Escalante v. S.F. Cmty. Coll. Dist.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 18-cv-05562-HSG
• Parties: CAROLYN ESCALANTE, Plaintiff, v. SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

CAROLYN ESCALANTE, Plaintiff, v. SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05562-HSG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 30, 2019

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 39

Pending before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint ("FAC"). Dkt. Nos. 32, 39. The Court held a hearing on the motions on May 22, 2019. Dkt. No. 79. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Carolyn Escalante, proceeding pro se, filed her initial complaint against Defendants on September 11, 2018, alleging claims against each individual Defendant in their personal and official capacities. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are associated with either the San Francisco Community College District ("SFCCD Defendants")¹ or the Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 ("SEIU Defendants").² On January 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed heramended complaint, adding Maria M. Lampasona, counsel for the SFCCD Defendants, as a Defendant. Dkt. No. 21 ("FAC").

A. Plaintiff's 2011 Performance Review

The FAC alleges the following facts. Plaintiff began working at SFCCD in or around 1991 as a "4320 Cashier-I" employee. Id. ¶ 21. She was eventually promoted to a "1488 TIA-Evaluation Technician," where she processed certifications for Veterans Educational Benefits. Id. ¶ 22. During her time as a 1488 TIA-Evaluation Technician, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sunny Clark, one of the Associate Deans, purportedly demanded she "illegally bypass the approval process of VA Certifications" to "increase the weekly rate of VA Certifications." Id. ¶ 23. According to Plaintiff, because she refused to do so, Defendant Clark retaliated against her by giving her a poor performance review (called a "Classified Performance Evaluation" or "CPE") in April 2011. Id. ¶ 24. The CPE was allegedly false and "intended to blemish Escalante's character with derogatory and defamatory statements aimed at stagnating Escalante's employment opportunities or being compensated during her career with salary step increase or working out of class pay." Id. ¶ 24.

Plaintiff attempted to amend her performance evaluation by filing a "rebuttal" in 2012. Id. ¶ 25. Four years later in 2016, Plaintiff purportedly filed a request under California's Information Practices Act with SFCCD Defendant Clara Starr (Associate Vice Chancellor) seeking to "Amend, Correct or Sanitize specific parts of the false and derogatory CPE." Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Defendant Starr informed Plaintiff that "there is no language in the SEIU Contract to address such a request." Id. ¶ 26. This matter concluded in February 2018, when Defendant Steven Bruckman (Executive Vice Chancellor and General Counsel) sent Plaintiff a letter declining to amend or correct the CPE. Id. ¶ 29.

B. Plaintiff's Termination from the Airport Center

SFCCD Defendant Joseph A. Guiriba (another Associate Dean) was Plaintiff's supervisor in or around February 2016, when she was working at the "SFCCD Airport Center." Id. ¶¶ 30-31. According to Plaintiff, between July 2016 and August 2017, Defendant Guiriba asked Plaintiff to perform work assignments which required her to lift and stack boxes of paper weighing "approximately 40 or more pounds each," even though he purportedly knew about her medical condition, peripheral neuropathy. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. Peripheral neuropathy causes "permanent weakness, numbness and pain in the hands and feet," making it difficult for Plaintiff to lift objects over 10 pounds. Id. ¶ 22. She developed this condition as a result of her cancer treatments in 2011. Id. Because of Defendant Guiriba's alleged "negligent acts and inappropriate work assignments," Plaintiff contends that her "skin-expander implant ruptured," causing serious injuries, including a serious infection that required her to be hospitalized "or face death if emergency medical treatment and surgery was not performed." Id. ¶ 32. Further, despite his knowledge of her medical condition and her need to attend medical appointments, Defendant Guiriba allegedly required Plaintiff to still have "regular and prompt attendance." Id. ¶¶ 31, 33.

On November 13, 2017, Defendant Guiriba, SFCCD Defendant Elizabeth Coria (Associate Vice Chancellor), Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's brother attended a meeting to discuss termination of Plaintiff's assignment at the airport center due to her attendance record. Id. ¶¶ 34-39. Plaintiff would no longer be assigned to the airport center starting December 4, 2017. Id. The SFCCD Defendants scheduled another meeting for the following week so they could provide Plaintiff with documentation. Id. Following the November 13 meeting, Plaintiff alleges that she sent an email to SEIU Defendants Athena Steff and Karl A. Gamarra (President and Vice President of the City College Chapter, respectively) requesting union representation at the second meeting and all documentation "that would be used against" her. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff claims that union representatives did not attend the meeting, nor did they provide her with documentation. Id. During the second meeting, SFCCD Defendants Guiriba and Coria reiterated that Plaintiff's disciplinary action was because of her absences and tardiness. Id. ¶ 43. Plaintiff was not terminated from SFCCD but instead had diminished job responsibilities. See id. ¶ 52.

Based on these events, in 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and an Unfair Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB"). Id. ¶¶ 45-62. The DFEH and PERB actions were pending as of the date of the FAC. Id. ¶¶ 56-57.

C. Ms. Escalante's Allegations

Although Plaintiff's FAC is difficult to follow at times, it appears that she is alleging the following nine causes of action against all Defendants:

(1) violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") for "adverse work environment and harassment," based on the SFCCD Defendants' alleged fabrication of a "false, derogatory CPE" and alleged discriminatory treatment because of her "age, and medical condition," id. ¶ 76;

(2) retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and FEHA, based on the alleged fabrication and falsification of documents "used to take disciplinary action against Plaintiff," id. ¶ 77;

(3) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, id. ¶ 78;

(4) denial of "reasonable accommodation" for Plaintiff's medical disability, including Defendants' failure to "establish a 'flexible work schedule,'" in violation of FEHA and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), id. ¶ 79;

(5) arbitrary interference and retaliation in violation of FMLA and the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), based on Defendants' alleged fabrication of "false reasons" to "deplete her 480-hour entitlement to 'intermittent leave,'" the "bogus disciplinary proceedings" in which she was denied representation, and all the "policy, practice or procedure[s]" employed as a retaliatory method to "punish" Plaintiff for filing her grievances, id. ¶ 80;

(6) breach of statutory duty in violation of the Information Practices Act ("IPA"), codified in California Civil Code §§ 1798 et seq., based on Defendants' refusal to amend her CPE and disciplinary documents, which were all "fabricated," id. ¶ 81;

(7) breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, premised on Defendants' allegedactions to interfere with Plaintiff's "contractual rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement ('CBA') to file grievances" and Defendants' alleged refusal to "refund all monies illegally extracted from her wages as dues payments," id. ¶¶ 82-83;

(8) Civil RICO violation based on Defendants allegedly conspiring to "use threats of intimidation and employment termination [ ] as a means to force [Plaintiff] against her own free will to pay union dues by illegally extracting monies from her employment wages," id. ¶ 84; and

(9) 1983 claim based on Defendants' "disregard for Escalante's medical disability and medical restrictions" when they assigned her "strenuous work," allegedly constituting cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process, id. ¶¶ 85-86.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages of $18,000,000 plus an additional $5,000,000 per Defendant. Id., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1-2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts "accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless,Courts do not "accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re...