Adetuyi v. City of San Francisco, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1073

Adetuyi, Black, employed by City since 2005 as 2908 Eligibility Worker/Financial Counselor.
In 2007 he sued City for harassment/retaliation; City prevailed at trial but appellate ruling affirmed later.
2011: City promoted five from an eligibility list; Adetuyi ranked top but not chosen for permanent acting supervisor.
June 2012: Dietrich retirement; Batres, Hispanic, appointed acting supervisor from the same eligible list that had expired.
Guevara approved Batres’ promotion; Adetuyi alleges list manipulation to prevent his promotion and cites preexisting litigation.
September 2013: Adetuyi filed federal FEHA/Title VII claims; City moved for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion/administrative remedies applicable	Adetuyi entitled to by EEOC/DFEH process; right-to-sue letter not required if state letter issued.	Exhaustion required; EEOC right-to-sue must precede suit unless cured.	FEHA/Title VII exhaustion and right-to-sue issues resolved in plaintiff’s favor on FEHA;
Discrimination under Title VII	Top rank on list and alleged list expiration denied promotion; disparate treatment shows pretext.	No denial; Batres more qualified; list expired; no adverse action or pretext established.	No Title VII discrimination; legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons upheld; no pretext.
Retaliation under Title VII	Long trail of retaliatory acts after 2007 suit; failure to promote shows causal link.	No adverse action; Batres’s appointment based on qualification; insufficient causation.	No Title VII retaliation; reasons not pretextual; summary judgment for City affirmed.
FEHA discrimination/retaliation and failure to prevent	FEHA mirrors Title VII; claims should proceed; City’s conduct actionable.	FEHA claims fail for the same reasons as Title VII; prevention claim hinges on discrimination.	FEHA discrimination/retaliation claims dismissed; failure-to-prevent claims dismissed as derivative.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden shifting)
Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (pretext framework in discrimination cases)
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (causation via proximity and pattern of antagonism)
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity as causation indicator)
Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (causation and retaliation context framework)
Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1996) (causation timing considerations in retaliation)