Gilmore v. Benton County

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 May 09, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON HUBERT GILMORE, an individual, No. 4:25-CV-05011-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR vs. PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BENTON COUNTY, a Washington political entity, ECF No. 14 Defendant.

12 Before the Court is Defendant’s 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, which seeks judgment on Plaintiff’s race claim under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”). ECF No. 14. The Court has reviewed the motion and record and is fully informed. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the motion and grants Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The standard governing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is “functionally identical” to that governing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). “A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” United States v. Teng Jiao Zhou, 815 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Fajardo v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 179 8 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999)).

9 DISCUSSION 10 Defendant moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s race claim under the WLAD. ECF No. 14 at 2. Plaintiff, in turn, argues that if his race claim under WLAD is dismissed that this dismissal should be without prejudice with leave to file a motion to amend the Complaint prior to the deadline in the Court’s Jury Trial Scheduling Order. ECF No. 15 at 4.

15 A. WLAD 16 Under WLAD, an employee may establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment through the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test or direct evidence.

18 Williams v. Bose Corp., No. 65713-5-I, 2011 WL 5867053, at *6 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2011). Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test, a plaintiff must show he: “(1) belongs to a protected class; (2) was treated less favorably in the terms or conditions of his employment than a similarly situated, nonprotected employee, and (3) the nonprotected ‘comparator’ was doing substantially the same work.” Id. (citing Domingo v. Boeing Employees’ Credit Union, 98 P.3d 1222, 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)). Under the direct evidence approach, the employee must provide direct evidence that the defendant “acted with a discriminatory motive and that the discriminatory motivation was a ‘significant or substantial factor in an employment decision.’” Id. (quoting Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 859 P.2d 26, 30 (Wash. 1993)).

9 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails to allege a prima facie race claim under WLAD. ECF No. 14 at 3. Specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any factual statements “that he is in a protected status as to race, how he was discriminated against based on race, that others outside his protected status were treated more favorably, or any other facts supporting the allegation that his race was a substantial factor in [Defendant’s] decision to take adverse action against him.” Id. at 3-4.

16 Defendant is correct. The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts in support of a prima facie race claim under WLAD. Rather, the Complaint contains only two mentions of race: (1) “WLAD prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race or the presence of any physical disability;” and (2) “Defendant discriminated against [Plaintiff] on the basis of race and physical disability.” ECF No. 1-1 at 5, 6 ¶¶ 40, 44. Even taking these two allegations as true, Plaintiff has not alleged a prima facie race claim under WLAD.

3 Thus, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the race claim under the WLAD.

5 B. Leave to Amend 6 “[A]lthough Rule 12(c) does not mention leave to amend, courts have discretion both to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with leave to amend . . . and to simply grant dismissal of the action instead of entry of judgment.” Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 300 F. Supp. 2d 942, 945 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (citations omitted).

10 Plaintiff argues that he should be granted leave to amend up until the November 3, 2025, deadline in the Court’s Jury Trial Scheduling Order. ECF No. 15 at 4; see also ECF No. 13 at 17. Defendant, in turn, argues that the Court should not allow Plaintiff until November 3, 2025, to amend. ECF No. 16 at 2-4.

14 Defendant has not established that it will be unduly prejudiced by the Court granting Plaintiff’s request for a leave to amend. Defendant only objects to the potential delay, which alone is not grounds to deny leave to amend. See United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1973)) (“[D]elay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to amend.”). Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings, but will require Plaintiff to amend his Complained within 90 days from the issuance of this Order.

3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated above, the Court grants 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiffs shall file the First Amended Complaint on or before August 7, 2025, addressing his race claim under WLAD.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. Defendant’s 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED.

10 2. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint on or before August 7, 2025. Leave to amend is limited to the race claim under WLAD; Plaintiff may not add additional claims, parties, or requests for relief without separate leave of the Court.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this order and provide copies to the parties.

16 DATED May 9, 2025.

s/Mary K. Dimke 18 MARY K. DIMKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE