Kelly v. San Francisco City and County Department of Public Health

Background

Shana Marie Kelly filed an amended complaint against the City and County of San Francisco concerning her employment as a staffing assistant at Laguna Honda Hospital. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for race discrimination, a hostile work environment based on race, and retaliation. The court had previously dismissed her race-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims with leave to amend, while allowing her original retaliation claim to proceed.

The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support relief. It also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike certain allegations and requests from the pleading.

Race discrimination and hostile work environment

The court concluded that Kelly’s additional allegations did not cure the deficiencies in her race-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. It held that allegations concerning a 2019 knife incident remained untimely because Kelly had not submitted a timely administrative charge. The court also rejected Kelly’s argument for equitable tolling, finding that the alleged delay in scheduling her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intake interview did not make the challenged discrete acts timely.

The court further held that Kelly’s allegations about working full-time while receiving part-time benefits did not support an inference of racial motivation. It also found that the additional allegations about potential comparators did not adequately support an inference of race discrimination. The court dismissed these claims without prejudice and granted Kelly leave to amend them.

Retaliation

The court denied the motion to dismiss Kelly’s retaliation claim. It held that allegations of retaliatory conduct after her October 2024 meetings were reasonably related to the retaliation claim she had already exhausted and were consistent with her original theory. The court found that allegations involving a threat assessment, paid administrative leave, reassignment, changed schedules and duties, reduced hours, delayed or reduced payment, and inadequate human-resources support plausibly described actions that might deter a reasonable worker from reporting discrimination.

The court also found that Kelly adequately pleaded causation. It reasoned that her allegations of continuing retaliation after protected activity, extending through October 2025, plausibly connected the alleged adverse actions to that activity.

Motion to strike and disposition

The court granted the motion to strike Kelly’s request for punitive damages and otherwise denied the motion to strike. The motion was moot as to improper state-law theories and untimely discrete acts because the race-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims were dismissed. The court found the motion inapplicable to the post-2024 allegations because those allegations reasonably related to the retaliation claim.

In its conclusion, the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice as to the race-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims, denied it as to the retaliation claim, and allowed Kelly to file another amended complaint concerning the dismissed claims no later than March 31, 2026.