Tron-Haukebo v. Washington State Department of Transportation

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [8] AT SEATTLE [9] 10 ANDERS TRON-HAUKEBO, CASE NO. C23-5691JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [12] WASHINGTON STATE [13] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., [14] 15 Defendants. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Before the court are two motions: (1) Defendants the Washington State 18 Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and Washington State Ferries’ (“WSF”, and 19 together, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss and (2) Plaintiff Anders Tron-Haukebo’s 20 motion requesting a ruling. (MTD (Dkt. # 12); MRR (Dkt. # 13).) Defendants oppose 21 Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s motion requesting a ruling. (MRR Resp. (Dkt. # 14).) Mr. 22 Tron-Haukebo, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), did not respond 1 to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See generally Dkt.) Neither party filed a reply. (See 2 generally id.) The court has reviewed the motions, the parties’ submissions, the relevant 3 portions of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised,1 the court GRANTS 4 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DENIES Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s motion requesting a 5 ruling. 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 This case arises from Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s efforts to obtain employment with 8 WSF. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 6).) Mr. Tron-Haukebo lives in Clallam County, 9 Washington; is 77 years old; and has a hearing disability. (Id. at 1, 4-5.) He alleges that 10 he applied for a position as a WSF terminal attendant and was offered employment 11 beginning on March 28, 2023. (Id. at 2.) WSF terminal attendants may be given one of 12 two assignments: ticket seller or traffic guide. (Id. at 3-4 (describing the two roles).) 13 Mr. Tron-Haukebo asserts that he “diligently applied himself to learning and practicing 14 the training activities for becoming a ticket[]seller.” (Id. at 5.) 15 Mr. Tron-Haukebo attended orientation and training sessions provided by WSF in 16 Seattle. (Id. at 2.) On his first day of classes, Mr. Tron-Haukebo asked to be seated in 17 the first row of seats because he has a hearing disability. (Id. at 4.) He also asked for 18 materials that he could take home to study, but his request was denied. (Id. at 5.) Mr. 19 Tron-Haukebo asserts that he attended all his classroom training sessions in Seattle, “was [21] 1 No party requests oral argument (see MTD at 1; MRR at 1; MRR Resp. at 1) and the court concludes that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the motion, see [22] Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 never told that classes were delayed because of his tardiness,” and never received any 2 notice of complaints or reprimands. (Id. at 4.) 3 On or around April 3, 2023, Mr. Tron-Haukebo was told that he did not get a 4 passing score on the classroom portion of the ticket-seller training and that his 5 employment was terminated for that reason. (See id. at 2, 5.) His request to be 6 reassigned to traffic guide duties was denied. (Id. at 5.) When he asked if he could be 7 scheduled for the next classroom training session, he was told that he must re-apply for 8 employment before he could attend the training again. (Id. at 5.) 9 Mr. Tron-Haukebo filed his proposed complaint and an application to proceed IFP 10 on July 31, 2023. (IFP App. (Dkt. # 1).) On August 16, 2023, the court granted Mr. 11 Tron-Haukebo leave to proceed IFP and docketed his complaint. (IFP Order (Dkt. # 5); 12 Compl.) Mr. Tron-Haukebo alleges that Defendants violated the Americans with 13 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by failing to accommodate his 14 hearing disability. (Compl. at 5.) The court also liberally construes his complaint as 15 raising a claim for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), [16] 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (See id. (alleging that “older learners often require adaptive 17 measures to learn material,” that Defendants “should have adjusted the manner and mode 18 of [Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s] training” due to his “learning style,” and that he “is a member 19 of a protected class” “due to his age”)); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th 20 Cir. 1992) (noting that the court must liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings). 21 Mr. Tron-Haukebo seeks back pay, reinstatement, exemplary damages, and compensation 22 for lost benefits. (Compl. at 5.) 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 The court begins by discussing Defendants’ motion to dismiss, then considers Mr. 3 Tron-Haukebo’s motion requesting a ruling. 