Cloud v. Brennan

Decision Date03 February 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 19-cv-04638-TSH
CitationCloud v. Brennan, 436 F.Supp.3d 1290 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Parties Erica T. CLOUD, Plaintiff, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Laura E. Seidl, Herrera Purdy LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jevechius Doherty Bernardoni, United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 11

THOMAS S. HIXSON, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Erica Cloud, a former employee of the United States Postal Service, claims she was subjected to sexual harassment by managers at the post office where she worked and retaliated against for engaging in certain protected activities. She asserts two causes of action under Title VII: retaliation (Count I) and sexual harassment and sex discrimination (Count II). Pending before the Court is Defendant Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 11. Cloud filed an Opposition (ECF No. 17) and Brennan filed a Reply (ECF No. 18). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the February 6, 2020 hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties' positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Brennan's motion for the following reasons.

II. BACKGROUND

Cloud was employed by the United States Postal Service ("USPS") as a window clerk at the post office located at 201 13th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 (the "Urban Oakland Post Office"). Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1. Yanique Spencer1 was her direct supervisor. The supervision/management team at the Urban Oakland Post Office was as follows: Maximo DePaula and Mr. Mayfield (Acting Managers); Yanique Spencer (Cloud's Direct Supervisor); and Pedro Flores (Customer service Operations). Id. ¶ 13.

Cloud alleges:

The culture in the Oakland Urban Post Office was one where the males in charge sexually harassed and requested sexual favors from the female employees, they "wanted" and the female employees that capitulated gained favor. Because the male supervisors knew they could engage in this sort of behavior without fear of termination—at worst they would simply be transferred to a different location—the sexual harassment was rampant.

Id. ¶ 17. She alleges Mayfield used to ogle her regularly, but he was transferred to a different USPS location after he was the subject of sexual harassment claims brought by other female employees. Id. ¶ 15. Cloud alleges DePaula also engaged in sexual harassment and had complaints lodged against him by female employees, but she refused to reciprocate his inappropriate embraces. Id. ¶ 16. Cloud "refused to accept the advances of her male supervisors, refused to reciprocate unwanted embraces, and [her] husband indicated to a male supervisor that the supervisor should stop staring at [her] breasts and crotch." Id. ¶ 18. As a result, Cloud alleges she was treated differently than other employees and retaliated against. Id.

A. Yanique Spencer

Cloud alleges she "was bullied and harassed by her direct supervisor, Ms. Spenser–who did engage in sexual acts with the upper management–because Ms. Spenser was not properly supervised, even though management knew Ms. Spenser had violent propensities and a history of on-the-job violent altercations with co-workers." Id. ¶ 19. After Cloud was appointed the Shop Steward of the American Postal Workers Union for the Urban Oakland Post Office, Spencer "used her unchecked power to harass and bully" her in retaliation for participation in the Union. Id. ¶ 20. On one occasion, she approached Cloud and her ten-year-old daughter while they were getting ready to leave and said Cloud needed to "leave the building" and that she was "walking her out." Id. ¶ 21. Cloud and her daughter exited the post office and were waiting in the vestibule of the building for their ride, but Spencer screamed that she was to get completely out of the public building. Id. After they exited the building, Spencer "locked the door so Plaintiff and her daughter could not get shelter inside, gave a wicked smile and walked away." Id. That same day, Spencer also deleted Cloud's clock rings so her paycheck would be less she earned. Id.

Cloud also alleges Spencer disregarded medical restrictions that required modified duty while she was healing from an injury to her dominant hand. Id. ¶ 22. Cloud's restrictions, approved by the Postmaster General, placed her on "light duty," meaning she "was not to: lift any object over 5 lbs.; grasp, lift or push objects using her right hand; write or; preform [sic] data entry." Id. ¶ 23. However, Spencer told Cloud "it was her ‘duty’ to preform [sic] her full job functions using her injured hand. When [Cloud] would protest about being required to work outside her medical restrictions, Ms. Spenser would state that she must and yell, ‘that's a direct order!’ " Id. Cloud feared she would be fired unless she performed activities that harmed her right hand, and the "failure to allow the hand to heal properly aggravated a serious and substantial injury to her right hand, causing the the [sic] need for surgery and some level of life-long impairment to her dominant hand, severe emotional distress, severe pain and swelling and economic damages." Id. ¶ 24. The supervisors above Spencer did not prevent this from happening and did nothing to ensure Cloud's medical restrictions were adhered to. Id.

