Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01808/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01808-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

WANDA NICKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-01808 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Wanda Nicks filed this action against her employer, the

Central Costra Costa County Transit Authority (“Defendant”). The lawsuit stems from an

incident in which a passenger accosted Plaintiff with racial epithets after boarding a bus that

she was driving. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to respond appropriately and defend

her from the passenger’s assault, thereby discriminating (and perpetuating the passenger’s

discrimination) against her on the basis of race, gender, and ethnicity. The materials

submitted in support of Plaintiff’s complaint also indicate that she has been engaged in a

number of ongoing disputes with Defendant as a result of the incident, some of which

involve subsequent disciplinary action.

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which argues, among

other things, that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Court

Case 3:07-cv-01808-CRB Document 31 Filed 07/09/07 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

1 The Court makes no determination here whether Plaintiff’s claims would be timely if

submitted to an appropriate administrative tribunal. Nor does the Court now make any

determination about the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

G:\CRBALL\2007\1808\order re motion to dismiss.wpd 2

agrees. Under both California law and federal law, a victim of discrimination must first

pursue a claim against the wrongdoer in an administrative proceeding. Under California law,

the failure to seek a remedy with the appropriate administrative agency deprives this Court of

jurisdiction to hear the case. Under federal law, the failure to exhaust administrative

remedies is not a jurisdictional bar, but it is nonetheless a “condition precedent” to suit. In

this case, both California and federal law deprive the Court of power to adjudicate Plaintiff’s

claims until she has attempted to obtain a remedy in administrative proceedings. Stache v.

Int’l Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, 852 F.2d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir. 1988).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff never exhausted her administrative remedies. She claims

that she previously approached an EEOC representative, who advised her to seek assistance

from an attorney. This she did, but the attorney declined to accept her case. The attorney

further advised Plaintiff to bring her claims promptly, lest the statute of limitations expire. 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit shortly thereafter. These steps were not enough for Plaintiff to

meet the requirement that she exhaust her administrative remedies. Rather, Plaintiff must

present the merits of her dispute for review and adjudication by the EEOC or an analogous

California agency.1

 Until she does so, her federal lawsuit is premature. Accordingly,

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01808-CRB Document 31 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2