Taylor v. Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department et al

Filing 26

ORDER screening 24 Amended Complaint filed by Sharon E. Taylor; Directing Defendants to Respond by 2/16/2017. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/23/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHARON E. TAYLOR, Case No. 16-cv-03738-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 ORDER SCREENING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND v. 9 10 11 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 Pro se Plaintiff Sharon Taylor (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See 14 FAC, Dkt. No. 24. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (see Dkt. No. 7), the Court 15 screens the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff explains the FAC asserts claims 16 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “for discrimination based upon disability, 17 harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation.” FAC at 1; see also id. at 6-7 (alleging 18 “isolation” as an additional basis for her claims). 19 As is relevant here, the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified 20 individual on the basis of disability in regards to the hiring, advancement, compensation, job 21 training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). 22 “Discrimination” includes limiting the employee in a way that adversely affects her opportunities 23 because of her disability; excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified 24 individual because of her disability; and not making reasonable accommodations for the 25 employee. Id. § 12112(b). Plaintiff alleges that she is disabled, that as a result of her disability 26 she was treated less favorably by her supervisors Cassandra O’Neal and Renee Giometti, and that 27 O’Neal failed to accommodate her disability. Plaintiff also alleges that O’Neal and Giometti 28 retaliated against Plaintiff after she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1 complaint regarding her supervisors’ discriminatory practices. Plaintiff further alleges that O’Neal 2 and Giometti harassed and bullied her and created a hostile work environment, although it is not 3 clear from the allegations how Plaintiff contends this conduct was connected to her disability. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the FAC, for purposes of screening pursuant to 28 4 5 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), states claims under the ADA for disability discrimination.1 6 Defendants shall respond to the FAC no later than February 16, 2017. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: January 23, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court notes the Ninth Circuit has not determined whether plaintiffs may bring “disability harassment” or hostile work environment claims under the ADA. See Smith v. Harrington, 2013 WL 132465, at *4 n.4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013) (citing Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003)). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?