B. General Delivery Window

Cloud was assigned to attend to the general delivery window. Id. ¶ 11. She alleges the "instance of customer outbursts, obvious signs of mental illness and various forms of intoxication among general service postal customers is significantly higher than those customers using other services." Id. Cloud states "there was an ongoing systematic failure to timely attend to the general delivery mail at the Urban Oakland Post Office due to management's failure to ensure this task was attended to properly." Id. ¶ 25. "The general delivery customers were frequently agitated, and many of them were yelling and becoming very angry on a regular basis, especially when they were waiting to receive a check, but told it was not available. This was common knowledge among employees working at the Urban Oakland Post Office." Id. The window did not have protective glass, and Cloud "requested on many processions that she be protected in the same way as all of her other permanent assignment co-workers were protected—by simply allowing her to sit at a window that had protective glass installed." Id. ¶ 26.

Cloud complained to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that she was unsafe, but management "never capitulated to any of her requests and continued their retaliation campaign against [her] for complaining about her lack of personal safety." Id. ¶ 27. Management also refused to assist her with customers that were angry when their mail was not ready to be picked up, although they assisted other employees with customer complaints. Id. ¶ 28. "Management knew that the general delivery customers would often become further enraged when they were informed they could not speak with someone above [Cloud] in the hierarchal structure about the fact their mail was being delayed, was late and would often be delivered in large accumulated piles after days of receiving no mail at all." Id. ¶ 30. Cloud specifically told management that:

(1) Plaintiff received many threats of violence from customers; (2) a customer dropped a dead bird on the counter in front of Plaintiff to intimidate and threaten her; (3) Plaintiff had objects thrown at her; (4) Plaintiff had visibly mentally disturbed people attempt to climb through her window and; (5) angry customers would scream in Plaintiff's face when a manager or supervisor would not come to the window to resolve their complaints.

Id. ¶ 31.

On April 12, 2018, Cloud was assaulted with a deadly weapon by a general delivery customer. Id. ¶ 32. She was badly beaten and pulled out through the general delivery window. Id. As a result, Cloud suffered massive contusions and bruising, a mild concussion, headaches, back pain and neck pain. Id.

C. EEO Activities and Retaliation

On May 30, 2018, Cloud participated in the EEO process by filing paperwork that complained of management's lack of an adequate response toward keeping her physically safe, Spencer's harassment of her and tampering with her time sheets; and being forced to work outside of her medical restrictions. Id. ¶ 34. She also wrote letters to DePaula and Flores regarding her serious concerns for her bodily safety while working at the general delivery window without protective glass. Id. Cloud alleges that DePaula, Flores and Spencer all knew about her participation in the EEO process and that Spencer retaliated by constantly harass her. Id. ¶¶ 35-36. On one occasion while Cloud worked the general delivery window, Spencer "was looming over her, watching her every move and yelling aggressively, ‘it's your job to give people their mail.’ " Id. ¶ 37. When Cloud retreated from the window, Spencer chased her and started pointing her finger at her face. Id. When Cloud pointed back and stated that she was frightened, Spencer shoved her head backwards with her hand and with one move caused her head to fly back and her entire body to hit the floor. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. Once on the ground, Spencer "bit her all over, scratched her face and targeted [her] injured hand. Ms. Spenser pulled of [sic] Plaintiff's wig and kicked her." Id. ¶ 38. Cloud states "Spenser is significantly bigger in stature than Plaintiff, who is petite, thin and was recovering from a serious injury to her dominant hand." Id. ¶ 39. As a result of the attack, Cloud suffered open bite wounds that became infected and required oral antibiotics and injections. Id. ¶ 40. "She has also suffered severe emotional distress...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
25 cases
  • Williams v. Aetna Inc., 1:21-cv-00321-NONE-EPG (PS)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 3, 2021
    ...allege compliance with the mandatory processing rule in order to state a claim on which relief may be granted," Cloud v. Brennan, 436 F. Supp. 3d 1290, 1302 (N.D. Cal. 2020); accord Freeman v. Cty. of Sacramento Dep't of Hum. Assistance, No. 2:19-cv-02418-KJM-CKD (PS), 2020 WL 2539268, at *......
  • Adlerstein v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • September 30, 2020
    ...conduct following the protected activity. Porter v. Cal. Dep't Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 895 (9th Cir. 2005); Cloud v. Brennan, 436 F. Supp. 3d 1290, 1301 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Adetuyi v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ("pattern of ongoing retaliation follow......
  • Tynes v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 28, 2023
    ... ... , 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003); Young ... v. Giant Food Stores, LLC , 108 F.Supp.3d 301, 314 ... (2015); see also Cloud v. Brennan , 436 F.Supp.3d ... 1290, 1300-01 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“When a plaintiff does ... not plead a prima facie case, courts still ... ...
  • Allgaier v. MicroBioLogics, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • April 7, 2023
    ... ... , 324 F.3d 761, ... 765 (4th Cir. 2003); Young v. Giant Food Stores, ... LLC , 108 F.Supp.3d 301, 314 (2015); see also Cloud ... v. Brennan , 436 F.Supp.3d 1290, 1300-01 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ... (“When a plaintiff does not plead a prima facie case, ... ...
  • Get Started for Free