Wang v. City of Clear Lake

Background

Jane Wang sued the City of Clear Lake and two City employees, Greg Folsom and Doug Herron. The opinion states that Wang is an Asian woman who began working for the City in September 2017, apparently as a City Engineer and/or Deputy Director of Public Works. She alleged that Herron made unwanted invitations and comments about her body, that Herron and Folsom restricted her access to supplies, meetings, training, transportation, and other work-related benefits, and that non-Asian men were not treated the same way. She also alleged that co-workers mocked photographs of slum areas in China, that she reported the conduct without receiving a response, and that Herron and Folsom terminated her employment in November 2017.

The operative first amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Equal Pay Act, and state common law. The state-law claims included intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, negligent hiring, training, and retention, and breach of implied contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The City moved to dismiss and also asked the court to decline jurisdiction or stay the case because Wang had a related state-court action.

Rulings

The court deferred ruling on the City’s request for a stay under the Colorado River doctrine. Wang stated at the hearing that she intended to dismiss her state-court action, and the City conceded that its argument would be moot if she did so. The court stated it would rule on the stay request if Wang did not dismiss that action.

The court dismissed the Title VII claims because the complaint showed a timeliness problem. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice appeared to have been mailed on August 29, 2018, and Wang filed the federal action asserting Title VII claims on August 27, 2019. The court rejected illness as a sufficient basis for equitable tolling, but allowed Wang to amend to plead specific facts supporting equitable tolling based on confusing or incorrect information from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court barred her from asserting equitable tolling on other grounds, including sickness.

The court dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim with leave to amend. It found that Wang had not plausibly alleged unequal wages for equal work. Her allegations about supplies, use of a City vehicle, and overnight training accommodations did not show that the items were wages, that she requested reimbursement where relevant, or that similarly situated male employees received different compensation. New allegations in her opposition brief about salary and a relocation fee also lacked sufficient allegations that comparable male employees performed equal work and received different pay. The court said any amendment had to be made in good faith and could not rely on the alleged unequal accommodation or budget.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Fair Employment and Housing Act claims. Those claims involved sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, retaliation, and race discrimination. The court found the allegations sufficiently clear and nonconclusory at the pleading stage, while noting that it was not deciding whether every claim against Folsom was plausible.

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim for failure to present it to the City as required by the California Tort Claims Act, with leave to amend. It dismissed the wrongful-termination claim with prejudice because California law does not allow that common-law claim against a public entity and because Wang had not presented the claim as required. It dismissed the negligent hiring, training, and retention claim with leave to amend for failure to state a claim and failure to satisfy the presentment requirement; any amendment had to provide more specific facts. It also dismissed the implied-contract or implied-covenant claim with leave to amend because Wang had not shown that she presented it to the City or had a valid basis for not doing so.

The court granted the motion to dismiss all punitive-damages claims against the City for the state claims, citing California law barring punitive damages against public entities. The court did not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims at that time because the federal claims were not being dismissed with prejudice. The order required Wang to file an amended complaint by April 2, 2020, and the City to respond by April 23, 2020.