Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02042/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02042-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW F. MCFADDEN, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

ORDER

vs.

CITY OF EL CENTRO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary

Judgment filed by Defendant City of El Centro. (ECF No. 34). 

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2010, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against the

City of El Centro. (ECF No. 1). On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) race discrimination in violation of Title VII and the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) disability discrimination in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), (3) retaliation in violation of Title

VII and FEHA, and (4) deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to Plaintiff’s

employment as a police officer with the City of El Centro. (ECF No. 8).

On February 7, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 34). Defendant contends that it is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between

- 1 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 1 of 13
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

hisrace and any adverse employment action, (2) Plaintiff cannot establish that he suffersfrom

a qualifying disability, (3) Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between a protected

activity and any adverse employment action, and (4) Plaintiff cannot establish that he was

deprived of a constitutional right without due process. On September 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed

an opposition to the motion forsummary judgment which he amended on September 18, 2012. 

(ECF Nos. 43, 46). On September 14, 2012, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 45). 

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

A. Plaintiff’s Work History and Performance

Plaintiff, an African-American male, was hired by the City of El Centro as a police

officer in September 1989. Plaintiff worked as a police officer on patrol duties until 1998

when he became a School Resource Officer for the Central Union High School District. In

July 2004, Plaintiff returned to patrol duties as a police officer for the City under the

supervision of Sergeant John Seaman. 

Around March 1999, Plaintiff filed a grievance alleging that Sergeant Theresa Quinn 

spoke publicly about Plaintiff’s poor report writing skills. The grievance did not allege

discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s race or any disability. 

Around October 2004, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Sgt. Seaman in response to a

Supervisor’s Report that Sgt. Seaman wrote requesting disciplinary action be imposed against

Plaintiff for insubordination. In the grievance, Plaintiff states that Sgt. Seaman abused and

exceeded his authority, failed to deal fairly and impartially in his official capacity, intended

to make misrepresentations, and created a hostile work environment. The grievance did not

allege discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s race or any disability. 

In August 2005, Plaintiff received an annual performance evaluation prepared by Sgt.

Seaman in which Plaintiff was given unsatisfactory reviews in several areas, including

interview and interrogation, beat/area practices and responsibility, following work instructions

and submitting work promptly and accurately, exercising reasonable judgment and discretion,

performing under pressure, willingness to encourage coworkers and exhibit team work, and

the ability to maintain proper contact and appropriate coverage when involved with an

- 2 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 2 of 13
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

incident. Plaintiff filed an employee grievance form and wrote a written response to Sgt.

Seaman’s evaluation. In his grievance, Plaintiff states that Sgt. Seaman abused authority,

created a hostile work environment, was retaliatory in nature, and failed to deal fairly and

impartially in his official capacity. Neither the employee grievance nor the written response

alleged discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s race or any disability. 

In response to Plaintiff’s grievance, Commander Paul Longoria assigned Plaintiff to

Sergeant Mike Crankshaw’s patrol team for evaluation of Plaintiff’s ability as an Officer in

Charge, his on-site productivity, and his report writing ability. According to Sgt. Crankshaw,

Plaintiff performed satisfactorily on histeam. Plaintiff was reassigned to Sgt. Seaman’s patrol

team. 

On July 13, 2006, Sgt. Quinn recommended suspending Plaintiff’s duties as Officer in

Charge as a result of Plaintiff’s poor performance. Plaintiff wrote a response to Sgt. Quinn’s

recommendation. On September 22, 2006, Cdr. Longoria reassigned Plaintiff to another patrol

team and reinstated Plaintiff’s eligibility to perform as Officer in Charge. 

In September 2009, Plaintiff received another performance evaluation from Sgt. Quinn

which described Plaintiff’s job performance as needing improvement. Plaintiff wrote a

response to the September 2009 performance evaluation.

In his declaration, Plaintiff states: “I feel that one of the reasons I have been treated

harshly is that I spoke up against the actions being taken against the African-American Chief,

Leonard Knight. Criticism of my work skills became notably worse after I defended him ....

No other Chiefs or Sergeants were treated the way the supervisors and staff treated Chief

Knight.” (ECF No. 46-4 at 2-3). Plaintiff states: “No other employee that I know of in the

El Centro Police D[e]p[artmen]t has been treated like I have. Other officers have been

promoted ahead of me and I have been treated with disrespect on a constant basis.” Id.

Plaintiff has never been demoted while employed by the City. 

B. Promotion Policies and Practices

At his November 3, 2011 deposition, Plaintiff gave the following testimony:

Q ... What does a sergeants exam consist of?

