Dorothy Cole v. Lynwood Unified School Dist.
678 F. App'x 595
9th Cir.2017Background
- Dorothy Cole was employed by Lynwood Unified School District; she alleges termination and denial of promotions due to race, age, disability, and in retaliation for complaints she lodged.
- Adverse actions at issue: termination on February 28, 1999; denial of promotions in February 2009 and June 2010.
- Cole filed claims under California FEHA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (racial discrimination and retaliation), and the Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Lynwood; Cole appealed. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding FEHA and § 1981 discrimination claims untimely and the retaliation and Rehabilitation Act claims meritless or unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of FEHA claims | Cole argues her FEHA claims proceed despite delay | Lynwood argues FEHA requires filing within one year plus 90 days of adverse action | FEHA claims are time-barred (Cole missed the one year + 90 days deadline) |
| Timeliness of § 1981 race claim | Cole contends § 1981 claim is viable for denied promotions | Lynwood contends § 1981 adopts state personal-injury statute of limitations (two years) | § 1981 race claim untimely (not filed within two years) |
| § 1981 retaliation for complaints | Cole says she was denied promotions in retaliation for union and district complaints | Lynwood notes complaints occurred after the promotion denials, severing causation | Retaliation claim fails — no causal link; plaintiff cannot establish prima facie case |
| Rehabilitation Act retaliation / termination | Cole argues termination was discriminatory and retaliatory | Lynwood asserts termination followed applicable California Education Code (legitimate reason) | Claim fails on the merits; Cole offered no evidence that the proffered reason was pretextual |
Key Cases Cited
- Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (federal courts borrow forum state personal-injury limitations period for § 1981 claims)
- Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must show an employer’s proffered legitimate reason is pretextual)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006) (prima facie retaliation requires causal link between protected activity and adverse action)
- Krupnick v. Duke Energy Morro Bay, L.L.C., 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767 (Ct. App. 2004) (California two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions)