United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NOS. 14, 19, 21
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Henry Dillihant III ("Plaintiff") makes various
civil claims against Defendants Contra Costa County (the
"County") and the Center for Human Development
arising out of his employment termination. Now pending before
the Court is the County's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's FAC. (Dkt. No. 14.) The County seeks
dismissal of four of Plaintiff's causes of actions with
prejudice, arguing that they cannot be rectified by adding
additional allegations. Having considered the parties'
written submissions, and, having had the benefit of oral
argument on June 30, 2016, the Court GRANTS the County's
Motion, but with leave to amend except for the "Paid
Family Leave" claim which is dismissed with
prejudice.[1]
FACTUAL
& PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.
Complaint Allegations
Plaintiff
is a resident of Contra Costa County and was jointly employed
by the Center for Human Development and the
County.[2] (FAC ¶¶ 3, 6.) Plaintiff was
employed for approximately six months, from on or around July
2014 to on or around January 2015. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff worked as an independent contractor for the County
as a health conductor for the County's Health Services
Department. (Id.) The County is a public entity.
(Id. ¶ 5.)
Throughout
his employment, Plaintiff's direct supervisor, Ms.
Mashama, repeatedly made inappropriate and discriminatory
comments to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 8.) Ms.
Mashama's comments referenced her concerns that Plaintiff
would possibly make mistakes, disappear, or fail because of
his race and gender. (Id.) Plaintiff and his wife
were expecting a child in February 2015; after his wife
experienced some complications he requested time off.
(Id. ¶ 9.) Both the County and the Center for
Human Development denied his request for leave.
(Id.) When Plaintiff nonetheless took time off to
assist his wife, the County marked him absent without
official leave. (Id.) After his child was born, he
again requested time off, but this request was also denied
and met with hostility. (Id. ¶ 10.) Further,
both the County and the Center for Human Development gave
Plaintiff false information regarding his right to take time
off. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was
terminated by the County and the Center for Human
Development. (Id. ¶ 12).
On his
final day with the County, Plaintiff was "accosted"
by the County's deputies and "paraded through the
halls in open view . . . with his hands behind his back as if
he were under arrest." (Id. ¶ 13.) The
County deputies searched both his person and possessions
without a warrant or his permission and treated Plaintiff in
a hostile manner, with their weapons drawn or in plain sight,
making it known to Plaintiff that he was not free to leave.
(Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) While he was "under
arrest, " the County deputies searched his vehicle and,
in doing so, they caused extensive damage to it and the
property inside. (Id. ¶ 15.) Specifically, the
County deputies poured laundry detergent over Plaintiff's
belongings inside the vehicle, including his bible, which
deeply offended him as he is a pastor. (Id.)
Plaintiff incurred a substantial car repair bill because of
the County deputies' actions. (Id.) The County
seized Plaintiff's personal property from his desk and
vehicle and refused to return it. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Additionally, the Center for Human Development refused to
give Plaintiff a reason for his termination or access to his
personnel file, although Plaintiff believes that it was based
on his request for time off and for seeking information on
taking leave. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 21.)
II.
Procedural Background
Plaintiff
exhausted his administrative remedies with the Department of
Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") prior to
filing this action against the County and the Center for
Human Development. (Dkt. No. 1; FAC ¶ 19.) After this
action was filed, Plaintiff amended his DFEH complaint to
state a claim for associational discrimination, and
thereafter filed the now operative FAC. (FAC ¶
19.)
Plaintiff
brings eight causes of action in the FAC: (1) violations of
the Unemployment Insurance Code § 1237 and Labor Code
§ 98.6 against both Defendants for
discrimination/retaliation of Paid Family Leave; (2)
discrimination based on race and gender in violation of the
Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") against
both Defendants; (3) discrimination based on disability in
violation of FEHA against both Defendants; (4) wrongful
termination in violation of public policy against the Center
for Human Development; (5) violation of California Labor Code
§ 1198.5 against the Center for Human Development; (6)
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County (for
civil rights violations by the County deputies); (7)
intentional infliction of emotional distress
("IIED") against both Defendants; and (8)
conversion against the County. Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive relief.
The
County now moves the Court to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Center for Human Development
answered the FAC and did not move to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 15.)
DISCUSSION
The
County moves to dismiss four of the six causes of action
Plaintiff alleges against it; that is, all but the race,
gender, and disability discrimination claims. The County
contends that Plaintiff's first cause of action for
discrimination/retaliation for "paid family leave"
fails to state a claim for relief because Plaintiff does not
qualify as an employee under either the federal Family and
Medical Leave Act or California's Family Rights Act. The
County next insists that Plaintiff has not adequately pled
Monell liability in the sixth cause of action.
Finally, the County urges that Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim for either IIED in his seventh cause of action
because he does not allege facts demonstrating "extreme
and outrageous conduct" or for conversion in his eighth
cause of action because the FAC does not allege facts to show
that Plaintiff owned, or had a right to possess, any
particular item of personal property.
A.
Plaintiff's Discrimination and Retaliation in "Paid
...