Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04958/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04958-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amy Liu
Plaintiff
UC Berkeley/UC Regents
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY LIU,

Plaintiff,

v.

UC BERKELEY/UC REGENTS,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-4958-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; GRANTING 

LEAVE TO FURTHER AMEND 

COMPLAINT; VACATING MOTION 

HEARING

Doc. no. 30

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Amy Liu, appearing in pro per, seeking 

leave to file a first amended complaint. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for 

decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 4, 2016 is 

VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and plaintiff is 

GRANTED LEAVE TO FURTHER AMEND the complaint.

BACKGROUND

Liberally construed, the complaint asserts the following four claims for relief:

(1) employment discrimination, namely, disparate treatment based on race, age and 

national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a; (2) retaliation by University of California (“UC”) Berkeley 

by terminating plaintiff and blocking her reemployment in violation of Title VII; 

(3) defamation based on statements to a third party by Diane Onley, manager of the 

Industrial Engineering & Operating Research (“IEOR”) Department, and Charro Albarran, 

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 8
2

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

Northern District of California

the Preferential Rehire/Recall Program Manager; and (4) liability by UC Berkeley for 

breach of constitutional rights and damage to reputation caused by UC employees.

Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“defendant” or “The 

Regents”), appearing on behalf of the erroneously named UC Berkeley/UC Regents, filed 

an answer to the complaint on December 9, 2015. The court held the initial case 

management conference on March 3, 2016, and set dispositive motion deadlines. 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint on March 31, 

2016. Defendant filed an opposition, and plaintiff timely filed a reply. The matter is 

submitted on the papers.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff obtain consent of the 

defendant or leave of court to amend the complaint once the defendant has answered, 

but “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also, 

e.g., Chodos v. West Pub. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend 

granted with “extreme liberality”). Leave to amend is thus ordinarily granted unless the 

amendment is futile, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is being sought 

by plaintiffs in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962); Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003).

B. Analysis

The proposed amended complaint (“PAC”) asserts the following claims for relief, 

styled as “Count One” through “Count Six:”

1. Employment discrimination based on race, age and/or national 

origin, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the 

Civil Rights Act of 1991, alleging disparate treatment “for a similar position”

and “hostile working environment.” PAC ¶¶ 46, 47.

2. Employment retaliation in violation of Title VII, by terminating plaintiff 

for questioning and objecting to the misconduct and discriminatory 

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 8
3

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

Northern District of California

employment practices of the management of the IEOR, PAC ¶ 55; and 

blocking her reemployment, PAC ¶ 59.

3. Defamation based on statements about plaintiff by Diane Onley and 

Charro Albarran to a third party. PAC ¶¶ 62-64.

4. Procedural due process violation, alleging that plaintiff was denied a 

hearing on her whistleblower claim by the UC Whistleblower Program and 

that she denied notice of a hearing in Alameda Superior Court, where she 

was represented by counsel, on her petition for writ of mandate seeking 

review of the decision by Director [of Office of Labor Commission] Christine 

Baker on her retaliation claim. PAC ¶¶ 67-69.

5. Statutory retaliation claim for violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5, 

and violation of UC Whistleblower Protection Policy, Section III.D, and UC 

PPSM Policy, based on continued retaliatory actions by UC Berkeley after 

the Labor Commissioner/Department of Industrial Relations failed to make 

an unbiased investigation and decision on her whistleblower retaliation 

complaint, by collaborating with plaintiff’s former attorney Walston and the 

Superior Court to block plaintiff’s access to the court in seeking judicial 

review of the Labor Commissioner’s decision. PAC ¶¶ 71-72.

6. Liability of UC Berkeley/UC Regents for breach of constitutional 

rights and damage to plaintiff’s reputation by UC employees. PAC ¶¶ 74-

77.

Defendant contends that plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to add two new claims: 

(i) procedural due process in Count Four, and (ii) a statutory retaliation claim for violation 

of California Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower statute) in Count Five. These claims 

were not alleged in the original complaint. The court further notes that Count One 

alleging a disparate treatment claim for employment discrimination adds an allegation of 

“[s]etting up a hostile working environment in violation of [ ] Title VII,” which was not 

alleged in the original complaint. PAC ¶ 47.

