U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSTANCE ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN MATEO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-01967 CRB

ORDER

This lawsuit arises out of the termination of plaintiff’s employment by defendant

Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (“Housing Authority”). Now pending before

the Court are the motions to dismiss of defendants Housing Authority and Frank Salmeron. 

Both defendants contend that the allegations of the complaint demonstrate that plaintiff’s

claims are barred by the statute of limitations. After carefully considering the papers filed by

the parties, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and DENIES defendants’

motions.

Plaintiff’s first and second claims for relief allege that defendants denied her due

process by failing to provide her with a termination hearing, either before or after the

termination of her employment. The allegations of the complaint do not establish that this

claim arose prior to May 2003. For example, the complaint does not allege when plaintiff 

Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 19 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

became aware that defendants were refusing to provide her with a hearing after her

termination. To the contrary, the allegations of the complaint suggest that these claims arose

after July 2003, as the complaint alleges that in July 2003 plaintiff requested that defendant

appoint a third member to the panel designated to conduct a termination hearing. Complaint

¶ 12.

Plaintiff’s third claim for relief is based on Article 1, Section 8 of the California

Constitution and alleges that defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment on account of her

race. In particular, the complaint alleges that after defendants terminated plaintiff’s

employment, they hired a replacement who is a friend or companion of defendant Salmeron,

and that the hiring of plaintiff’s replacement was part of a pattern and practice of hiring

Hispanic relatives, friends or acquaintances of manager employees. Complaint ¶ 17. 

Assuming for purposes of this motion that the two-year statute of limitations for personal

injury actions applies, defendants have again failed to demonstrate that the allegations of the

complaint establish that the claim is time-barred. The complaint does not allege when

plaintiff became aware that her replacement was an Hispanic friend or relative of defendant

Salmeron, and it does not contain allegations that unambiguously demonstrate that plaintiff

should have been aware of her race discrimination claim at the time of her termination. See

Young v. Haines, 41 Cal.3d 883, 911 (1986).

Defendants’ reliance on Oka v. Skylawn Memorial Park, 1993 WL 255438 (N.D. Cal.

1993) is misplaced. Oka was decided on summary judgment and not a motion to dismiss. 

The opinion does not discuss the details of the case, but it appears that the plaintiff alleged

that he was paid less than caucasian employees and he quit his employment over the pay

disparity. Thus, at the time the plaintiff ended his employment he knew the facts upon which

his complaint was based and therefore the statute of limitations began to run when the

plaintiff resigned. Here, in contrast, defendants have not demonstrated that plaintiff was

aware, or should have been aware, of the facts upon which her race claim is based (namely,

replacing her with an Hispanic friend of Salmeron) at the time of the termination of her

Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 19 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\1967\order1.wpd 3

 employment. Accordingly, they have not established that the statute of limitations defeats

this claim either.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 19 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 3