Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01318/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:754 Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 These claims are brought under the FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq., and 1

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. However, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of

these claims only under state law. See Mem. at 4 n.4; see also infra n.3.

1 10cv1318-BTM (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRISCILLA FOUNTAIN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 10cv1318-BTM (RBB)

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

DSW SHOE WAREHOUSES, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

Defendant DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. (“Defendant”) seeks dismissal of “the

following claims from [Plaintiff’s] Complaint”: (1) “Discriminatory Failure To Promote”; (2)

“Discriminatory Demotion”; (3) “Discriminatory Denial Of Transfer”; “(4) Discrimination Based

On National Origin And Ancestry”; (5) “Retaliation Under The FEHA [California’s Fair

Employment and Housing Act]”; and (6) “Harassment.” (Mem. at 1-2) Of these purported

claims, the first four relate to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for racial discrimination and

the remaining two correspond to Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action for retaliation

and harassment. Plaintiff’s first, fifth, and sixth causes of action are unchallenged. 1

A. DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION (SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim and discrimination claims for failure

to promote, wrongful demotion, and denial of transfer are untimely under the FEHA. An

Case 3:10-cv-01318-BTM-RBB Document 10 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Because the Court concludes that these claims are time-barred, it need not reach 2

Defendant’s alternative argument that these claims should be dismissed because they were

not raised in the DFEH complaint.

Additionally, the Court need not reach the merit of Defendant’s argument that

Plaintiff’s “separate” national origin and ancestry discrimination claims are barred. (Mem.

at 7) Contrary to Defendant’s apparent position, Plaintiff does not raise any claims based

solely on national origin or ancestry discrimination. Rather, Plaintiff’s second cause of action

rests on discrimination based on “plaintiff’s national origin, ancestry and race.” (Compl. ¶

36 (emphasis added)) Because Plaintiff alleged racial discrimination in the DFEH complaint,

any defects related to national origin and ancestry discrimination would not result in

dismissal of Plaintiff’s discrimination claims in her second cause of action.

2 10cv1318-BTM (RBB)

employee seeking relief under the FEHA must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing

a verified complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

(“DFEH”) within one year of the alleged adverse action. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960(d); see

also Nasser v. AT & T Corp., No. C 05-5426 PJH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27956, at *12 (N.D.

Cal. Apr. 16, 2007). Here, Plaintiff filed her DFEH complaint on June 22, 2010. (Pl. Ex. 2)

Therefore, any purported discriminatory conduct occurring before June 22, 2009 is

time-barred.

Plaintiff alleges that (1) she knew she was not going to be promoted in May 2008

(compl. ¶ 15); (2) she was demoted in February 2009 (compl. ¶ 18); and (3) she was denied

a transfer in February 2009 (id.). These events fall outside of the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff does not assert that these claims are timely under the continuing violation theory or

provide any alternative ground as to why the limitations period should be extended.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state claims for discrimination based on failure to promote, wrongful

demotion, and denial of transfer are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

2

With respect to Plaintiff’s third cause of action, Plaintiff asserts that she suffered

retaliation in the form of being “demoted and constructively terminated from employment.”

(Compl. ¶ 40) As noted above, Plaintiff’s demotion took place outside the statute of

limitations, and thus, the FEHA retaliation claim cannot rest on an allegation of retaliatory

demotion. 

Plaintiff’s alternative basis for a FEHA retaliation claim – constructive termination –

could be timely, as she resigned on June 23, 2009, but lacks “factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

Case 3:10-cv-01318-BTM-RBB Document 10 Filed 04/25/11 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Defendant does not appear to challenge Plaintiff’s claim for harassment under 3

federal law. See Reply at 7 (“The allegations upon which Fountain relies, however, do not

support a harassment claim. Rather, as California courts have repeatedly held, these

actions . . . cannot form the basis of a harassment claim.”) (emphasis added). Case law

relied upon by Defendant relates only to the sufficiency of harassment claims under the

FEHA. If Defendant believes that Plaintiff’s harassment claims under Title VII fail as a

matter of law, it may so move in a motion for summary judgment.

