Benavidez v. Laboratories, CIV 15-0922 JB/LF
| Decision Date | 21 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 15-0922 JB/LF,CIV 15-0922 JB/LF |
| Parties | LINDA BENAVIDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES; VARICK TUCKER, Personally, and TIMOTHY GARDNER, Personally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Court's January, 17, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed February 3, 2017 (Doc. 87)("Motion to Reconsider"). The Court held a hearing on March 16, 2017. The primary issue is whether the Court should reconsider its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Benavidez v. Sandia Nat'l Labs., Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed January 17, 2017 (Doc. 84), 2017 WL 2266854 (D.N.M. Jan. 17, 2017)("Amendment MOO"), wherein it granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Linda Benavidez' Motion to Withdraw Prior Motion to Amend and Substituted Motion to Amend Complaint, filed August 31, 2016 (Doc. 71)("Motion to Withdraw and Amend"), which sought to withdraw the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed February 10, 2016 (Doc. 30)("Motion for Leave to Substitute Second Amended Complaint"), which provided as an attachment the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Damages for Violation of the New Mexico Human Civil Rights Act, Title I and IV of the American with Disabilities Act of 1964, Retaliation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, filed February 10, 2016 (Doc. 31)("Proposed Second Amended Complaint"). The Motion to Withdraw and Amend also requested leave to substitute a proposed third amended complaint -- the Second Amended Complaint for Damages for Violation of Title I and IV of the American with Disabilities Act of 1964, Retaliation and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, filed August 31, 2016 (Doc. 71-1)("Proposed Third Amended Complaint") -- which sought addition of three plaintiffs and federal claims, and removal of any state-law claims that the Court had already dismissed in its Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order in Benavidez v. Sandia Nat'l Labs., 212 F. Supp. 1039 (D.N.M. June 27, 2016)("Preemption MOO"), amending its Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed June 22, 2016 (Doc. 63).1 In its Amendment MOO, the Court concluded that Benavidez is free to withdraw the Motion for Leave to Substitute Second Amended Complaint under the local rules, and the Court thus allowed Benavidez to so withdraw it. See Amendment MOO at 47-50, 2017 WL 2266854, at *1. The Court also granted leave for Benavidez to file the Proposed ThirdAmended Complaint with respect to the federal claims she sought to bring, on her behalf, against Defendant Sandia National Laboratories, because the Court concluded that such leave should freely be granted. See Amendment MOO at 50-56, 2017 WL 2266854, at *1. The Court did not, however, grant leave for Benavidez to file her claim under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C § 10 206(d)(1), because the Court concluded that it fails to state a claim and thus amendment would be futile. See Amendment MOO at 50-56, 2017 WL 2266854, at *1. As to what the Court termed the "proposed Plaintiffs," the Court denies the Motion to Withdraw and Amend as it pertains to them, because: (i) their Equal Pay Act claim similarly failed to state a claim; and (ii) the filing date of their other federal claims did not relate back to a date meeting the statutory limitation for filing such claims, rendering them time barred and futile. See Amendment MOO at 57-68, 2017 WL 2266854, at *1.
Specifically, Benavidez seeks reconsideration of the Court's conclusion in the Amendment MOO that leave to substitute the Proposed Third Amended Complaint would be futile as to its proposed addition of three new plaintiff-parties -- "proposed Plaintiffs" Patricia Baca, Rita Luna-Casias, and Thelma Ortiz -- because the filing date of their federal claims did not relate back to a date meeting the statutory limitation for filing such claims, rendering them time barred and futile. Benavidez ultimately "requests the opportunity to expand her response on that issue so that the Court has the opportunity to address the effect of the 'deemed filed' doctrine and the tolling case law." Motion to Reconsider at 6. Because the Court concludes, in part, that there has not been a manifest injustice, it will deny the Motion to Reconsider in part. The Court, after a thorough review of all the issues Benavidez raises, determines that its conclusion in the Amendment MOO is sound. The Court will leave open the possibility of entering final judgment as to Benavidez' attempt to add proposed Plaintiffs at a later date.
