representative providing Pena 

with the representative’s contact information and “[s]ome information on the EEO process.” Id.

Ex. A. Included in the same exhibit as that email is a March 20, 2018 report by the EEO 

representative indicating that Pena complained of discrimination in the form of medical documents 

having been removed from his file, one of Pena’s supervisors denied the allegation and said that a 

March 2014 investigation had cleared him of wrongdoing, and other individuals identified by Pena 

could not be contacted because they had retired or did not hold managerial roles. Id.

The second exhibit is a March 2017 letter from an NLRB official indicating that the NLRB 

had docketed a charge filed by Pena, as well as a copy of Pena’s charge asserting wrongdoing by 

his union and then-Branch President Lili Beaumont. Id. Ex. B. The third exhibit consists of 

copies of Pena’s March 2015 and August 2016 letters to postmasters Degraffenreed7 and Viray. 

Id. Ex. C. The fourth exhibit is a claim form for state disability benefits. Id. Ex. D. The fifth is a 

September 2012 letter that Pena sent to postmaster Anna Carmelita requesting his personnel file, 

7 This name is spelled differently in the body of Pena’s response to the Court’s order. There is no 

basis in the record to determine which spelling is correct, but the discrepancy is not material to the

outcome of the present motion.

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 5 of 13
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

signed by both Carmelita and Pena. Id. Ex. E. The sixth exhibit, Exhibit F, includes an April 

2012 letter to Carmelita requesting Pena’s personnel file and notes dated March of 2019. Id. Ex. 

F. There is no Exhibit G. 

The next exhibit begins with a USPS “Initial Management Inquiry Report” dated May 20, 

2014, describing investigations of Pena’s allegations of failure to accommodate his disability, 

removal of a document from his personnel file, and his supervisors and coworkers engaging in 

workplace sexual affairs. Id. Ex. H. The investigator found no evidence to support most of Pena’s 

claims, noted that two of his coworkers accused Pena of inappropriate conduct, and recommended

that all involved be reminded of relevant policies and offered counseling. Id. This exhibit also 

includes other investigatory documents from 2013 and 2014 indicating similar conclusions. See 

id.

There is no Exhibit I. Exhibit J is an April 28, 2017 letter from Postmaster Viray to Pena 

stating that USPS determined Pena was eligible for a limited duty assignment and should report 

for that assignment on May 15, 2017. Id. Ex. J. The next exhibit is a May 2012 letter from one of 

Pena’s coworkers stating that supervisor Werner Lopez was dismissive of a doctor’s note limiting 

the duties she could perform. Id. Ex. K. Exhibit L is a letter from Pena addressed to the Court 

dated March 13, 2019 describing difficulties that Pena had with an attorney, as well as many of his 

experiences at USPS, without specifying when much of the conduct at issue occurred but noting 

certain incidents in 1997, 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2018. Id. Ex. L. Exhibit M is another copy of 

the 2012 letter from a coworker included as Exhibit K, as well as a letter that Pena apparently sent 

to a different coworker’s in-laws accusing his coworker of having multiple workplace affairs. Id.

Ex. M.

C. Arguments on USPS’s Present Motion to Dismiss

USPS moves once again to dismiss, contending—among other arguments—that Pena has 

not cured the untimeliness for which the Court previously dismissed his complaint. See generally

Mot. (dkt. 38). Pena argues that he was not aware of the forty-five day deadline for contacting the 

EEO, in part because the EEO officer he spoke to in August of 2012 never called him back, and 

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 6 of 13
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that USPS’s briefs in this action have been inconsistent in referencing a thirty-day deadline8 and a

forty-five-day deadline. Opp’n (dkt. 43) at 1–2. Most of Pena’s opposition brief addresses the

substance of his concerns rather than the timeliness of his claims. See generally id.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. “The purpose of a motion to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. 

Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Generally, a plaintiff’s burden at the pleading stage 

is relatively light. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a “pleading which 

sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court analyzes the complaint and 

takes “all allegations of material fact as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the 

non-moving party.” Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Dismissal may be based on a lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of facts that 

would support a valid theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990). A complaint must “contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material 

elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007) (citing Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 

1106 (7th Cir. 1984)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation 

of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[C]ourts ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion 

couched as a factual allegation.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 

265, 286 (1986)). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of 

‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) 

8 The thirty-day deadline references in USPS’s briefs was a deadline set by Pena’s 2012 settlement 

agreement to raise any breach of that agreement.

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 7 of 13
8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(alteration in original). Rather, the claim must be “‘plausible on its face,’” meaning that the 

plaintiff must plead sufficient factual allegations to “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 570).

Pro se pleadings are generally liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard. See 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Even post-Iqbal, courts must still liberally construe 

pro se filings. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit explained: 

“[w]hile the standard is higher, our obligation remains, where the petitioner is pro se, particularly 

in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of 

any doubt.” Id. at 342. Nevertheless, the Court may not “supply essential elements of the claim 

that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1982).

If the Court dismisses a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), it should “grant leave to amend 

even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could 

not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

B. Title VII and Rehabilitation Act Claims

1. Timeliness

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race (among other protected categories) and 

retaliation against employees who oppose unlawful practices, including in the context of federal 

employment. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on 

disability. As discussed in more detail in the Court’s previous order, to bring a claim under either 

of these statutes, a federal employee must first contact an EEO counselor within forty-five days of 

the alleged discrimination. See Order re MTD FAC at 9–11 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1)). 

The agency then investigates, and the claimant may later file a formal EEO complaint. 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.105(c), (d). If the matter is not resolved after the agency issues its final decision, the 

employee may either: (1) file directly in federal court within 90 days, id. § 1614.407(a), or (2) 

appeal through the EEOC within 30 days, id. §§ 1614.401(a), 1614.402(a). If, at any time, the 

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 8 of 13
9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

employee’s complaint sits idle within the administrative process for more than 180 days, the 

employee has an immediate right to file a civil action in federal court but must do so within 90 

days. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407(b), (d). These time limits “are subject 

to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c)

The Court previously held that Pena substantially complied with the administrative 

exhaustion requirements, such that the Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction under the 

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 708 (9th Cir. 2001). See

Order re MTD FAC at 13–15. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fort Bend 

County v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1851 (2019), that “Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is a 

processing rule, albeit a mandatory one, not a jurisdictional prescription,” the Ninth Circuit’s 

Sommatino decision is no longer good law—substantial compliance with the administrative

process remains mandatory to bring a claim, but is no longer jurisdictional. See Williams v. Wolf,

No. 19-cv-00652-JCS, 2019 WL 6311381, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2019) (addressing Fort Bend

and Sommatino in the context of a federal employee’s discrimination claims). The distinction 

does not affect this case, however, because regardless of whether substantial compliance is a 

jurisdictional limitation or merely a mandatory processing rule, Pena’s claims satisfy that test. See 

Order re MTD FAC at 13–15.

The defect in Pena’s first amended complaint was Pena’s failure to allege either that he 

initiated contact with an EEO counselor within forty-five days of the conduct at issue, or facts 

sufficient to forgive such failure under any doctrine of tolling. Id. at 15–20. Even before Fort 

Bend, the timeliness of a plaintiff’s administrative exhaustion was not considered a jurisdictional

requirement, but timely contact was (and remains) necessary to state a claim on which relief could 

be granted. See id. at 12–13.

Pena’s response to the Court’s previous order does not cure the defects in timeliness of his 

Title VII and Rehabilitation Act claims. Pena’s first contact with an EEO counselor was in the 

spring of 2012. See SAC at 1. USPS resolved Pena’s first EEO complaint with a mediation and

signed agreement on May 4, 2012. Id. Pena did not appeal to the EEOC within thirty days or file 

sue in court within ninety days after that decision. See id. at 1–2.