3 10cv1318-BTM (RBB)

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Plaintiff alleges that “after

continued retaliation, discrimination and harassment, plaintiff was ultimately compelled to

resign.” (Compl. ¶ 20) This allegation fails to provide sufficient information to determine

whether acts of retaliatory discrimination and/or harassment took place in the limitations

period. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

B. HARASSMENT (FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION)

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s FEHA claims for racial harassment.3

To state a claim for race-based harassment under the FEHA, a plaintiff must plead: (1) that

she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a racial nature; (2) that the conduct was

unwelcome; and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create an abusive work environment. See

Foreman v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., No. C 10-03853 CW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

133718, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2010) (citing Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 21 Cal.

4th 121, 129-31 (1999); Etter v. Veriflo Corp., 67 Cal. App. 4th 457, 463-65 (1st Dist. 1998)).

“Conduct that is ‘occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial’ does not constitute actionable

harassment.” Id. (quoting Aguilar, 21 Cal. 4th at 131)).

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for race-based harassment under the FEHA.

Plaintiff alleges that she was “illegally criticized and disciplined” (compl. ¶ 17) and that “[t]he

defendant directed. . . offensive, unwelcome misconduct toward plaintiff” (compl. ¶ 46).

However, the complaint provides no indication as to the frequency or the intensity of the

conduct and does not suggest that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or

pervasive.

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff’s FEHA harassment claim rests on adverse

personnel decisions, such as a failure to promote or transfer Plaintiff, the Court notes that

Case 3:10-cv-01318-BTM-RBB Document 10 Filed 04/25/11 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 10cv1318-BTM (RBB)

such actions may form the basis of a claim for discrimination, but not harassment. See

Forman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133718, at *6-7. Under the FEHA, discrimination pertains

to “explicit changes in the ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’”, whereas

harassment “focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace

becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual)

communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee.” Roby v. McKesson Corp.,

47 Cal. 4th 686, 706 (Cal. 2009) (quoting § 12940(a)) (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff does not

identify any verbal, physical or visual race-based harassment by her supervisors and thus

fails to state a claim for harassment under the FEHA. 

C. REMAINING FEHA CLAIMS

Defendant argues that defects in Plaintiff’s DFEH complaint require dismissal of all

of Plaintiff’s FEHA claims. Specifically, Defendant asserts that because Plaintiff’s DFEH

complaint was submitted electronically and not signed, Plaintiff failed to file a verified

complaint, which is a prerequisite to filing a civil action pursuant to Gov’t Code § 12960(b).

Defendant principally relies on a June 24, 2003, DFEH directive stating that “[a]ll complaints

filed with the DFEH must be signed” in support of this position. DFEH Directive No. 229.

However, the current online submission system does not provide complainants with an

opportunity to physically sign the complaint. Instead, the online submission form states, in

relevant part, “By submitting this complaint[,] I am declaring under penalty of perjury under

the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. . . “ Defendant

provides no authority for the proposition that the online submission of a complaint under

penalty of perjury is an insufficient procedure for filing a verified complaint. Absent such

authority, the Court does not find the nearly nine-year old DFEH Directive No. 229 to be

controlling on this issue. Thus, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s FEHA claims on the sole

ground that she utilized an online submission system that permits aggrieved parties to file

unsigned complaints. 

D. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s

Case 3:10-cv-01318-BTM-RBB Document 10 Filed 04/25/11 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 10cv1318-BTM (RBB)

FEHA claims for retaliation and harassment, as well as discrimination based on failure to

promote, wrongful demotion, and denial of transfer are dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, and harassment brought under 42 U.S.C. §§

2000e et seq. and the first, fifth, and sixth causes of action remain operative. Plaintiff has

leave to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies, discussed above. This amended

complaint must be filed within twenty days of the entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 25, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01318-BTM-RBB Document 10 Filed 04/25/11 Page 5 of 5