Moreno v. City of Porterville
1:23-cv-00541
| E.D. Cal. | Sep 30, 2024Background
- Ana Isabel Moreno, a former Peace Officer with the City of Porterville, sued the City and Bruce Sokoloff alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, FEHA, and constitutional claims, following alleged sexual harassment and hostile conduct during her employment.
- The core allegations center on Sokoloff making unwelcome advances and creating a hostile work environment after Moreno rebuffed him and began dating another officer.
- Moreno claims Sokoloff retaliated against her through workplace hostility and administrative actions, leading to her constructive resignation in 2022.
- After resigning, Moreno timely filed complaints with the EEOC and California DFEH and received right-to-sue notices.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex Discrimination (Disparate Treatment) | Moreno is a protected class member, qualified, and subject to adverse actions. | No facts allege similarly situated males treated differently or discriminatory circumstances. | Dismissed without leave to amend – not plausibly pled. |
| Sex Discrimination (Hostile Work Environment) | Unwelcome sexual advances by Sokoloff were severe and pervasive. | Alleged conduct is isolated, not sufficiently severe/pervasive to alter employment, nor did it interfere with work. | Dismissed with leave to amend – allegations insufficient. |
| Retaliation (Title VII and FEHA) | Retaliation stemmed from rejecting advances and subsequent workplace actions. | No adverse action or causal connection between protected activity and alleged retaliation. | Dismissed with leave to amend – lack of causal link and adverse action. |
| Monell Liability (City) | City ratified Sokoloff’s actions with full knowledge/approval. | Claims are conclusory, lack facts showing ratification by policymakers. | Dismissed with leave to amend – insufficient facts. |
| Qualified Immunity (Intimate Association) | Dating relationship with Officer Luckey is protected; right is clearly established. | No established law that dating or close friendships are constitutionally protected in this context. | Dismissed with prejudice as to Sokoloff for damages – right not clearly established. |
| CA Constitutional Claim | Section 1 of CA Constitution supports sex discrimination claim. | Article 1, Section 1 does not confer such a private right. | Dismissed without leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability only for official policy or custom; not respondeat superior)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state plausible claim, more than mere possibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard in federal pleadings)
- Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (scope of constitutional protection for intimate association)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (isolated or offhand comments do not amount to hostile work environment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (standard for hostile work environment under Title VII)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity analysis)
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (recognizing hostile work environment claims under Title VII)