Opinion
2:23-cv-00536-RSL
12-20-2023
JASON LISOSKI, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY, et al, Defendants.
PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP Zachary J. Pekelis, WSBA #44557 Counsel for Defendant King County PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE Harold H. Franklin, Jr., WSBA #20486 Counsel for Plaintiff
PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP Zachary J. Pekelis, WSBA #44557 Counsel for Defendant King County
PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE Harold H. Franklin, Jr., WSBA #20486 Counsel for Plaintiff
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND EXTEND KING COUNTY'S DEADLINE TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND
Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge
STIPULATION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Civil Rules 7(j), 10(g) and 15, Plaintiff Jason Lisoski and Defendants King County and King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (together, “King County”) hereby agree to (a) permit Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint; and (b) give King County twenty-one (21) days from such filing to answer or otherwise respond, and stipulate as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint in state court on March 7, 2023, alleging that King County had denied his request for a religious exemption and accommodation from King County Executive Order ACO-8-27-EO, which required County employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (unless they received an exemption and accommodation), and terminated his employment. Dkt. #1-1. Plaintiff brought claims under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). After service of the Amended Complaint, King County removed the case to this Court. Dkt. #1.
2. On October 6, 2023, King County's outside counsel entered an appearance in this matter. Shortly thereafter, its counsel contacted Plaintiff's counsel regarding a potential amendment to her Amended Complaint. Specifically, King County's counsel noted that federal courts in Washington and elsewhere have dismissed similar failure-to-accommodate claims where the plaintiffs fail to allege the specific nature of their religious belief, how the belief conflicted with a vaccination requirement, or how the plaintiffs provided adequate notice of this belief to their employers. See, e.g., Bartholomew v. Washington, --- F.Supp.3d ----, No. 3:23-cv-05209-DGE, 2023 WL 6471627, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2023); Kiel v. Mayo Clinic Health System Southeast Minnesota, No. 22-1319 (JRT/ECW), 2023 WL 5000255 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023); see also Leake v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., No. CV-22-00436-TUC-RM, 2023 WL 2242857, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 27, 2023). The Amended Complaint does not allege such facts.
3. In lieu of moving for judgment on the pleadings at this stage, King County's counsel suggested that Plaintiff amend his complaint a second time to add such required factual allegations. Plaintiff agreed to do so. King County consents to the filing of a Second Amended Complaint. In so consenting, however, King County reserves its right to move to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings in the event Plaintiff's allegations, as amended, fail to state plausible claims for relief.
4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Local Civil Rule 7(j) the Parties agree that:
a. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint in the form attached to the stipulation (Dkt. # 9) as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15, Exhibit 1 indicates how the Second Amended Complaint differs from the operative Amended Complaint; and
b. King County's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint to twenty-one (21) days from the date Plaintiff files the Second Amended Complaint.
STIPULATED to this 19th day of December, 2023.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED