United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART THE UTA'S MOTION TO DISMISS
N. PARRISH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
Hampton sued his former employer, the Utah Transit Authority
(UTA), for age discrimination and other claims after he was
laid off. Before the court is the UTA's motion to dismiss
Mr. Hampton's action. [Docket 5]. The UTA argues that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address Mr.
Hampton's first age discrimination claim under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because he failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. It
also argues that the court should dismiss his second age
discrimination claim under 49 U.S.C. § 5332(b) and 42
U.S.C. 2000d because those statutes do not create a private
right of action for age discrimination. Finally, the UTA
argues that the court should dismiss the state-law breach of
contract cause of action for failure to state a claim because
Mr. Hampton did not allege the elements of a valid contract.
court DENIES the motion to the extent that it requests
dismissal of the ADEA age discrimination claim. The court
GRANTS the motion to the extent that it requests dismissal of
the age discrimination claim under 49 U.S.C. § 5332(b)
and 42 U.S.C. 2000d. The court further GRANTS the motion to
the extent that it requests dismissal of the breach of
Hampton worked for the UTA as an auditor. On September 16,
2015, the UTA informed Mr. Hampton that it intended to
terminate his position. In a meeting with his boss and a
human resources employee, Mr. Hampton was promised that he
would receive a lifetime UTA ride pass. He was also promised
that his unused sick time would be converted to a Health
Reimbursement Account (HRA).
forwarded a severance agreement to Mr. Hampton, but he
decided not to sign it. After Mr. Hampton declined to sign
the agreement, the UTA refused to give him a lifetime pass or
convert his unused sick time to an HRA.
180 days of being laid off, Mr. Hampton submitted an intake
form to the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division
(UALD). The intake form asserted claims of age discrimination
and requested that the agency take action. Notwithstanding
the timely filing, the UALD did not create a charge or
forward the matter to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Hampton subsequently filed a lawsuit against the UTA in this
court. The complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) age
discrimination under the ADEA, (2) age discrimination under
49 U.S.C. 5332(b) and 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., and (3) breach
of contract. The UTA moved to dismiss all claims under either
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction or Rule 12(b)(6) for
failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
THE ADEA CLAIM
first argues that the court should dismiss the ADEA claim for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The UTA asserts that
the court lacks jurisdiction because Mr. Hampton did not file
a charge with the appropriate state agency within 300 days
after the alleged unlawful practice occurred as required by
29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B). The UTA also contends in its
reply brief that the court lacks jurisdiction because Mr.
Hampton did not allege that it filed this lawsuit within 90
days after the proceedings before the EEOC were terminated.
See Id. § 626(e).
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(1) may take one of two forms. A party may make a facial
challenge to the allegations contained in the plaintiff's
complaint, or a party may mount a factual challenge by
asserting that the underlying facts of the case do not
support the jurisdiction of the court. United Tribe of
Shawnee Indians v. United States, 253 F.3d 543, 547
(10th Cir. 2001). “In addressing a factual attack, the
court . . . ‘has wide discretion to allow affidavits,
other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve
disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule
12(b)(1).'” Id. (citation omitted).
mounts a factual challenge to jurisdiction. Pursuant to this
factual challenge, both the UTA and Mr. Hampton have
submitted documents related to the administrative proceedings
below. These documents establish that Mr. Hampton was laid
off on September 18, 2015. He initially accepted the
severance agreement the UTA had offered him, but on October
15, 2015, he signed a letter in which he rescinded this
acceptance. He later retained a law firm to handle an age
discrimination claim against the UTA. On March 11, 2016, an
employee of that firm emailed a completed intake form to the
UALD. The form outlined the allegations of Mr.
age discrimination claim and listed the relief that he
sought. The first line of the form, which was created by the
UALD, contained the following notice:
THIS FORM DOES NOT REPRESENT A CHARGE OF
DISCRIMINATION WITH THE DIVISION.
In order to file a Charge with the Division, you must
complete and return this form. The Division will use the
information in this Intake Form to draft a separate Charge
which will be mailed to you. You will then need to sign the
Charge and have it notarized. The Division can formally