Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01653/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01653-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

Plaintiff’s request for oral argument (Doc. 13) is denied because the issues have been

briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Debra Kane Revit, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

First Advantage Tax Consulting

Services, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1653-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Debra Kane has filed suit against her former employer, First Advantage Tax

Consulting Services, LLC, for wrongful termination in violation of Arizona’s Employment

Protection Act, A.R.S. § 23-1501 (“EPA”). Doc. 1-1. Defendant has filed a motion to

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 9. The

motion is fully briefed. Docs. 10, 11, 12. For reasons stated below, it will be denied.1

When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief under Rule 12(b)(6),

the factual allegations “‘are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party.’” Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation

omitted). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007)). This plausibility standard “‘does not impose a probability requirement at the

Case 2:10-cv-01653-GMS Document 14 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery

will reveal evidence’ to prove [the] claim.” al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir.

2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

To state a claim to relief under the EPA’s retaliation provisions, A.R.S. § 23-

1501(3)(c)(i) and (ii), Plaintiff must allege that she was terminated for refusing to violate

Arizona law or for reporting what she reasonable believed to be a violation of Arizona law

by Defendant or a coworker. The complaint alleges that on April 23, 2009, Plaintiff notified

Defendant’s president, Beth Henricks, and human resource representative, Lisa Boan, that

the company had engaged in several specific violations of Arizona law, including unlawful

billing practices, and that Plaintiff had been directed, but refused, to sign credit memos

designed to coverup the deceptive practices. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 8-11. The complaint further alleges

that on April 29, 2009, Plaintiff sent a confidential memorandum to Boan summarizing the

April 23 meeting and reiterating several of the violations Plaintiff had reported during that

meeting. Id. at 12. Finally, the complaint alleges that as a result of Plaintiff’s reports of

illegal conduct and her refusal to engage in or facilitate such conduct, Defendant terminated

her employment on May 7, 2009. Id. ¶ 15. These factual allegations, when accepted as true

and construed in Plaintiff’s favor, are sufficient to state a retaliation claim under the EPA.

Defendant asserts that the complaint’s allegations do not foreclose the inference that

Plaintiff was terminated for a legitimate reason or otherwise show that Defendant acted with

retaliatory animus. Doc. 10 at 5. But where “adverse employment decisions are taken within

a reasonable period of time after complaints of [unlawful activity] have been made,

retaliatory intent may be inferred.” Passantino v. Johnson & JohnsonConsumer Prods., Inc.,

212 F.3d 493, 507 (9th Cir. 2000); see Bodett v. CoxCom, Inc., 366 F.3d 736, 742 (9th Cir.

2004) (noting that federal Title VII case law is persuasive in interpreting Arizona’s

employment law statutes). Plaintiff was terminated two weeks after reporting the alleged

unlawful conduct, and only one week after putting her concerns in writing. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 8,

13, 15. Retaliation reasonably may be inferred from this temporal proximity. See Stegall v.

Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2004) (causation could be inferred from

Case 2:10-cv-01653-GMS Document 14 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

nine-day lapse between complaint of discrimination and termination); see also Poland v.

Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1181 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that at “the prima facie stage of a

retaliation case, ‘the causal link element is construed broadly so that a plaintiff merely has

to prove that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely

unrelated’”) (citation omitted).

Defendant further asserts that causation is lacking because the complaint contains no

allegation identifying who made the decision to terminate Plaintiff. Doc. 12 at 5-6. But this

fact may be “peculiarly within the knowledge of Defendant[.]” Infosonics Corp. v. LG

Elecs., Inc., No. 09CV167-MMA (BLM), 2010 WL 3339493, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23,

2010). Moreover, prior to her termination, Plaintiff served as a vice president overseeing a

staff of nearly 50 professionals. Doc. 1-1 ¶ 6. It is plausible that Henricks and Boan, in their

respective roles as president and human resource representative (Doc. 1-1 ¶ 8), were involved

in the decision to terminate Plaintiff.

The complaint gives Defendant “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff has met her “burden of pleading a claim

for relief that is plausible[.]” al-Kidd , 580 F.3d at 977. The motion to dismiss will be

denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s request for oral argument (Doc. 13) is denied.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01653-GMS Document 14 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 3