Dew v. Edmunds
| Decision Date | 08 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-00149-CWD |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
| Parties | DONALD A. DEW, an individual, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR KENNETH D. EDMUNDS; PAMELA P. PARKS and JOHN/JANE DOES I through X, whose true identities are presently unknown, Defendants. |
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 19.) The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for the Court's consideration. The Court conducted a hearing on September 22, 2015, and thereafter took the motion under advisement. Having fully reviewed the record and considered the parties' respective arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court enters the following order granting the motion, with leave to amend.
Plaintiff Donald Dew's complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, and later amended on May 7, 2015, asserts various civil rights violations committed by Kenneth Edmunds, the Director of the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL), and Pamela Parks, the Administrator of the Idaho Commission on Human Rights (ICHR). (Dkt. 1, 4.) Both Edmunds and Parks are sued in their individual capacities for alleged violations of Dew's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The factual background alleged in the Amended Complaint is taken as true for purposes of the pending motion.
In June of 2014, Dew applied for the position of ICHR Administrator. Am. Compl. ¶ 15 (Dkt. 4). On July 23, 2014, Dew participated in a video conference interview with Parks and four of the nine ICHR Commissioners—Estella Zamora ("Commissioner Zamora"), Brian Scigliano ("Commissioner Scigliano"), Joe McNeal ("Commissioner McNeal"), and Andrea Wassner ("Commissioner Wassner") (collectively the "Commissioners"). Id. at ¶ 18.
On August 26, 2014, Parks and the same ICHR Commissioners called Dew for an impromptu conference call phone interview to discuss the position further. Id. at ¶¶ 27-35. Dew contends that, during the telephone interview, the Commissioners and Parks asked him questions, such as his salary requirements, how long before he could start if offered the position, and about his mediation training. Id. at ¶¶ 29-33. At the conclusion of the interview, which lasted approximately thirty minutes, Parks asked Dew if he could come to Boise for an in-person interview. Id. ¶¶34-35. Dew agreed to travel to Boise,Idaho, from Sioux City, Iowa, for an interview, and the ICHR arranged for Dew to fly to Boise on Thursday, September 4, 2014, and return home on Sunday, September 7, 2014. Id. at ¶¶ 36-39.
On September 4, Dew first met with Parks and Commissioners Zamora, McNeal, and Scigliano for a little over an hour. Id. at ¶ 43-44. Dew allegedly was asked by Commissioner McNeal "what salary he would accept, when he could start, and what his commitment to the position would be." Id. at ¶45-46. Also during the meeting, Dew learned the relationship between the ICHR and the IDOL was complex, and the IDOL oversaw the ICHR and had control over its budget. Id. at ¶ 48. Dew learned also that he would be meeting with Edmunds and Jay Engstrom, the Deputy Director of the IDOL, at the conclusion of the interview. Id. ¶¶55. As Commissioner McNeal left the interview, he allegedly shook Dew's hand and told Dew that he hoped to see him next month in "that chair," indicating Parks's chair, and told Parks that "you know what my vote is" in front of Dew and the others, leaving Dew with the impression that Commissioner McNeal was voting yes to hire Dew. Id. ¶¶52-54.
After the interview concluded, Parks escorted Dew to meet with Edmunds and Engstrom. Id. at ¶ 57. Dew contends Edmunds's demeanor was unfriendly from the beginning of the meeting. Id. at ¶ 60. Edmunds questioned Dew about ReachOut USA, an organization Dew started in 2007 to help LGBT individuals with disabilities. Id. at ¶ 71. Dew contends Edmunds's mention of ReachOut USA multiple times throughout the meeting made Dew aware that including ReachOut USA on his resume was not beneficial. Id. at ¶ 72.
Dew asserts that next, Edmunds told Dew he needed to look over gaps in Dew's employment. Id. at ¶ 73. When Edmunds asked Dew about a two-year gap in employment beginning in 2004, Dew explained he had a series of infections that caused him to have an uncontrolled seizure disorder, which forced Dew to file for disability. Id. at ¶¶ 76-78. Dew alleges that, after he answered the question, Edmunds's "facial expression contorted like he smelled a dirty diaper." Id. at ¶ 79. Dew asserts he saw "a look of disgust" on Edmunds's face. Id. at ¶ 80. Dew contends that Edmunds then asked "in an incredulous tone" if Dew could even work a 40 hour week. Id. at ¶ 81. Dew stated he could work a 40 hour week and did so at his current job, he had not experienced a seizure in three years, and he would not have applied for the position if he did not think he could do the job. Id. at ¶¶ 83-86.
According to Dew, after he disclosed his seizure disorder, Edmunds's "tone and questions were noticeably different," Edmunds's tone was "condescending," and he began treating Dew like Dew was "beneath him or a lesser person." Id. at ¶¶ 86-87. Dew contends Edmunds's reaction to Dew's disclosure of the seizure disorder was as if Edmunds believed Dew's mental faculties were "dimmed" because of the disorder. Id. at ¶ 90. Dew contends he noticed the change in Edmunds's demeanor because Edmunds's reaction was familiar to Dew, as he previously has experienced how others have treated him like a lesser person or have become uncomfortable once he mentioned his seizure disorder. Id. at ¶¶88-89.
After the meeting with Edmunds, Edmunds asked Engstrom and Parks to accompany him to his office to discuss Dew while Dew waited in the conference room.Id. at ¶ 91. After approximately thirty minutes, Parks returned to the conference room, and said, Id. ¶ 92-93. Dew felt surprised by Parks's question and confused about what was happening. Id. ¶ 94-95. Parks escorted Dew downstairs to the front of the IDOL building at approximately 6:00 p.m., thanked Dew for traveling to Boise, and informed him that the Commission would have to meet again, and that it could take about a week for that meeting to occur. Id. at ¶¶96-97.
Dew contends that, upon arriving back to his hotel, he "felt confused and belittled by Director Edmunds's attitude and actions toward him," and felt that Edmunds was antagonistic and had his mind made up before the interview began. Id. ¶ 102-103. Dew was hoping Parks would contact him so Dew could make "some sense of what had transpired during his interview" with Edmunds, and that when he heard nothing, he became frustrated and angry, and decided to reschedule his return flight home. Id. at ¶¶ 104-108.
Dew asserts he was so distraught by Edmunds's "discriminatory treatment" and biases that Dew sent an email to Parks on September 8, 2014, withdrawing his application from consideration. Id. at ¶¶ 116, 119. Dew asserts that he knew Edmunds's biases made it an "exercise in futility" to keep his application in the consideration process. Id. at ¶ 117.
With regard to Parks, Dew asserts that, after withdrawing his application from consideration, he obtained copies of all relevant documents from the interview process, including notes containing information Parks received from Dew's references. Id. at ¶124. Dew asserts the notes revealed that two of Dew's references discussed Dew's disability with Parks, and that one reference, Karen Mackey, allegedly made multiple statements about Dew's disability and status as a gay man. Id. at ¶¶ 125-26. Dew later sent a copy of these notes to Mackey, who advised Dew that the notes contained multiple inaccuracies. Id. at ¶¶127-28. Mackey told Dew she most likely used the phrase "in a relationship" during the reference interview with Parks, but Mackey never said Dew was in a gay relationship; therefore, Parks must have added the word "gay" to the notes. Id. at ¶ 128-29.
The Amended Complaint contains five counts. Count I alleges discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Idaho Code §§ 67-5909(1) and 67-5901, on the grounds that Dew suffered an adverse employment action by having the position he applied and interviewed for made unavailable to him because of his disability. Specifically, Dew alleges that Edmunds's bias toward Dew during the September 4, 2014 interview resulted in the loss of opportunity for Dew to compete for the open Administrator position, and that he was denied the fair opportunity to continue competing for the position.
Count II alleges discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and Idaho Code §§ 67-5901 and 67-5907(1), on the grounds that Dew was denied the opportunity to fairly compete for the open Administrator position despite his qualifications because of unlawful sex discrimination based on sexual stereotyping. Dew relies upon Edmunds's negative comments regarding Dew's involvement with ReachOut USA, an advocacy organization for LGBTQ anddisabled individuals, and Parks's reference to Dew's sexual orientation in her reference inquiry notes.
Count IV alleges violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, on the grounds Defendants deprived Dew of his right to equal protection by discriminating against him on the basis of disability in the hiring process. Count V alleges violation of the Equal Protection clause on the grounds that Edmunds and Parks deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to compete and be fairly considered for the Administrator position with the ICHR and of his right to equal protection of the law by discriminating against him on the basis of his sexual orientation. And finally, in Count III, Dew alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Dew concedes that Count IV is foreclosed because the ADA provides the exclusive remedy for disability discrimination in the employment...
To continue reading
Request your trial