Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06892/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06892-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH LOWE,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 06-6892 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT IN

PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

CITY OF SAUSALITO,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

On January 24, 2007, the court heard the motion of the City of Sausalito (“the City”)

to strike certain allegations of the complaint or to dismiss it in its entirety for failure to state

a claim. Suzanne Solomon appeared for the City, Catherine Lagarde appeared for plaintiff. 

The court dismisses the complaint in part for the reasons stated at the hearing and

summarized below.

1. Plaintiff voluntarily withdraws his prayer for punitive damages and dismisses 

the ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

2. The first and second causes of action for wrongful termination and wrongful

termination in violation of public policy are dismissed as time-barred by the undisputed twoyear statute of limitations. The court rejects the equitable tolling argument asserted by

plaintiff in view of Mathieu v. Norrell Corp, 115 Cal.App.4th 1174 (2004).

3. The third and fourth causes of action for harassment and retaliation are 

Case 4:06-cv-06892-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

dismissed on several grounds. First, both claims are brought under Title VII and FEHA. 

However, plaintiff did not obtain a right to sue notice from DFEH and has therefore not

exhausted the FEHA claims. They are accordingly dismissed. Additionally, the Title VII

claims are not raised in the EEOC administrative charge, nor are they like or reasonably

related to the factual allegations of the EEOC charge. The only allegation supported by the

EEOC charge is one for race discrimination based on disparate treatment, which was

completely omitted by the complaint. Accordingly, the Title VII claims for harassment and

retaliation are dismissed as unexhausted. Because plaintiff did exhaust a claim for race

discrimination and in view of the liberal pleading rules, plaintiff’s request to amend his

complaint to add a cause of action for race discrimination is granted. No motion to amend

need be filed.

4. The fifth cause of action insofar as it is based on 42 United States Code § §

1983 and 1985 is dismissed as time-barred by the undisputed two-year statute of

limitations. However, insofar as this cause of action relies on § 1981, the motion to dismiss

is denied in the absence of any express authority that § 1981 is inapplicable to public

employees.

5. The sixth cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act is

dismissed as that act has no application to employment discrimination. Rojo v. Kliger, 52

Cal.3d 65 (1990).

6. The seventh and eighth causes of action for breach of contract and breach of

the covenant of good faith are dismissed because under state law public employees have

no vested contractual right in the terms of their employment. Kemmerer v. Fresno County,

200 Cal.App.3d 1426 (1988).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, plaintiff shall file within twenty days of the date of the hearing, an

amended complaint that alleges a violation of 42 United States Code § 1981, the only claim

that was not dismissed, and a new claim for race discrimination under Title VII. Defendant

Case 4:06-cv-06892-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

shall respond within twenty days after the amended complaint is filed. The case

management conference is continued to March 15, 2007, 2:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06892-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/24/07 Page 3 of 3