A It is a written exam; and then, there is an essay exam ...

- 3 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 3 of 13
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

Q And is there a minimum standard for passing the exam?

A Seventy percent.

Q And you’re required to pass both halves of the exam?

A Yes.

Q At any time, have you ever passed both halves of the exam?

A Yes.

Q When?

A ... that was probably about ten years ago [2001].

(ECF No. 46-3 at 95-96). 

Defendant submits the declaration of Police Chief Jim McGinley who states:

Based upon my review of the CITY’s records for promotional testing for the

position of Sergeant with the CITY, it appearsthat plaintiff took and passed the

Sergeant’s test in December 2004, with a rank of two on the eligibility list.

Plaintiff was not selected, however. My review of the CITY’s testing records

indicates that plaintiff took the Sergeant’s test a number of times after 2004,

however, plaintiff did notscore high enough on the written portion of the exam

to warrant a placement on the eligibility list for the position. An eligibility list

for the position of Sergeant is valid for a period of one year, after which the test

must be retaken in order to qualify for eligibility.

(ECF No. 34-4 at 3-4). 

On November 17, 2009, Police Chief McGinley issued a directive stating that officers

would not be eligible for an Officer in Charge position for a period of one year if they had

received a written reprimand. Police Chief McGinley states that the directive impacted two

other officers in addition to Plaintiff: a white male and a Hispanic male. Police Chief

McGinley states that Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination played no role in his decision to

issue the November 17, 2009 directive.

C. Plaintiff’s Disabilities

Plaintiff states: “In 2004, I informed my employer that I had been diagnosed with

Attention Deficit Disorder [‘ADD’].” (ECF No. 46-4 at 2). Plaintiff states: “I was able to

perform all aspects of my job when I was being treated for ADD. My only issues may have

been with writing because I also have dyslexia, however, I labored over my reports and

brought them into conformance as much as possible without accommodation.” Id. at 3.

On February 15, 2010, Plaintiff’s attorney sent Defendant a letter stating his opinion

that Plaintiff suffered from Dyslexia and that Plaintiff had been diagnosed with ADD in 2004

or 2005. Police Chief McGinley states in his declaration that, “[i]n response to the letter [from

Plaintiff’s attorney dated February 15, 2010], the CITY set up an interactive process meeting,

- 4 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 4 of 13
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

but after repeated requests, plaintiff has never provided any medical evidence of a disability.” 

(ECF No. 34-4 at 3).

Plaintiffstates: “I went ... to the doctor and obtained a formalreportregarding ADD and

Dyslexia in 2010.” (ECF No. 46-4 at 3). Plaintiff submits two “letter[s] from my doctor.” 

(ECF No. 46-4 at 2). The first is a letter from Edward Cherlin, M.D., dated August 2, 2010,

addressed to Plaintiff’s former counsel. In the letter, Cherlin states: “I have been treating

[Plaintiff] since October 21, 2004, for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder .... It is

mentioned in [Plaintiff counsel’s] letter that there is cause for concern regarding a possible

dyslexic condition. I have never assessed [Plaintiff] or treated him for this and this, frankly,

has not been brought to my attention previously.” (ECF No. 46-3 at 127). Plaintiff also

submits an undated “Neuropsychological Assessment” from the Applied Neuropsychology

Institute stating that Plaintiff was examined on September 16, 2010 and March 7, 2011 and

subsequently diagnosed with “Dyslexia and Dysgraphia.” Id. at 131-38. 

D. Plaintiff’s Formal Complaints

Plaintiff submits his own declaration which states “After Sgt. Seaman became my

supervisor and before the negative 2005 yearly evaluation, I informed the City of El Centro,

via a grievance, that I believed Sgt. Seaman had given me a negative evaluation because of my

race. My grievance went up the chain of command and was evaluated by the City Attorney

who found that there was no basis for the negative evaluation. The report at issue was a

September 20, 2004 Supervisor’s Report prepared by Sgt. John Seaman.” (ECF No. 46-4 at

2). Plaintiff attaches the grievance he filed in response to Sgt. Seaman’s September 20, 2004

Supervisor’s Report. (ECF No. 46-3 at 15-24). The grievance does not allege any

discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. 

Plaintiff gave the following deposition testimony: “Q Other than your belief that they

were inaccurate comments in his evaluation, do you have any evidence that [Sgt. Seaman]

criticized you because of your race? A No.” (ECF No. 46-3 at 108). 

On June 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint of harassment, retaliation, and

hostile work environment with theCity of ElCajon. Plaintiff stated that Sqt. Quinn was biased

- 5 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 5 of 13
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

against him, that he was being retaliated against for complaining to the Interim Police Chief

about department staff and for vocally defending Police Chief Knight, that his reports were

being tampered with, that he was being micromanaged, and that his reports were subject to

unreasonably heightened scrutiny. 

On September 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination with the

Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging race discrimination and a hostile work

environment within the El Centro Police Department. Plaintiff alleged that the discrimination

started in January 2009.

On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed charges of disability discrimination and retaliation

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

DISCUSSION

“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense–or the

part of each claim or defense–on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant

summary judgment if the movantshowsthat there is no genuine dispute asto any material fact

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material

fact is one that isrelevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect

the outcome of the suit. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.

574, 586 (1986). The materiality of a fact is determined by the substantive law governing the

claim or defense. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986); Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is

proper. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970). The burden then shifts

to the opposing party to provide admissible evidence beyond the pleadings to show that

summary judgment is not appropriate. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 324. To avoid summary

judgment, the opposing party cannot rest solely on conclusory allegations of fact or law. See

Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, the nonmovant must designate

which specific factsshow that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. 

The opposing party’s evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn

- 6 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 6 of 13
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 their favor. See id.

A. Race Discrimination Under Title VII and FEHA

Defendant contends that “[r]ace has played no factor in plaintiff’s lack of success at

being promoted. Plaintiff has a mediocre employment history with the CITY at best, given the

various needs improvement performance appraisals plaintiff earned during his employment.” 

(ECF No. 34-1 at 13-14). Defendant contends that “only superior performing officers with no

disciplinary records[shall] be eligible for promotion and for the Officer in Charge position ....

[and that] plaintiff was not the only individual to whom this policy was applied as other

officers with reprimands were not permitted to join the S.W.A.T. team or act as Officer in

Charge, including officers who were not African-American or disabled.” Id. at 13. 

Plaintiff contends that he “performed according to his employers legitimate

expectations,” received some satisfactory reviews and commendations, and “was performing

well enough to remain employed with Defendant for many years.” (ECF No. 46-1 at 12). 

Plaintiff contends that “[o]ther employees with qualifications similar to his own were treated

more favorably by receiving promotions and other favorable treatment, and by not being

scrutinized on a constant basis.... They received promotions and praise for performing just as

Plaintiff performed.” Id. Plaintiff contendsthat he “performed in an exemplary manner which

well exceeded his employer’s expectations.” Id. at 13. 

A plaintiff asserting a claim of racial discrimination under Title VII and FEHA carries

the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Plaintiff must

show “(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job

for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was

rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer

continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications.” McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801-802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824 (1973). If based on

circumstantial evidence alone, the prima facie case may be established by plaintiffs showing

“(1) that they are members of a protected class; (2) that they were qualified for their positions

and performing theirjobssatisfactorily; (3) that they experienced adverse employment actions;

- 7 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 7 of 13
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

and (4) that ‘similarly situated individuals outside [their] protected class were treated more

favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an

inference of discrimination.’” Hawn v. Executive Jet Management, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156

(9thCir. 2010)(quoting Peterson v. Hewlett–PackardCo., 358 F.3d 599, 603 (9thCir. 2004)). 

Plaintiffs “must offer evidence that gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Id.

(quotations omitted). 

Under McDonnell Douglas, once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of either

discrimination or retaliation, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for its allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory conduct. McDonnell

Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-805; Surrell v. California Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th

Cir. 2008). If the defendant articulates a legitimate reason for its action, the plaintiff may then

offer evidence that the proffered nondiscriminatory reason is merely a pretext for

discrimination. Surrell, 518 F.3d at 1106; see also Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 104

F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996) (“To avoid summary judgment, ... [the plaintiff] ‘must do more

than establish a prima facie case and deny the credibility of the [defendant's] witnesses.’ ... She

must produce ‘specific, substantial evidence of pretext.’” (quoting Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.,

26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir.1994)). 

In this case, Plaintiff fails to present evidence “that he applied and was qualified for a

job for which the employer was seeking applicants,” or that “after his rejection, the position

remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of [his]

qualifications.” McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801-802. Plaintiff further fails to show

evidence that he was “performing [his] job... satisfactorily.” Hawn, 615 F.3d at 1156; see

Bradley, 104 F.3d at 270 (“[A]n employee’ssubjective personal judgments of her competence

alone do not raise a genuine issue of material fact”). Evidence in the record shows that

Plaintiff’s work performance as police officer was unsatisfactory from his return to patrol in

2004 through his evaluation in 2009. Evidence in the record shows that, after December 2004,

Plaintiff did not pass the qualifying tests to be eligible for promotion. Plaintiff fails to offer

evidence, other than his own stated beliefs and conclusory allegations, “that give rise to an

- 8 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 8 of 13
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

inference of unlawful discrimination” on the part of the City of El Cajon in failing to promote

Plaintiff. Id. 

Even if Plaintiff were to make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, the

undisputed evidence on the record adequately provides Defendant with a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for failing to promote Plaintiff: Plaintiff’s well-documented

unsatisfactory performance as a patrol officer. Defendant has presented evidence to show “that

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” regarding Plaintiff’s claim for racial

discrimination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Plaintiff fails to present evidence to show that summary

judgment is not appropriate as to this claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 324. Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for race discrimination is granted. 

B. Disability Discrimination Under ADA

Defendant asserts that “plaintiff was unaware that he suffered from Dyslexia until six

(6) months prior to filing the original Complaint, when his attorney ‘diagnosed’ him.” (ECF

No. 34-1 at 15). Defendant contends that there is no evidence that Plaintiff’s dyslexia

substantially interfered with a major life activity or substantially limited any life activity. 

Defendants asserts that “once the CITY understood plaintiff was claiming he was disabled, it

held a reasonable accommodation meeting with plaintiff to determine what, if any,

accommodations would be needed for plaintiff. None were offered or made since plaintiff had

no medical certification stating that he actually required an accommodation or that he had a

disability .... plaintiff has not produced any medical certification to the CITY stating that he

has any type of a disability requiring accommodation.” Id. at 16. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was notified that he had Attention Deficit Disorder in

2004 and had approved Plaintiff’s medication for that disorder for years. Plaintiff contends

that Defendant “was also informed of Plaintiff’s disability by his attorney and his physicians

in 2009.” (ECF No. 46-1 at 14). Plaintiff contends that “even without being notified of

Plaintiff’s need for some type of accommodation, if the adverse employment actions were for

misconduct brought on by the disability of which Defendant was apprized [sic], Plaintiff was

punished for having a disability.” Id. at 15. 

- 9 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 9 of 13
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

To state a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff is required to

show that: (1) he was a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he was a qualified

individual, meaning he could perform the essential functions of hisjob; and (3) he suffered an

adverse employment action because of his disability. Nunes v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 164

F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). The ADA defines disability as

“a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 

42 U.S.C.A. § 12102(1)(A). As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must prove that he has a physical

or mental impairment and demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity,such as

caring for himself, performing manual tasks, learning, breathing, thinking, communicating, or

working. 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2)(A). 

Plaintiffstatesin his declaration that he takes medication for Attention Deficit Disorder

and that the condition does not impact his ability to work. Plaintiff stated that he informed

Defendant of the condition in 2004 and that Defendant has accommodated the condition by

approving Plaintiff’s use of medication. Plaintiff fails to come forward with any evidence to

show that his Attention Deficit Disorder is an impairment that limits any major life activity or

that this condition qualifies him as a disabled person under the ADA. 

Plaintiff submits and attaches to his declaration an undated “Neuropsychological

Assessment” that states a diagnosis of dyslexia based on examinations of Plaintiff in

September 2010 and March 2011. Defendant objects to this document as lacking foundation

and the personal knowledge of Plaintiff, hearsay, speculation, opinion and conclusion

testimony. (ECF No. 45-1 at 8). The “Neuropsychological Assessment” has not been properly

authenticated and cannot be considered by the Court in opposition to Defendant’s summary

judgment motion. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 54(c)(4); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1224 (9th

Cir. 2007) (“Rule 56(e) . . . requires that a proper foundation be laid for evidence considered

on summary judgment. The documents must be authenticated and attached to a declaration

wherein the declarant is the person through whom such exhibits could be admitted into

evidence.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Capobianco v. City of New York,

422 F.3d 47, 55 (2nd Cir. 2005) (“[U]nsworn letters from physicians generally are inadmissible

- 10 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 10 of 13
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

hearsay that are an insufficient basis for opposing a motion for summary judgment”).

Plaintiff was gainfully employed by the City of El Cajon as a police officer for the

entire period in question and was never demoted. The evidence on the record shows that

Plaintiff was not promoted because he could not pass the eligibility tests for a promotion, and

that Plaintiff was periodically relieved of Officer in Charge duties because of his poor

performance in a number of areas. Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s proffered

evidence suggesting he suffered from dyslexia, Plaintiff fails to come forward with any

evidence to show that the condition is an impairment that limits a major life activity for him. 

The record contains no evidence of Plaintiff suffering from a disability that might

qualify him for protection under the ADA. Plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing of

disability discrimination. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for

disability discrimination is granted. 

C. Retaliation Under Title VII and FEHA

Defendant contends that “plaintiff was denied the Officer in Charge status [due to his

poor work performance] prior to his filing a complaint of hostile work environment with the

CITY” and “there was a history of ‘adverse job actions’ taken prior to plaintiff ever filing a

DFEH charge against the CITY.” (ECF No. 34-1 at 17). Defendant contends that “plaintiff

was prohibited from acting as the Officer in Charge in 2009 following a long series of

behavioral and performance issues.” Id. at 18. Defendant contends that “the policy to prohibit

employees with reprimandsfrombecoming OfficerinCharge was not limited only to plaintiff”

and that two other officers, one white and one Hispanic, were subject to the same restriction. 

Id. Defendant contends that it “had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for prohibiting

plaintiff from becoming an Officer in Charge.” Id. at 17.

Plaintiff contends that “[h]e complained of actions taken against him and informed his

employer that he felt he wasthe victim of racial discrimination. After his complaints, Plaintiff

received ongoing negative evaluations on a regular basis.... The retaliation took the form of

devastating evaluations,refusalsto promote, and numeroussupervisors alleging misconduct.” 

(ECF No. 43-1 at 15, 17). Plaintiff contends that “there is no credible evidence” to support

- 11 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 11 of 13
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’s position that Plaintiff was not made Officer in Charge because of behavioral and

performance issues or that the policy to prohibit employees with reprimands from becoming

Officer in Charge “was not enacted solely for Plaintiff or that there were either no other

persons affected.” Id. at 17. 

“Retaliation is shown where a plaintiff demonstrates ‘1) that she was engaging in a

protected activity, 2) that she suffered an adverse employment decision, and 3) that there was

a causal link between her activity and the employment decision.’” Davis v. California Dept.

of Corr. & Rehab., 10-17890, 2012 WL 2025004 at *3 (9th Cir. June 6, 2012) quoting

Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 679 (9th Cir. 1997). Once the plaintiff establishes a prima

facie case of retaliation, if the defendant provides a legitimate rationale for an adverse action,

the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the proffered reason was pretextual. Hashimoto,

118 F.3d at 679. 

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the City in June 2009, a complaint with DFEH in

September 2009, and a complaint with EEOC in April 2010. Only his September 2009

complaint to DFEH contained allegations of race discrimination, and that complaint

specifically alleged that the discrimination did not begin until January 2009. The adverse

employment decisions that Plaintiff relies upon to show retaliation occurred five years prior

to the filing of Plaintiff’s first formal complaint to the City. Plaintiff cannot recover for

adverse employment actions he suffered in 2004 on the grounds of retaliation for complaints

he filed in 2009. Even if Plaintiff were to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the

evidence on the record showsthat Plaintiff did not passthe eligibility test for a promotion after

2004 and that Plaintiff had received written reprimands regarding his work performance; this

evidence provides a legitimate rationale for Defendant’s conduct in not promoting Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff failsto show that the adverse employment decisions he suffered were causally

linked to the protected activity of filing complaints of racial discrimination. Defendant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation. Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation is granted.

- 12 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 12 of 13
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

D. Deprivation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Defendant contends that “because plaintiff cannot establish that the he was

discriminated against or retaliated against, his derivative claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1983 fails as a matter of law.” (ECF No. 34-1 at 19). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has never

been demoted at his job with the City and contends that Plaintiff has no evidence to support

his contention that he was deprived of a constitutional right under the color of law in violation

of due process. 

Plaintiff contendsthat he “was deprived of his due processrights by not being afforded

a fair hearing and a meaning[ful] opportunity to be heard .... Plaintiff no longer works with the

City. He was demoted, not allowed to act in more favorable positions or advance. There is an

adequate violation of law.” (ECF No. 46-1 at 18). 

Plaintiff hasfailed to submit any evidence to support the legal claims of his Complaint. 

Plaintiff has not shown that he suffered racial discrimination, disability discrimination, or

retaliation by Defendant. Plaintiff has not shown that any constitutional right has been violated

by the conduct of Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on

Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is granted. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgmentfiled by Defendant

City of El Cajon (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of the

Defendant and against the Plaintiff.

DATED: September 26, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 13 - 10cv2042-WQH-WMc

Case 3:10-cv-02042-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 09/26/12 Page 13 of 13