Bass v. County of Butte

• Decision Date: 15 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04-16705.,No. 04-17286.,04-16705.,04-17286.
• Parties: Allison BASS and Thomas Scott Parks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF BUTTE; Scott Mackenzie, Sheriff; Butte County Sheriff's Office; William Anderson, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees. John Muldown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The County of Butte; Scott Mackenzie, Sheriff; Butte County Sheriff's Office; William Anderson, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

458 F.3d 978

Allison BASS and Thomas Scott Parks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF BUTTE; Scott Mackenzie, Sheriff; Butte County Sheriff's Office; William Anderson, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

John Muldown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The County of Butte; Scott Mackenzie, Sheriff; Butte County Sheriff's Office; William Anderson, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-16705.

No. 04-17286.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 15, 2006.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Lynn Hubbard III and Scottlynn J. Hubbard IV, Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard, Chico, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Gregory P. Einhorn, Law Office of Gregory P. Einhorn, Chico, CA, for the defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-02-02443-DFL, CV-02-02444-DFL.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-02445-LKK/CMK.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY,^* Senior District Judge.

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Allison Bass, Thomas Parks, and John Muldown asserted employment discrimination claims against Defendant County of Butte and others based on Defendant's alleged failure to accommodate their work-related injuries. All three Plaintiffs raised their employment claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), Cal. Civ.Code § 51, and Disabled Persons Act ("DPA"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, 54.1, on the theory that the two state laws incorporate Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213.¹ We disagree.

This case consolidates the separate actions of three Plaintiffs against the County of Butte. Each of the three Plaintiffs suffered an on-the-job injury and sought accommodation from the County for his or her resulting physical impairment. Plaintiffs claim that the County failed to offer them reasonable accommodations.

In 2002, Plaintiffs filed separate complaints, each seeking monetary damages and declaratory relief against Butte County, Butte County Sheriff Scott Mackenzie, and Lieutenant William Anderson. Plaintiffs raised both federal and state causes of action including claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796l; the ADA; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Unruh Act, the DPA, and state law theories of negligence and breach of contract.² The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs filed timely appeals and this court consolidated the cases. At issue here is whether the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' employment discrimination claims brought under the Unruh Act and the DPA.

Plaintiffs argue that both laws incorporate Title I of the ADA, thereby making California's Unruh Act and DPA state law vehicles for enforcing the ADA's employment protections. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that neither state statute provides a cause of action for employment discrimination. We review de novo this interpretation of state law. Rabkin v. Or. Health Scis. Univ., 350 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2003).

Congress enacted the ADA in 1990. The purpose of the statute is, in part, "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). The statute addresses this goal in three main sections: Title I prohibits public and private employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in employment practices; Title II requires state and local governments to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to public services, including transportation services; and Title III requires equal access to public accommodations.

At the time that the ADA was passed, California had in place various laws addressing each of these main subject areas. Three are relevant here. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12900-12996, makes it an unlawful employment practice to discharge a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges, of employment, because of a physical or mental disability. Id. § 12940(a).

The DPA and the Unruh Act both focus on ensuring that persons with disabilities have equal access to public businesses, facilities, and other accommodations. Section 54(a) of the DPA provides:

Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, public facilities, and other public places.

Section 54.1 provides in pertinent part:

(a)(1) Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.³

. . . .

(b)(1) Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to all housing accommodations offered for rent, lease, or compensation in this state, subject to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.

The Unruh Act provides in pertinent part:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, mental condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

Cal. Civ.Code § 51(b).

The California courts have, historically, rejected attempts by plaintiffs to expand the scope of the Unruh Act to include employment claims. In Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 2 Cal.3d 493, 86 Cal. Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216, 219 (1970), the California Supreme Court dismissed a plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim, holding that "there is no indication that the Legislature intended to broaden the scope of section 51 to include discriminations other than those made by a `business establishment' in the course of furnishing goods, services or facilities to its clients, patrons or customers." The California Supreme Court bolstered its holding that the Unruh Act does not apply to employment claims by noting: "This conclusion is substantiated by the fact that at the same session wherein it adopted the language of section 51, the Legislature also enacted extensive provisions governing discrimination in employment." Id. The California Supreme Court reiterated the Alcorn holding 20 years later in Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65, 276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373, 380 (1990), stating broadly that "the Unruh Civil Rights Act has no application to employment discrimination."

Plaintiffs argue that amendments to the Unruh Act and the DPA enacted in 1992 and 1996, respectively, accomplished the subject matter expansion that the California Supreme Court had rejected expressly in 1970 and 1990. Plaintiffs' argument is incompatible with the state's statutory scheme as a whole and is unsupported by the legislative history of the amendments.

The California governor signed Assembly Bill 1077 into law in 1992 and signed Senate Bill 1687 in 1996. The stated purpose of Bill 1077 was to "conform state anti-discrimination laws with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act." (Assem. Off. of Research, 3d reading analysis, A.B. 1077 (Cal.1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Jan. 29, 1992.) To achieve that end, the bill proposed amendments to a range of state statutes, including the Unruh Act and FEHA. Bill 1687 was much more limited in purpose, seeking primarily to clarify the state's protections for the use of assistance dogs by disabled persons. (Sen. Off. of Research, 3d reading analysis, S.B. 1687 (Cal.1996 Sess.) as amended Apr. 25, 1996.)

As amended, the Unruh Act incorporated the following statement: "A violation of the right of any individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 shall also constitute a violation of this section." Cal. Civ.Code § 51(f) (citation omitted). Sections 54 and 54.1 of the DPA were amended to include materially identical provisions.⁴ Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of the amendments requires the incorporation of the ADA in its entirety into the Unruh Act and the DPA. Plaintiffs' reading transforms the subject-matter scope of these statutes, drastically broadening their reach from public accommodations to employment discrimination.

In interpreting a state statute, we must determine what meaning the state's highest court would give to the law. Goldman v. Standard Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 1023, 1027 (9th Cir.2003). Thus, we must follow the state's rules of statutory interpretation. Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc. v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 930 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 948, 125 S.Ct. 1694, 161 L.Ed.2d 524 (2005). "As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature's intent so as to effectuate the...