United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (“MUFG”) moves for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c) (Doc. 29). The Court rules as follows.
was employed as a Sanctions Compliance Analyst by American
Express between June 26, 2017 and January 11, 2018 (Doc. 27
at ¶ 3.1). On April 17, 2018, Plaintiff was solicited on
LinkedIn by a corporate recruiter on behalf of MUFG (Doc. 27
at ¶ 3.2). On May 16, 2018, MUFG offered Plaintiff a
position as a Sanctions Escalations Analyst, subject to a
background check and fingerprinting (Doc. 27 at ¶¶
3.4, 3.6-3.7). MUFG withdrew its offer of employment upon
learning that Plaintiff had pled “no contest” to
a charge of home invasion in 2005 (Doc. 27 at ¶¶
3.9-3.12). Plaintiff claims that MUFG's policy of
disqualifying applicants with convictions for employment
violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1). Plaintiff argues that MUFG's
neutral policy has a disparate impact on men, who are
arrested and convicted in numbers disproportionate to their
representation in the general public (Doc. 27 at ¶¶
12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party
to move for judgment on the pleadings once the
“pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay
trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Judgment on the pleadings
is appropriate “when the moving party clearly
establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material
issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Enron Oil Trading
& Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 132 F.3d 526,
529 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). Rule 12(c) motions
are evaluated under the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6)
motions-that is, “all allegations of material fact are
assumed to be true and construed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party.” Unisource Worldwide, Inc.
v. Swope, 964 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1054 (D. Ariz. 2013).
Generally, courts “may not consider materials outside
the pleadings in adjudicating a Rule 12(c) motion.”
Gerow v. Washington, 383 Fed. App'x 677, 678-79
(9th Cir. 2010). Exceptions to the general rule are limited
to: (1) documents “whose contents are alleged in a
complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but
which are not physically attached to the [plaintiff's]
pleading” and (2) situations where “a court may
take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record
outside the pleadings.'” Xcentric Ventures,
L.L.C. v. Borodkin, 934 F.Supp.2d 1125, 1134 (D. Ariz.
2013) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
argues that Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law
because Plaintiff's crime barred MUFG from employing him
under Section 19 of the of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(Doc. 29 at 4-6), MUFG had a legitimate business necessity
for not hiring him (Doc. 29 at 6-7), and MUFG had no
obligation to file an application for a waiver on behalf of
Plaintiff with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(“FDIC”) (Doc. 29 at 7-8).
law bars “any person who has been convicted of any
criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of
trust” from becoming employed by an institution insured
by the FDIC. 12 U.S.C. § 1829(a)(1). Violations of this
statute, more commonly known as Section 19, can result in
fines of $1, 000, 000 per day, imprisonment for up to five
years, or both. 12 U.S.C. § 1829(b). Disqualified
persons and banking institutions wishing to hire, or continue
to employ, disqualified persons may apply for waivers from
the FDIC. Because MUFG is an FDIC-insured institution, it is
subject to Section 19's requirements.
not addressed explicitly by Section 19, the FDIC's
Statements of Policy provide that “dishonesty” is
defined as, whether directly or indirectly, “to cheat
or defraud; to cheat or defraud for monetary gain or its
equivalent; or wrongfully to take property belonging to
another in violation of any criminal statute.”
Statement of Policy Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (“Statement of Policy”), 63
FR 66177-01 at *66185, 1998 WL 822873 (F.R.) (Dec. 1, 1998);
see also Statements of Policy, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, available at
(last visited Oct. 16, 2019). “Dishonesty includes acts
involving want of integrity, lack of probity, or a
disposition to distort, cheat, or act deceitfully or
fraudulently, and may include crimes which federal, state or
local laws define as dishonest.” Id.
Plaintiff pled no contest to first degree home invasion in
Michigan in October 2005 (Doc. 27 at ¶ 3.9, Exhibit 9).
Michigan law provides as follows:
A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to
commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a
person who enters a dwelling without permission with intent
to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a
person who breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling
without permission and, at any time while he or she is
entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a
felony, larceny, or assault is guilty of home invasion in the
first degree if at any time while the person is entering,
present in, or exiting the dwelling either of the following
(a) The person is armed with a dangerous weapon.
(b) Another person is lawfully present in the ...