Allford v. Barton
| Decision Date | 21 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00024-AWI-JLT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | MICHAEL G. ALLFORD, Plaintiff v. ROBERT BARTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THE CAPACITY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, AN INDEPENDENT DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ROY WESLEY; JAMES SPURLING; AND MAY GORDON, Defendants |
(Docs. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25)
This is an action for damages and injunctive relief by plaintiff Michael Allford ("Plaintiff") against defendant California Office of the Inspector General ("OIG"), and individuals Robert Barton ("Barton"), Roy Wesley ("Wesley"), James Spurling ("Spurling"), and May Gordon ("Gordon") (the "individual Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants"). Doc. 17. Plaintiff was employed by the OIG as a Special Assistant Inspector General. Doc. 17, 3:20. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges Plaintiff was terminated from employment by the OIG in violation of Plaintiff's Constitutional rights and a number of statutes, including: the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), and the California Unruh Act. Doc. 17. Defendants filed individual motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ("Rule 12(b)(1)") and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure12(b)(6) ("Rule 12(b)(6)"). Docs. 21-25. The matter was taken under submission without oral argument.
On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief due to alleged discrimination and retaliation on the part of Defendants. Doc. 1. Defendants filed and served a motion to dismiss on August 14, 2014. Doc. 14. Plaintiff responded by filing the FAC on September 4, 2014. Doc. 17. Based on the FAC, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as moot. Doc. 18. Plaintiff's FAC alleges the following grounds for relief: 1) a claim of deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution - against individual Defendants; 2) a claim of employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - against Defendants; 3) a claim of employment discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act - against defendant OIG; 4) a claim of retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act - against defendant OIG; 5) a claim of harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act - against Defendants; and 6) a claim of conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of rights secured by the California Unruh Act - against Defendants. Doc. 17, 24-34.
Defendants' motions to dismiss, filed on October 23, 2014, are directed at Plaintiff's first, second, fifth, and sixth claims. Docs 21-25. Individual Defendants filed motions to dismiss the first and second claims pursuant to Rule12(b)(6). Doc. 22, 3. The legal arguments supporting these motions are the same. The OIG filed a motion to dismiss the second claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. 21, 1. Gordon, Spurling, and Wesley filed motions to dismiss the fifth claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. 23-25. The arguments supporting the motions to dismiss the fifth claim are not the same and must be reviewed separately. Defendants all filed motions to dismiss the sixth claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Docs. 21-25. The legal argument supporting the motion to dismiss the sixth claim is the same. Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition to Defendants' motions on November 10, 2014. Doc. 28. Defendants replied on November 17, 2014. Doc. 29.
Plaintiff was employed by the OIG as a Special Assistant Inspector General beginning on July 12, 2005. Doc. 17, 3:20. In March 2009, after period of illness, Plaintiff resumed full duties at the OIG. Doc. 17, 5:4-7. Subsequent to his return to duty, Plaintiff became concerned that the OIG and Barton were not maintaining the strict privacy requirements around Plaintiff's physical and/or mental medical status. Doc. 17, 5:18-22. Barton occupied the position of Senior Assistant Inspector General - Central Region, Acting Inspector General, or Inspector General at the OIG during Plaintiff's employment. Doc. 17, 3:25-4:2. Plaintiff's concerns were based on oral and written statements made by Barton. Doc. 17, 5:13. In particular, Plaintiff was concerned that Barton was sharing misinformation about Plaintiff's fitness for duty and Barton was not committed to maintaining the privacy of Plaintiff's medical records. Doc. 17, 5:21-28. In August, 2011, Barton expressed disapproval with Plaintiff for Plaintiff having taken action in an administrative hearing with the Vertical Advocate. Doc. 17, 6:19-21. Plaintiff found Barton's involvement in the administrative hearing unusual and believed this was due to Barton's perception that Plaintiff was not able to fully perform his employment duties. Doc. 17, 6:15-18 and 7:5-9.
