Malloy v. Regents of the University of California

Background

Stephen G. Malloy filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application but found that the original complaint failed to state a claim for relief and directed him to amend it. Malloy then filed a 70-page first amended complaint naming 62 defendants.

Malloy alleged that he worked for the University of California San Francisco in temporary and permanent patient-navigator positions. He alleged that he was the only Black male, gay male, and veteran patient navigator at the University of California in 2018. He described disputes involving medication provided to a Black patient at a sobering center, complaints about workplace bias and patient care, discussions with coworkers, an investigation, suspension, denial of a permanent position, and termination on October 10, 2018.

The amended complaint asserted claims under Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Pay Act, Title IX, the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act, federal disabled-veteran employment law, the Drug-Free Workplace Act, and Executive Order 11246. It also asserted claims involving whistleblower retaliation, defamation, sexual harassment, and breach of contract.

Rule 8 and Screening

Because Malloy was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from an immune defendant. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement of the claims.

The court found that the amended complaint still did not satisfy Rule 8. It was repetitive and difficult to understand, and Malloy did not clearly identify which defendant allegedly committed which wrongdoing or which claim applied to which defendant. The court stated that this failure deprived most defendants of fair notice. If Malloy amended again, the court required him to provide a clear narrative and connect each defendant to specific factual allegations and claims rather than grouping dozens of defendants together.

Immunity

The court explained that federal defendants and federal officials sued in their official capacities may be protected by sovereign immunity, which generally prevents lawsuits for damages against the federal government without its consent. It also explained that the University of California and the Board of Regents are treated as state instrumentalities for Eleventh Amendment purposes and generally cannot be sued for damages in federal court. The court noted that officials may be sued for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief, but Malloy had requested only generalized injunctive relief and had not identified specific requested orders.

Claims Discussed

The court found that Malloy had not alleged facts supporting sex, gender, or sexual-orientation discrimination under Title VII. His allegations about a prescription did not involve similarly situated employees because the employees he identified were a nurse practitioner and a psychiatrist. His allegations about the patient’s incorrect medication form did not show that anyone acted because the patient was Black. The court also stated that Title VII generally does not make employers liable for discriminatory comments by patients or other non-employees.

The court found that Malloy had not alleged a plausible age-discrimination claim because he did not connect any employment action to his age. It found that he had not identified a qualifying disability or alleged that any employment action occurred because of a disability, so his Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims were deficient. His Title IX claim lacked allegations that his work program received federal assistance or that he was treated worse than similarly situated female employees.

The court found no housing-related facts supporting a Fair Housing Act claim. It found no factual basis for defamation because Malloy did not identify a provably false statement published by a defendant or harm to his reputation. It found no facts supporting a Drug-Free Workplace Act claim, an Equal Pay Act claim, or claims under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act and Executive Order 11246. The court also stated that the latter two authorities did not provide a private right of action and that Malloy had not alleged that his employer was a federal contractor or that he suffered discrimination based on veteran status.

The court found that Malloy had not alleged employer-imputable conduct based on sex that was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a sexual-harassment claim. It also found that his breach-of-contract allegations did not identify a contract or a contract term that had been breached.

The court treated Malloy’s retaliation allegations differently. Malloy alleged that he reported discrimination, bias, and patient-care concerns; discussed those matters with coworkers; and was then questioned, threatened, suspended, denied a permanent position, and terminated. The court found those allegations sufficient to suggest a causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment action, but required Malloy to identify the responsible defendants and provide specific supporting facts.

The court also found that Malloy’s whistleblower allegations were unclear because he did not identify the governing law, the recipients of his complaints, the conduct he reported, or the retaliation he experienced. It directed him to provide those details if he amended the complaint.

Disposition

The court did not dismiss the amended complaint. It granted Malloy one more opportunity to amend and ordered him to file a second amended complaint by March 16, 2020. The court warned that it would likely recommend dismissal of the age-discrimination, disability, Title IX, Fair Housing Act, defamation, Drug-Free Workplace Act, Equal Pay Act, veteran-related, Executive Order 11246, and breach-of-contract claims if Malloy reasserted them without curing the identified defects. It also warned that federal defendants and University of California-related defendants might be unable to be sued for damages.