Harold Rutila sued the Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, in the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Rutila appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Rutila was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an air traffic controller trainee. To complete his training and maintain employment, he needed to pass four performance assessments. He failed the third assessment with a score that made it impossible for him to pass the training overall. After his termination, he was denied reinstatement. Following administrative proceedings before the EEOC, Rutila filed a complaint alleging he was denied reinstatement because of his sex. The FAA moved to dismiss, and Rutila filed an amended complaint. The FAA again moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion. Rutila then moved to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which the district court denied.
Legal Analysis
Sex Discrimination Claim: The court explained that as a male alleging sex discrimination, Rutila needed to make a “stronger showing” than a female employee to establish a prima facie case. He had to either show background circumstances supporting an inference that the FAA discriminates against the majority (men) or produce facts showing that but for his sex, he would have been reinstated. The court found Rutila failed to plausibly allege either scenario. While he pointed to a female manager’s 2001 statement about working in a “white male dominated field” and the reinstatement of other trainees (including four females and two males), the court found these allegations insufficient to state a plausible claim of sex discrimination.
Rule 59(e) Motion: The court found no abuse of discretion in denying Rutila’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court properly considered that Rutila had already amended his complaint once, chose not to seek leave to amend in response to the second motion to dismiss, and failed to identify additional facts he would allege to cure the complaint’s deficiencies.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Rutila’s complaint and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion.
Schrag on Law 