Joan Jojola v. American Pacific Corp.
678 F. App'x 618
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Four plaintiffs (Joan M. Jojola, Eleanor Barcelon, Jayann Jackson, Cathryn Lum) appealed the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their complaint alleging employment discrimination and related Nevada claims.
- Plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on gender, race, and religion, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief plus state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and unjust enrichment.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, finding the complaint lacked plausible facts showing adverse employment actions tied to protected status.
- The district court granted dismissal before a scheduled Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE); plaintiffs argued this was an abuse of discretion.
- Plaintiffs asked this court to take judicial notice of a Nevada DETR decision awarding unemployment benefits to Jackson; the DETR decision was not in the district-court record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges federal employment discrimination | Complaint alleges discriminatory treatment based on gender, race, religion | Complaint fails to plead explicit or constructive alterations in terms/conditions of employment | Dismissal affirmed; pleadings insufficient to show adverse employment action under Ellerth/Starr |
| Whether Nevada claims (IIED, unjust enrichment) were plausibly pleaded | State-law claims arise from same facts and should proceed | Plaintiffs did not plead required elements for IIED or unjust enrichment | Dismissal affirmed for failure to state plausible Nevada claims |
| Whether district court abused discretion by ruling before ENE | Dismissal before ENE was premature and procedurally improper | Local rules and precedent do not prohibit ruling on dispositive motions before ENE | No abuse of discretion; court may decide motion before ENE |
| Whether this court should consider DETR unemployment decision | DETR decision supports Plaintiffs' factual assertions and should be judicially noticed | DETR decision was not presented below and is not part of the record or relevant to legal sufficiency | Denied; not part of record and not material to whether complaint states a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (defines adverse employment actions and employer liability framework)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (pleading standard for municipal liability and plausibility requirement)
- Nelson v. City of Las Vegas, 665 P.2d 1141 (Nev. 1983) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress claim)
- Coury v. Robison, 976 P.2d 518 (Nev. 1999) (elements and framework for unjust enrichment in Nevada)
- Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 1996) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues raised first on appeal)
- Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1988) (materials not presented to the district court are not part of the appellate record)
- Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 2010) (relevance requirement for judicially noticed materials on appeal)