Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05499/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05499-7/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the motion is suitable for

resolution without oral argument.

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSEANNE SAKAMOTO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEPHEN JOHNSON, Administrator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-5499 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

LEAVE

Plaintiff has filed a motion “to permit plaintiff administrative leave to address and prepare

matters related to this case.” (Docket No. 383).1 Plaintiff states that she would suffer economic

hardship if she was not permitted “reasonable” administrative leave – i.e., time off work – to address

the instant case and prepare for the upcoming trial.

Defendant opposes the motion, and has submitted, inter alia, the declaration of Eugenia

McNaughton, which states that plaintiff was out of the office on a full-time basis between April 2006

and October 2006. See McNaughton Decl. ¶ 6. According to that declaration, during that time plaintiff

used all of her accrued annual leave and sick leave, one month of leave without pay, the maximum 200

hours of leave to which she was entitled from the EPA’s “leave bank,” and approximately ten of the

twelve weeks of leave granted under the Family and Medical Leave Act. McNaughton states that during

plaintiff’s leave, the Quality Assurance Office (where plaintiff works) was required to extend the

schedules of technical audits and other staff were asked to take on plaintiff’s assignments. Id. ¶ 8.

Case 3:03-cv-05499-SI Document 400 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

McNaughton also states that any additional absences by plaintiff would cause further delays in the

office’s ability to meet schedules, increase the workload on other staff, and prevent the office from

proceeding with training and work in new areas. Id. ¶ 9.

Plaintiff has not cited any authority holding that she is entitled to administrative leave, and

indeed there is no language in either Title VII or the regulations requiring that such leave be provided.

Plaintiff’s reliance on 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.605(b) is unavailing because that regulation governs leave

in connection with the preparation of E.E.O.C. complaints, not federal actions. See 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.605(b) (“If the complainant is an employee of the agency, he or she shall have a reasonable

amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and to respond to agency and

EEOC requests for information.”). 

Plaintiff cites a single district court case, Mitchell v. Baldridge, 662 F. Supp. 907 (D.D.C. 1987),

in which the court ordered that a Title VII plaintiff should be allowed administrative leave for discovery

and pretrial preparation. As an initial matter, Mitchell is not binding on this Court. Moreover,

subsequent courts have noted that Mitchell is “narrow in application” because Mitchell had prevailed

on appeal and the administrative leave was granted on remand. Moore v. Summers, 113 F. Supp. 2d 5,

29 (D.D.C. 2000); see also Shelborne v. Runyon, 1997 WL 527352, at *17 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 1997)

(noting narrowness of Mitchell’s holding). 

In sum, plaintiff has not identified any authority showing that she is entitled to administrative

relief; at most, plaintiff’s request is subject to the Court’s discretion. The record does not support a grant

of administrative leave in light of plaintiff’s recent extended leave and the hardships such a leave would

impose on the Quality Assurance Office. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES

plaintiff’s motion. No motions for reconsideration of this order shall be filed or accepted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05499-SI Document 400 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2