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff initially stated that she does not seek leave to add new causes of action 

but only to better present her existing causes of action. Doc. no. 30 (Notice of Mot. 

Amend). However, plaintiff concedes in her reply that she wants to add allegations about 

a “series of actions” related to her October 2010 complaint to the California Labor 

Commissioner, suggesting that the Regents intentionally tried to delay or ruin the 

investigation and decision on her retaliation complaint. Doc. no. 32. As defendant has 

not, at this juncture, challenged the legal sufficiency of the claims raised in the original 

complaint (and has, indeed, answered that complaint), the court proceeds to determine 

whether to grant leave to add the newly raised claims pursuant to Rule 15. 

1. Procedural Due Process Claim

Defendant opposes granting leave to amend the complaint to add “Count Four” 

for “procedural due process.” Defendant argues that this claim relates only to the failure 

of plaintiff’s former attorney in securing a hearing on her petition to the Alameda County 

Superior Court for judicial review of an agency decision on her retaliation complaint, and 

the procedural violations by the California Department of Industrial Relations, neither of 

whom is a defendant in this action. Doc. no. 31 (“Opp.”) at 4. The newly raised claim 

alleges misconduct by plaintiff’s former attorney and the California Department of 

Industrial Relations, without any factual allegations to support plaintiff’s conclusory 

statements that “all these were from UC Berkeley’s consents,” and that “defendant 

attorney Smith collaborated” with plaintiff’s former attorney Walston to block her access 

to the court and her complaint. PAC ¶ 69. See also PAC ¶ 72. Although these particular 

allegations of misconduct by plaintiff’s former attorney and the California Department of 

Industrial Relations do not state a cognizable claim against The Regents, the court will 

allow plaintiff to further amend her complaint to include factual allegations to support her 

assertion that UC Berkeley consented to, or collaborated in, denying plaintiff a court 

hearing on review of the agency decision on her retaliation complaint. Therefore, the 

court DENIES plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint to add ¶ 69 as currently 

alleged in the Proposed Amended Complaint, and GRANTS LEAVE TO FURTHER 

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 4 of 8
5

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

Northern District of California

AMEND with respect to the procedural due process claim raised in PAC ¶ 69 based on 

the denial of a hearing on her petition before the Alameda County Superior Court.

The procedural due process claim styled as “Count Four” also alleges that “UC 

Whistleblower Program’s failure to grant her such a hearing violated Plaintiff’s right to 

procedural due process protected by Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 

United States of America.” PAC ¶ 68. This allegation sufficiently alleges a colorable

claim for denial of procedural due process rights. See Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 

478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991) (“When a government-created property interest is at stake, due 

process principles require at least notice and an opportunity to respond in some manner, 

whether in writing or at an oral hearing, before termination of that interest.”) (citing 

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985)). As defendant has not 

shown under Foman that amendment to add this claim is futile, would cause undue 

prejudice to the defendant, or is being sought by plaintiff in bad faith or with a dilatory 

motive, leave to amend to add the new procedural due process claim asserted in PAC 

¶ 68 is GRANTED.

2. Statutory Retaliation Claim

Defendant objects to proposed “Count Five” alleging retaliation in violation of 

Labor Code § 1102.5, on the ground that it is time-barred. Defendant argues that a 3-

year statute of limitations under CCP § 338(a) applies to “liability created by statute” and 

only a 1-year statute of limitations under § 340(a) to seek “penalty or forfeiture. Opp. at 

4. Defendant contends that even under the more generous 3-year limitations period, the 

last date to file plaintiff’s statutory retaliation claim, based on a layoff date of August 31, 

2009, would have been August 31, 2012. However, plaintiff has alleged a pattern of 

continuing conduct, including interference with her reemployment, interference with the 

retaliation complaint before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and 

defamation, so that the limitations period would not necessarily be triggered by her 

termination date. This case is still in a relatively early stage of litigation, and defendant 

has alleged in its affirmative defenses to the original complaint that plaintiff’s claims are 

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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

Northern District of California

time-barred. As defendant will have the opportunity to challenge the timeliness of the 

newly asserted statutory retaliation claim in a motion to dismiss or dispositive motion, 

amendment to add this claim would not cause undue prejudice to defendant. Therefore, 

leave to amend to add the statutory retaliation claim asserted in “Count Five” is 

GRANTED. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (“Absent prejudice, or a strong 

showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 

15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”). 

