Guess v. Contra Costa Community College District et al

Filing 104

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; granting in part and denying in part 97 Motion to Dismiss Case Management Statement due by 2/20/2017. District Answer to claims due 2/24/17 as stated in Order. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/27/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

PAUL R. GUESS,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
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

v.
CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,

Case No. 12-cv-02829-YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 97

Defendant.
Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendant Contra Costa Community College to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Plaintiff Paul R. Guess. (Dkt. No. 97.)
The parties appeared for oral argument on January 31, 2017.
Having carefully considered the parties’ briefing in support of and in opposition to the
motion, the pleadings in this matter, and the arguments at the hearing, and for the additional
reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:
The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s Claims 1 and 2 to the extent they are
alleged under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title I does not abrogate the
District’s sovereign immunity and therefore the claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment. Bd. of
Trs. of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001). Even if the claims were limited to
injunctive relief, such a claim against the state entity itself is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
See Cerrato v. San Francisco Cmty. Coll. Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 972-73 (9th Cir. 1994). Therefore,
that portion of Claims 1 and 2 that alleges the District violated Title I of the ADA is DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
The motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED.
The District’s arguments based on failure to exhaust are not grounds for dismissal at the
pleading stage. The TAC sufficiently alleges grounds for considering the adverse actions,

1

including Guess’s termination, to be part of a continuing violation, as well as grounds for

2

considering the conduct allegedly occurring in 2009 and 2010 to be covered by the 2010 EEOC

3

charges. That Guess did not allege the 2010 EEOC charges in his prior complaint does not

4

preclude him from alleging them now.
The motion to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a disability discrimination or disability

5
6

retaliation claim is without merit. The allegations of the claim for disability discrimination and

7

unlawful retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act sufficiently set forth a request for

8

accommodation of a disability on December 16, 2010, and the District’s increase of Guess’s

9

workload on December 17, 2010. Whether Guess’s alleged limitations meet the definition of
disability under the statute, and thus whether the District had an obligation to engage in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation, are issues of fact that cannot be

12

determined on the face of the pleadings.
The motion to dismiss on the grounds that the TAC does not sufficiently allege claims for

13
14

race and gender discrimination, retaliation for filing a Title VII charge, and hostile work

15

environment on account of race or gender likewise fails. Guess alleges that he was treated

16

differently from other professors who were not African-American males in terms of the District’s

17

willingness to act on a request for a modification in work load due to a medical condition.

18

Regardless of whether his medical condition meets the definition of disability under the

19

Rehabilitation Act, Guess has sufficiently alleged Title VII claims. Guess alleges: the District

20

discriminated in its refusal his request not to modify his workload in the semester after his surgery,

21

in comparison to its acceptance of white, female professors’ similar requests; the District retaliated

22

against him by denying him accommodations on account of his making EEOC complaints; and the

23

District reprimanded, restricted, and took other actions against Guess on account of his race and

24

gender.

25
26
27
28

In sum, and viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Guess, the Third
Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges claims against the District for:
(1) failure to provide reasonable accommodation for disability in violation of the
Rehabilitation Act;
2

1

(2) retaliation in violation of Rehabilitation Act;

2

(3) race and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII;

3

(4) retaliation in violation of Title VII;

4

(5) hostile work environment based on race and gender in violation of Title VII.

5

The District shall file its answer to these claims no later than February 24, 2017. Guess’s claims

6

of violation of Title I of the ADA (as stated in portions of Claim 1 and Claim 2 of the TAC) are

7

DISMISSED.

8

The Court SETS a case management conference for February 27, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in

9

Courtroom 1, Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland. The parties shall file their joint

10

case management statement no later than February 20, 2017.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

This order terminates Docket No. 97.

13
14
15

Dated: February 2, 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3