Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Defendant
Fernando Yates
Plaintiff

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

FERNANDO YATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01077-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER VACATING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 16

INTRODUCTION

In this employment discrimination case brought by pro se Plaintiff Fernando Yates 

(“Plaintiff”), Defendant West Contra Costa Unified School District (“Defendant”) moves for 

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff 

filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 19), and Defendant filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 20). The Court finds this 

matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the June 2, 2016 hearing. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant 

legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this case on March 2, 2016, on a pleading form entitled “Employment 

Discrimination Complaint.” Compl., Dkt. No. 1. The pre-filled portion of the form states: “This 

action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment 

discrimination.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that at some unspecified time in 2014, he was demoted 

from a teaching position to a substitute position due to “brain surgery.” Id. at 2. He further 

alleges that when Defendant found out he had brain surgery, “they ask[ed] me for a letter from my 

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 23 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 5
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

neurosurgeon because they believed that I could not perform my job well due to my brain 

surgery.” Id. Plaintiff does not allege he is a member of a particular class.

Defendant filed the present Motion on April 19, 2016, arguing that the Complaint fails to 

state a viable claim for employment discrimination. Mot. at 4. In the alternative, Defendant 

moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Id. at 4-5.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint must therefore 

provide a defendant with “fair notice” of the claims against it and the grounds for relief. Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) when it does not contain enough 

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 570. “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for 

more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 557). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need 

detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations and parentheticals omitted).

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the plaintiff’s allegations as 

true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at 550; Erickson v. Pardus, 

551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). In 

addition, courts may consider documents attached to the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. 

Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the “court should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 23 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 5
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

be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, the Court may deny leave to amend 

for a number of reasons, including “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice 

to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” 

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Foman v. 

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

DISCUSSION

Title VII requires a showing that “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a 

motivating factor for any employment practice[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). To establish a prima

facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) he belongs to a protected class based on his 

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an 

adverse employment action; and (4) the employer treated similarly situated employees outside his 

classification more favorably. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Tr., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th 

Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a viable claim for employment discrimination under 

Title VII because he does not allege membership in one of the protected classes. In his 

Opposition, Plaintiff argues he has established a prima facie case because: “i) he has a brain 

surgery ii) he was qualified for the position he held iii) he suffered an adverse employment action 

iv) that adverse action occurred in circumstances giving rise to the claim.” Opp’n at 2. Plaintiff 

contends he “was demoted from a teaching to a [substitute] position because Defendant’s [sic] 

believed that Plaintiff could not perform his duties due to brain surgery.” Id. However, the fact 

that Plaintiff had brain surgery does not establish that he is a member of a protected class under 

Title VII. Instead, Plaintiff must establish discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). 

Although Plaintiff argues his allegations satisfy the requirements of Title VII, based on his 

allegations regarding brain surgery, it appears he seeks to bring a claim for disability 

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

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 23 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 5
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

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against any “qualified individual on the basis 

of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination 

under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; 

(2) she is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without 

reasonable accommodation; and (3) she suffered an adverse employment action because of her 

disability.” Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(alterations omitted). 

While Plaintiff may be able to plead a plausible ADA claim, he has not asserted such a 

claim at this point. He appears to allege he is disabled because he had brain surgery. Although 

not plead in the Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a note from his neurosurgeon as part of his 

Opposition, stating that Plaintiff “has made a full recovery and is cleared to work with no 

limitations.” Opp’n at 4. However, while the Court may consider documents attached to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, see Parks Sch. of Bus., 51 F.3d at 1484, Plaintiff did not include this letter 

as part of his Complaint and it is therefore not properly considered at the motion to dismiss stage. 

Finally, Plaintiff alleges he suffered an adverse employment action in that he was demoted.

In sum, the Court finds the current version of Plaintiff’s Complaint does not show he is 

entitled to relief. However, pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). 

While Plaintiff has not established a viable claim under Title VII, it appears he may be able to 

state a claim under the ADA. Because the Court may not “dismiss a pro se complaint without 

leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 

cured by amendment,’” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted),

leave to amend is appropriate to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to allege facts supporting a 

plausible claim.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by June 13, 2016. If Plaintiff does not 

file an amended complaint by June 13, the Clerk of Court shall terminate this case. As the 

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 23 Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 5
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

pleadings remain unsettled, the Court VACATES the June 2, 2016 Case Management Conference 

and all related deadlines.

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the Court advises him that he may wish 

to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services 

Program, by calling 415-782-8982, or by signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the 

Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the 

Legal Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic 

legal help but not representation. More information is available online at: 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

Plaintiff may also wish to obtain a copy of the district court’s Handbook for Litigants 

Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, 

including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office 

and online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 23 Filed 05/11/16 Page 5 of 5