Anthony-Oliver v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Gloria Anthony-Oliver sued the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) and M’Kia McCright, a CCSF employee. She represented herself. The opinion says that her amended complaint contained factual allegations rather than clearly stated legal claims, but that it presumably asserted retaliation and discrimination based on race and her advocacy for children of color under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Anthony-Oliver described employment-related events beginning after she complained in October 2018 about funding and staffing for children of color. She alleged that her workload increased, that she was isolated and moved between positions, that her education-related duties were reduced, that her commute was lengthened, and that she was denied access to city vehicles and certain meetings. She also alleged that she was treated differently concerning remote work, medical records, medical leave, and a religious exemption from vaccination requirements. She said she retired in 2021 because of the stress and negative treatment and sought lost income and reinstatement.

In an earlier complaint, she asserted constructive discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages. She said she did not intend to assert the emotional-distress claim and did not oppose dismissal of the punitive-damages claim. The court had dismissed that complaint while allowing her to amend to clarify the federal claims she intended to bring.

Motion to dismiss

CCSF sought dismissal on two grounds: that Anthony-Oliver had not exhausted the required administrative procedures for her race-based discrimination and retaliation claims, and that individuals could not be held personally liable under the employment laws at issue.

Administrative exhaustion

The court held that the operative complaint alleged race-based retaliation and discrimination, while the employment-agency complaints concerned disability-based discrimination and retaliation. Title VII and FEHA require a claimant to complete specified administrative procedures before bringing the corresponding claims in court. The court concluded that Anthony-Oliver had not exhausted her race-based claims because those claims were not the same as, or reasonably related to, the disability claims investigated by the agencies.

The court considered the intake form that Anthony-Oliver submitted to the California employment agency. Although the form included race-related checked boxes and a reference to race discrimination, the court found that the form principally concerned health issues and alleged failures to accommodate them. The court concluded that the agencies had not investigated the race discrimination and retaliation claims and that those claims therefore had not been exhausted.

The court dismissed the existing claims with prejudice. It stated that Anthony-Oliver could amend her complaint to assert disability discrimination.

Claims against M’Kia McCright

The court separately held that Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and FEHA do not provide a damages claim against individual supervisors or fellow employees. The court also treated Anthony-Oliver’s failure to oppose dismissal of the claims against McCright as a concession of that argument. It concluded that there were no viable claims against McCright.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. Its conclusion states that it dismissed the claims with prejudice for all claims except claims against CCSF based on disability discrimination. If Anthony-Oliver wanted to amend her complaint to add a disability-discrimination claim, the court required her to do so by September 16, 2024. The order was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.