Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00333/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00333-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOLITA SCHAGENE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv0333 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of

the Navy,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 195) filed by

Defendant Richard V. Spencer, Secretary of the Navy. 

BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2013, Plaintiff Lolita Schagene commenced this action by filing

a complaint in this Court. (ECF No. 1). Trial commenced on December 1, 2015, and

the jury issued a verdict in favor of Defendant on December 3, 2015. (ECF No. 135). 

On January 8, 2016 this Court entered judgment. (ECF No. 146). Plaintiff appealed. 

On August 22, 2017 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Judgment

- 1 - 13cv0333 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-00333-WQH-RBB Document 217 Filed 09/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

and remanded the case. (ECF No. 154). The Court set trial to commence on September

11, 2018. (ECF No. 173). On August 17, 2018 Defendant filed the motion to dismiss. 

(ECF No. 195). On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed opposition. (ECF No. 210).

 Defendant contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to resolve Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because

Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing her Complaint. 

Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to allege any instances of

retaliation in the Equal Employment Opportunity complaint (“EEO complaint”) that

underlies this case. Plaintiff contends that this Court should find that subject matter

jurisdiction exists because the retaliation claim is reasonably related to Plaintiff’s EEO

allegations.

FACTS

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment by her

male co-workers and supervisors during her employment as a Recreation Aide at

Fiddler’s Cove Marina and Recreational Park in San Diego, California (“Fiddler’s

Cove”) from 2004 until 2011. The Complaint alleges claims under Title VII for (1) sex

discrimination; (2)sexual harassment; and (3) retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that she was

subjected to “harassment, gender hostility, hostile work environments, acts of

intimidation, threats of sexual and physical assault, and constructive termination from

her employment” because she “complained about such harassment and gender

discrimination.” (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 50–52). Plaintiff alleges her complaints to superiors

constitute a protected activity, and her subsequent treatment by coworkers constitutes

an adverse employment action in violation of Title VII. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 50–53). 

Prior to filing her complaint, Plaintiff filed a formal EEO complaint in 2011. 

(ECF No. 195-3 at 27). In the EEO complaint, Plaintiff detailed an instance of

harassment that occurred in January 2009. The EEO complaint stated,

As we drove on the Silver Strand past Navy housing my supervisor,

Brandon Workman, lifted his right short pant leg with his right hand,

- 2 - 13cv0333 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-00333-WQH-RBB Document 217 Filed 09/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

revealing his penis. He then grabbed my hand and pulled it toward his

penis. I immediately recoiled my hand before it touched his penis. As a

result of the above incident, on or about January 20, 2011, I quit. Mr.

Workman’s conduct was unwelcome and caused me to quit my job. 

(ECF No. 195-3 at 28). Plaintiff stated that because of the incident, she could no

longer remain at Fiddler’s Cove, and quit. Id. When asked in her pre-complaint intake

questionnaire why “this action was taken against [her],” Plaintiff checked

corresponding boxes for “Race,” “Sex,” and “Age.” Plaintiff did not check the box for

“Reprisal.” Id. at 8. 

In response to an EEOC request for clarification, Plaintiff provided additional

details to EEOC investigators regarding Plaintiff’s EEO complaint. Id. at 36. Plaintiff

stated that “it was very uncomfortable to work with Brandon Workman after [the truck

exposure] incident.” Id. at 39. Plaintiff further detailed a 2011 conversation where

coworkers discussed a plan to rape Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff stated that coworkers

punctured her tires after Plaintiff complained to her coworkers and Mr. Workman about

the rape conversation. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal judicial power extends only to cases and controversies over which a court

has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Under Title VII, a plaintiff

must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a timely claim with the EEOC, or

the appropriate state agency, in order to afford the agency an opportunity to first

investigate the charge. B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir.

2002). After the Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies, federal 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. at 1100 (citing

EEOC v. Farmer Bros., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in original)

(internal quotations omitted); Oubichon v. North American Rockwell Corp., 482 F.2d 

569, 571 (9thCir. 1973)(holding thatfederal jurisdiction extendsto all claims “like and

- 3 - 13cv0333 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-00333-WQH-RBB Document 217 Filed 09/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 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

reasonably related” to claims made in the administrative context).

In order to effectuate Title VII’s remedial purpose, courts are to decide which

claims not charged in an EEOC complaint can “reasonably be expected to grow out of”

the charges in the EEOC complaint. Since claims are typically made by those

“unschooled in the technicalities of formal pleading,” the Court reviews facts “with

utmost liberality.” Kaplan v. Int’l Alliance of Theatrical & Stage Employees, 525 F.2d

1354, 1359 (9th Cir. 1975). When determining whether claims a plaintiff made in her

civil complaint are reasonably related to claims made in her administrative complaint,

it is appropriate to look beyond the explicit formal charge. The Court considers such

factors as “the alleged basis of the discrimination, dates of discriminatory acts specified

within the charge, perpetrators of discrimination named in the charge, and any locations

at which discrimination is alleged to have occurred.” Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d at

1100.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleged in her EEO complaint that her supervisor, Brandon Workman,

exposed himself to her in January 2009, and that it “was very uncomfortable” to work

with Brandon Workman “after [the] incident.” (ECF No. 195-3 at 39). Plaintiff’s

retaliation claim in the complaint in this case arises in part from thissame conduct; that

is, Brandon Workman’s allegedly hostile treatment of Plaintiff in the period between

the alleged vehicle exposure incident and Plaintiff’s resignation. The Court concludes

that the retaliation claim is reasonably related, and could “reasonably be expected to

grow out of” the charges in the EEO complaint. See Farmer Bros., 31 F.3d at 899.

In the clarification statement Plaintiffsubmitted to the EEOC in connection with

her EEO complaint, EEOC investigators were put on notice of Plaintiff’s report that

Plaintiff’s coworkers discussed a plan while on duty at Fiddler’s Cove to rape Plaintiff. 

(ECF No. 195-3 at 39). Plaintiff stated that coworkers punctured her tires after she

confronted them about the rape conversation. Id. at 39–40. These allegations involve

the same coworkers involved in the retaliation claim, at the same time period as the

- 4 - 13cv0333 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-00333-WQH-RBB Document 217 Filed 09/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 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

retaliation claim, in the same physical location as the retaliation claim. A reasonable

EEOC investigation of the allegations made in Plaintiff’s EEO complaint would 

include investigation of the same facts alleged in Plaintiff’s retaliation claim in this

case. See Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d at 1100–03 (considering factual allegations

made in a pre-complaint questionnaire, the basis, dates, locations and perpetrators ofthe

alleged discrimination, and finding that plaintiff’s civil sexual discrimination and

harassment claims were reasonably related to plaintiff’s administrative complaint

alleging “race and retaliation harassment”). Construing the allegations made by Plaintiff

in her EEO complaint with the “utmost liberality,” this Court finds that Plaintiff

exhausted her administrative remedies with regard to her retaliation claim. Defendant’s

motion to dismiss is denied.

ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss(ECF No. 195)

is DENIED. 

DATED: September 7, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13cv0333 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-00333-WQH-RBB Document 217 Filed 09/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5