Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00837/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00837-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vanessa Hall, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, United States

Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0837-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant’s motion to dismiss counts and claims (doc. 9),

plaintiff’s response (doc. 13), and defendant’s reply (doc. 16). 

Plaintiff Vanessa Hall filed this action against her former employer, the United States

Department of Veterans Affairs, on April 21, 2009, alleging race discrimination and

retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

Plaintiff asserts numerous allegations of discrimination and retaliation, which she previously

raised in two formal complaints filed with the Veterans Affairs’ Equal Employment Office

(“EEO”). Defendant now contends that, with the exception her claims of constructive

discharge and failure to reassign, each of plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies or failure to state a claim. 

Title VII requires a federal employee to exhaust administrative remedies as a

“precondition” to filing a civil action in a federal court. Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425

Case 2:09-cv-00837-FJM Document 29 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

U.S. 820, 832, 96 S. Ct. 1961 (1976). A federal employee asserting discrimination must first

consult with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory event in an effort

to informally resolve the matter. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). The counselor must conclude

the informal counseling within 30 days and notify the complainant in writing of the right to

file a formal discrimination complaint. Id. § 1614.105(d). The employee may then file a

formal discrimination complaint with the employer agency’s EEO office within 15 days of

receipt of the notice. Id. § 1614.106(a), (b). Once the agency issues a final decision, the

complainant may either appeal the dismissal to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission within 30 days, id. § 1614.401-402, or file an action in federal district court

within 90 days, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(a). Absent waiver, estoppel

or equitable tolling, failure to comply with the exhaustion regulations is “fatal to a federal

employee’s discrimination claim” in federal court. Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1105

(9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff pursued two administrative claims. She first contacted an EEO counselor on

February 20, 2008, claiming that she suffered disparate treatment and a hostile work

environment because of her race. Complaint ¶ 79. The informal counseling process

concluded on March 24, 2008, when plaintiff received a Notice of Right to File a formal

discrimination complaint, dated March 21, 2008. Response at 8-9.

On March 22, 2008, plaintiff notified the EEO counselor of two additional instances

of alleged retaliation. Id. She claimed that her supervisor denied her request for a withingrade pay increase (“WIGI”) and unfairly reprimanded her. She claims that despite her

efforts to contact the EEO counselor regarding these newly-filed claims, she had no response

until May 13, 2008, when the counselor informed her that he had included these claims in

the March 21, 2008 Notice of Right to File. Id. at 9. 

Plaintiff then filed a formal complaint with the Veterans Affairs’ EEO office on June

2, 2008, asserting 13 instances of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation,

including the WIGI and reprimand claims. The EEO office dismissed the formal complaint

in its entirety as untimely under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). See DSOF, exhibit 3 at 3.

Case 2:09-cv-00837-FJM Document 29 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 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

1

We reject defendant’s argument that the instant action is untimely because plaintiff

failed to file her complaint within 90 days of the October 16, 2008 decision. Defendant fails

to recognize that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration extended her filing deadline. See

Complaint, exhibit 1 (stating that plaintiff had 90 days from January 28, 2009, to file a

complaint in federal court). 

- 3 -

Specifically, the EEO office found that plaintiff was required to file her formal complaint

within 15 days of receiving the March 21, 2008 Notice of Right to File. However, her formal

complaint was not filed until June 2, 2008, more than 50 days past the deadline. Plaintiff’s

administrative appeal was denied on October 16, 2008. Id. Her motion for reconsideration

was denied on January 28, 2009. Complaint, exhibit 1. She filed her complaint in this court

on April 21, 2009.1

 

In the meantime, plaintiff filed a second formal complaint with the Veterans Affairs’

Equal Employment Office on July 15, 2008, duplicating many of the allegations raised in her

first formal complaint, and adding two new claims—failure to reassign and constructive

discharge. The EEO office dismissed each of the claims as duplicative and untimely, with

the exception of (1) failure to reassign, (2) constructive discharge, and (3) interference with

employment opportunity with the FBI. PSOF, exhibit 11. Defendant contends that only the

failure to reassign and constructive discharge claims have been properly exhausted and now

moves to dismiss all of the remaining claims. 

Defendant incorrectly asserts that the EEO office dismissed as untimely plaintiff’s

claim that defendant improperly interfered with her potential employment opportunity with

the FBI. In fact, the EEO issued a corrected decision finding that plaintiff’s employment

interference claim was timely. See id. Therefore, defendant has failed to make any showing

that this claim should be dismissed. 

In her response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff objects only to the dismissal of the

WIGI and the reprimand claims. Failure to respond to arguments raised in dispositive

motions “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion.” See LRCiv 7.2(i).

We therefore consider the arguments relating to the WIGI and reprimand claims only.

Case 2:09-cv-00837-FJM Document 29 Filed 03/30/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with

respect to the WIGI and reprimand claims because she did not file her formal complaint

within 15 days of the resolution of the informal counseling period, as required by 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.106(b). Plaintiff filed her informal complaint challenging the reprimand and denial

of her WIGI request on March 22, 2008. She did not receive a response from the EEO

counselor until May 13, 2008, when she was informed that the counselor had included these

claims in the March 21, 2008 Notice of Right to File. Response at 9. We agree with plaintiff

that this explanation is illogical given that plaintiff did not submit the WIGI and reprimand

complaints until March 22, 2008–one day after the Notice of Right to File was issued. 

Nevertheless, even if we assume that plaintiff is entitled to equitable tolling of the

filing deadline due to the EEO counselor’s failure to respond within the statutorily prescribed

time frame, the tolling would extend only until May 13, 2008, when plaintiff received actual

notice that the informal review process was closed. Plaintiff then had 15 days from May 13,

2008, or until May 28, 2008, to file her formal complaint. However, she did not file her

complaint until June 2, 2008. Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust

her administrative remedies with respect to the WIGI and reprimand claims, and accordingly

we dismiss these claims. 

In conclusion, each of plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and retaliation are dismissed

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or failure to state a claim, with the exception

of three claims: (1) failure to reassign, (2) constructive discharge, and (3) interference with

employment opportunity. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

defendant’s motion to dismiss claims and counts (doc. 9). 

DATED this 30th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00837-FJM Document 29 Filed 03/30/10 Page 4 of 4