Bearden v. Alameda County

Background

Jerome Bearden, a Juvenile Institutional Officer at the County of Alameda’s Juvenile Justice Center, alleged that coworker Christine Bernal confronted him after he raised concerns about paperwork. According to the second amended complaint, Bernal entered a unit where she was not assigned, approached Bearden aggressively, yelled at him, and said that he should be investigated, fired, and retire. Bearden alleged that supervisor Gabriel Zamora did not stop the confrontation or discipline Bernal. He also alleged that Bernal falsely told the Juvenile Justice Center’s superintendent that Bearden had lunged at her, although a video review allegedly showed that complaint was false. Bearden claimed that County officials failed to report the incident because of his separate wrongful-termination lawsuit against the County and that he would have been treated differently because he is African American.

Bearden asserted claims under California Government Code sections 815.2 and 815.6, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The pleading also included a Title VII employment-discrimination claim. The County moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim.

California Government Code Claims

The court rejected the County’s argument that Bearden failed to comply with the California Government Claims Act. Bearden had filed a claim form, and the court found that it gave the County enough information to investigate the July 2018 incident. The court also considered that Bearden filed the claim form without a lawyer. The court held that he had substantially complied with the claim-form requirements even though the form did not cite sections 815.2 and 815.6.

The court nevertheless dismissed the section 815.2 claim without prejudice. That provision can make a public entity responsible for an employee’s act or omission when the conduct would independently support a tort claim against the employee. The court found that Bearden did not allege a tort injury resulting from Zamora’s alleged failures and did not identify a specific tort caused by Bernal’s statements, such as assault or battery.

The court dismissed the section 815.6 claim with prejudice. Section 815.6 applies when a public entity violates a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment designed to protect against the particular injury alleged. The court held that the County’s internal workplace-violence policy was not an enactment. It also held that the cited Civil Service Commission rule used discretionary language stating that discourteous treatment “may” be a reason for discipline, and that California Government Code section 19572(m) did not impose a mandatory duty on the specific public entity involved. The court concluded that the section 815.6 claim could not succeed.

Section 1981 and Title VII Claims

The court dismissed Bearden’s section 1981 claim without prejudice. Section 1981 prohibits intentional racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. For a claim against a local government entity, the plaintiff must also identify an official policy or custom that caused the alleged violation. The court found that Bearden’s allegation that he would have been treated differently if he had acted as Bernal did was speculative and did not allege an actual deprivation or denial of a right. It also found that he did not allege a County policy or custom supporting racial discrimination.

The court separately analyzed the Title VII claim included within Bearden’s section 1981 cause of action and dismissed it without prejudice. The court stated that Title VII requires a person to complete specified administrative steps, including filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and suing within the required period after receiving a right-to-sue letter. The complaint mentioned an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing concerning a wrongful-termination matter, but the court found no evidence that Bearden had completed the required administrative process for this claim.

The court granted Bearden leave to amend the section 1981 and Title VII claims by adding facts about the County’s specific policy or custom, an actual deprivation or denial of a right, and completion of administrative remedies if he had in fact exhausted them. The court also directed that these distinct causes of action be pleaded separately in any amended complaint.

Section 1983 Claim

The court dismissed the section 1983 claim without prejudice. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights committed under state authority. A claim against a county requires allegations that a County policy or custom caused the constitutional injury; the County cannot be held responsible merely because one of its employees allegedly acted or failed to act.

Bearden relied on the Fourteenth Amendment and alleged discrimination, unequal treatment, retaliation, and harassment. The court held that a “class of one” equal-protection theory—an allegation that one person was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated people—cannot be used in the public-employment context. The court also found that Bearden had not alleged facts showing that Bernal’s confrontation and Zamora’s inaction deprived him of life, liberty, or property, or that an official County policy or custom caused his injury. The court allowed amendment if Bearden could allege the required constitutional deprivation and an applicable official policy or custom.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston vacated the scheduled hearing and granted the County’s motion to dismiss. The second cause of action, under Government Code section 815.6, was dismissed with prejudice. The first, third, and fourth causes of action—including the section 815.2, section 1981, Title VII, and section 1983 claims—were dismissed without prejudice. The court set May 1, 2020, as the deadline for any amended complaint.