Nkwuo v. Santa Clara County Human Resources, 5:16-cv-06741

Plaintiff John Nkwuo, proceeding pro se, applied in June–July 2014 for three Santa Clara County jobs (Electrician, Engineering Assistant, Enterprise IT Business Specialist) and was not interviewed or hired.
He filed an EEOC charge, received a Right to Sue letter, and sued alleging race and national-origin discrimination (Title VII), age discrimination (ADEA), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Defendants (the County and six individually named employees) previously moved to dismiss; the court granted dismissal with leave to amend and identified specific pleading defects.
The First Amended Complaint (FAC) repeated conclusory assertions of qualification and discrimination but omitted EEOC documents and added no factual allegations tying individual defendants to misconduct.
Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC; plaintiff did not oppose. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action without leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Individual liability of named employees	The individuals were responsible for discriminatory hiring (caption lists them)	Complaint contains no factual allegations about individual conduct	Court dismissed all claims against individual defendants for failure to plead any conduct by them
Sufficiency of discrimination claims (race, national origin, age)	Nkwuo alleges he was qualified and rejected because of race, national origin, and age	County showed position qualifications (via EEOC response); FAC fails to allege he met those specific qualifications or plausible facts raising inference of discrimination	Court dismissed claims for failure to plead facts showing he was qualified or that discrimination plausibly occurred
Use/consideration of EEOC filings and incorporated documents	Nkwuo relied on EEOC process but omitted qualification documents from FAC	Defendants and court may consider EEOC charge and County response by judicial notice or incorporation; those documents suggest plaintiff lacked required qualifications	Court considered those records and found FAC’s conclusory allegations insufficient
IIED claim against the County	Plaintiff alleges outrageous conduct causing emotional distress	County argued IIED unsupported by facts and county cannot be sued on common-law claims without statutory basis	Court dismissed IIED: no outrageousness pleaded and common-law claim against county requires statutory basis

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content permitting plausible inference of liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2011) (accept well-pled factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (incorporation-by-reference doctrine permits consideration of referenced documents)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors governing leave to amend)
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (application of Foman factors)