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 9 of 13
10

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Pena made further contact with an EEO officer in August of 2012 after Carmelita allegedly 

failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. Id. at 2. Even if that contact could somehow be 

construed as initiating a new formal EEO complaint, for which no administrative action was taken 

after the EEO officer failed to call Pena back in mid-August, the period for Pena to file a civil 

action would have been between 180 days and 270 days after that, in the spring of 2013. See 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Pena did not file this action during that period.

The last potential act of discrimination identified in Pena’s filings is likely his 

commencement of medical leave in October of 2014, or perhaps the failure of Postmaster Ted 

Viray to give Pena a copy of his personnel file in August of 2016. There is no allegation that Pena 

contacted an EEO counselor within forty-five days of taking leave or within forty-five days of his 

written request to Viray, as required to pursue a discrimination claim. See, e.g., Green v. Brennan, 

136 S. Ct. 1769, 1782 (2016) (holding that the forty-five-day limitations period begins in a 

constructive discharge claim when an employee resigns). Instead, Pena contacted an EEO office 

(or perhaps the EEOC) to request paperwork for filing a claim in late November of 2017, more 

than three years after he began his medical leave and more than a year after Viray failed to give 

him copies of his personnel file. See SAC at 2. The only events that Pena alleges occurred 

between August of 2016 and November of 2017 are his fruitless effort to obtain assistance from 

his union and his filing of an NLRB charge against the union. See id. at 2–3. As noted in the

Court’s previous order, pursuing a union grievance is not a substitute for the administrative claims 

process, nor does it toll the statute of limitations for bringing a claim. See Order re MTD FAC at 

17 (citing Int’l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229, 

240 (1976); Vinieratos v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force ex rel. Aldridge, 939 F.2d 762, 768 (9th Cir. 

1991);

9 Huynh v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 11-cv-03195 NC, 2013 WL 2048681, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

May 14, 2013). Pena’s belated contact with EEO personnel in late 2017 and 2018 does not satisfy 

the forty-five day deadline.

9 Like the Sommatino decision discussed above, Vinieratos’s treatment of Title VII’s 

administrative exhaustion requirement as an issue of federal courts’ jurisdiction is no longer good 

law in light of Fort Bend, but a plaintiff must still fulfill that requirement to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted.

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 10 of 13
11

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. Equitable Exceptions

The Court’s previous order addressed two equitable principles that might excuse Pena’s 

untimely claims. The Court first addressed the doctrine of equitable tolling, as follows:

Pena’s previous EEO involvement suggests a finding of equitable 

tolling is unwarranted to save his untimely claims. Tolling “applie[s] 

to excuse a claimant’s failure to comply with the time limitations 

where []he had neither actual nor constructive notice of the filing 

period.” [Johnson v. Henderson, 314 F.3d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 2002)]

(quoting Leorna v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 105 F.3d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 

1997)). The focus of the doctrine is “on a plaintiff’s excusable 

ignorance and lack of prejudice to the defendant.” Leong, 347 F.3d at 

1123. Here, Pena was not only familiar with the EEO process because 

of his prior EEO mediation, see FAC ¶ 34, he was also well aware of 

his claims. Pena requested disability accommodation as early as 2011, 

id. ¶ 25, and reported to his doctor in 2013 that “Lopez had been

forcing him, through intimidation and other tactics to perform tasks.” 

Id. ¶ 43; see also id. ¶ 38 (“On February 13, 2013, [Pena] was 

interviewed by an employee from human resources regarding [his] 

charge of harassment and discriminatory practices.”). There is no 

evidence to show that Pena’s Title VII and Rehabilitation Act 

administrative claims should be tolled because he lacked knowledge 

as to his claims or the 45-day limitations period. In addition, many 

years have passed since the alleged violations occurred and it would 

prejudice USPS to be forced to defend against them now.

