Espinoza v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 01 May 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. C17-1709JLR
• Citation: 458 F.Supp.3d 1254
• Parties: Daniel ESPINOZA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

458 F.Supp.3d 1254

Daniel ESPINOZA, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. C17-1709JLR

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

Signed May 1, 2020

Matthew Z. Crotty, Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC, Thomas G. Jarrard, The Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard PLLC, Spokane, WA, John M. Tymczyszyn, John T. Law, PLLC, Bellevue, WA, for Plaintiff.

Erika J. Evans, Rachel Seals, Sarah L. Lee, Seattle City Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ DAUBERT MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JAMES L. ROBART, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court are (1) Defendants City of Seattle and Lieutenant Thomas Mahaffey's (collectively, "Defendants") motion to exclude Plaintiff Daniel Espinoza's damages expert Erick West (MTE (Dkt. # 73)) and (2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (MSJ (Dkt. # 75)). Mr. Espinoza opposes both motions. (See MTE Resp. (Dkt. # 82); MSJ Resp. (Dkt. # 81).) The court has reviewed the motions, the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENIES as moot Defendants’ motion to exclude.¹

II. BACKGROUND

A. Mr. Espinoza's Military and Law Enforcement Background

The gravamen of this lawsuit is Mr. Espinoza's assertion that his employer, the Seattle Police Department ("SPD"), discriminated against him based on his status as a member of the United States Marine Corps Reserve ("USMCR"). SPD hired Mr. Espinoza on March 5, 1998. (Espinoza Decl. (Dkt. # 81-1) ¶ 3.) SPD assigned Mr. Espinoza to the Patrol Operations Bureau ("Patrol Operations"), West Precinct, on the second watch, which meant that his shift was from 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM. (See 1st Seals Decl. (Dkt. # 76) ¶ 4, Ex. 3 ("Espinoza Dep."² ) at 18:13-19:8.)

From the time of his hiring in 1998 until early 2020, Mr. Espinoza served as a member of the USMCR. (See Espinoza Decl. ¶ 5.) Mr. Espinoza informed SPD at the time of his hiring that he was a member of the USMCR. (See 1st Seals Decl. (Dkt. # 76) ¶ 15, Ex. 14.) Mr. Espinoza's duties with USMCR required that he "participate in military duty, typically one weekend a month, conduct military duty for multiple weeks for training and readiness purposes, and, from time-to-time, deploy overseas to serve in combat." (Espinoza Decl. ¶ 6.) Mr. Espinoza was called to active duty four times during his employment with SPD. (See id. ¶¶ 34-37.)

B. Mr. Espinoza's Allegations of "Anti-Military Animus" at SPD

Mr. Espinoza makes clear in his response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion that his claims in this lawsuit relate only to actions taken by SPD between 2012 and the present (see MSJ Resp. at 14 ("Mr. Espinoza's claims arise only from 2012 to present[.]")), and that his discrimination claims "are founded on Defendants’ failure to promote him to [SPD's] [M]otorcycle squad" on a number of different occasions (see id. at 16). However, his opposition and declaration also detail a number of instances of alleged "anti-military animus" by SPD beyond SPD's decisions on Mr. Espinoza's applications to the Motorcycle Unit. (See, e.g. , id. at 9-14; Espinoza Decl. ¶¶ 6-10, 13-23, 25, 27-37.) Thus, in the interest of completeness, the court details each alleged instance of discrimination or anti-military animus Mr. Espinoza identifies.

1. 2006 Bicycle Unit Transfer Request

Mr. Espinoza alleges that he requested a transfer to SPD's Bicycle Unit in 2006 that SPD denied. (See Espinoza Dep. at 28:12-17; Espinoza Decl. ¶ 7.) Although SPD policy in place at the time required officers initiate a transfer request by submitting a written memorandum (see Espinoza Dep. at 29:3-10; 1st Seals Decl. ¶ 22, Ex. 21 at SCL-Espinoza077911), SPD has no record of Mr. Espinoza's request to transfer to the Bicycle Unit in 2006 or SPD's denial of that transfer request (see MSJ at 18). Mr. Espinoza believes that his status as a member of the USMCR negatively impacted his application based on his allegation that a SPD Bicycle Unit sergeant, Fred Ibuki, asked Mr. Espinoza if he was a member of USMCR sometime after Mr. Espinoza requested a transfer to the Bicycle unit. (See Espinoza Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Mr. Espinoza does not know if Mr. Ibuki was on the hiring panel for the Bicycle Unit, he does not know who was hired on to the Bicycle Unit, and he does not know why he was not selected for transfer. (Espinoza Dep. at 31:14-32:8.)

