Guerrero v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

• Decision Date: 21 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. C 13–05671 WHA,C 13–05671 WHA
• Citation: 119 F.Supp.3d 1065
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Victor Guerrero, Plaintiff, v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ; State Personnel Board ; et al., Defendants.

119 F.Supp.3d 1065

Victor Guerrero, Plaintiff,

v.California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ; State Personnel Board ; et al., Defendants.

No. C 13–05671 WHA

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed July 21, 2015

Christopher Ho, Marsha Jade Chien, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Fiel Dizon Tigno, Attorney General for the State of California, Miguel Angel Neri, Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, Christopher Michael Young, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Dorothy Irene Bacskai Egel, California State Personnel Board, Alvin Gittisriboongul, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

William Alsup, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

In this Title VII and equal protection challenge, a Latino applicant seeks relief after being twice denied employment as a corrections officer. This order includes the findings of fact and conclusions of law following a six-day bench trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Victor Guerrero, who is Latino, was born in Mexico and brought to the United States by his parents in 1990 at age eleven. In 1995, at age fifteen, Guerrero began using an invalid social security number, a made-up number, to obtain employment. Guerrero continued to use the invalid SSN until 2007, when he became a permanent resident and obtained a valid SSN. Guerrero obtained United States citizenship in 2011.

In August 2011, after becoming a citizen, Guerrero applied to become a corrections officer at the California Department of Corrections. After passing CDCR's written and physical examinations, CDCR placed him on its eligibility list. The next step included completing CDCR's background investigation questionnaire. Question 75 asked: "Have you ever had or used a social security number other than the one you used on this questionnaire?" Guerrero answered "Yes" and wrote in an explanation.

Several months later, CDCR informed Guerrero that he had been removed from the eligibility list due to his previous use of an invalid SSN. Guerrero appealed CDCR's decision to the California State Personnel Board, which affirmed.

Guerrero reapplied to be a CDCR corrections officer in 2013. After again answering "Yes" to Question 75, and again explaining, CDCR again withheld him from the eligibility list. Guerrero again appealed to SPB. That appeal remains pending.

In December 2013, after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, plaintiff commenced this individual action in federal court and eventually filed a first amended complaint in January 2014. (This is not and has never been a class action.)

In February 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss, later withdrawn in light of a second amended complaint alleging federal claims under Title VII, equal protection and due process claims under Section 1983, as well as several state law claims, including a petition for a writ of mandate. That pleading sought injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit against CDCR and SPB (Dkt. Nos. 1, 24, 25).

In March 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. A May 2014 order dismissed without prejudice Guerrero's state-law claims (including his petition for a writ of mandate without prejudice to re-filing in state court) under the Eleventh Amendment. The order granted in part and denied in part the remainder of defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's equal protection and substantive due process claims were also dismissed (the equal protection claim was later revived). In dismissing these claims, the order found plaintiff's equal protection allegation insufficient to meet the Iqbal pleading standard and stated that plaintiff's substantive due process claim would be "better adjudicated under the equal protection analysis." In denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss, the May 2014 order held that plaintiff's procedural due process and Title VII claims needed a more complete record and that discovery would proceed. The order, however, dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claim against SPB (Dkt. Nos. 35, 38, 52).

In July 2014, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's remaining claims. An order then denied without prejudice plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to allow both sides the benefit of discovery. After a hearing on defendants' motions for summary judgment on September 30, 2014, an order found that both sides would benefit from further development of the record (Dkt. Nos. 79, 104).

In October 2014, an order granted plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which alleged procedural due process, equal protection, and Title VII violations against CDCR and SPB. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit. Guerrero sought the equitable remedies of back pay and front pay. Fact discovery closed in January 2015. Guerrero's writ remains pending in state court but has been stayed until his federal claims are resolved (Dkt. Nos. 117, 154, 156).

In March 2015, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After a hearing in April 2015, an order dismissed the procedural due process claim and denied all other motions, leaving the Title VII and equal protection claims for trial against both CDCR and SPB.

After a final pretrial conference, an omnibus order limited the experts' direct testimony to the opinions expressed in their FRCP 26 expert disclosures, but allowed testimony outside those disclosures if raised during cross examination. The order set out trial rulings on a number of other motions.

A bench trial began on June 15, 2015. In advance of this date and to accommodate a witness, the Court, however, heard testimony from that witness on June 9, 2015. After a six-day bench trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Rather than merely vet each and every finding and conclusion proposed by the parties, this order has navigated its own course through the evidence and arguments, although many of the proposals have found their way into this order. Any proposal that has been expressly agreed to by the opposing side at least in part, however, shall be deemed adopted (to the extent agreed on), even if not expressly adopted herein. It is unnecessary for this order to cite to the record for all the findings herein. Citations will only be provided as to particulars that may assist the court of appeals. All declarative statements herein are factual findings.

FINDINGS OF FACT

VICTOR GUERRERO

1. Plaintiff Victor Guerrero was brought to the United States in 1990 by his parents, who were lawful permanent residents, at age eleven. He attended William C. Overfelt High School in San Jose, but did not graduate.

2. Since 1986, federal law has required employers to hire only documented workers and a social security number is commonly used as such proof. Guerrero began working at age fifteen in 1995. In order to work, Guerrero, with the help of an acquaintance and at the urging of his parents, invented an invalid social security number, i.e., one not actually issued by the Social Security Administration. The invented number eventually got issued to someone else in 2004.

3. In 1997, at age seventeen, Guerrero applied to adjust his immigration status, in part so he could receive a validly issued SSN. This application languished until, via his later marriage, Guerrero secured legal status in 2007. While his application remained unaddressed, Guerrero continued to use his invalid SSN to keep employment.

4. Also in 1997, Guerrero applied to the Internal Revenue Service to receive an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. An ITIN is a number issued by the IRS, upon request, to individuals who, like Guerrero, are employed, but do not have valid SSNs, so that they can pay their federal taxes. The IRS issued Guerrero an ITIN in 1997. Guerrero began paying federal taxes with his legitimate ITIN in 1998 and continued doing so until 2007, when he received his own valid SSN.

5. Also in 1997, while working in Colorado, Guerrero suffered an injury on a job and applied for workers' compensation benefits. In completing the application form, Guerrero consistently used the same SSN he had used with the employer in question, namely the invalid SSN.

6. In 2004, at age 25, Guerrero married. At that time, Guerrero's wife, Nayeli Ramirez, had already obtained legal permanent residency in the United States. In 2006, Guerrero's wife became a United States citizen. She then filed an "immediate relative" visa petition on Guerrero's behalf.

7. In 2005, at age 28, Guerrero earned his General Education Development certificate. He then pursued a degree in criminal justice at San Joaquin Delta College, but so far has not earned that degree.

8. In 2007, Guerrero became a lawful permanent resident and received his own valid SSN. Shortly thereafter, Guerrero amended his 2004 and 2005 tax returns, such that the income earned during those years became associated with his new, valid SSN. The amendments also allowed Guerrero to claim and to obtain earned-income and child tax credits.

9. In short, from 1997 (when Guerrero first applied for legal status), until 2007 (when he obtained legal status), Guerrero did everything he reasonably could have done to navigate the immigration system and obtain legal residence. The ten-year hiatus from his first application to when he finally obtained legal status (and a valid SSN) resulted from an administrative backlog, not from any failing by Guerrero.

10. In February 2011, Guerrero became a United States citizen.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

11. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation operates the state prison system, including supervision of approximately 168,000 adult and 1,400 juvenile offenders. CDCR hires and employs corrections officers, all of whom must be...