Ramirez v. Elevance Health Companies, Inc., The
1:25-cv-00061
| D. Colo. | Aug 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Michelle Ramirez alleges discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA and Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) after being terminated by Elevance Health Companies, Inc. following two requests for Short Term Disability Leave (STDL) due to mental health conditions.
- Plaintiff worked as Director of Risk Adjustment for Elevance starting October 2022; after mental health symptoms worsened, she took approved STDL until May 2023 and sought another leave in June 2023.
- Despite providing requested medical documentation to support her leave, Ramirez was terminated for "job abandonment" in July 2023.
- Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, but the letter cited untimeliness in her EEOC charge filing.
- Ramirez's complaint lacked adequate discussion of exhaustion of administrative remedies, both for ADA and CADA claims.
- The court reviewed Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, but denied the motion as moot and granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend her complaint, cautioning against frivolous or unexhausted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of EEOC filing (ADA) | Asserts attempted timely filing, argues for equitable tolling in response | EEOC charge and Notice of Right to Sue show complaint was filed too late | Plaintiff may amend; motion to dismiss denied as moot |
| CADA exhaustion | Requests a stay to investigate status with CCRD | Plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies, no Notice of Right to Sue from the CCRD | Plaintiff may amend; stay denied |
| Sufficiency of pleading | Requests leave to amend to add procedural and factual details | Complaint lacks facts on exhaustion and fails basic pleading requirements | One opportunity to amend allowed |
| Inclusion of new facts in briefing | Provides new facts and arguments in Response, not in Complaint (sandbagging) | Plaintiff's conduct impairs clean resolution; response adds what was omitted in plead | Complaint must be properly amended |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets the pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6), requiring plausibility and non-conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes the plausibility standard for stating a claim under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Port City Props. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 518 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof under Rule 12(b)(1))
- Holt v. U.S., 46 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 1995) (distinguishes facial and factual attacks to subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (interprets Twombly's plausibility standard and clarifies the threshold for facial plausibility)
- Foster v. Ruhrpumpen, 365 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must file timely EEOC charge and obtain right-to-sue letter for ADA claims)