Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01217/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01217-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM S.

Plaintiff,

v.

LASSEN COUNTY; MELODY BRAWLEY;

KEVIN MANNEL; LYNNE MARGOLIES;

KIM PERKINS; and RONALD

VOSSELOR,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-05-1217 DFL CMK

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Plaintiff William S. (“William”) brings suit against

defendants, Lassen County and a number of individuals

(collectively “defendants”), for violations of federal and state

law arising out of his employment with the County. Defendants

move to dismiss the following portions of William’s First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”): (1) his claim for failure to hire under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et

seq.; and (2) his claims under the First Amendment. In addition,

the following defendants move for dismissal from all or portions

of the FAC: (1) defendants Vossler, Perkins, and Brawley move for

dismissal from the FAC; and (2) defendants Margolies and Mannel

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 7
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

2

move for dismissal from William’s claim under the ADA.

For the reasons stated below, the court: (1) GRANTS

defendants’ motion to dismiss defendants Vossler, Perkins, and

Brawley from the FAC; (2) GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss

William’s claim for failure to hire under the ADA; (3) GRANTS

defendants’ motion to dismiss defendants Margolies and Mannel

from William’s claim under the ADA; and (4) GRANTS defendants’

motion to dismiss William’s claim for violation of the First

Amendment rights to privacy and freedom of speech with leave to

amend.

I.

The FAC makes the following allegations:

In 1999, William applied for positions with Lassen County. 

(FAC ¶ 7.) Lassen County’s personnel director refused to place

William on a list of employees eligible for hiring because of

William’s medical condition. (Id. ¶ 9.) Because of the

personnel director’s actions, William filed a claim with the

EEOC. (Id. ¶ 10.) The parties resolved that claim by placing

William on a list of people eligible to take the qualifying

examination. (Id. ¶ 10.)

On February 23, 2004, Lassen County hired William as a

social worker. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14-15.) The personnel director

attempted to retract the employment offer because: (1) of

William’s medical condition; and (2) William had filed a

complaint with the EEOC. (Id. ¶ 12.) On August 16, 2004,

William discovered that his name and medical condition had been

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 7
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

3

posted on a cubicle in the Department of Social Services for

Lassen County. (Id. ¶ 13.) 

On August 18, 2004, William complained about the posting to

the Deputy County Administrative Officer and William’s Social

Work Supervisor, but he received no response. (Id. ¶ 15.) 

Because he received no response, William filed a claim with the

Board of Supervisors of Lassen County. (Id. ¶ 16.) On March 10,

2005 the Board denied William’s claim. (Id.) On June 3, 2005,

the EEOC issued William a “notice of right to sue.” (Id. ¶ 23.)

On June 18, 2005, William filed this suit. On August, 8,

2005, he filed the FAC. Based on the facts discussed above,

William brought the following claims: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983; (2) violation of the First Amendment rights to privacy

and freedom of speech; (3) intentional infliction of emotional

distress; (4) violation of the ADA; (5) violation of rights

guaranteed by the California Constitution; and (6) violation of

the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§

56 et seq.

II. 

On a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint are

accepted as true. Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733

(1964). The complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state

a claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99

(1957).

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

A. Defendants Vossler, Perkins, and Brawley 

Defendants Vossler, Perkins and Brawley move for dismissal

from the FAC. (Mot. at 4-5.) William concedes that these

defendants should be dismissed. (Opp’n at 4.) Therefore, the

court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss defendants Vossler,

Perkins, and Brawley.

B. Violation of the ADA

1. Failure to Hire

Defendants argue that William’s ADA claim for failure to

hire is barred because he failed to timely exhaust his

administrative remedies. (Mot. at 3.) William responds that he

did not make a claim for failure to hire under the ADA. (Opp’n

at 3.) However, in the FAC, William states “defendants treated

[him] differently and failed to hire him to a position.” (FAC ¶

51.) Because William used the term “failed to hire,” defendants

reasonably understood the complaint to make a claim for failure

to hire under the ADA. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion,

the court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss William’s claim

for failure to hire under the ADA.

2. Defendants Margolies and Mannel

Defendants Margolies and Mannel argue that they should be

dismissed from William’s ADA claim. (Mot. at 3.) William

concedes that these defendants should be dismissed from the ADA

claim. (Opp’n at 4.) Therefore, the court GRANTS defendants’

motion to dismiss defendants Margolies and Mannel from the ADA

claim.

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

C. First Amendment

Defendants move to dismiss William’s second claim for

violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. 

(Mot. at 4.) 

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the

First Amendment, plaintiff must show that he engaged in protected

speech, the defendants took an adverse employment action against

him, and the protected speech was a substantial or motivating

factor for the adverse employment action. Thomas v. Beaverton,

379 F.3d 802, 807-8 (9th Cir. 2004). A public employee’s speech

is protected if he spoke “as a citizen upon matters of public

concern” rather than “as an employee upon matters only of

personal interest.” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, William alleges that defendants violated his right “to

hold his personal medical condition as private knowledge” by

posting his medical condition in a place where it could be viewed

by others. (FAC ¶ 33.) He also claims that defendants posted

the information in retaliation for the exercise of his First

Amendment right to seek redress of his grievances by filing a

claim with the EEOC. (FAC ¶ 36.) 

Defendants argue that William’s claim under the First

Amendment should be dismissed because he fails to allege: (1) how

defendants restricted his freedom of speech; and (2) that his

speech was a matter of public concern. (Mot. at 4.) 

In his opposition, William defends the First Amendment claim

solely as a claim about privacy; he does not address at all the

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 5 of 7
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

 Courts have recognized an intersection between freedom of 1

the mind, protected by the First Amendment, and the right to

privacy. Doe v. City of Lafayette, Ind., 377 F.3d 757, 777 (7th

Cir. 2004). However, William’s claim does not involve freedom of

thought. He appears to claim that defendants violated his right

to privacy by posting information about his medical history. 

This allegation would fall under Whalen.

 The court also notes that William has failed to bring his 2

claims for constitutional violations under § 1983.

6

retaliation claim that is also advanced in the FAC. However, the

right to privacy does not arise from the First Amendment. See 1

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 598 n.23, 97 S.Ct. 869 (1977)

(finding the constitutional right to privacy is found in the

Fourteenth Amendment’s “concept of ordered liberty”). 

It is unclear whether William intends to allege a claim for

a violation of a right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment

or retaliation under the First Amendment, or both. Therefore, 2

because William has left the matter in confusion and fails to set

forth a short and plain statement of his claim, as required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss

William’s claim for violation of the First Amendment with leave

to amend.

III.

For the reasons stated above, the court: (1) GRANTS

defendants’ motion to dismiss defendants Vossler, Perkins, and

Brawley from the FAC; (2) GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss

William’s claim for failure to hire under the ADA; (3) GRANTS

defendants’ motion to dismiss defendants Margolies and Mannel

from William’s claim under the ADA; and (4) GRANTS defendants’

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

motion to dismiss William’s claim for violation of the First

Amendment rights to privacy and freedom of speech with leave to

amend. An amended complaint must be filed within 28 days of the

file date of this order or the First Amendment claim will be

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/15/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 7 of 7