Dahl v. Tarahumara Express Incorporated
2:20-cv-02316
| D. Ariz. | May 7, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Patience Dahl sued Tarahumara Express, Inc. for Title VII sex discrimination after a three‑day employment starting September 1, 2020.
- Dahl alleges supervisor Mark Miller inappropriately touched her, propositioned her to be his “benefactor” (money in exchange for sex), she refused, and was terminated the next day.
- Service attempts on the statutory agent failed; Dahl served the Arizona Corporation Commission under A.R.S. §10‑504(B). Tarahumara did not appear and the Clerk entered default on January 27, 2021.
- Dahl testified and filed an affidavit describing emotional and physical harms (flashbacks, anxiety, heart issues) and ongoing therapy; she sought compensatory, punitive damages and backpay.
- After an April 20, 2021 damages hearing, the Court held default judgment appropriate under the Eitel factors and awarded damages and post‑judgment interest.
- Judgment: $50,000 (compensatory + punitive, capped by Title VII for a 20–50 employee employer) + $3,674.53 backpay = $53,674.53; post‑judgment interest; counsel may move for fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter & personal jurisdiction | Federal question (Title VII); Tarahumara is an Arizona corp. | No response in court; pre‑suit letter denied allegations | Court has §1331 jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Tarahumara |
| Whether default judgment should be entered (Eitel factors) | Default appropriate because Tarahumara failed to defend and Plaintiff would be prejudiced otherwise | No defense filed; counsel had earlier denied allegations but withdrew | Eitel factors balance favors default judgment (only merits/decision‑on‑merits factor weighs against) |
| Sufficiency of Title VII hostile‑work‑environment/sex discrimination claim | Alleged repeated sexual touching, quid pro quo proposition, and termination; a reasonable person would find environment hostile | No responsive pleadings (allegations taken as true) | Complaint states a plausible Title VII claim; allegations support sex‑based harassment |
| Damages: compensatory/punitive cap and backpay (mitigation) | Seeks $35,000 compensatory, $15,000 punitive, plus backpay; showed emotional harm and lost wages for 7 weeks | No contest in court; statutory cap applies based on employer size | Court awarded $50,000 combined compensatory/punitive (statutory cap), $3,674.53 backpay (mitigation adequate), plus post‑judgment interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors guiding default‑judgment discretion)
- In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1999) (requirements for entering default judgment, including jurisdiction)
- Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977) (allegations in complaint taken as true after default)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment standard)
- Dominguez‑Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (reasonable‑person standard for hostile work environment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court discretion in Title VII remedies)
- Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (backpay and mitigation duty)
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) (equitable considerations in backpay remedies)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (personal jurisdiction principles)