Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04692/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04692-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelsey Blakely
Plaintiff
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELSEY BLAKELY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04692-WHO 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Currently before me is defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims asserted 

in her First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 25. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and I VACATE the March 23, 2016 hearing. 

The motion to dismiss is DENIED.

In my prior Order, I dismissed plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Title VII and California’s 

Fair Employment Housing Act because plaintiff’s allegations regarding “the knowledge of the 

decision makers” about her alleged protected activity were deficient. Dkt. No. 18 (Jan. 11, 2016, 

Order) at 4. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint adds allegations that: (i) she created a 

spreadsheet in mid-January 2013, documenting defendant’s history of sex discrimination, FAC ¶¶ 

19, 20; (ii) she showed the spreadsheet to co-workers, including a co-worker “who showed the 

spreadsheet to Defendant’s HR and legal departments and identified Plaintiff as the author,” id. ¶ 

22; (iii) upon information and belief, the spreadsheet was also shared with the individuals who 

were responsible for deciding to eliminate plaintiff’s position, id. ¶ 22; and (iv) her information 

and belief is based in part, on comments made during a meeting with her those specific decisionmakers that they “knew” of plaintiff’s belief that there were gender disparities in promotions, id. ¶ 

27, as well as the fact only one position (hers) was eliminated soon after her spreadsheet was 

created and shared. Id. ¶¶ 27-28.

Case 3:15-cv-04692-WHO Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant argues that these additional allegations are insufficient to state a claim for 

retaliation because plaintiff still fails to (i) identify by name the co-worker who allegedly showed 

plaintiff’s spreadsheet to defendant’s HR and legal departments and (ii) allege that she “gave” that

co-worker a copy of the spreadsheet.

1

 Those allegations are not required for plaintiff to assert a 

plausible retaliation claim for pleading purposes. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendant 

knew of her spreadsheet and that she shared the spreadsheet with co-workers to oppose 

defendant’s alleged practice of sex discrimination, and that defendant eliminated her position as a 

result of that opposition. Defendant may be right that plaintiff’s retaliation claim will fail as an 

evidentiary matter. But that will be determined on summary judgment or at trial, not on a motion 

to dismiss. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. It shall answer by March 31, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

 

1 Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s identification of Marta Posada in plaintiff’s pleadings – but 

not her original or amended complaint – as the co-worker who shared the spreadsheet with 

defendant’s HR and legal departments cannot save her claim because Marta Posada has stated 

under penalty of perjury that she does not recall plaintiff giving her a copy of the spreadsheet. 

Reply at 2 & Dkt. No. 30-1 (Declaration of Marta Posada). Defendant offers no grounds – and 

there are none – that allow the court to review the Posada declaration without turning this motion 

into one for summary judgment. I will not consider the Posada Declaration or other facts asserted

by defendant that are outside of the pleadings in ruling on its motion to dismiss. 

Case 3:15-cv-04692-WHO Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2