Qualls v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
| Decision Date | 03 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:13-CV-00649-LJO-SMS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | LOREN LAMONTE' QUALLS, Plaintiff, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants. |
ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
(Doc. 16)
Before the undersigned is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Doc 16. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the motion be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Loren L. Qualls ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint on May 3, 2013. Doc. 1. This was dismissed through the screening process, as was a First Amended Complaint filed July 31, 2013. The operative pleading is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 7, 2013. Doc. 10. Through the screening process, the Court dismissed the SAC's second claim (for intentional infliction of emotional distress) but otherwise allowed the SAC to be served. Doc. 12.
Screening for failure to state a claim is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that the defendant may choose to bring. Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (S.D. Cal. 2007). On February 24, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Doc 16. Plaintiff filed an (amended) opposition on March 12, 2014. Docs. 22-24. Defendants replied on March 25, 2014. Doc. 25.
The six individual Defendants in the SAC are Mark Yudof, President of the Regents of the University of California; Steve Kang, Chancellor of UC Merced; Sam Traina, Executive Vice-Chancellor of UC Merced; Robert Oschner; and (new to this pleading) Tom Hothem and Anne Zanzucchi. The suit also names the Regents of the University of California, UC Merced, and Does 1-10 inclusive. After screening, the surviving claims in the SAC are:
Plaintiff is an African-American male. SAC at ¶2.1 He started working for the UC Merced School of Humanities in January 2008 as a lecturer for the Merritt Writing Program. ¶12. The terms of his employment were governed by a personal services agreement between himself and the Board of Trustees at UCM; the "Unit 18 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UCM and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)"; the UCM faculty handbook; and "various other written and oral terms and conditions of employment" and applicable state law. Id. In May 2011, Plaintiff learned that he would not be reappointed to his lecturer position. Id. His last day at UC Merced was June 30, 2011. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he has been "continually harassed" because of his race since his first appointment at UC Merced in January 2008. ¶15. Specifically, his broken office window was not repaired for over a year; he was referred to as the "BFA" (Black Faculty Association) and "JZ or names of other black rappers;" he did not receive the same recognition for his work as white facultymembers; and he was denied opportunities given to white faculty members, such as grant support and teaching certain courses. ¶¶15-16. He also contends he was denied proper evaluation and consideration for his fourth year reappointment, pursuant to the Unit 18 Memorandum of Understanding, due to his race and ethnicity. Id.
On or about May 31, 2012, Plaintiff and nine other lecturers (all Caucasian) were advised by their supervisor, Defendant Oschner, that their contracts would not be renewed. ¶¶12-13. Oschner explained that this was due to a $600,000 budgetary shortfall that the Merritt Writing Program was having at the time. Id. When he received this notice, Plaintiff was not offered a transfer to other departments at UCM. ¶14.
Plaintiff contends that there in fact had never been a budgetary problem, and that the true reason for not reappointing him was his race and ethnicity. ¶13. Plaintiff contends that the nine other lecturers were either reappointed as lecturers or were offered other positions at UCM. ¶¶12-13.
On August 27, 2011, Plaintiff emailed Oschner to ask for a "review of the decision not to reappoint him." ¶12. He received no reply. Id. Later, after Plaintiff had filed a claim with the EEOC, Plaintiff learned that UCM was citing his "lack of performance" as the reason for his non-reappointment. Id.
Plaintiff states, however, that this was mere pretext. He was qualified for reappointment and "similarly situated" to the other lecturers. ¶¶12-14. During his employment, Plaintiff "performed his job responsibilities as a Lecturer in an exemplary fashion, received favorable performance reviews ... and otherwise performed each and every condition of employment." ¶12. Specifically, his performance reviews were "rated 3 out of 4, 4 being the highest possible rating." Id. Rather, Oschner "conspired with others in making up a negative performance evaluation,"and the real reason for Plaintiff's non-reappointment (as well as for the decision not to offer him a transfer in May 2012) was because of his race. ¶13-14. Plaintiff adds that the UCM School of Humanities currently has no African-American faculty, and that UCM has a "proportionately small number" of African-American faculty. ¶14.
Oschner was Plaintiff's supervisor at the Merritt Writing Center. SAC ¶12. In addition to informing Plaintiff that he would not be reappointed due to budget cuts, Plaintiff alleges that Oschner lied to him about the budget cuts. SAC ¶¶12-13. Furthermore, Plaintiff avers that Oschner "conspired with others in making up a negative performance evaluation and falsely claiming the MOU was followed in evaluating and considering Plaintiff for reappointment." SAC ¶13.
Qualls accuses Oschner, Hothem, and Zanzucchi of failing to follow the MOU in deciding whether Plaintiff would be reappointed as a lecturer for the Merritt Writing Center, failing to end their harassment of him, and of participating in the harassment. SAC ¶30. He believes Oschner, Hothem, and Zanzucchi conspired to deny him equal protection of the laws by "refusing to abide by the MOU" and "refusing to grant to plaintiff a meaningful remedy for the violation of his rights." SAC ¶39. Plaintiff further contends that Oschner, Hothem, and Zanzucchi have "deprived Plaintiff of his right to make and enforce contracts" and of the benefit of UC Merced Regulations, including the Memorandum of Understanding, because of his race. SAC, ¶44.
Plaintiff claims Oschner, Hothem, and Zanzucchi made false statements about him. SAC ¶34. Specifically, Plaintiff avers that Oschner, Hothem, and Zanzucchi told "fellow workers, colleagues and to whomever they spoke with about Plaintiff," including colleagues and prospective employers, "that [Plaintiff] was unprofessional, incompetent and dishonest, indicating e.g. that without Oschner's knowledge or approval, plaintiff submitted a UC Pacific Rim grant proposal under his name and he had not granted approval for same." ¶34. Plaintiff contends that, after his contract was not renewed, Defendants told his prospective employers and co-workers that he was not reappointed to his position with the Merritt Writing Program because of "poor performance, dishonesty, and insubordination." Id.
The Court takes judicial notice that Yudof was the President of the University of California between 2008 and 2013. Although Yudof is named as a defendant, Plaintiff admits that he is not seeking any damages or declaratory relief from him. SAC ¶4.
Traina is Executive Vice Chancellor at UC Merced. SAC ¶6. According to Plaintiff, he oversees faculty personnel matters. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Yudof and Traina had knowledge of the "wrongs conspired to be done" against him and failed to prevent them, despite having the power to do so. SAC ¶42. Qualls contends they could have ensured he was properly evaluated for reappointment pursuant to the MOU or granted him "some other effective remedy to redress deprivation of his rights." Id.
A F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is either a "lack of a cognizable legal theory" or "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); Graehling v. Village of Lombard, Ill, 58 F.3d 295, 297 (7th Cir. 1995). A F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion "tests the legal sufficiency of a claim." Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
In addressing dismissal, a court must: (1) construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; (2) accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true; and (3) determine whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts to support a claim that would merit relief. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-338 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, a court is not required "to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial