Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00731/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00731-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELVA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN MUIR MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-0731 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS IN PART

(Docket No. 20)

Plaintiff Elva Rodriguez alleges that she faced discrimination

and harassment based on her national origin and disability as an

employee of Defendant John Muir Health, erroneously sued as John

Muir Medical Center. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims

based on her disability. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The motion

was taken under submission on the papers. Having considered all

the papers submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

motion. 

BACKGROUND

The following allegations are contained in Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint (FAC). 

Plaintiff began working for Defendant in February, 1989. 

Throughout her employment with Defendant, she was harassed on the

basis of her national origin. Beginning around 2000, the

harassment became severe and she faced “inappropriate sexual and

ethnic comments.” FAC ¶ 3. Although she complained to her

supervisors, they did not take steps to end the harassment. 

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Because of her national origin and her complaints, Defendant gave

her negative performance evaluations, imposed “unique rules

regarding workplace conduct,” required her to apologize for actions

she did not commit and refused her requests to transfer to another

unit of the hospital. FAC ¶ 6.

Defendant also discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff

based on her “disability involving her back which required

reasonable accommodation.” FAC ¶ 7. Defendant required her to

perform tasks that violated her medical restrictions, exacerbating

her disability and causing her “to be placed on disability leave.” 

FAC ¶ 9. Defendant then harassed and retaliated against Plaintiff

because she “missed work by reason of her disability and/or by

reason of the emotional distress caused by” the hostile work

environment. FAC ¶ 9.

Beginning on March 11, 2008, Plaintiff took a medical leave of

absence because of mental stress. 

On November 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed a charge of

discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment

and Housing (DFEH). Her administrative complaint contained

allegations similar to those discussed above. In addition, she

asserted that Defendant sent her a letter stating that it would

terminate her employment if she did not return to work by December

10, 2008. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment on December

10, 2008. 

On January 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second charge with the

EEOC and the DFEH, asserting that the termination was based on her

disability, national origin and complaints of harassment. 

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff received right-to-sue letters based on both of her

charges. 

Plaintiff asserts thirteen causes of action under federal and

state law. She claims that Defendant violated Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating, harassing and

retaliating against her. She also asserts causes of action under

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination,

harassment, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and

retaliation. Finally, she brings claims under California law for

discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to provide 

reasonable accommodations, failure to prevent discrimination and

harassment, and termination in violation of public policy. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

claim is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the

defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds

on which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to

state a claim, the court will take all material allegations as true

and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. NL

Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

However, this principle is inapplicable to legal conclusions;

“threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not taken as true. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009)

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

I. ADA Claims

A. Discrimination

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s discrimination claim under

the ADA fails because she does not plead that she has a cognizable

disability or that she was a qualified individual who could perform

the essential functions of her job. 

To recover for discrimination under the ADA, “an employee

bears the ultimate burden of proving that he is (1) disabled under

the Act, (2) a ‘qualified individual with a disability,’ and

(3) discriminated against ‘because of’ the disability.” Bates v.

United Parcel Serv., 511 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 164 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A

‘disabled’ employee under the ADA is one who: (1) has a ‘physical

or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the

major life activities of such individual’; (2) has a ‘record of

such an impairment’; or (3) is ‘regarded as having such an

impairment.’” Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, 261 F.3d 789, 794

(9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)). To determine

whether an impairment substantially limits an individual, a court

considers “the nature, severity, duration, and impact of the

impairment.” Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir.

2003) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(i)-(iii)). “Whether a

person is disabled under the ADA is an ‘individualized inquiry.’” 

Thornton, 261 F.3d at 794 (quoting Sutton v. United Air Lines,

Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 483 (1999)). 

Plaintiff pleads that she “had a disability involving her back

which required reasonable accommodation” and asserts that it

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

“impacted major life activities such as lifting.” FAC ¶ 8. 

Although lifting is a major life activity recognized under the ADA,

42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), Plaintiff has not alleged facts that

suggest that she is substantially impaired by her purported

disability. Her allegations do not illuminate the nature,

severity, duration and impact of her disability. Plaintiff asserts

that Defendant required her to perform tasks that violated her

medical restrictions, but she does not plead the nature of these

limitations. She also states that she took medical leave beginning

on March 11, 2008, but she avers that this was “because of mental

stress” and “was prolonged because of job-related carpal tunnel

syndrome,” FAC ¶ 12; these allegations do not address Plaintiff’s

disability related to her back. 

Even if Plaintiff plead a cognizable disability, as Defendant

correctly argues, she does not allege that she was a qualified

individual. A “qualified individual” is “an individual who, with

or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential

functions of the employment position that such individual holds or

desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Plaintiff did not address this

argument in her opposition. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s discrimination

claim under the ADA with leave to amend. Plaintiff must allege

facts explaining her claim that she had a disability that

substantially impaired a major life activity and that she was a

qualified individual. 

B. Harassment

Plaintiff’s harassment claim under the ADA fails because she

has not alleged a cognizable disability. However, even if she had,

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 Defendant interprets Plaintiff to bring a hostile work

environment claim. Plaintiff does not argue otherwise. 

2

 Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has not alleged that

the harassment complained of affected her a term, condition or

privilege of her employment. However, Plaintiff alleges that she

was “terminated by Defendant because of her disabilities . . . .” 

FAC ¶ 14. 

6

Defendant argues that she has not alleged facts to support her ADA

harassment claim. 

The Ninth Circuit has not determined whether a plaintiff can

maintain a hostile work environment claim under the ADA.1 See

Brown v. City of Tuscon, 336 F.3d 1181, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003)

(declining to decide the issue); see also Keller-McIntyre v. S.F.

