Kohli v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Background

Raj Kohli, a former employee of the City and County of San Francisco, filed an administrative complaint alleging harassment, discrimination based on medical condition, age, and disability, and retaliation. He received a right-to-sue notice dated August 4, 2023. He initially filed state-law claims concerning age and race discrimination, failure to prevent harassment, and hostile work environment.

The state court later allowed Kohli to file a second amended complaint. That complaint alleged that he requested a medical accommodation for permanent nerve damage and the loss of his toes; told workplace personnel about other medical conditions; experienced harassment from a colleague; and was terminated on October 27, 2022. It asserted four claims: three under California law and a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The City removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plead enough facts to support a legally recognized claim. The court held that Kohli’s disability-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims were time-barred. Kohli did not dispute that he failed to bring those claims within one year after August 4, 2023, the date on his right-to-sue notice. The court rejected his arguments that the alleged conduct was continuing, that the notice was unclear, or that the disability claims related back to his earlier complaints. The court explained that the disability claims depended on different facts and evidence from the earlier age- and race-based claims.

The court also dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim. Kohli did not respond to the City’s arguments that the claim was time-barred or unexhausted under the cited California law, and that California Labor Code section 132a did not provide a viable basis for his claim. The court dismissed the failure-to-prevent-harassment claim because Kohli’s underlying harassment claim failed and because he did not respond to the City’s argument that he had not exhausted administrative remedies for that claim.

Finally, the court dismissed Kohli’s Title VII retaliation claim. The court explained that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, while Kohli’s allegations concerned disability. Although Kohli referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act in his opposition, he had not asserted an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. It dismissed the state-law claims without leave to amend because Kohli could not cure the timeliness problem. It dismissed the Title VII retaliation claim with leave to amend because it was not clear that the pleading could not be corrected with additional facts. Kohli may file an amended complaint within 21 days, solely to attempt to cure the deficiencies in that claim. If he does not timely amend, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.