Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02261/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02261-0/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NARDA GILLESPIE et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-04-2261 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 62)

Before the Court is defendants’ motion, filed May 6, 2005, for judgment on the

pleadings as to the causes of action asserted by plaintiffs Donald Woolard (“Woolard”) and

Dennis Quinn (“Quinn”) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and

the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). As the motion was noticed for

hearing June 10, 2005, plaintiffs’ opposition was required to be filed no later than May 20,

2005. (See Civil L.R. 7-3(a).) To date, no opposition has been filed.

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Woolard and

Quinn have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as to promotions made prior to

June 2004. To establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over a Title VII claim, the

plaintiff is required to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission before seeking adjudication of those claims in federal court. See

Case 3:04-cv-02261-MMC Document 65 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 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

2

EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1994). By statute and regulation, an

administrative claim under Title VII must be filed with the EEOC no later than 300 days

after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). 

Similarly, before filing a civil lawsuit for violations of FEHA, a plaintiff first must file an

administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”)

within one year of the allegedly discriminatory employment practice, and obtain the DFEH’s

notice of right to sue. See Cal. Gov. Code § 12960; Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65, 88

(1990). 

Defendants have submitted copies of the administrative charges filed by Woolard

and Quinn, in which Woolard and Quinn challenge only promotions made in June 2004. 

(See Request for Judicial Notice Exs. A and B.) In ruling on the instant motion, the Court

may consider any document “the authenticity of which is not contested, and upon which the

plaintiff’s complaint necessarily relies.” See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th

Cir. 1998). As plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, and as Woolard and Quinn’s claims

for violation of Title VII and FEHA necessarily rely on their administrative charges, the

Court will GRANT defendants’ request for judicial notice. 

Although plaintiffs allege that they have exhausted their administrative remedies,

(see SAC ¶¶ 34, 36), defendants have shown, without contradiction by plaintiffs, that

Woolard and Quinn have not exhausted their administrative remedies as to promotions

made prior to June 2004.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby GRANTED,

and the Title VII and FEHA claims asserted by Woolard and Quinn, to the extent based on

promotions made prior to June 2004, are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02261-MMC Document 65 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2