Sosa v. Hiraoka
| Decision Date | 06 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-15752,88-15752 |
| Parties | 54 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 892, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,409, 64 Ed. Law Rep. 696 Luis Roberto SOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry HIRAOKA, Dorothy Smith, Warren Kessler, John Burke, Patrick Patterson, William Smith, Leslie Thonesen and Ron Manfredi, individually and as members of the Board of Trustees of Defendant State Center Community College District, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Carolyn D. Phillips, Milrod & Phillips, Fresno, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph P. Zampi, San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Before CHOY, TANG and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Professor Luis Roberto Sosa sued his employer, State Center Community College District, its trustees (Harry Hiraoka, et al.), and five college administrators (Clyde McCully, Arthur Ellish, Gerald Stokle, William Stewart, and Ernest Leach) for discriminating against him in the terms and conditions of his employment because of his national origin, Mexican-American. Sosa alleged violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a). The district court dismissed Sosa's complaint and entered judgment for the defendants. On appeal, we reverse.
Sosa alleged the following facts in his First Amended Complaint:
In 1979, Fresno City College, a unit of defendant State Center Community College District, ("District"), hired Dr. Sosa as an instructor of Sociology and Human Services. Sosa achieved tenure in 1979. Also in 1979, Sosa served as spokesperson for "La Raza Faculty" of Fresno City College, appearing before the District's Board of Trustees to respond to defendant trustee Hiraoka's remarks that Hispanic students are "incapable of learning" and that programs for Hispanic students were a waste. In 1982, Sosa again appeared before the Board of Trustees to protest the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the faculty and administration of the District's colleges.
In April of 1984, defendants Arthur Ellish, Dean of Instruction, and Clyde McCully, then President of the College, denied Sosa's request for leave and expenses to attend an academic conference. The denial was unprecedented in the District. In June of 1984, Dean Ellish, President McCully, and defendant Gerald Stokle, Associate Dean of the Social Sciences Division, instituted an "augmented evaluation" of Sosa requiring a burdensome series of meetings and written performance evaluations to be completed in 1985. Associate Dean Stokle, Dean Ellish, and President McCully stated that "negative" student evaluations of Sosa justified the unusual evaluation process, though Sosa's student evaluations were 99.2% favorable.
In April 1985, Sosa's colleagues in the Fresno City College Department of Sociology/Human Services/Women's Studies nominated Sosa as their first choice for Department Chair. In August 1985 In December 1985, without the assistance of counsel, Sosa filed a charge of discrimination on the basis of national origin with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). He named the defendant District as respondent.
Sosa learned that Dean Ellish and President McCully had vetoed Sosa's promotion, naming the Department's second choice, a white male, as chair.
In March of 1986, Sosa's Department colleagues again nominated him for Chair. Associate Dean Stokle recommended against Sosa's promotion, and Dean Ellish agreed. A few months later, Sosa's colleagues nominated him as Chair a third time. Dean Ellish again vetoed the promotion.
In November 1986, after investigating Sosa's discrimination charge, the EEOC issued a "Reasonable Cause Determination" that the District's "augmented evaluation" of Sosa and its denial of Sosa's promotion to Department Chair violated Title VII.
Also in November of 1986, Sosa discovered that his salary was lower than his experience justified under applicable District salary schedules, and had been since the District hired him. Sosa repeatedly notified the District's administration about the discrepancy, but obtained no relief.
In May of 1987, after conciliation efforts had failed, the EEOC issued Sosa a "right to sue" letter. On August 17, 1987, Sosa filed a complaint in federal district court alleging civil rights violations.
In the fall of 1987, Dean Ellish and Associate Dean Stokle solicited six negative statements from Sosa's students about his teaching. Dean Ellish then recommended discipline of Sosa to defendant Ernest Leach, the new College President. President Leach made the same recommendation to defendant William Stewart, Chancellor of the District, who submitted the recommendation to the District's Board of Trustees. On December 1, 1987, the Board issued Sosa a "formal notice of unprofessional conduct" based on the six student statements.
In February 1988, Sosa's colleagues nominated him for the fourth time for Department Chair. Associate Dean Stokle again recommended against Sosa's promotion to chair.
On August 23, 1988, Sosa filed his First Amended Complaint which added allegations of the District's administrators', and trustees' discriminatory conduct against Sosa occurring after Sosa had filed his EEOC charge and first complaint. The First Amended Complaint also alleged two legal grounds for relief: Count One alleged denial of equal employment and promotional opportunities in a continuing violation of Sosa's Title VII rights; Count Two alleged violation of Sosa's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. Defendant District, administrators, and trustees responded with a motion to dismiss or to strike Sosa's First Amended Complaint.