3. Hostile Work Environment

The court notes that the PAC raises a new allegation of hostile work environment

that was not alleged as a claim in the original complaint: 

Setting up a hostile working environment . . . caused 

intentionally disparate treatment in IEOR department under 

the COE [College of Engineering] and well-supported and 

omitted by UC Berkeley/UC Regents; making various illegal 

conducts and using UC and our tax payer’s money as their 

ATM machine that harms both the public and their own 

employees as well as being against UC and California state 

OSHA (Office of Safety and Health Administration) policies.

 

PAC ¶ 47.

Defendant does not object to this newly raised hostile work environment allegation 

in PAC ¶ 47, which also restates the disparate treatment allegations raised in the original 

complaint. The original complaint generally alleged that defendant “established a hostile 

working environment,” but did not assert a harassment or hostile work environment claim 

independent of the disparate treatment and retaliation claims. Compl. ¶ 2. The new 

hostile work environment allegation does not factually distinguish the disparate treatment 

theory of discrimination based on race, age and/or national origin from the conclusory 

statement that defendant created a “hostile working environment.” PAC ¶ 47. 

To state a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must allege that “‘(1) he was 

subjected to verbal or physical conduct because of his race, (2) the conduct was 

unwelcome, and (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the 

conditions of his employment and create an abusive work environment.’” Johnson v. 

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 6 of 8
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Riverside Healthcare System, LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Manatt v. 

Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003)) (internal marks omitted). 

The court notes that neither the original complaint nor the Proposed Amended 

Complaint contains factual allegations to allege discriminatory conduct that was so 

“severe or pervasive” that it altered the conditions of employment and created an abusive 

work environment. Rather, the reference to a hostile work environment reiterates the 

allegations that managers “misused power and university money for their own personal 

benefits and life styles; refused to provide good services to UC own clients, faculty 

members, staffs and students, etc.” PAC ¶ 4. Thus, the allegation of a hostile work 

environment, as currently stated in PAC ¶ 47, fails to allege the elements of a hostile 

work environment claim, as set forth above. Liberally construing the allegations, 

however, the court does not find the hostile work environment claim to be frivolous or 

made in bad faith. Because of the presumption in favor of granting leave to amend, and 

in the absence of a showing by defendant that amendment of the complaint to include a 

hostile work environment claim would be futile, unduly prejudicial, or in bad faith, the 

court GRANTS LEAVE TO FURTHER AMEND THE COMPLAINT with respect to PAC 

¶ 47, to add factual allegations to establish the elements of a hostile work environment 

claim, if plaintiff can substantiate such a claim.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint is DENIED IN PART with 

respect to PAC ¶ 69, which alleges misconduct by plaintiff’s former attorney and the 

California Department of Industrial Relations in support of a new procedural due process 

claim against defendant. However, plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO FURTHER AMEND 

PAC ¶ 69 to allege facts to support her assertion that UC Berkeley consented to, or 

collaborated in, denying plaintiff a court hearing on review of her retaliation complaint in 

violation of her right to procedural due process. 

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Northern District of California

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO FURTHER AMEND PAC ¶ 47 to allege 

facts to support the elements of a hostile work environment claim, if substantiated.

3. Except for the limited rulings granting leave to further amend ¶ 47 and ¶ 69

of the Proposed Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED

IN REMAINING PART, including the new claims asserted in ¶ 68 of “Count Four” for 

denial of procedural due process with respect to the UC Whistleblower Program’s failure 

to grant a hearing, and in ¶¶ 71-72 of “Count Five” for retaliation in violation of Labor 

Code § 1102.5.

To be clear, plaintiff may further amend the PAC as to ¶ 47 and ¶ 69 by adding 

facts as required above. Her proposed amendments to ¶¶ 68, 71-72 are adequate and 

shall remain as stated. No additional claims, parties, or facts may be included in the 

further amendments permitted by this order.

Accordingly, plaintiff may further amend the complaint, in compliance with the 

rulings set forth in this order, and file the amended complaint as the “Second Amended 

Complaint,” by May 19, 2016. 

Defendant shall have 21 days after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint to 

file an answer or otherwise respond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04958-PJH Document 33 Filed 04/28/16 Page 8 of 8