Lee v. South of Market Health Center

Background

Gwen Rowe Lee sued the South of Market Health Center and Charles Range, its former chief executive officer, alleging race-and-gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress under California law.

Lee alleged that she is an African-American woman over 40 who has a disability or perceived disability. The Health Center hired her around January 2015 and later promoted her to Director of Behavioral Healthcare Service at its LoPrest/Minna site. She alleged that supervisors and coworkers treated her dismissively, denied her support and resources, excluded her from training, assigned her duties she considered inappropriate, changed her work conditions, made derogatory comments, and retaliated after she raised concerns about discrimination, patient treatment, and privacy violations.

The defendants moved to dismiss claims one through four against Range, arguing that he was Lee’s supervisor rather than her employer and therefore could not be held liable for damages under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act. They also moved to dismiss claim five against both defendants, arguing that Lee had not plausibly alleged intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Lee argued that the statutory claims could proceed against an individual supervisor in an official capacity and that her emotional-distress allegations were sufficient.

Court’s Analysis

A motion to dismiss tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim legally plausible, assuming the complaint’s factual allegations are true. The court held that Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act do not provide a damages claim against supervisors or fellow employees. The court also rejected Lee’s argument that Section 1983 applied, noting that she had not alleged that the Health Center was a government entity and that Section 1983 was not applicable on the allegations before the court.

The court therefore found no viable claims against Range under those three federal employment statutes. At the hearing, Lee conceded the defendants’ argument concerning those claims. The court dismissed claims one through four against Range with prejudice.

For negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court explained that California law generally requires a duty, breach, causation, and damages. The court held that Lee had not plausibly alleged a duty owed to her and had conceded at the hearing that this claim was not viable and could not be cured through amendment.

For intentional infliction of emotional distress, California law requires extreme and outrageous conduct, severe emotional distress, and causation. The court held that Range’s alleged comments—including referring to Lee as “that damned Dr. Rowe-Lee” and saying that she was “getting old”—were isolated incidents that did not meet the required standard. The court also held that the alleged decisions about support staff, investigations, training, equipment, assignments, and other workplace matters were personnel-management decisions, not conduct extreme enough to support this tort claim.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The court dismissed claims one through four against Charles Range with prejudice. It dismissed claim five with prejudice as to negligent infliction of emotional distress. It dismissed claim five without prejudice and with leave to amend as to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court allowed Lee to file an amended complaint by May 21, 2020. The ruling did not dismiss claims one through four against the South of Market Health Center.