Sankoh v. Hui et al

Filing 62

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 53 Motion for Summary Judgment.(lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

AJATI SANKOH,

Case No. 16-cv-03645-LB

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

ORDER GRANTING THE
DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION

LUCIA HUI, et al.,
Re: ECF No. 53

Defendants.

16
17

INTRODUCTION
This is an employment-discrimination action.1 Ajati Sankoh worked for the Alameda County

18
19

Environmental Health Department.2 He claims that the County and his supervisor Lucia Hui failed

20

to promote him and eventually terminated him based on his race and national origin.3 Ms. Hui and

21

the County move for summary judgment on the ground that the parties settled, and Mr. Sankoh

22

released employment claims in a settlement agreement.4 The court found the matter suitable for

23

determination without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and vacated the July 13, 2017

24
1

25
26

See generally First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) – ECF No. 29. Record citations refer to material in
the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top
of the documents.

2

See id. at 1.

27

3

See id. at 1–3.

28

4

Motion for Summary Judgment – ECF No. 53.

ORDER – No. 16-cv-03645-LB 

1

hearing. The court grants the summary-judgment motion because the parties’ settlement agreement

2

bars Mr. Sankoh’s claims here.

3
4

STATEMENT

5

Mr. Sankoh worked as a Vector Control Officer for the County, which fired him in 2014 —

6

after a year-long investigation — for dishonesty, abuse of his position, and misuse of a County

7

car.5 In brief, Mr. Sankoh used his position to threaten an automobile mechanic to avoid paying

8

the full cost of repairs to his Porsche, used his work car inappropriately (to visit the repair shop),

9

and was a repeat offender.6
In May 2014, the County closed its investigation and informed Mr. Sankoh that his conduct

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

violated Rules 2100 and 2104 of the Rules and Regulations of the Alameda County Civil Service

12

Commission.7 Mr. Sankoh then lodged a complaint alleging the County discriminated against him

13

based on his race when it failed to promote him or reimburse him for training expenses.8 The

14

County investigated Mr. Sankoh’s allegations and concluded that they were not substantiated.9

15

The County held a pre-termination administrative hearing (called a Skelly hearing).10 See Skelly v.

16

State Pers. Bd., 529 P.2d 774 (Cal. 1975). In November 2014, the County fired Mr. Sankoh.11 He

17

then appealed.12
On appeal, the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) scheduled five hearing dates in

18
19

June 2015.13 Mr. Sankoh, who was represented by counsel, filed a statement of defenses that

20
21
5

Chapman Decl. – ECF No. 53-1, Exs. A–E.

6

Id., Exs. A–B.

7

Id., Ex. B.

24

8

Id., Ex. C.

25

9

Id.

22
23

10

Id., Ex. D.

11

Id., Ex. E.

27

12

Liu Decl. – ECF No. 53-2, Ex. F.

28

13

Id., Ex. G.

26

ORDER – No. 16-cv-03645-LB

2 

1

included allegations that he suffered disparate treatment based on his race.14 Before the first

2

hearing commenced, the parties told OAH Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Diane Schneider

3

that they had reached a settlement and asked to continue the hearing approximately two weeks to

4

June 15, 2015.15 The County sent Mr. Sankoh and his counsel a proposed settlement agreement.16

5

Mr. Sankoh’s lawyer then told the County that Mr. Sankoh no longer wanted to settle.17

6

ALJ Schneider set a prehearing conference and mandatory settlement conference.18

7

The parties attended the mandatory settlement conference on June 23, 2015, and settled the

8

case with a settlement agreement dated June 23, 2015.19 OAH ALJ David Benjamin conducted the

9

settlement conference; Mr. Sankoh was represented by counsel at all times.20 The County agreed
to rescind Mr. Sankoh’s termination, pay him seven months of additional salary, and accept his

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

voluntary resignation.21 Mr. Sankoh agreed to resign, withdraw his appeal, withdraw the

12

complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and California

13

Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and release any and all claims against

14

the defendants.22 The full release is as follows:
[Mr. Sankoh] agrees to release, acquit, and forever discharge [the County] and each
of its predecessors, successors, assigns, heirs, principals, attorneys, all of their
officers, boards, commissions, agencies, and County’s employees, agents and
individual Board of Supervisors members, and government entities whether
previously or hereafter affiliated in any manner, individually and collectively, from
any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, damages, costs, loss of
services, expenses or compensation, on account of or in any way growing out of,
any and all known and unknown personal injuries or damages to any property, loss
of civil rights, denial of due process, constitutional claims, economic loss, damage
to reputation, or any other causes of action relating to his employment or the

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
14

Id., Ex. K.

15

Id., Ex. L.

16

Id., Ex. M.

24

17

Liu Decl., ¶ 12.

25

18

Liu Decl., Ex. N.

19

Id., Ex. O.

20

Liu Decl., ¶ 17.

27

21

Id., ¶¶ 14–15.

28

22

Liu Decl., Ex. O, ¶¶ 5–6.

