52 F. Supp. 3d 1006
E.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Mohsin was employed by DWR as an assistant engineering specialist from August 2000 to April 13, 2012.
- He has a long-standing history of epilepsy, with surgery in 2002 that reduced seizures but impaired processing speed.
- Accommodations for Mohsin were added at hire and remained until February 2002, then were removed over his protest.
- DWR sought medical evaluations and issued a Notice of Medical Action on March 12, 2012 regarding his termination.
- Mohsin alleges decades of harassment by Waggoner and wrongful rejection from ~20 DWR positions; Plaintiff sues DWR, Gutierrez, Waggoner, and Doe defendants under multiple federal and state claims, plus tort claims.
- The court granted in part and denied in part themotion to dismiss, addressing 14th Amendment claims, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, FEHA, and state-law claims with various leave-to-amend rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 14th Amendment equal protection/due process claim is viable | Mohsin asserts direct 14th Amendment claims | Defendants contend no direct constitutional claim exists; §1983 provides remedy | Count I dismissed without leave to amend |
| Whether DWR may be sued under Title I of the ADA | ADA against state entities permitted for prospective relief | Eleventh Amendment bars suit for money damages against states; only Ex parte Young relief possible against officials | Count II dismissed with leave to amend |
| Whether Section 504 claim against DWR survives based on the pleadings | Discrimination based on disability; interactive process and accommodations alleged | Plaintiff failed to plead application, adverse actions, and program receiving federal assistance | Count III dismissed with leave to amend |
| Whether §1983 claims against Waggoner and Gutierrez may proceed | Claims against officials under §1983 for Fourteenth Amendment, ADA Title I, and §504 | Eleventh Amendment and lack of individual-capacity pleading; ADA/§504 double-suits barred | Official-capacity ADA/§504 §1983 claims dismissed; individual-capacity claims dismissed with leave to amend; 11th Amendment issues addressed via Ex parte Young |
| Whether FEHA claim (Count V) survives dismissal | Disability discrimination under FEHA | Motion to dismiss for lack of specificity under FRCP 8/10 | Count V survives for now; advised to amend to specify precise FEHA causes and supporting facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Azul-Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1992) (no direct constitutional claim under the U.S. Constitution; remedy via §1983)
- Ward v. Caulk, 650 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1981) (exclusive remedies for constitutional violations under color of state authority; §1983)
- Molina v. Richardson, 578 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1978) (Congressional remedy under §1983 for constitutional violations against states)
- Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1972) (pleading standards; notice pleading sufficiency)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; not merely possible)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (threadbare recitals fail to state a claim; plausibility required)
- Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746 (U.S. 1963) (pleading must provide fair notice of the claim)
- Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1986) (restrictive view on asserting legal conclusions as facts)
- Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1988) (evidence and pleading standards in civil rights context)
- Bodde v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004) (mandatory claim presentation under Government Claims Act; failure fatal)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 41(b) dismissal factors; sanctions context)
- Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (Title I ADA §1983 liability; comprehensive remedial scheme preclusion)
- Okwu v. McKim, 682 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) (no §1983 remedy for Title I ADA claims; rely on Title I remedies)
- Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Resources, 471 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2006) (Ex parte Young applicability to Title I ADA injunctive/declaratory relief)
- Garrett (Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett), 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (Eleventh Amendment; state immunity and remedial schemes)
- State v. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004) (claims-presentment requirement under Government Claims Act)