Kohli v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Background

Raj Kohli, a former City employee, originally sued the City in state court for employment discrimination. After Kohli filed a second amended complaint that included a federal claim, the City removed the case to federal court.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed Kohli’s state-law claims alleging failure to prevent harassment, hostile work environment, and discrimination through failure to accommodate a medical condition. The court denied leave to amend those claims because it found that Kohli filed them more than one year after receiving his right-to-sue notice. The court also dismissed Kohli’s Title VII retaliation claim but allowed him to amend it.

Kohli then filed a third amended complaint asserting only Title VII retaliation. He alleged that he was fired about six weeks after filing an internal complaint against the Head of Audit, which he claimed was protected activity under Title VII. He alleged that the complaint concerned discrimination and harassment and that City officials described it as a discrimination claim and assured him there would be no retaliation. Kohli alleged that he is of South Asian descent, but he did not allege that the internal complaint was based on race or national origin.

The court’s reasoning

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The court explained that conduct opposing discrimination is protected from retaliation under Title VII only when the underlying discrimination reasonably appears to involve one of those protected characteristics.

The court found that Kohli’s allegations instead referred to disability, a medical condition, or age. For example, the complaint described a supervisor’s comment that Kohli was “too slow” as age-related and alleged comments mocking his medical condition. The court found nothing in the complaint suggesting that the alleged conduct was based on Kohli’s South Asian descent or another characteristic protected by Title VII.

The court rejected Kohli’s argument that he did not need to cite statutory language expressly if his conduct reasonably fell within Title VII’s protection. It explained that the underlying discrimination still had to be reasonably understood as discrimination prohibited by Title VII.

Ruling

Judge Jon S. Tigar held that Kohli’s third amended complaint still failed to allege a basis for a Title VII retaliation claim. Because the court had previously identified the same deficiency, Kohli had received an opportunity to correct it, and he identified no additional facts he could allege, the court denied further leave to amend.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.