Woman's Title VII claim against the California PUC falters

This blog has previous chronicled Donna Hines' pro se efforts to obtain damages for the alleged employment discrimination of the California Public Utility Commission. Mrs. Hines has obtained two orders on her recent motions 1) for a preliminary injunction and 2) to obtain a more complete statement of the PUC's statement of its motion to dismiss.

Since filing her lawsuit plaintiff has receive two Notices of Adverse Action (NOAA) for a, "pattern of neglect and wilful disobedience." She claims that these are in retaliation for her lawsuit. As Magistrate Edward M. Chen explains:

Defendant contends that Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on the merits because she cannot establish a nexus between the NOAAs and any activity protected by Title VII.

Therefore she cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits and is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Her motion for a more definite statement of Defendant's motion to dismiss faired no better.

Despite describing Defendant’s motion [to dismiss] as "so vague and ambiguous" that "Plaintiff cannot reasonably frame responsive legal arguments to [it]," Plaintiff has determined that the motion fails to respond to ¶¶ 348-368 of the SAC. Plaintiff appears to request that the Court declare that Defendant has admitted to the claims alleged in those paragraphs, although she couches her motion as one for "Partial Default Judgment." However, Defendant has not waived the right to lodge a responsive pleading, even if Defendant’s motion does not address each allegation in the SAC in its motion to dismiss.

This blog will continue to monitor this case.