Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04434/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04434-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-4434 PJH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

v. TO AMEND; GRANTING MOTION

FOR REMAND

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to join non-diverse defendants

and for remand came on hearing before this court on January 17, 2007. Plaintiff, Kimberly

Williams, appeared through her counsel, Randall Aiman-Smith and Reed Marcy. 

Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, appeared through its counsel, Robert Zaletel. 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for

leave to amend her complaint to John Pinter, DENIES without prejudice plaintiff’s motion

for leave to amend her complaint to join J.P. Wolfe, Daniel Shudak, James Davis, and

Chad Wilbourn, and GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for remand for the reasons summarized as

follows: 

Before filing a civil action alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and

Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code § 12940, a party first must exhaust his or her

administrative remedies by filing an administrative charge with the Department of Fair

Employment and Housing (DFEH). See Section § 12960. The charge must state the name

of the person or entity alleged to have committed the unlawful act. See Valdez v. City of

Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1060 (1991). Because administrative charges are

initiated by individuals who are generally unassisted by counsel, courts liberally construe

Case 4:06-cv-04434-PJH Document 41 Filed 02/01/07 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

their language. See Kaplan v. Int’l Alliance of Theatrical & Stage Employees, 248 F. 3d

931 (9th Cir. 1975). The allegations in a subsequently filed civil complaint need not be

identical to the administrative charge, but must be like or reasonably related to the

allegations of the administrative charge filed with DFEH. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police

Department, 276 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th Cir. 2002) (subject matter jurisdiction extends over

all allegations of discrimination that fall within the scope of the actual EEOC investigation or

an investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of an EEOC charge). Here,

although plaintiff’s two DFEH charges lack significant detail, the second DFEH charge does

identify John Pinter and alleges that he used racial slurs towards her as well as engaged in

conduct that can be characterized as disparate treatment. See Exhibits E and F, Zaletel

Declaration. The allegation that John Pinter used racial slurs is broad enough to be

legitimately construed as a claim for discrimination or harassment based on a hostile work

environment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to join John

Pinter and to pursue claims of discrimination and harassment against him is GRANTED. 

Although defendant urges the court to determine in addition whether joinder of J.P.

Wolfe, Daniel Shudak, James Davis, and Chad Wilbourn is also proper, the court declines

to do so finding that their joinder is more appropriately addressed by the state court to

whom this matter is being remanded. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to join these individuals

as defendants is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to raise the issue with the

trial court. 

It is undisputed that plaintiff and John Pinter are citizens of California. Accordingly,

with Pinter’s joinder there is not complete diversity and on this basis alone, remand to the

Alameda County Superior Court must be and is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: February 1, 2007

 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

 United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04434-PJH Document 41 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2