Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01785-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL L. RILEY III,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCO ENGINEERING SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Docs. 40, 50, 62)

I. BACKGROUND

Earl L. Riley III is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. (Docs. 1, 

4.) Plaintiff, who is African American, worked for Defendant as a journeyman sheet metal 

worker. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff advances disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (See generally id.) He alleges Defendant 

discriminated against him based on his race by assigning him to work alone on tasks that required 

more than one worker, while allowing other workers to complete such tasks in pairs. (See id.)

Plaintiff alleges he was constructively discharged when he discovered someone had posted on an 

office wall at the jobsite a picture of a monkey wearing construction gear labeled “Sheet Metal 

Worker.” (Id.) Upon making this discovery, Plaintiff “resigned and left the jobsite” and thereafter 

developed anxiety. (Id.) 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 63 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 4
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

2

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued 

findings and recommendations to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because 

there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to Plaintiff’s claims. (See Doc. 62.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 21-22.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.”

(Id. at 22, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not 

file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes that the Findings and 

Recommendations reach the correct ultimate results.

II. ANALYSIS

Under the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 

(1973), a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment under Title VII must first establish a prima facie 

case of discrimination by showing (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the 

position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated 

individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably or other circumstances 

surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination. Peterson 

v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The first two elements are not in dispute. As to the third element, Plaintiff appears to 

advance two theories: (1) that he was subjected to an adverse action because he was assigned to 

work by himself; and (2) that his constructive discharge amounted to an adverse action. Though 

the Ninth Circuit “define[s] ‘adverse employment action’ broadly,” Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. 

of Ariz., 374 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted), and “take[s] an expansive view of 

the type of actions that can be considered adverse employment actions.” Ray v. Henderson, 217 

F.3d 1234, 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (collecting cases and noting that other circuits have found 

adverse employment actions to include “disadvantageous transfers or assignments”), the

magistrate judge correctly concluded that the undisputed evidence in this case does not support 

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 63 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

the first theory. Among other things, it is undisputed that other sheet metal workers were assigned 

to work by themselves when doing so matched the scope of the task involved, while others were 

assigned to work in pairs when that was needed. (See Doc. 62 at 8–9 (citing record).) It is also 

undisputed that Plaintiff’s supervisor believed the tasks to which Plaintiff was assigned required 

only one worker. (Id.) As pointed out in the Findings and Recommendations, though Plaintiff 

asserts in his opposition that some of the tasks he was assigned should have been, “for safety and 

production reasons,” assigned to more than one worker, he does not specify which tasks those 

were, or cite to any record evidence to support this otherwise conclusory assertion. (Id. at 8 n. 3.) 

Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions about his solo assignments are insufficient to create a material 

dispute of fact.

Plaintiff also appears to advance constructive discharge as a form of adverse action. (See 

Doc. 53 at 6.) “If shown, a constructive discharge is an adverse employment action.” Jordan v. 

Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1377 n.10 (9th Cir. 1988); Diemert v. City of Seattle, 689 F. Supp. 3d 956, 

964 (W.D. Wash. 2023). Constructive discharge occurs “when the working conditions deteriorate, 

as a result of discrimination, to the point that they become sufficiently extraordinary and 

egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee 

to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer.” Poland v. Chertoff, 

494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007). In the section discussing Plaintiff’s hostile work 

environment claim, the Findings and Recommendations cogently explain why record does not 

demonstrate constructive discharge:

In his briefing, Plaintiff does not specify on what basis Defendant’s 

actions amounted to constructive discharge. He again relies on 

conclusory language, asserting that “[h]ere the plaintiff can 

demonstrate the severe or pervasive harassment necessary to 

support a hostile work environment . . . [and] the Plaintiff can 

establish a claim that suggest[s] that his working conditions became 

so intolerable that he reasonably felt compelled to resign.” (Doc. 

No. 53 at 17). Plaintiff does not, however, support either of these 

assertions by citing to facts in the record or even specifying what 

facts the claims are based on.

As discussed above with respect to Plaintiff’s other Title VII claims, 

the Court finds the undisputed facts do not establish that Plaintiff 

suffered “intolerable [or] discriminatory working conditions” during 

his brief tenure at ACCO. Satterwhite, 744 F.2d at 1381. While 

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 63 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff was unhappy that he was assigned to work alone on most 

days, the Court is unpersuaded that by itself, this would compel a 

reasonable person to resign. Further, the overwhelming evidence 

indicates that Plaintiff did not quit because of Hernandez’s 

assignment. He uncomplainingly accepted those assignments for two 

months, and then quit immediately after discovering the offensive 

poster on September 29, 2021. As discussed above, the undisputed 

facts refute the claim that Plaintiff experienced a pattern of negative or 

discriminatory treatment. Rather, Plaintiff was praised by his 

supervisor, was retained during a layoff, and had his requested time off 

approved. (Doc. No. 40-2 at 2-3 ¶¶ 8-9). 

Instead, the undisputed facts demonstrate at best “[a]n isolated 

incident of mistreatment” in which an unknown individual placed an 

insensitive poster in an ACCO trailer. Huskey, 204 F.3d at 900. An 

isolated incident, particularly one that is offensive but not obviously 

severe, falls short of the showing required for a constructive discharge 

claim. Jackson, 2010 WL 3733983 at *10. Because the undisputed 

facts establish no more than such an isolated incident, Defendant is 

entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s constructive discharge 

claim.

(See Doc. 62 at 19–20.) This reasoning is correct as to the hostile work environment claim and 

applies with equal force to any attempt by Plaintiff demonstrate adverse action by way of 

constructive discharge as part of his disparate treatment claim.1 Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on October 23, 2024, (Doc. 62), are

ADOPTED for the reasons set forth above.

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendant and CLOSE THIS 

CASE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

1 Because Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim fails on the adverse action element, the Court finds it unnecessary to 

address the fourth element. 

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 63 Filed 12/23/24 Page 4 of 4