Schiff v. City and County of San Francisco
816 F. Supp. 2d 798
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Schiff, a white SFPD sergeant with over 25 years on the force, was not promoted to Lieutenant from the 2005 eligible list before it expired.
- The 2005 Lieutenant exam used Rule of Five Scores initially, then banding (a 129-point band) for later promotions; secondary criteria included non-merit factors prohibited by CSC rules.
- Schiff settled Schiff I (1999–2006 claims) in March 2006, releasing all claims up to that date in exchange for monetary compensation.
- Chief Heather Fong promoted officers from the 2005 list in 2006, 2008, and 2008; Schiff was not among those promoted in January 2008 or October 2008.
- In September 2008, Schiff faced a stay-away order issued by Deputy Chief Cashman after a threat to a community member linked to Schiff’s social circle; Schiff did not immediately report the threat per policy.
- Schiff alleged the City discriminated against whites and retaliated for prior complaints, asserting Monell liability and various federal/state claims; the court granted summary judgment for the City on all remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell liability viability | City policy/custom caused discrimination | CSC policy and custom not shown; City not final policymaker | Monell liability defeated; no city policy or final policymaker authority shown |
| Discrimination claim under §1981/Title VII/FEHA | Banding and certification rule discriminated against Schiff | No direct/indirect evidence of race-based discrimination; legitimate reasons shown | discrimination claims fail; no pretext shown |
| Retaliation claim | Promotions denied due to protected activity and settlement in Schiff I | Timing too distant; other non-retaliatory reasons | Retaliation claim fails; no causal link established |
| Stay-away order as adverse action | Order was discriminatory and retaliatory | Order served safety needs; not an adverse employment action | Stay-away order not an adverse employment action; no causal link shown |
| Schiff's motion on banding/pretext | Banding is race-norming and pretextual | No admissible evidence banding was discriminatory; evidence supports legitimate reasons | Schiff's banding/pretext arguments rejected; summary judgment for Defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or widespread custom causing deprivation)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (final policymaker requires official authority to set policy)
- McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1997) (state-law final policymaker analysis for municipalities)
- Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) (state-law final policymaker framework in §1983 cases)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1988) (delegation of policymaking authority must be careful; not mere discretion)
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 979 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1992) (consent decree banding context and its relevance to discrimination challenges)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden-shifting framework for Title VII discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext framework; ultimate burden on plaintiff to show pretext)
- Chuang v. Univ. of California, Davis, 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (evidence sufficiency for pretext showing in retaliation claims)
- Surrell v. California Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (Title VII/Kellogg framework for discrimination cases)