Thompson v. Mukilteo School District No 6
2:25-cv-00529
W.D. Wash.Jun 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Rosa Maria Cabrera Thompson, a professional educator identifying as African American and Latina, was employed by Mukilteo School District as Assistant Principal until October 2023, receiving positive performance reviews and no discipline.
- In April 2023, Thompson filed an EEOC charge against the District for a racially hostile work environment, resolving it by settlement, which included a neutral reference agreement.
- After departing the District, Thompson claims she was rejected from over 140 job applications, attributing this to negative references allegedly in violation of the settlement agreement.
- Thompson later accepted a position in California, alleging the District’s references forced her to relocate and leave her family behind.
- She asserts nine claims including breach of contract, Title VII and WLAD retaliation, equal protection (Section 1983), tortious interference, defamation, negligence, IIED (outrage), and PRA violations.
- The case became procedurally tangled due to repeated and often defective filings from both parties, predominantly by Thompson proceeding pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry of Default | District failed to timely answer amended complaint | District made an appearance and actively defended | Default denied; Plaintiff did not comply with notice rules |
| Motions to Strike/Procedural Filings | District filings were untimely or improper | Opposes Plaintiff's factual/legal assertions in responses | All motions to strike denied |
| Case Coordination with Seattle litigation | Cases involve common facts and should coordinate discovery | Cases are distinct; partial discovery coordination is possible | Coordination denied |
| Judicial Notice/In Camera Review | Court should take notice of other proceedings and review withheld evidence | No immediate procedural basis | Motions denied as premature |
| Protective Orders/Discovery Sanctions | District’s internal evidence collection and requests are improper | Discovery not begun; requests are premature | Motions denied; warning to Plaintiff on further frivolous filings |
| Motion to Dismiss: Title VII & WLAD Retaliation | District retaliated post-employment for EEOC activity | No standing as former employee | Claim sufficiently pled; Motion denied |
| Motion to Dismiss: Equal Protection (1983) | District treated Plaintiff less favorably on account of race | No policy/custom adequately pled | Multiple adverse actions suffice to plead a policy; Motion denied |
| Motion to Dismiss: Defamation | District made false, harmful statements to employers | Statements not identified with specificity | Insufficient specificity; Dismissed without prejudice |
| Motion to Dismiss: Negligence | District breached duty in giving references | No independent duty; no causation | Allegations sufficient at this stage; Motion denied |
| Motion to Dismiss: IIED (Outrage) | Conduct was extreme/outrageous | Not enough facts, not extreme conduct | Not sufficiently specific; Dismissed without prejudice |
| Sanctions & Fees | Other side’s filings and behavior warrant sanctions/fees | Same | All requests denied; both sides warned/rebuked |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (Title VII protects former employees from post-employment retaliation)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (Section 1983 municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Facial plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (Liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)