Wilson v. City Of Fresno
1:19-cv-01658
E.D. Cal.Sep 8, 2020Background
- Plaintiffs La‑Kebbia Wilson and Charles Smith are current/former City of Fresno employees who sued the City, several supervisors (the "Individual Defendants"), and former supervisor Howard Lacy alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, § 1983 equal‑protection violations, § 1981 claims, FEHA claims, Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower claims, slander, negligence, NIED, and IIED.
- Key factual allegations: Lacy repeatedly made racist remarks (including use of the n‑word), allegedly interfered with Wilson’s assignments/promotions and vehicle/gear maintenance, and spoke disparagingly of Wilson to others; Smith witnessed or heard some remarks and resigned after adverse actions allegedly tied to Lacy.
- Procedural: Plaintiffs filed DFEH charges and city tort claims before suing; defendants moved to dismiss multiple causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court evaluated exhaustion under FEHA, individual and municipal liability for § 1983 and § 1981 claims, whether individuals can be liable under § 1102.5, timeliness of the slander claim, and whether emotional‑distress claims are barred or sufficiently pleaded.
- Disposition highlights: negligence claim dismissed with prejudice; FEHA harassment claims against individuals (including Lacy) dismissed for failure to exhaust; many federal claims dismissed in part for deficient pleading or lack of Monell allegations (some with leave to amend); § 1102.5 individual liability dismissed with prejudice; slander claim against Lacy survives the 12(b)(6) challenge; several NIED/IIED claims dismissed (some with prejudice, most with leave to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of FEHA harassment claims against individual supervisors | Wilson/Smith: DFEH charge and Right‑to‑Sue ("City of Fresno et al.") plus city tort claim gave notice to identify individuals | Defs: Individuals were not named in DFEH charge/body; vague "City supervisors & managers" did not provide notice | Dismissed as to the Individual Defendants and Lacy for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| § 1983 Equal Protection (individual and municipal liability) | Plaintiffs: supervisory actions, pattern of disparate treatment, City policy of inaction caused constitutional deprivation | Defs: Complaint fails to plead personal involvement/causal link for each individual; Monell allegations are conclusory/isolated | Claim survives as to Lacy (personal involvement); dismissed as to other individuals and City for failure to state a Monell/supervisory claim (leave to amend) |
| § 1981 discrimination/hostile work environment/retaliation | Plaintiffs: racial animus in hiring, promotion, terms and conditions; protected complaints led to adverse acts | Defs: Rule 8 and plausibility defects; municipal liability not pled; some argued individuals not liable under § 1981 | § 1981 claims dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 and to state a claim; leave to amend granted |
| Labor Code § 1102.5 retaliation | Plaintiffs: asserted § 1102.5 against City and individual supervisors | Defs: § 1102.5 imposes liability only on employers, not individuals | § 1102.5 claims against individual defendants (and Lacy) dismissed with prejudice |
| Slander (Civil Code § 46) against Lacy | Wilson: Lacy called her derogatory epithets and used the n‑word; statements were defamatory | Lacy: Statute of limitations — statements predate the complaint; also challenged sufficiency | Court denied 12(b)(6) dismissal of slander claim as time‑barred because equitable tolling and discovery issues may apply; slander claim survives |
| Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) | Plaintiffs: emotional harm from discriminatory/retaliatory workplace conduct | Defs: NIED preempted by Workers’ Compensation or is improperly pleaded; many allegations allege intentional, not negligent, conduct | NIED claims dismissed for failure to plead under Rule 8 and to state a claim; some individual NIED claims dismissed with prejudice, others with leave to amend |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) | Plaintiffs: outrageous discriminatory conduct caused severe distress | Defs: Claims insufficiently pleaded and may be preempted as ordinary employment actions | IIED claims dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 and to state a claim; most dismissed with leave to amend, some dismissed with prejudice |
| Negligence claim | Plaintiffs conceded deficiencies | Defs: moved to dismiss | Negligence claim dismissed with prejudice (plaintiffs conceded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply plausibility and non‑conclusory factual pleading requirement)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy, custom, or final‑policy‑maker causation)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for supervisor liability under § 1983)
- Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (causal connection for supervisory liability — setting in motion or knowingly permitting a series of acts)
- Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) (municipal custom liability cannot rest on isolated or sporadic incidents)
- Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) (hostile work environment actionable under § 1981)
- McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (racial epithets are highly offensive and may support hostile work‑environment claims)
- Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2001) (scope of administrative charge limits the scope of a subsequent civil action)