4 A. Motion to Dismiss 5 Defendants urge the court to dismiss this case because Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s claims 6 are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. (See generally MTD.) They argue that 7 Washington has not consented to be sued for violations of the ADA and ADEA and that 8 Congress has not abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity for such violations. The court 9 agrees. 10 The Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing a suit against their own 11 state in federal court. Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995) 12 (citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)). “Eleventh Amendment immunity extends 13 to state departments, agencies, boards, and commissions, and to state employees acting in 14 their official capacity because a suit against them is regarded as a suit against the State 15 itself.” Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Brnovich, 172 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1086 (D. Ariz. 16 2016) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). Accordingly, 17 Defendants—which are Washington state agencies—are arms of the state ordinarily 18 immune from suit in federal court. 19 A plaintiff can overcome the Eleventh Amendment bar only if the state has 20 consented to waive its immunity or if Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity. See 21 Micomonaco, 45 F.3d at 319 . Washington has not consented to waive its Eleventh 22 Amendment immunity to claims brought in federal court. See Rains v. State, 674 P.2d 1 165, 170 (Wash. 1983) (“[T]he State cannot be sued in federal court because of the 2 Eleventh Amendment.”); see also Minnis v. Washington, 675 F. App’x 728, 730 (9th Cir. 3 2017) (affirming grant of summary judgment on ADA claims against state of Washington 4 based on Eleventh Amendment immunity); Del Castillo v. Wash. Dep’t of Soc. & Health 5 Servs., No. C05-1122JLR, 2007 WL 2713035 , at *4 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 14, 2007) 6 (concluding that Washington has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for ADEA 7 claims). And the Supreme Court has made clear that neither Title I of the ADA, which 8 governs employment, nor the ADEA abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity for 9 claims against a state. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 , 360-61 10 (2001) (holding that Title I does not abrogate suits for money damages against the states); 11 Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 66 (2000) (holding that the ADEA does not 12 validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity). 13 Thus, because Defendants are immune from suit, the court GRANTS their motion 14 to dismiss and DISMISSES Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s claims without prejudice. See Freeman 15 v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that dismissals 16 under the Eleventh Amendment should be without prejudice so that the plaintiff “may 17 reassert his claims in a competent court”); see also Kimel, 528 U.S. at 91 (“State 18 employees are protected by state age discrimination statutes, and may recover money 19 damages from their state employers, in almost every State of the Union.”). The court 20 denies leave to amend because no amendment can overcome Defendants’ Eleventh 21 Amendment immunity. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 22 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the 1 plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the 2 defect” in the complaint). 3 B. Motion Requesting a Ruling 4 In his motion, Mr. Tron-Haukebo states that he “recently read information that 5 ‘permission’ from the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)] is 6 necessary prior to filing a lawsuit alleging violation of the ADA” and that he has since 7 attempted to contact the EEOC, to no avail. (MRR at 1.) He asks the court, therefore, 8 either to (1) allow this lawsuit to proceed because he has made a “good-faith effort to 9 comply” with his “administrative legal duties,” or (2) grant him leave to “file a new 10 action regarding nearly identical information and allegations against the Defendants and 11 consider all requirements to obtain EEOC permission” waived or fulfilled. (Id. at 2.) As 12 Defendants correctly point out, however, even if there were a legal basis for the court to 13 waive the administrative prerequisites for filing suit, that relief would be futile because 14 the Eleventh Amendment nevertheless bars Mr. Tron-Haukebo from suing them for ADA 15 Title I and ADEA violations in federal court. (See MRR Resp. at 2-4.) Therefore, the 16 court DENIES Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s motion requesting a ruling. 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 3 (Dkt. # 12) and DENIES Mr. Tron-Haukebo’s motion requesting a ruling (Dkt. # 13). 4 This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5 Dated this 1st day of November, 2023. [6] A [7] 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge