Pingree v. University of Utah et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
RITA FLORIAN PINGREE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH and CAROLINE
MILNE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S § 1983
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM
Case No. 2:20-cv-00724-JNP-CMR
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 Equal Protection claim.
ECF No. 255. For the following reasons, the court denies the motion.
Defendants’ motion is premised on a single statement Plaintiff makes in a reply brief to an
unrelated motion to exclude certain Defendant fact witnesses. In that brief, Plaintiff’s counsel
states that “Dr. Pingree’s claims are not about disparate treatment of single mothers in residency;
her claims focus solely on her experience as a single mother attempting to get a categorical
residency in Internal Medicine at the University of Utah.” ECF No. 252 at 10. Defendants argue
that because they view Plaintiff’s statement as disclaiming her claim involves disparate treatment
of a protected class, Plaintiff can no longer state the § 1983 equal protection claim as a matter of
law.
The court declines to read Plaintiff’s statement as disclaiming her claim involves disparate
treatment of a protected class. Plaintiff, in response, appears to argue that the statement at issue
only described her argument that she is not required to prove every other single mother who was
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 263 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

a resident or applicant for residency was discriminated against. The court finds this to be a
reasonable interpretation of the statement. It is not describing a “class-of-one” claim. Engquist v.
Oregon Dep’t of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 594 (2008) (defining a class-of-one claim as “a claim under
the Equal Protection Clause . . . alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from other
similarly situated employees, with no assertion that the different treatment was based on the
employee’s membership in any particular class”). And, Plaintiff is correct in that she is not required
to prove every single mother was discriminated against, only that she was discriminated against
based on her membership in a protected class. See Bird v. W. Valley City, 832 F.3d 1188, 1208 (10th
Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the so-called motion to dismiss is denied.0F
1
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 255.
Signed February 26, 2026.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States Chief District Judge
1 Defendants filed the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6)
motions must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. Thus, this motion is
not properly considered a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, because the court signaled at the
final pre-trial conference that Defendants may file a motion relating to this issue, the court
considers the motion as a motion in limine.
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 263 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2