Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00436/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00436-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Shiri S. Tannehill, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Southwest Airlines, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-00436-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Southwest Airlines has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Doc. 7. The motion is fully briefed. The Court will grant the 

motion.1

 

I. Background. 

Plaintiff Shiri Tannehill is a former employee of Defendant. Plaintiff worked for 

Defendant as a flight attendant from 1989 to 2013. Doc. 7 at 3. Plaintiff is an AfricanAmerican female. Doc. 1, ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that she was involved in a physical 

altercation with a fellow employee who had been harassing her. Id., ¶¶ 9-10. Plaintiff 

was apparently terminated following this altercation, while the other employee was not. 

Id., ¶ 11; Doc. 7 at 3. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Arizona Attorney 

General’s Office on November 14, 2013, alleging discrimination on the basis of age and 

 

1

 The request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully 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). 

Case 2:14-cv-00436-DGC Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

disability. Doc. 7-1 at 4. She also filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on November 19, 2013, making the 

same allegations. Id. at 3. Plaintiff filed this action on March 5, 2014, asserting claims 

for discrimination in violation of Title VII, racial discrimination, and age discrimination. 

See Doc. 1. 

II. Legal Standard. 

When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief under 

Rule 12(b)(6), the well-pled 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). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the 

assumption of truth, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009), and therefore are 

insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, In re Cutera Sec. 

Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). 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 “is not 

akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the 

mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged B but it has not ‘show[n]’ B

‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

III. Analysis. 

Defendant first argues that “Plaintiff failed to file any charge alleging a violation 

of Title VII and, thus, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.” Doc. 7 at 5. 

Plaintiff “was required to exhaust [her] administrative remedies by either ‘filing a timely 

charge with the EEOC, or the appropriate state agency, thereby affording the agency an 

opportunity to investigate the charge.’” Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 291 

F.3d 632, 636 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting B.K B. v. Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 

(9th Cir. 2002)). Where a plaintiff seeks “judicial relief for claims not listed in the 

Case 2:14-cv-00436-DGC Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

original EEOC charge,” her complaint “may encompass any discrimination like or 

reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge.” Freeman, 291 F.3d at 636 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, allegations of discrimination 

not included in a plaintiff’s EEOC charge may not be considered by a federal court, but 

“subject matter jurisdiction extends over all allegations of discrimination that either ‘fell 

within the scope of the EEOC’s actual investigation or an EEOC investigation which can 

reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.’” Id. (quoting 

B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1100) (emphasis in original). Courts construe EEOC charges with the 

“utmost liberality” because “they are made by those unschooled in the technicalities of 

formal pleading[.]” Freeman, 291 F.3d at 636 (quoting B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1100). 

 Defendant argues that neither of Plaintiff’s charges alleges any claim for 

discrimination based on race, national origin, or retaliation. Doc. 7 at 5-6. Defendant is 

correct. Plaintiff’s charges allege discrimination on the basis of age and disability. See

Doc. 7-1 at 3-4. The boxes for retaliation, race, and national origin are not checked on 

either charge and the facts alleged on Plaintiff’s Arizona charge state that Plaintiff 

believed “she [had] been discriminated against because of my age” and “because of my 

medical condition.” Id. There are no facts related to retaliation or discrimination on the 

basis of race or national origin. 

 Plaintiff appears to argue that the EEOC overlooked her statement and emails 

when she made her charge, but she does not provide any of the emails or statements she 

alleges were overlooked. Doc. 10 at 1. Plaintiff also appears to acknowledge that 

discrimination under Title VII does not appear in either charge because she states that she 

would like for Title VII charges to be included “in to the charges against defendant 

Southwest Airlines at this time (sic).” Id. 

 Even construing Plaintiff’s claims with the utmost liberality, it is clear that 

discrimination on the basis of race or national origin, and retaliation, were not included in 

either of Plaintiff’s charges. Nor can the Court conclude that such claims would be 

reasonably expected to grow out of Plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination based on age 

Case 2:14-cv-00436-DGC Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

and disability. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss these 

claims. 

 The Court will also grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to any age 

discrimination claim. Plaintiff’s complaint states at the outset that it is based on “racial 

and age discrimination,” but Plaintiff pleads no facts to support any claim that she was 

discriminated against on the basis of age. See Doc. 1. Simply stating that she was 

subject to age discrimination, without more, is insufficient to state a claim. See 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 

 Plaintiff’s response also argues that Defendant “lacked the just cause necessary 

pursuant to article 19.S.1(I) of the collective bargaining agreement.” Doc. 10 at 1. 

Plaintiff makes no such allegations in her complaint, and this argument does not prevent 

the dismissal of her complaint. 

 Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Doc. 11 

at 7. In this circuit, however, “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her 

complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 

cured by amendment.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th 

Cir. 1988). The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to 

file an amended complaint, consistent with this order, that properly states a claim for 

relief. Plaintiff shall have until September 26, 2014 to file an amended complaint. 

 Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint is subject to the requirements 

discussed above, namely that Plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies with 

respect to her claims under Title VII. Accordingly, if Plaintiff wishes to amend her Title 

VII claims, she must produce evidence demonstrating that she exhausted her 

administrative remedies as to those claims. 

Plaintiff is further advised that she must become familiar with, and follow, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s 

office. For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the 

Case 2:14-cv-00436-DGC Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a 

demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be 

set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph 

“must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

The “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not 

only designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to 

render the claim plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended 

complaint asserting constitutional violations by federal or state officials, her pleading 

should include a statement of the constitutional rights Plaintiff believes to have been 

violated, how each right was violated, how each defendant contributed to the violation, 

and what injury was caused by each alleged constitutional violation. Such factual 

allegations must provide enough information to “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. 

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court 

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se 

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is granted

2. Plaintiff shall have until September 26, 2014 to file an amended complaint. 

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the 

Court if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by September 26, 2014. 

Dated this 5th day of September, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00436-DGC Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 5