Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00126/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00126-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERETTA HOFF,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T-PBIS, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00126 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

On February 8, 2008, the Court heard oral argument on defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court hereby

GRANTS defendants’ motion. 

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, her employers, on January 9, 2007. Plaintiff’s complaint

alleges that defendants denied her reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). On September 14, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment

on a number of grounds, including plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to the

filing of her lawsuit. Despite two opportunities to do so, plaintiff failed to respond to defendants’

motion. At oral argument, plaintiff’s attorney conceded that administrative exhaustion was required

before plaintiff could file suit, and that plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies. 

The Court agrees with the parties that as with a claim brought under Title VII, an employee filing

a lawsuit against her employer under the ADA must first obtain a right-to-sue letter from the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See Josephs v. Pacific Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1061

(9th Cir. 2006); Baker v. Res-Care Inc., 2005 WL 1500847, *3 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2005); 42 U.S.C.

§ 12117(a); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5e. Therefore, because plaintiff has conceded that she never exhausted

Case 3:07-cv-00126-SI Document 50 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

her administrative remedies with the EEOC, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss her

complaint in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00126-SI Document 50 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 2