Escalante v. San Francisco Community College District, and Board of Trustees

Background

Carolyn Escalante, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a second amended complaint against defendants associated with the San Francisco Community College District and Service Employees International Union, Local 1021. The complaint asserted claims against some defendants in their individual capacities and against others in their official capacities. The court had previously dismissed some claims with prejudice and allowed Escalante to amend certain Family and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and state-law claims.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally recognized claim supported by enough facts to make liability plausible.

The court dismissed the sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action because they repeated claims that had already been dismissed with prejudice. It also dismissed claims against the District, Board of Trustees, and individual defendants sued in their official capacities based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. As to individual-capacity claims against the SFCCD employees, the court found that Escalante did not allege facts showing conduct outside their official duties. It dismissed the first, third, fourth, and ninth causes of action against those defendants without leave to amend. The court also again dismissed the claims against Maria M. Lampasona without leave to amend based on the litigation privilege previously applied to her.

The second and fifth causes of action included claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Escalante alleged that defendants miscalculated her leave and charged her for more hours than she used. The court held that these allegations did not show that defendants denied, discouraged, or otherwise interfered with her actual use of protected leave. The court also found no adequately pleaded connection between the alleged November 2017 discipline and Family and Medical Leave Act activity. It therefore granted dismissal of these claims but gave Escalante one final opportunity to amend them if she could truthfully allege facts showing that connection.

The fourth cause of action alleged disability-accommodation violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act against two employees in their individual capacities. The court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act claim could not be brought against those defendants in that capacity and dismissed the cause of action without leave to amend.

The ninth cause of action, labeled a civil-rights violation, had already been dismissed without leave to amend and was dismissed again. The court also treated qualified immunity—protection for public employees from lawsuits over conduct that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right—as an independent ground for dismissing the section 1983 claims against the SFCCD defendants. Escalante had not identified a specific constitutional violation or facts showing that any right was clearly established.

The eighth cause of action alleged a Hobbs Act violation and a conspiracy under the Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court had previously explained that the Hobbs Act did not provide a private right of action and had given Escalante instructions for pleading a viable civil racketeering claim. The court found that the second amended complaint still did not identify the alleged threats, when they occurred, or who made them, and did not adequately plead a pattern of racketeering activity. It dismissed this cause of action without leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. All of Escalante’s federal claims were dismissed without leave to amend, except the Family and Medical Leave Act claims in the second and fifth causes of action, which were dismissed with leave to amend. Escalante could not add new causes of action or replead claims or name defendants previously dismissed with prejudice or without leave to amend. The court would consider the state-law claims only if Escalante amended the Family and Medical Leave Act claims sufficiently; otherwise, it stated that it would dismiss those claims without leave to amend and decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.