Davis v. American Airlines, et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nia Elan Davis,
Plaintiff,
v.
American Airlines, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01992-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Nia Elan Davis believes her employer defendant American Airlines
discriminated against her based on her age and race. Davis also believes American Airlines
retaliated against her, subjected her to a hostile work environment, engaged in “unlawful
labor practices,” and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. (Doc. 26.) American
Airlines moved to dismissed and Davis did not respond. The motion to dismiss is granted.
Davis filed her original complaint on June 9, 2025. (Doc. 1.) That complaint named
as defendants American Airlines and Teamsters Local Union 104. Davis never served
Teamsters and her claims against Teamsters were dismissed based on that failure. (Doc.
28.) Davis served American Airlines and on October 3, 2025, American Airlines filed a
“Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 27.) Davis’s response was due October 20, 2025,
but no response was filed.
Local Rule 7.2(i) provides that failure to respond to a motion to dismiss “may be
deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion
summarily.” The time to respond to American Airlines’s motion has expired and, pursuant
Case 2:25-cv-01992-KML Document 29 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to Local Rule 7.2(i), it is granted. But briefly looking to the merits of the motion, it would
be granted regardless of the local rule.
American Airlines first addresses the discrimination claims Davis is attempting to
bring under Title VII, arguing Davis did not exhaust with the EEOC her claims for
discrimination based on age, race, hostile work environment, or “failure to prevent
discrimination and harassment.” (Doc. 27 at 6–8.) The relevant charge Davis filed with the
EEOC only references “retaliation.” With no opposition, American Airlines’s position is
correct and Davis only exhausted her retaliation claim. All of Davis’s other Title VII claims
are dismissed for failure to exhaust.
American Airlines alternatively argues that even assuming Davis had exhausted all
of her Title VII claims, the current complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations
to support those claims. That is correct. Davis has not alleged basic requirements for most
of her Title VII claims, such as the adverse employment action at issue. Nor has Davis
alleged facts showing a “severe or pervasive” work environment that might qualify as a
hostile work environment. Similarly, Davis has not alleged facts meeting the high standard
for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against one’s employer.1 Mintz v.
Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int’l, Inc., 905 P.2d 559, 563 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
Finally, Davis has not alleged sufficient facts indicating a causal relationship
between protected activity and subsequent events that might support a retaliation claim.
Davis alleges without explanation the retaliation included a “[f]ailure to accommodate
[her] in the same manner as prior to her EEOC charge,” “unequal discipline,” and
“[i]gnored complaints.” (Doc. 26 at 2.) There are no additional factual allegations
explaining, for example, the “unequal discipline” Davis suffered. It is not enough for Davis
to allege only that “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). Davis’s retaliation claim qualifies as a “[t]hreadbare recital[] of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id.
1 American Airlines argues Davis’s claims for breach of collective bargaining agreement
and unlawful labor practices “can only apply to the Union.” (Doc. 27 at 16.) The court
accepts that as accurate for purposes of this order.
Case 2:25-cv-01992-KML Document 29 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
American Airlines requests the court dismiss the amended complaint without leave
to amend. It is possible Davis could allege additional facts for at least some of her claims
such that leave to amend would not be futile. Davis may, however, have abandoned this
case, so the court sets a short deadline for the filing of an amended complaint. If no new
complaint is filed, judgment will be entered.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) is GRANTED. The amended
complaint (Doc. 26) is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than November 12, 2025, plaintiff shall file
an amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal with
prejudice and close this case if no amended complaint is filed.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01992-KML Document 29 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3