22
23

26

ORDER – No. 16-cv-03645-LB

3 

6

underlying circumstances that prompted the proposed action described in the
September 16, 2014 Intent to Discipline letter referenced above, including but not
limited to any and all claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, the American with Disabilities Act, as amended, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, as amended, the California Constitution, the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, as amended, the California Labor
Code, and any other local, state or federal law or constitution governing
employment or the payment of wages and benefits and any claim for
reimbursement of expenses of any type or kind, except as prohibited by public
policy.23

7

On June 28, 2016, Mr. Sankoh filed this lawsuit claiming the County failed to promote and

8

wrongfully terminated him based on his race and national origin.24 The defendants then moved for

9

summary judgment based on the written settlement agreement and release.

1
2
3
4
5

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GOVERNING LAW

12

The court must grant a motion for summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no

13

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

14

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986). Material

15

facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute about

16

a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for

17

the non-moving party. Id. at 248–49.

18

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the

19

basis for the motion and presenting evidence that demonstrates the absence of a triable issue of

20

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To meet its burden, “the moving

21

party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim

22

or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential

23

element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v.

24

Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).

25
26
27

23

Id., Ex. O, ¶ 6.

28

24

See generally FAC.

ORDER – No. 16-cv-03645-LB

4 

If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to

1
2

produce evidence supporting its claims. Nissan Fire & Marine, 210 F.3d at 1103. The non-moving

3

party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s evidence, but instead

4

must produce admissible evidence that shows there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.

5

at 248–49. If the non-moving party does not produce evidence to show a genuine issue of material

6

fact, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

7
8

ANALYSIS

9

The parties’ settlement agreement — and Mr. Sankoh’s release — bar this lawsuit.
A settlement agreement is binding and enforceable like any other contract. United Commercial

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Callie v. Near, 829

12

F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). To be enforced, a settlement agreement must meet two

13

requirements. First, it must be a “complete agreement.” Callie, 829 F.2d at 890. Second, both

14

parties must have agreed to the terms of the settlement. Id.

15

When evaluating a release of Title VII claims, as distinct from a settlement agreement as a

16

whole, courts consider whether the release was voluntary, deliberate, and informed. See Stroman

17

v. West Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458, 462 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Evans v. Asian American

18

Recovery Services, No. 08-CV-0944-EMC, 2008 WL 5273748, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2008).

19

Courts consider the clarity of the language of the release, the plaintiff’s education and experience,

20

the atmosphere in which the release was executed, and whether the plaintiff had the benefit of

21

legal counsel. Stroman, 884 F.2d at 462.

22

Mr. Sankoh does not challenge the general enforceability of the settlement agreement and

23

instead asserts that he rescinded this agreement.25 He attaches a letter documenting that he wanted

24

to rescind the agreement.26 But he cannot change his mind and thereby rescind the binding and

25

enforceable settlement agreement. See Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir.

26
27

25

Opposition – ECF No. 57 at 5.

28

26

Sankoh Decl. – ECF No. 58, Ex. C.

ORDER – No. 16-cv-03645-LB

5 

1

2002).
Mr. Sankoh also charge his attorne with fail ing to disclose the agreem
h
es
ey
ment’s mate
erial terms

2
3

d
d
reement
and says that he overlooked the “small print” that County counsel “slipped into the agr

4

without discussing it . . . .”27 But he do not dispu that he signed the wri
”
oes
ute
itten agreem or that it
ment

5

reflects the parties’ entire agreement. To the extent that he says that he did not read the agreement
a
T
d
e

6

fully, that does not change the conclusi that it is binding and enforceable See Deser Outdoor
ion
e.
rt

7

Adver. v. Super. Ct., 196 Cal. App. 4th 866, 872 (2011).
C
h
Mr. Sankoh also argues that his atto
h
s
orney and t he settlement judge press
t
sured him to sign the
o

8

agreement and that his execution of it — including its release — was not v
voluntary.28 B the
But

10

settlement was complete, it terms are clear, Mr. S ankoh was represented b counsel, a he
ts
by
and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

acc
cepted the settlement term and signed the agree
ms
ement.29 These are factor that courts consider
rs
s

12

wh evaluating whether a release of employment -discrimination claims is voluntary, deliberate,
hen
e
s

13

and informed. See Stroman 884 F.2d at 462. He d oes not argue — nor doe the record suggest —
n,
a
es
d

14

that he lacked the education or experience to under
rstand the release. See, e
e.g., Evans, 2
2008 WL

15

5273748, at *4. Indeed, he represented himself ca pably in his p
d
papers opposing the Cou
unty

16

defendants’ summary-judg
gment motion In sum, t he settlement agreement is binding a
n.
and

17

enforceable, and its release bars this lawsuit.
e
CONCL USION

18
19

The court grants the de
efendants’ su
ummary-jud gment motion.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
.

21

Dated: July 13, 2017
__ __________
___________
__________
________
L AUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Ju
udge

22
23
24
25
26
27

Sankoh Decl., ¶ 29.

27

28

Id., ¶¶ 30, 37.

28

29

Liu Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. O; Sa
ankoh Decl., ¶¶ 10–11, 4 3.

ORDER – No. 16-cv-03645-LB

6