Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jamile v. Island Movers, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

April 7, 2017

HUNTER JAMILE, Plaintiff,
v.
ISLAND MOVERS, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ISLAND MOVERS INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION.

         Plaintiff Hunter Jamile alleges that, while employed by Defendant Island Movers, Inc., he suffered disability discrimination. He sues under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.

         Island Movers seeks dismissal, asserting a lack of jurisdiction and a failure to state a claim. The motion is denied.

         II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.

         The Complaint alleges that Island Movers hired Jamile as a delivery driver on July 5, 2009. Id., Page ID # 2. At the time, Island Movers was allegedly “fully aware” of Jamile's disability involving his back, neck, and right shoulder. Id. In 2013, Jamile allegedly asked Island Movers to make an electric pallet jack and/or a helper available as a reasonable accommodation in light of his disability. Id. According to Jamile, Island Movers provided the “requested accommodation on some occasions, ” and, between February and November 2014, allowed Jamile “sporadic use of the electric pallet jack and/or a helper as requested.” Id., PageID # 3. Jamile allegedly informed Jared Byrd, a “Dispatcher/Supervisor, ” that these accommodations “were in place and had to be provided.” Id.

         On February 11, 2014, Jamile allegedly injured his back while working without the requested accommodations. Id. In March 2014, he reportedly complained about Island Movers' “failure to fully accommodate” his disability to Shirley Kranz in Island Movers' human resources department. Id. Jamile says Kranz did not “address the situation” and “did not follow up” with him. Id. Jamile alleges that he was “not offered the same accommodations as other employees, such as light duty and/or rehabilitation programs and was suspended and then terminated, which was subsequently rescinded.” Id., PageID # 3.

         On December 29, 2014, Jamile filed a disability discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Id., PageID # 2. On January 26, 2016, the EEOC issued a dismissal and right-to-sue letter. Id., PageID # 2. Jamile filed his Complaint on April 25, 2016.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

         A. Rule 12(b)(1).

         A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may either attack the allegations of the complaint as insufficient to confer upon the court subject matter jurisdiction, or attack the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact. Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). When the motion to dismiss attacks the allegations of the complaint as insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Fed'n of African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1996). When the motion to dismiss is a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, however, the plaintiff's allegations are not presumed true, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Thornhill, 594 F.2d at 733.

         Island Movers brings a factual attack on this court's subject matter jurisdiction. Island Movers says that Jamile filed his ADA charge with the EEOC after the limitations period had run. Island Movers is mistaken in thinking that a limitations issue implicates this court's subject matter jurisdiction. The ADA “adopts the procedural requirements of Title VII.” Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1194-96 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). “The Title VII statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional requirement; it may be waived, and equitably tolled.” Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, this court does not examine Island Movers' challenge to the timeliness of Jamile's EEOC filing under Rule 12(b)(1). The court instead considers the timeliness challenge under Rule 12(b)(6).

         B. Rule 12(b) (6).

         Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court's review is generally limited to the contents of the complaint. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996). If matters outside the pleadings are considered, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is treated as one for summary judgment. See Keams v. Tempe Tech. Inst., Inc., 110 F.3d 44, 46 (9th Cir. 1997); Anderson v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the court may take judicial notice of and consider ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.