The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 MARLUCIA FIUZA, Case No. 25-cv-04943-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER REQUIRING
9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
10 UNITED AIRLINES INC, et al., Re: ECF No. 24, 29
Defendants.
11
12
13 Before the Court are Defendants United Airlines Inc.’s and the Association of Flight
14 Attendants’ (AFA) motions to dismiss. ECF No. 24, 29. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the
15 Court now orders supplemental briefing from United Airlines and Fiuza regarding the apparent
16 disparity between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge date given in
17 the complaint and the date shown in the charge document attached to Fiuza’s opposition to the
18 AFA’s motion to dismiss.
19 Plaintiff Marlucia Fiuza filed this lawsuit on June 11, 2025 against Defendants United
20 Airlines and AFA alleging age discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and breach of the
21 duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act. ECF No. 1. Fiuza alleges in her
22 complaint that she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on December 6, 2024, shortly
23 after her second termination. Id. ¶ 52.
24 United Airlines filed a motion to dismiss on August 26, 2025. ECF No. 24. Fiuza filed
25 her opposition on September 10, 2025 and United Airlines filed its reply on September 16, 2025.
26 ECF Nos. 30, 31. AFA filed a separate motion to dismiss and joinder in United Airlines’ motion
27 on September 10, 2025. ECF No. 29. Fiuza filed her opposition to AFA’s motion on September
1 filed against United Airlines. ECF No. 33-2. That document shows that she filed her charge with
2 || the EEOC on May 29, 2025, not on December 6, 2024 as alleged in her complaint.! /d. at 3. In its
3 || reply, AFA points out the disparity between these documents. ECF No. 34 at 2 n.2.
4 In its motion to dismiss, United Airlines argues that “Title VII claim ‘cannot be brought
5 || with respect to discrete acts of discrimination that occur more than [180] days prior to the filing of
6 the charge.’” ECF No. 24 at 13 (quoting Robinson v. Board of Regents of the University of
7 || Colorado, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1020-23 (D. Colo. 2005) and that
8 [s]ince Plaintiff alleges she filed a charge with the EEOC on
December 6, 2024, the 180-day prefiling period dates back to June
9 9, 2024, at the latest. That means that any alleged wrongful
employment acts by United and/or the AFA predating June 9, 2024
10 are time-barred.
11 Because United’s briefing was completed before Fiuza submitted a copy of her EEOC charges,
12 || however, United did not have an opportunity to discuss the effect, if any, that the later filing date
13 || has on its arguments regarding Plaintiff's claims.
v 14 United Airlines shall file a supplemental brief on or before January 16, 2026 addressing
15 these issues. Fiuza may file a responsive supplemental brief on or before January 30, 2026. Each
Q 16 || brief may not exceed five pages.
= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 Dated: January 5, 2026
19
JON S. TIGAR
20 nited States District Judge
21
22
3 ' “Generally, district courts may not consider material outside the pleadings when assessing the
sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Khoja v.
2A Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). “When ‘matters outside the
pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court,’ the 12(b)(6) motion converts into a
25 || motion for summary judgment under Rule 56,” unless those matters satisfy the “incorporation-by-
reference doctrine” or the standard for “judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” Id.
26 || (citations omitted). “[T]he Court may consider both the EEOC right to sue letter and the EEOC
charge, either as referenced in the complaint or as public records subject to judicial notice.” Finch
07 vy. Mountain Park Health Ctr., No. CV-15-01503-PHX-SRB, 2016 WL 10770805, at *2 (D. Ariz.
Jan. 7, 2016) (quoting Gallor v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 916 F.Supp. 1005, 1007 (S.D. Cal.
28 1995)). The Court will consider the EEOC charge filed by Plaintiff in deciding the motions to
dismiss.