On November 9, 1988, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. See Sosa v. Hiraoka, 714 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Cal.1988). The district court held that the statute of limitations deprived it of jurisdiction over Sosa's Sec. 1981 count. Sosa does not appeal the final judgment against him on the Sec. 1981 count. The district court also dismissed the Title VII count, holding that: (1) the statute of limitations, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(e), deprives the court of jurisdiction over certain claims of discrimination occurring prior to Sosa's filing of his EEOC charge; (2) Sosa had not alleged a continuing violation of Title VII sufficient to preserve such claims from the statute of limitations; (3) Sosa's failure to include certain claims in his EEOC charge occurring before and after the filing of his charge deprives the court of jurisdiction over those claims; (4) Sosa's failure to name any defendants except the District in his EEOC charge deprives the court of jurisdiction over those individual defendants; (5) Sosa failed to state a claim for relief by failing to plead with specificity the grounds for
liability of each named defendant; and (6) the principle of sovereign immunity for governmental entities and officials precludes Sosa's action. The district court's dismissal disposed of the case, so its judgment was final and appealable. See Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169, 1171 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984).
We review dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3217, 110 L.Ed.2d 664 (1990). When reviewing dismissal of a complaint, we accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United States, 871 F.2d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir.1989). Dismissal of a complaint is improper "unless 'it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Id. (quoting Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1986)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054, 107 S.Ct. 928, 93 L.Ed.2d 979 (1987). Moreover, we review issues of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. United States v. Layton, 855 F.2d 1388, 1394 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1046, 109 S.Ct. 1178, 103 L.Ed.2d 244 (1989).
Title VII provides that claimants such as Sosa must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of an act of discrimination. 1 The 180-day limit serves as a judicial statute of limitations as well, generally barring subsequent suit on discriminatory incidents occurring prior to the 180-day period. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 1132, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982). In this case, Sosa learned that Dean Ellish and President McCully had first denied him promotion to Department Chair on or about August 15, 1985, well within 180 days of his filing with the EEOC on December 15, 1985.
Sosa alleged two other acts of discrimination in his First Amended Complaint, however, occurring before the 180-day limit; first, the denial of leave and travel expenses for attendance at an academic conference in April 1984; and second, the "augmented evaluation" process, initiated in June of 1984 and completed in May of 1985. The district court held that the statute of limitations bars these earlier allegations. We disagree.
Allegations of conduct occurring prior to the 180-day period are actionable if Sosa can show that they are part of a "continuing violation" of Sosa's Title VII rights. Under the continuing violation doctrine, "a systematic policy of discrimination is actionable even if some or all of the events evidencing its inception occurred prior to the limitations period." Williams v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 665 F.2d 918, 924 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 971, 103 S.Ct. 302, 74 L.Ed.2d 283 (1982). We apply the continuing violation doctrine because "the continuing system of discrimination operates against the employee and violates his or her rights up to a point in time that falls within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamble v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.
...only they had an opportunity to respond to the charges during the EEOC's investigation and conciliation efforts. Sosa v. Hiraoka , 920 F.2d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1990). However, several exceptions exists allowing a Title VII claim to be brought against parties not named in the administrative......
-
Shepard v. City of Portland
...incidents were part of an ongoing pattern of discrimination, which continued into the applicable limitations period. Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir.1990). The Supreme Court, however, has limited the application of the continuing harm doctrine. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, 122 S.C......
-
Mora v. Chem-Tronics, Inc., 97cv0851-J (JFS).
...district court must dismiss these claims to allow the DFEHA an opportunity to pursue them first. Id. at 730; see also Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir.1990) ("In short, the jurisdiction for Sosa's court action is not limited to the actual EEOC investigation, but can include the......
-
Goodman v. Boeing Co.
...is time-barred." (Citations omitted). Id., citing Malhotra v. Cotter & Co., 885 F.2d 1305, 1310 (7th Cir.1989), and Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir.1990) (conduct alleged by professor occurring prior to 180-day period was actionable because it was part of a continuing violatio......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...could maintain derivative claims in her judicial complaint but was precluded from asserting a racial harassment claim); Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1456-58 (9th Cir. 1990) (reversing the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as time-barred and observing that allegations in a ......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act : Procedures and Remedies
...could maintain derivative claims in her judicial complaint but was precluded from asserting a racial harassment claim); Sosa v. Hiraoka , 920 F.2d 1451, 1456-58 (9th Cir. 1990) (reversing the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as time-barred and observing that allegations in a......
-
Table of cases
...1st Dist. 1991), review granted by 822 P.2d 1327 (Cal. 1992), review dism’d , 862 P.2d 148 (Cal. 1993), §28:5.C.2.a Sosa v. Hiraoka , 920 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1990), §18:7.D Soto v. El Paso Natural Gas Co ., 942 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, pet. denied), §§20:4.A.5.b, 20:4.A.6.b, 41:7......
-
Table of cases
...1st Dist. 1991), review granted by 822 P.2d 1327 (Cal. 1992), review dism’d , 862 P.2d 148 (Cal. 1993), §28:5.C.2.a Sosa v. Hiraoka , 920 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1990), §18:7.D Soto v. El Paso Natural Gas Co ., 942 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, pet. denied), §§20:4.A.5.b, 20:4.A.6.b, 41:7......