2. Homeland Security, Bomb, and Narcotics Unit Transfer Requests

Mr. Espinoza also alleges that he requested transfers to SPD's Homeland Security, Bomb, and Narcotics Units that SPD denied. (See Espinoza Decl. ¶ 10.) Mr. Espinoza alleges that he applied for the Homeland Security Unit in 2006, but he could not recall when he applied to the Narcotics or Bomb Units. (See Espinoza Dep. at 36:2-7 (stating that he applied for transfer to the Homeland Security Unit in 2006), 32:16-33:3 (estimating that he applied to the Bomb Unit "sometime after 2006"), 33:17-25 (stating that he "[c]ouldn't be sure" when he applied for a transfer to the Narcotics Unit).) The SPD has no record of Mr. Espinoza's transfer requests for the Bomb and Homeland Security Units (see MSJ at 18), but Mr. Mahaffey was a sergeant with the Narcotics Unit in 2006 or 2007 and he recalls Mr. Espinoza's application for transfer into that unit around that time (see 1st Seals Decl. ¶ 23, Ex. 22 ("Mahaffey Dep"³ ) at 46:23-47:12).

Mr. Espinoza's declaration alleges that the SPD filled the positions for the Bomb, Narcotics, and Homeland Security Units with "officers who were less qualified and experienced" than him. (Espinoza Decl. ¶ 10.) He also assets that he knows "a majority of the police officers who were hired into those positions and they were not members of the military reserves." (Id. ) During his deposition, however, Mr. Espinoza testified that he did not know the other officers who applied for these positions or how his qualifications measured up to those of the other applicants. (See Espinoza Dep. at 33:11-16, 35:20-36:1, 36:16-23.) He testified that he did not know who SPD hired for the homeland security or narcotics groups, but he knew an officer named "Rainford" was selected for the Bomb Unit. (Id. at 37:3-6, 40:3-15.) Mr. Espinoza testified that Mr. Rainford had "quite a bit less" seniority than he did at the time that SPD selected Mr. Rainford for the bomb squad (see id. at 37:13-15), but Mr. Espinoza does not identify any evidence the record that details Mr. Rainford's service time at SPD outside of Mr. Espinoza's own testimony. (See generally MSJ Resp.) Mr. Espinoza also does not identify any evidence showing whether or not Mr. Rainford was a member of the military at the time of his transfer to the Bomb Unit.

3. Motorcycle Unit Transfer Requests

Mr. Espinoza's unsuccessful efforts to transfer to SPD's Motorcycle Unit from 2012 to 2018 sit at the center of this lawsuit. (See MSJ Resp. at 16 ("Mr. Espinoza's USERRA and WLAD discrimination and retaliation claims are founded on Defendants’ failure to promote him to the motorcycle squad.").) SPD policy requires officers interested in the Motorcycle Unit complete a training course in order to be considered for transfer to that unit. (See 1st Seals Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. 24 at SCL-Espinoza001500-501; id. ¶ 26, Ex. 25.) Specifically, the policy dictates that "[u]pon successful completion of [a] two-week course of instruction, student riders are placed on an eligibility list for consideration for future assignment to a motorcycle squad." (See id. ¶ 25, Ex. 24 at SCL-Espinoza001500.) In addition to the training requirements, assignment to the Motorcycle Unit requires satisfaction of several criteria, including an acceptable work and disciplinary record. (See id. ¶ 26, Ex. 25.) Mr. Espinoza took and passed the two-week Motorcycle training course in August 2012. (Espinoza Decl. ¶ 11.)

Mr. Espinoza alleges that he first applied for a transfer to the Motorcycle Unit in August 2012. (See MSJ Resp. at 1-2; Espinoza Decl. ¶ 9.) The Motorcycle Unit is within the Special Operations Bureau ("Special Operations"), not Patrol Operations where Mr. Espinoza was stationed at the time he passed the Motorcycle Unit training course. (See Mahaffey Dep. 60:13-61:4.) To request a transfer to a different operations bureau, the officer seeking transfer submits a memorandum to the desired unit and the Assistant Chiefs of the two bureaus decide whether to approve it. (See id. ; 1st Seals Decl. ¶ 24, Ex. 23 ("Wilske Dep.") at 24:8-24; Espinoza Dep. at 64:13-65:5.) Although Mr. Espinoza asserts he submitted a memorandum to transfer to the Motorcycle Unit in 2012 to a Special Operations lieutenant named "Mike," Mr. Espinoza acknowledges that the lieutenant informed him in 2014 that SPD had no record of his 2012 transfer request. (See Espinoza Dep. at 63:14-64:12.) Neither party has submitted the transfer memorandum Mr. Espinoza alleges he submitted in 2012 as evidence in the record.

Mr. Espinoza asserts that he requested transfer to the Motorcycle Unit for a second time in August 2014, but Mr. Mahaffey denied his request. (See Espinoza Decl. ¶ 12.) Neither Mr. Espinoza nor the SPD submit any written record of Mr. Espinoza's request to transfer to the Motorcycle Unit. Mr. Espinoza asserts that he sent his memorandum directly to "Mike"—the same Special Operations lieutenant to whom Mr. Espinoza alleges he sent his 2012 transfer memorandum. (See Espinoza Dep. at 63:14-64:12.) Mr. Espinoza testified that he believes Mr. Mahaffey denied his 2014 transfer request because "the people" in the Motorcycle Unit kept asking Mr. Espinoza when he would join their unit, which suggested to Mr. Espinoza that Mr. Mahaffey and Patrol Operations were preventing him from transferring to the Motorcycle Unit. (See id. at 65:14-66:9.)

Mr. Mahaffey was Mr. Espinoza's indirect supervisor from May 2014 until January or February 2015. (See M...