Cooks v. Contra Costa County

Background

Peter Cooks sued Contra Costa County, alleging violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and breach of contract. Cooks alleged that he was a retired U.S. Navy veteran hired by the County in 2010 as an IT professional. After hospitalizations for mental-health issues in 2015, he alleged that his supervisor questioned him about the hospitalizations and his prognosis, scrutinized his work, suspended him, and terminated him on October 31, 2016.

Cooks’s contract claim alleged that his employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement and that the County terminated him without just cause. The County moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Opposition and Judicial Notice

The court had previously extended Cooks’s deadline to oppose the motion but warned that it would not consider the opposition unless his lawyer complied with the court’s local rule and demonstrated admission to practice before the court. Because the lawyer did not comply, the court did not consider the opposition. The court granted the County’s request to take judicial notice of the County Board of Supervisors’ decision denying Cooks’s claim because it was a public record.

USERRA Claim

Cooks alleged violations of USERRA sections 4311 and 4312. Section 4311 prohibits discrimination when an employee’s military service is a motivating factor in an adverse employment action. The court held that Cooks did not allege facts connecting his military service to the termination. Instead, his allegations attributed the treatment and termination to his disability or perceived impairment. The court therefore held that he failed to state a section 4311 claim.

Section 4312 provides reemployment rights when an employee’s absence from work is required by military service. The court held that Cooks’s allegation that he was retired from the Navy did not establish that any absence from his County position was required by military service. He therefore also failed to state a section 4312 claim.

The court granted the County’s motion to dismiss the USERRA claim and dismissed it with leave to amend, stating that it was not clear that further amendment would be futile.

Breach-of-Contract Claim

The County argued that Cooks’s contract claim was barred by California Government Code section 945.6. That provision sets a six-month deadline for filing a lawsuit after a public entity denies a claim. The County asserted that the Board of Supervisors denied Cooks’s claim on May 23, 2017, while Cooks did not file this action until nearly three years later.

The court agreed that the contract claim was filed beyond the six-month deadline. It granted the County’s motion to dismiss that claim and dismissed it with leave to amend because Cooks might be able to allege additional facts supporting a claim.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss Cooks’s first cause of action for violating USERRA and dismissed that claim with leave to amend. It also granted the motion to dismiss the second cause of action for breach of contract and dismissed that claim with leave to amend. Cooks was allowed 21 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint. The order also required his lawyer to file proof of admission to practice before the court within 21 days. No new parties or causes of action could be added without court permission or the County’s agreement.