Grimsley v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Guy Grimsley filed two actions against Charles River Laboratories in the District of Nevada, numbered 3:08-cv-00482-LRH-VPC (“Grimsley I”) and 3:09-cv-00680-ECR-VPC (“Grimsley II”), respectively. Grimsley appeals from the district court’s dismissal of Grimsley II. We affirm.

When the district court denied Grimsley leave to add his retaliation claim in Grimsley I, Grimsley had options. He could have moved to stay Grimsley I pending his exhaustion of the retaliation claim before the EEOC. Alternatively, he could have litigated his discrimination claims to their conclusion, and then appealed the district court’s denial of leave to this court. See Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211 , 1228-29 (9th Cir.1991) (plaintiff could add unexhausted retaliation claim in her discrimination suit because the retaliation claim was “reasonably related” to the discrimination action). But see Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 644-46 (9th Cir. 2003) (unexhausted retaliation claim was not “reasonably related” to discrimination claim because the allegedly retaliatory acts did not “fall under an investigation that the EEOC would have conducted”).

Grimsley’s options did not, however,…