Order re MTD FAC at 18–19 (some alterations in original). Neither Pena’s response to the 

Court’s order nor his brief in opposition to USPS’s present motion provides any basis to depart 

from that conclusion. Even if Pena was unaware of the forty-five-day deadline (despite having 

previously filed an EEO complaint and pursued that process through mediation), the years-long 

delay from his 2014 medical leave to his 2017 EEO contact prejudiced USPS in that multiple

relevant employees retired during that time and all relevant witnesses’ memories would have 

faded. The Court further notes that there is no indication that Pena’s years-long delay, with only 

sporadic efforts to pursue other avenues of relief such as requesting his personnel file and 

complaining to his union and the NLRB—which the Supreme Court has held does not warrant 

tolling, see Myers, 429 U.S. at 239–40 & n.14—reflects a diligent effort to pursue timely 

administrative action.

The Court also addressed the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as follows:

Pena’s argument that his untimely filing should be excused under 

equitable estoppel fares no better. Equitable estoppel primarily relates 

to a defendant’s actions that prevented the plaintiff from making a 

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 11 of 13
12

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

timely filing, “above and beyond” the wrongdoing alleged in the suit.

Henderson, 314 F.3d at 414. Courts may consider, among other 

factors, whether the plaintiff relied on the defendant, evidence of 

deceit by the defendant, and “the extent to which the purposes of the 

limitations period have been satisfied.” Id. (quoting Santa Maria v. 

Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other 

grounds by Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1194–96 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (en banc)). “Equitable estoppel in the limitations setting is 

sometimes called fraudulent concealment . . . [and] may apply against 

an employer when the employer misrepresents or conceals facts 

necessary to support a discrimination charge.” Santa Maria, 202 F.3d 

at 1176–77 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Pena 

alleges no such conduct.

Order re MTD FAC at 19. The Court acknowledged that Pena had alleged that USPS officials

failed to provide his personnel file during the intervening years between his commencement of 

medical leave and his 2017 EEO contact, but concluded both that Pena’s efforts to obtain the file 

fell outside of the forty-five-day limitations period and that Pena failed to explain why lack of 

access to the file prevented him from contacting the EEO. Id. at 19–20. Nothing in Pena’s filings 

since that order alters that conclusion. 

To the extent that a USPS EEO officer’s failure to respond to Pena in August of 2012 

might warrant some leniency in filing deadlines, it does not rise to the level of justifying a more 

than five-year delay from that interaction to Pena’s contact with the EEO office in November of 

2017. Absent factual allegations of affirmative misconduct by USPS personnel somehow 

preventing Pena from contacting an EEO official or actively misleading him about the process to 

do so—which Pena has neither alleged nor indicated that he could allege—the Court declines to 

apply equitable estoppel to extend a deadline from forty-five days to a period of several years. 

USPS’s motion is GRANTED as to these claims.

C. ADEA Claims

The ADEA prohibits certain forms of discrimination based on age, including in the context 

of federal employment. As discussed in the Court’s previous order, a federal employee plaintiff 

may pursue such a claim either through the EEOC or by filing suit in court in the first instance. 

See Order re MTD FAC at 20–21. Even where the plaintiff chooses to begin in court rather than 

pursue an administrative claim with the EEOC, however, the plaintiff must notify the EEOC of the 

plaintiff’s intent to sue within 180 days of the alleged discrimination and then wait 30 days to file 

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 12 of 13
13

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a civil action. Id. at 21 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 633a(d)).

There remains no indication that Pena ever notified the EEOC (rather than the USPS EEO) 

of his intent to sue. Even if his complaint could be construed as alleging that he provided such 

notice in November of 2017, that would fall well outside the 180-day deadline for him to do so. 

And for the same reasons discussed above in the context of his Title VII and Rehabilitation Act 

claims, Pena has not shown that he is entitled to any equitable relief from that notice requirement 

or the deadline to provide such notice. USPS’s motion is therefore also GRANTED as to Pena’s 

ADEA claim.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, USPS’s motion is GRANTED, and Pena’s claims are 

DISMISSED for the same reasons as stated in the previous order dismissing his first amended 

complaint. Pena failed to cure these defects despite the Court’s previous order identifying them. 

The Court therefore concludes that further leave to amend would be futile, and dismisses this 

action with prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment of dismissal and to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03923-JCS Document 48 Filed 03/18/20 Page 13 of 13