The Court has already discussed the facts underlying this case in detail. See Preemption MOO, 212 F. Supp. at 1044-48. The Court takes the following recitation of the relevant facts from the First Amended Complaint for Damages for Violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, filed October 15, 2015 (Doc. 1-2)("First Amended Complaint"), which Benavidez filed originally in the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. First Amended Complaint at 1.2
Sandia Labs employed Benavidez, a United States citizen and a resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 8, at 6. Defendant Varick Tucker was Benavidez' Human Resource manager, while Defendant Timothy Gardener was Benavidez' manager. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 11-12, at 6. Sandia Labs had hired Benavidez as a Neutron Generator Production Specialist on June 1, 2001, see First Amended Complaint ¶ 14, at 7, but she eventually "developed some serious medical conditions which resulted in Plaintiff's life activities being affected," First Amended Complaint ¶ 16, at 7. In 2011, the requirements of Benavidez' position changed to include the need for a Trades Degree. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 17, at 7. To obtain a Trades Degree, Benavidez would have had to return to school for college-level courses such as physics, trigonometry, and chemistry, which would have required her to take years of preparatory classes to qualify to take the required classes. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 19, at 7; id. ¶ 42, at 11; id. ¶ 53, at 12.
Benavidez was told that, if she was unable to obtain the Trades Degree, she would be "bumped" into another similar position at Sandia Labs with the same grade level and pay. FirstAmended Complaint ¶ 22, at 8. See id. ¶ 42, at 11; id. ¶ 53, at 12. "Instead of being 'bumped' into a similar position at Sandia Labs, though, Plaintiff was ultimately placed in a position described as a Maintenance Support Technician," which "included 'duties requiring working strenuous positions with exertions of physical effort up to 60 pounds.'" First Amended Complaint ¶ 24, at 8. See id. ¶ 43, at 11; id. ¶ 54, at 12. "She and her co-workers that were put in this position, essentially as tractor/trailer drivers, were the only females working this job." First Amended Complaint ¶ 25, at 8. See id. ¶ 43, at 11; id. ¶ 54, at 12. "The only other employees in this position were men, with the exception of one other woman over the age of 40 who was also being 'absorbed' into this new position, and who was ultimately terminated." First Amended Complaint ¶ 54, at 12.
"On September 9, 2014, Ms. Benavidez filed a formal charge of discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and equal pay in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, NMSA § 28-1-7 (1978), et seq." First Amended Complaint ¶ 3, at 5-6. On September 30, 2014, a doctor "with Defendant SNL advised Plaintiff that she was incapable of performing the job duties due to her permanent medical restrictions." First Amended Complaint ¶ 31, at 9. See id. ¶ 45, at 11; id. ¶ 57, at 13. Accordingly, Benavidez "was placed on a realignment process and was not given any reasonable accommodation." First Amended Complaint ¶ 32, at 9. See id. ¶ 57, at 13. On April 16, 2015, Sandia Labs terminated Benavidez' employment. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 36, at 10; id. ¶ 66, at 13-14.
On August 27, 2015, Benavidez filed suit in the Second Judicial District Court. See First Amended Complaint at 1. Benavidez had originally failed to serve a complaint upon Defendants, which is why Benavidez instead began the lawsuit by serving the First AmendedComplaint. See Notice of Removal at 1, filed October 15, 2015 (Doc. 1). About a month and a half later, on October 15, 2015, the Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal at 1-7. Benavidez asserted three causes of action against all of the Defendants: (i) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 28-1-1 to -14 ("NMHRA"), First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 38-48, at 10-12 (Count I); (ii) discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the NMHRA, see First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 49-62, at 12-13 (Count II); and (iii) intentional infliction of emotional distress, see First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 63-73, at 13-14 (Count III). Benavidez asked the Court for judgment against the Defendants "for all actual, compensatory, nominal, and emotional damages she has suffered . . . [,] punitive damages for Defendants' willful, wanton, and reckless conduct . . . [,] attorneys' and other fees, costs, and pre-and post-judgment interest accrued[,] and for such other relief as the Court finds just and proper." First Amended Complaint at 14-15.
.
The Court held a hearing on January 20, 2016. See Transcript of Hearing (taken January 20, 2015)("January Tr.").3 At the hearing the Defendants briefly set forth their argument that federal law preempts Benavidez' claims, and the Court asked the Defendants whether they agree that all of Benavidez' claims are state claims and that there are no federal claims. See January Tr. at 2:12-3:25 (Court, Poore). The Defendants responded that there are only...
To continue reading
Request your trial