Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00086-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNELIO CALAYAG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER

GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL

SERVICE,

Defendant.

CIV S-05-0086 LKK PAN PS

ORDER

-o0oDefendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As oral argument was unnecessary to resolve

this matter, I vacated the hearing scheduled for October 19,

2005, and issue this order.

Plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor statement

of nonopposition to defendant’s motion. E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-

230(c).

Case 2:05-cv-00086-LKK -PAN Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 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

1 Defendant states its intent to transfer venue of this action to the

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. See Defendant’s

Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, fn. 1.

2

Plaintiff filed this action January 14, 2005, alleging

employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Plaintiff is an employee of the

U.S. Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center in

Oakland, California.1 He states he received a notice of removal

July 2002 based on allegations he had submitted false medical

documentation and made improper requests for leave; he was

reinstated November 2002. The following year, on December 15,

2003, plaintiff’s supervisor summoned plaintiff to her office

and, in front of another, accused plaintiff of improper

attendance and sick leave use for December 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9,

2003. On January 15, 2004, plaintiff filed an administrative

complaint alleging “continuing and systemic” “unlawful

discrimination based upon my age (DOB 1944), disabilities

(stress, high blood pressure, diabetes), race (Philippine),

National Origin (Philipines), and other acts made unlawful by the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended.” Mediation April 2004

failed to resolve plaintiff’s claim and he filed a formal

complaint May 4, 2004, with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC). On October 26, 2004, the EEOC affirmed the

dismissal of plaintiff’s administrative complaint, reasoning

“that the complaint fails to state a claim under the EEOC

regulations because complainant failed to show that he suffered

Case 2:05-cv-00086-LKK -PAN Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 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

3

harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of

employment for which there is a remedy.” Plaintiff filed this

action within 90 days after the EEOC’s decision affirming

dismissal of plaintiff’s administrative complaint. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f)(1). 

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true,

read the complaint most favorably to plaintiff, give plaintiff

the benefit of every reasonable inference that appears from the

pleading and argument of the case and dismiss the complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of

facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. 

Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 658 (1963); Retail Clerks

International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn,

373 U.S. 746, 754, n. 6 (1963); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The court may dismiss a complaint if it does

not contain “either direct or inferential allegations respecting

all the material elements” of each claim or if the allegations

are merely “bare assertions of legal conclusions.” Tahfs v.

Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations

omitted).

The court may consider documents attached to the

complaint in evaluating a motion to dismiss. Parks School of

Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).

“Under McDonnell Douglas [v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802

(1973)], a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment under Title VII

Case 2:05-cv-00086-LKK -PAN Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 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

4

must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Specifically, the plaintiff must show that (1) he belongs to a

protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he

was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly

situated individuals outside his protected class were treated

more favorably. The burden of production, but not persuasion,

then shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action. If the

employer does so, the plaintiff must show that the articulated

reason is pretextual ‘either directly by persuading the court

that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer

or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered

explanation is unworthy of credence.’ Texas Dep't of Community

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981).” Chuang v.

University of California Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115,

1123-1124 (9th Cir. 2000). 

An “adverse employment action” is a “non-trivial

employment action[] that would deter reasonable employees from

complaining about Title VII violations” or engaging in protected

activity. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th

Cir. 2000). A “hostile work environment” is demonstrated by

proof of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a harassing

nature that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

conditions of employment. Pavon v. Swift Transportation Co.,

Inc., 192 F.3d 902, 908 (9th Cir.1999). A hostile work

environment claim is composed of a series of separate abusive

Case 2:05-cv-00086-LKK -PAN Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 4 of 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

5

acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment

practice. In determining whether an actionable hostile work

environment claim exists, the court must look to all the

circumstances, including the nature, severity and frequency of

the discriminatory conduct, and whether it unreasonably

interferes with an employee’s work performance. 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-5(e)(1). Provided that an act contributing to the claim

occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the

hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes

of determining liability. National R.R. Passenger Corp. v.

Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 116-117 (2002), quoting Harris v. Forklift

Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)). 

While it is not disputed plaintiff belongs to one or more

protected classes and is qualified for his position, the facts

plaintiff did plead do not support a claim based upon an adverse

employment action or hostile work environment and plaintiff has

not alleged that similarly situated persons were treated more

favorably. 

While plaintiff’s complaint generally asserts multiple

instances of “prohibited personnel practices, violation of my

Constitutional and Civil rights, letters of warning, disciplinary

action, other unfavorable actions, and other unlawful acts,” it

specifically identifies only his removal July 2002 and

questioning by his supervisor December 2003. An employer’s

formal inquiry into an employee’s use of sick leave is on its

face inherently reasonable and cannot be said to interfere with a

Case 2:05-cv-00086-LKK -PAN Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 5 of 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

6

regular employee’s normal work activities. Cf., e.g., Ray v.

Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 -1244 (9th Cir. 2000) (“adverse

employment actions” include employer’s selective reduction of

workload and pay). Plaintiff’s limited examples and his failure

to identify more favorable treatment of similarly situated

employees demonstrate neither an actionable adverse employment

action nor a hostile work environment.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for

failure to state a prima facie case of discrimination under Title

VII. 

However, giving plaintiff every benefit of the doubt, as

we must for pro se litigants, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

(1972), Abassi v. I.N.S., 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002),

plaintiff is granted leave to serve and file an amended complaint

within twenty (20) days of service of this order that sets forth

all specific instances (not generalizations) of allegedly adverse

and disparate employment actions. Failure to file an amended

complaint or failure again to state a claim for which relief may

be granted shall result in a recommendation this case be

dismissed.

So ordered.

Dated: November 30, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00086-LKK -PAN Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 6 of 6