Around February and March 2012, Plaintiff voiced opposition to Gordon based on her inquiry into the details of Plaintiff's tuberculin skin test ("TB test"). Doc. 17, 7:27-8:2. Plaintiff opposed any inquiry beyond whether Plaintiff was current with testing and whether the test results were negative. Doc. 17, 8:4-6. At the time, Gordon occupied the position of Senior Assistant Inspector General - Central Region at the OIG and was Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Doc. 17, 4:13-15 and 8:1. On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff advised the employee at the OIG responsible for maintaining medical records that he opposed the delivery of his medical information to Gordon. Doc. 17, 8:8-12. According to Plaintiff, he voiced his opposition to preserve the confidentiality of his medical records and to establish to his supervisors that he opposed disclosure of mental or medical records. Doc. 17, 7:21-27.
On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff informed Wesley that he believed his supervisors were violating the ADA. Specifically, he indicated that his supervisors were sharing his mental ormedical records, and they were suggesting to other employees at the OIG that Plaintiff suffered from a mental disability that prevented him from adequately performing his employment duties. Doc. 17, 9:1-18. Plaintiff alleges Wesley responded in a hostile and threatening tone, and Wesley instructed Plaintiff to present the complaint through the appropriate channels. Doc. 17, 11:25-28 and 12:1. Wesley occupied the position of Chief Deputy Inspector General or Acting Chief Deputy Inspector General at the OIG during Plaintiff's employment. Doc. 17, 4:4-7. Around the same time, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Doc. 17, 10:10-15. The complaint alleged Barton had disclosed to OIG employees that Plaintiff was incapable of adequately performing his employment duties due to a perceived mental and physical disability. Doc. 17, 9:24-28 and 10:1-5.
Plaintiff alleges that officers at the OIG became aware his opposition to Gordon's and Barton's conduct, as well as his complaint with the EEOC, and retaliated against Plaintiff. Doc. 17, 10:16-21. Plaintiff also alleges that individual Defendants created a hostile work environment that included repeated negative comments and attempts to adopt and enforce new employment policies. Doc. 17, 16:11-16. These new policies created difficulties for Plaintiff in the performance of his duties and made it an act of insubordination for Plaintiff to report perceived acts of discrimination to Barton or to oppose perceived acts of discrimination. Doc. 17, 11:12-16 and 16:11-16.
Barton counseled and directed Plaintiff not to be too concerned with the accuracy of reporting in the OIG Computerized Reporting System. Plaintiff alleges Barton did this to make it appear Plaintiff was inadequately performing his duties. Doc. 17, 11:16-24. Wesley instructed Gordon to scrutinize Plaintiff's timekeeping activities to identify justifications for adverse actions against Plaintiff. Doc. 17, 12:9-15. On March 28, 2012, Wesley and Gordon criticized Plaintiff's time records when Plaintiff reported his time spent at various California State Prison sites. According to Plaintiff, he traveled to these various sites so that he would be aware of proper safety precautions, a necessary part of his employment duties. Doc. 17, 12:24-28.
In July 2012, Plaintiff was admonished by Gordon for using foul and inappropriatelanguage in Plaintiff's workspace. Doc. 17, 13:26-28 and 14:1-2. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff received a downgraded employment performance evaluation from Gordon. Doc. 17, 14:8-10. The evaluation noted that Plaintiff should be mindful of the language and tone he used in his working communications and downgraded the quality of work performed by Plaintiff. Doc. 17, 14:14-18.
In September 2012, Plaintiff requested to use a private vehicle for transportation to and from the various work sites. Doc. 17, 16:20-26. Gordon denied this request without providing a reason. Doc. 17, 16:27-28. Plaintiff subsequently learned that some of his confidential personnel medical records were located in an unsecure part of Plaintiff's personnel file and were available to be viewed by all OIG employees. Doc. 17, 17:18-24. Plaintiff expressed his anger and demanded the files be immediately removed. Doc. 17, 18:7-14. Barton indicated the files would be removed and the error was not harmful. Doc. 17, 18:17-21. One month later, Plaintiff was admonished for not personally attending a meeting. Doc. 17, 19:24. Plaintiff attempted to attend the meeting by phone. Doc. 17, 20:1. Gordon indicated the meeting could not be attended by telephone. Doc. 17, 20:4-7. Plaintiff claims the meeting location had been rescheduled and Plaintiff was not notified of the rescheduling. Doc. 17, 19:27-28.
In December 2012, Gordon told Plaintiff he could not travel to a job site in San...
To continue reading
Request your trial