Court Opinion

ID: 9891458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 17:01:03.871094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:26.674968
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            OCT 18 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KRISTINA RAINES; DARRICK FIGG,                   No.   21-55229
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,                              D.C. No.
                                                 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB
              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL
GROUP, a corporation; et al.,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                  Dana M. Sabraw, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted January 12, 2022
                      Submission withdrawn March 16, 2022
                          Resubmitted October 13, 2023
                            San Francisco, California

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: RAWLINSON and R. NELSON,** Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,***
        District Judge.

      Kristina Raines and Darrick Figg (Appellants) appeal the district court’s

dismissal of their third amended complaint in their putative class action brought

against U.S. Healthworks Medical Group and others (Appellees). Appellants

alleged that Appellees violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

(FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Business & Professions Code (UCL)

§ 17200, and committed invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion when

asking intrusive and impermissible questions in a pre-employment health

questionnaire. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part

and reverse in part.

      1.     The district court held that although Appellants adequately alleged

that Appellees were agents of prospective employers, the FEHA did not impose

direct liability on Appellees as agents of the employers.

      Following oral argument, we certified to the Supreme Court of California

the question whether the FEHA permits a business entity acting as an agent of an

      **
             Judge R. Nelson was drawn to replace Judge Watford on the panel
following his departure from the court. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge
R. Nelson has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument.
      ***
            The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
                                          2
employer to be held directly liable for employment discrimination. See Raines v.

U.S. Healthworks Med. Grp., 28 F.4th 968, 969 (9th Cir. 2022); see also Cal Gov’t

Code § 12926(d) (defining “employer” to include “any person acting as an agent of

an employer”). We observed that the Supreme Court of California has twice

“exempt[ed] individuals acting as agents of an employer from liability,” but has

not ruled in the context of an agent that is a business entity. Raines, 28 F.4th at

971–72 (citing Reno v. Baird, 957 P.2d 1333 (Cal. 1998) and Jones v. Lodge at

Torrey Pines P’ship, 177 P.3d 232 (Cal. 2008)) (emphasis in the original).

      The Court accepted our request for certification and issued a published

opinion. See Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Med. Grp., 534 P.3d 40 (Cal. 2023). The

Court concluded that under § 12926(d), “an employer’s business entity agents can

be held directly liable under FEHA for employment discrimination in appropriate

circumstances when the business-entity agent has at least five employees and

carries out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of an employer.” Id. at 41. The

Court clarified that the policy concerns expressed in Baird and Jones are “absent or

much diminished” in a case involving a business-entity agent. Id. at 44.

      In keeping with the decision from the Supreme Court of California in answer

to our certified question, and with the district court’s determination that Appellees

                                           3
are agents of the prospective employers, we reverse the dismissal of Plaintiffs’

FEHA claim.

      2.     We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ claim brought

under the Unruh Act. The Unruh Act claim fails because the health questionnaire

is facially neutral. See Turner v. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., 167 Cal.App.4th 1401,

1408 (2008) (“A policy that is neutral on its face is not actionable under the Unruh

Act. . . .”). The health questionnaire asks all prospective employees the same

questions, and any disparate impact deriving from an individual being prompted to

disclose a disability, does not constitute a violation of the Unruh Act. See id.

Finally, Appellants fail to provide any legal support for their argument that

questions soliciting biologically appropriate health history constitute

discrimination.

      3.     We also affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ claim

alleging intrusion upon seclusion. Appellants failed to allege that the health exam

was “highly offensive to a reasonable person,” as is required to allege a viable

claim for intrusion upon seclusion. Shulman v. Group W. Prods., Inc., 955 P.2d

469, 490 (Cal. 1998). A questionnaire prompting prospective employees to

provide medical information, with the opportunity to decline to answer, does not

rise to the required level of intrusion. See id. at 494 (“[A]sking questions of people

                                           4
with information (including those with confidential or restricted information) could

rarely, if ever, be deemed an actionable intrusion.”) (citations omitted).1

      AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.

      1
             Appellants do not appeal the dismissal of their UCL claim.
                                           5