57 Cal.App.5th 1012
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Villafana and Laury) challenged San Diego County’s Project 100% (P100), which requires in-person, unannounced home visits by peace officers for all CalWORKs applicants before aid is granted. If applicants are not home or refuse the visit, applications can be denied.
- FAC alleged home visits cause stigma, stress, anxiety, constrain job/medical/school activities, and treat applicants like suspected criminals; alleged inspections can include closets and personal effects.
- FAC pleaded demographic statistics showing CalWORKs recipients are disproportionately Hispanic, Black, and female relative to the county population, and alleged P100 therefore discriminates against protected classes in violation of Gov. Code § 11135.
- County demurred arguing plaintiffs failed to plead a disparate impact on the group to which the policy applies and lacked standing; trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding plaintiffs did not allege a significantly harsher burden on protected subgroups of CalWORKs applicants and used the wrong comparison population for a disparate impact claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAC states a disparate-impact claim under Gov. Code § 11135 | P100’s unannounced home visits cause stigmatic/psychological harms that disproportionately affect protected groups (because these groups make up a larger share of CalWORKs recipients than the county) | The neutral practice injures all applicants equally; plaintiffs must show protected subgroups within the affected applicant pool suffer a significantly harsher burden | No – FAC fails to allege a disparate impact on the group to which the policy applies; claim fails as pleaded |
| Proper comparator for disparate-impact analysis | Compare harmed CalWORKs applicants to the county general population (because welfare affects society broadly) | Compare protected subgroup share among those actually subject to the policy (CalWORKs applicants/recipients) | Use the population to which the policy applies (CalWORKs applicants); county general population is the wrong base |
| Whether a facially neutral policy can itself be the adverse impact | P100’s conduct (home visits) is the stigmatic/adverse impact | Neutral practice cannot be both the challenged policy and the adverse impact for disparate-impact pleading | Court agrees with County: policy applied equally to all applicants so plaintiffs cannot show disproportionate harm among protected subgroups |
| Leave to amend after demurrer sustained | Plaintiffs could amend to allege subgroup disparities or different comparator | County argued amendment would be futile because all applicants are equally affected | Denial of leave to amend not an abuse of discretion because FAC admits all applicants suffer the same dignitary harms |
Key Cases Cited
- Stearn v. County of San Bernardino, 170 Cal.App.4th 434 (2009) (standard of appellate review on dismissal after demurrer)
- Curcini v. County of Alameda, 164 Cal.App.4th 629 (2008) (evaluating whether complaint states a cause of action)
- Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962 (1992) (pleading facts are admitted on demurrer)
- Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 19 Cal.4th 26 (1998) (reasonable interpretation of complaint as a whole)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (2002) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend)
- Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Comm’n, 636 F.3d 511 (9th Cir. 2011) (disparate-impact framework and need for appropriate comparator)
- Committee Concerning Community Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2009) (must plead neutral policy causing disproportionate harm)
- County Inmate Telephone Service Cases, 48 Cal.App.5th 354 (2020) (compare impact on population to whom policy applies)
- Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977) (context on housing-based disparate-impact comparisons)
- Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) (proper comparator in employment/disparate-impact analyses)
- Sanchez v. County of San Diego, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2006) (prior Ninth Circuit decision upholding P100 against Fourth Amendment/constitutional challenges)