Dapper v. Brinderson LLC
2:23-cv-00632
| W.D. Wash. | Aug 10, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Stephanie Dapper was hired circa April 2018 as a Fire Hall Technician at Marathon’s Anacortes Refinery; she was paid by Brinderson and had HR contact at Aegion.
- Dapper alleges Marathon supervisors (Rory Eaton and Darick Brewer) controlled assignments, schedule, tools, and evaluations while she primarily interacted with Marathon staff.
- She contends Marathon and co-defendants prevented her from doing certain work (e.g., driving and fire-team duties) that male colleagues with similar qualifications were allowed to perform.
- While on extended maternity leave (Feb–July 2021) she learned Eaton had discussed firing her; after returning she reported sexual touching and harassment, and was later placed on indefinite administrative leave and terminated.
- Dapper filed EEOC charges in April 2022 and sued asserting Title VII, WLAD, and an EPOA claim that defendants limited her career advancement based on gender.
- Defendants Brinderson and Brock West moved to dismiss the EPOA claim under Rule 12(b)(6); Marathon did not oppose the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of EPOA claim (whether complaint pleads loss of career-advancement opportunities based on gender) | Dapper: a gender-based differential in assignments (denial of driving/fire-team work) suffices; once shown, burden shifts to employer (no pretext required). | Brinderson: complaint lacks factual allegations linking denied tasks to actual career-advancement opportunities or showing male colleagues were promoted; allegation is conclusory. | Court: EPOA claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts showing how denied work would have produced advancement; must allege connection to promotions/opportunities. |
| Leave to amend | Dapper: can amend to identify how lesser assignments limited advancement. | Brinderson: did not establish grounds to deny amendment. | Court: granted leave to amend; amended complaint due Aug 24, 2023; standard for denial of leave (delay, futility, prejudice) noted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim; more than labels and conclusions)
- Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1987) (on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion courts assume truth of allegations and draw inferences for plaintiff)
- Rizo v. Yovino, 950 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2020) (describes two-step burden-shifting framework for equal-pay claims used analogously by plaintiff)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for denying leave to amend: undue delay, repeated failures, prejudice, futility)
- Hudon v. W. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 208, 123 Wash. App. 116 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (Washington courts may look to analogous federal statutes/cases when interpreting state equal-pay statutes)