Graciani v. Providence Health & Servs. Wash.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
| Parties | DEBRA RENA GRACIANI, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES - WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. |
Before the Court at Docket 42 is Defendants Providence Health & Services - Washington ("Providence"),1 Kelli Rinas, James Efird, Brenda Franz, and James Blankenship's ("Defendants") motion to dismiss Claim V of Plaintiff Debra Rena Graciani's Complaint. Ms. Graciani opposed at Docket 46. Defendants replied at Docket 47. Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court's determination.
Ms. Graciani alleges as follows in her Complaint. She "is a registered nurse with specialized training in dialysis." Her race is African American.2 On or aboutFebruary 17, 2014, Providence hired Ms. Graciani for a part-time position in its dialysis department.3 On or about April 16, 2015, Ms. Graciani was hired into a full-time nurse position in the dialysis department; she alleges she received the position only after her union "stepped in on her behalf" to prevent Providence from hiring another person.4
Ms. Graciani's Complaint alleges that, initially, nurses' shifts were scheduled in a fair manner.5 Shortly after Ms. Graciani was hired, Mr. Efird, a fellow nurse, made a derogatory remark to several nurses about African Americans.6 In late 2014 or early 2015, Mr. Efird was promoted; in his new position, he had authority to resolve nurses' scheduling conflicts.7 Ms. Graciani alleges that throughout 2015, Mr. Efird favored Caucasian nurses, to the detriment of Ms. Graciani, in scheduling shifts.8 Ms. Graciani also makes two allegations regarding 2016 scheduling. She asserts that "[s]he was sent home multiple times based on 'Overstaff' in 2016 without any regard to the rotation required by the CollectiveBargaining Agreement."9 Ms. Graciani's Complaint does not identify the person(s) involved in the decision to send her home. She also alleges that beginning in August 2016, unspecified "Providence managers began allowing Caucasian employee Kelly Whitworth, a Patient Care Technician, to set the scheduling for the dialysis department employees."10 Ms. Whitworth is not a named defendant in this action.
The Complaint also alleges that between June 2015 and October 2016, Ms. Graciani attended disciplinary meetings and other actions with certain of the named defendants on multiple occasions. She maintains she was criticized for her demeanor11 and was wrongly accused of failing to follow procedures.12
"On or about June 20, 2016 Ms. Graciani filed a complaint for race discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")."13 "On or about September 27, 2016, Ms. Graciani's EEOC complaint was transferred to the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights ("ASCHR") for investigation."14 Also in September 2016, Ms. Graciani submitted to Providence"an integrity report about the race discrimination and retaliation that she was facing."15
The Complaint alleges that "[o]n or about November 1, 2016 Ms. Graciani was terminated for allegedly failing to follow proper [patient] handoff protocols . . . ."16 Ms. Graciani successfully challenged her termination and was granted reinstatement.17 However, her Complaint alleges that 18
On March 23, 2018, Ms. Graciani filed her Complaint in this Court.19 She alleges six claims. Providence is the only named defendant in Claims I-IV. Claims I-III allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;20 Claim IV allegesa deprivation of equal rights under Section 1981.21 Claim V alleges a conspiracy by the four individual Defendants to interfere with Ms. Graciani's civil rights in violation of Section 1985(3).22 Claim VI seeks punitive damages from all Defendants.23
In support of Claim V, Ms. Graciani maintains that Ms. Rinas, Mr. Efird, Ms. Franz, and Mr. Blankenship, acting individually and as agents of Providence, "engag[ed] in an ongoing campaign of destructive behavior to Ms. Graciani's career by issuing a string of vague, unsupported, false and misleading disciplinary actions against Ms. Graciani" to which nurses of other races were not subjected;24 "arrang[ed] scheduling practices to favor Caucasian employees in the dialysis unit to the detriment of [Ms. Graciani,] the African American employee;"25 "creat[ed] circumstances under which Providence, through its employees, justified terminating Ms. Graciani's employment employee [sic] for an alleged policy violation that the other nurses of all other represented races use as common practice and were not terminated" for;26 and "hinder[ed] and prevent[ed] AfricanAmerican employees from working in Providence's dialysis department."27 Ms. Graciani alleges that the individual Defendants "each engaged in one or more acts personally in furtherance of the conspiracy that were motivated by animus toward Ms. Graciani as an African American citizen and as a person engaged in protected activity," and that Ms. Graciani "was injured in her property interest in her career with Providence and deprived of rights and privileges of equal employment[.]"28
On October 9, 2018, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss Claim V.29
Defendants move to dismiss Claim V of Ms. Graciani's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the Supreme Court's interpretationof that rule in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.30 "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"31 This inquiry requires a court to "draw on its judicial experience and common sense."32 When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court considers only the complaint and other pleadings, documents incorporated into the pleadings by reference, and matters on which a court may take judicial notice.33
When a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted, a court "should freely give leave [to amend the complaint] when justice so requires."34
The United States Supreme Court has held that "Section 1985(3) may not be invoked to redress violations of Title VII."35 The statute was enacted with a narrow purpose:
The central theme of the bill's proponents was that the Klan and others were forcibly resisting efforts to emancipate [African Americans] and give them equal access to political power. The predominate purpose of § 1985(3) was to combat the prevalent animus against [African Americans] and their supporters.36
To maintain a Section 1985 claim, "the plaintiff must allege and prove four elements: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States."37 In addition to satisfying these four elements, a plaintiff must also demonstrate that the violation of her civil rights was motivated by "some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' action."38 39
For federal laws that were enacted prior to December 1, 1990 and that lack a limitations period, 40 Therefore, the Court will look to the statutes of limitations in Alaska regarding Claim V.41 "[W]hen a federal statute is deemed to borrow a State's limitations period, the State's tolling rules are ordinarily borrowed as well . . . ."42 Alaska has "adopted a three-part test for equitable tolling: (1) the alternative remedy must give notice to the defendant; (2) there must not be prejudice to the defendant; and (3) the plaintiff must have acted reasonably and in good faith."43 "[T]he statute of limitations is tolled only for those who initially pursue their rights in a judicial or quasi-judicial governmental forum."44
Defendants maintain that the applicable statute of limitations for Claim V is AS 9.10.070(a), which provides as follows:
Except as otherwise provided by law, a person may not bring an action . . . (2) for personal injury or death, or injury to the rights of another not arising on contract and not specifically provided otherwise; . . . (5) upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture; unless the action is commenced within two years of the accrual of the cause of action.45
Ms. Graciani responds that Claim V lies in contract, which is subject to Alaska's three-year statute of limitations.46 Ms. Graciani cites to AS 9.10.070(a)(2)'s exclusion of actions arising under contract.47 Defendants contend in their replythat AS 9.10.070(a)(2) does apply to Ms. Graciani's claim because it lies in tort, rather than contract.48
The Court need not reach the issue of the applicability of AS 9.10.070(a)(2) to Claim V. AS 9.10.070(a)(5) provides a two-year statute of limitations for actions based "upon a liability created by statute, other than a...
To continue reading
Request your trial