State Univ., 2007 WL 776126, at *13 (N.D. Cal.). However, other

circuits have addressed this issue. “To succeed on a claim of

disability-based harassment, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that she

belongs to a protected group; (2) that she was subjected to

unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment complained of was

based on her disability or disabilities; (4) that the harassment

complained of affected a term, condition, or privilege of

employment; and (5) that the employer knew or should have known of

the harassment and failed to take prompt, remedial action.” 

Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs., Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 232 (5th

Cir. 2001); see also Keller-McIntyre, 2007 WL 776126, at *13

(citing Flowers). 

Even if the Ninth Circuit recognizes harassment claims under

the ADA, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that Defendant

knew of or should have known of the disability-based harassment.2

Plaintiff asserts that she complained to her supervisors about

discrimination based on her national origin, but she does not

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

allege the same about her disability. Instead, Plaintiff avers

that she “complained of the said harassment and discrimination,”

FAC ¶ 10, but, because she does not plead to whom she complained,

this allegation does not support her claim that Defendant had

knowledge. Plaintiff argues that Defendant knew of the harassment

because it required her to violate her purported medical

restrictions. However, Plaintiff pleads no facts to show that

Defendant knew of the restrictions. And even if Defendant knew,

this would not support an inference that it was equally aware of

the alleged harassment. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s disability-based

harassment claim with leave to amend. In addition to pleading a

cognizable disability, Plaintiff must truthfully allege facts to

support her claim that Defendant knew of, and failed to prevent,

disability-based harassment. 

C. Reasonable Accommodation

Under the ADA, a defendant’s “failure to provide reasonable

accommodation to ‘an otherwise qualified individual with a

disability’ constitutes discrimination.” Kaplan v. City of Las

Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 42 U.S.C.

§ 12112(b)(5)(A)). A “reasonable accommodation” includes: 

(A) making existing facilities used by employees readily

accessible to and usable by individuals with

disabilities; and 

(B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work

schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition

or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate

adjustment or modifications of examinations, training

materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers

or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for

individuals with disabilities. 

42 U.S.C. § 12111(9). 

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

Plaintiff does not state a claim based on Defendant’s alleged

failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. For the reasons

stated above, she has not plead a cognizable disability or that she

was a qualified individual. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not allege

that she requested and Defendant denied her a reasonable

accommodation. Accordingly, her failure-to-accommodate claim under

the ADA is dismissed with leave to amend. 

II. State FEHA Claims

A. Discrimination

A prima facie claim for disability discrimination under the

FEHA requires a plaintiff to show “(1) he suffers from a

disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified to do his job, (3) he

suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the employer

harbored discriminatory intent.” Avila v. Continental Airlines,

Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 1237, 1246 (2008). “‘An adverse employment

decision cannot be made ‘because of’ a disability, when the

disability is not known to the employer.’” Id. (quoting Brundage

v. Hahn, 57 Cal. App. 4th 228, 236 (1997)). 

Unlike the ADA, the FEHA does not require that a disability

substantially limit a plaintiff’s major life activity. See Cal.

Gov. Code § 12926.1(c). 

[T]he Legislature has determined that the definitions of

“physical disability” and “mental disability” under the

law of this state require a “limitation” upon a major

life activity, but do not require, as does the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990, a “substantial

limitation.” This distinction is intended to result in

broader coverage under the law of this state than under

that federal act.

Id. 

Plaintiff pleads sufficient facts in support of her claim that

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

she had a disability involving her back. She states that the

disability impacted her ability to lift, which suffices under

California’s relaxed standard. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s state law discrimination claim fails

because she has not alleged that she was a qualified individual or

that Defendant knew of her disability. As stated above, Plaintiff

does not allege facts to show that Defendant knew of her medical

restrictions or the alleged disability-based harassment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law discrimination claim based

on her disability is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must

allege facts to show that she was a qualified individual and that

Defendant knew of her disability and that she was being harassed

because of it. 

B. Reasonable Accommodations

Under California law, the “elements of a failure to

accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the

FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential

functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to

reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.” Scotch v. Art

Inst. of Cal.-Orange County, Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1009-10

(2009). A “reasonable accommodation” includes: 

(1) Making existing facilities used by employees readily

accessible to, and usable by, individuals with

disabilities.

(2) Job restructuring, part-time or modified work

schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition

or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or

modifications of examinations, training materials or

policies, the provision of qualified readers or

interpreters, and other similar accommodations for

individuals with disabilities.

Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(n). 

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

For reasons similar to those above, Plaintiff’s failure-toaccommodate claim under state law is dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff must allege facts to show that she was a qualified

individual and that Defendant did not reasonably accommodate her

disability. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss. (Docket No. 20.) Plaintiff’s ADA claims for

discrimination (claim three), harassment (claim four) and failure

to provide a reasonable accommodation (claim five) and her claims

under state law for discrimination (claim eight) and failure to

provide a reasonable accommodation (claim eleven) are dismissed

with leave to amend to cure the deficiencies discussed above. 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within fourteen days from

the date of this order. If Plaintiff does so, Defendant may file a

motion to dismiss three weeks thereafter, with Plaintiff’s

opposition due two weeks following and Defendant’s reply due one

week after that. Defendant’s motion, if one is filed, shall be

taken under submission on the papers. 

A further case management conference is scheduled for May 13,

2010 at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

March 18, 2010

Case 4:09-cv-00731-CW Document 25 Filed 03/18/10 Page 10 of 10