Cooks v. Contra Costa County

Background

Peter James Cooks’s original complaint alleged a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and breach of contract. The court granted an earlier motion to dismiss and allowed him to amend. In his First Amended Complaint, Cooks continued to assert a USERRA claim, added a claim under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and abandoned the breach-of-contract claim.

Cooks alleged that he was hospitalized in July and November 2015 for mental-health issues and was diagnosed with psychosis with paranoia. He alleged that his supervisor treated him less favorably because of a disability or perceived disability, questioned him about his hospitalization and prognosis, scrutinized his work, and eventually contributed to his suspension and termination on October 31, 2016. He also alleged that he needed an accommodation involving his start time and schedule after his hospitalization.

Contra Costa County filed a second motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Rehabilitation Act claim

The court first addressed whether the four-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 applied. That period covers claims made possible by federal legislation enacted after December 2, 1990. The court concluded that Cooks’s Rehabilitation Act claim was possible before 1990 and before the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court therefore held that section 1658’s four-year period did not apply.

The court then considered which California limitations period governed the claim. Assuming that the more favorable three-year period for an action based on liability created by statute applied, the court held that the claim was still untimely. Cooks alleged that he was terminated on October 31, 2016, but he did not file this action until April 18, 2020.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act claim. Because Cooks had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not added new factual allegations, the court held that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

USERRA claim

Cooks’s second claim alleged violations of USERRA sections 4311 and 4312 based on denial of a reasonable accommodation and discrimination because of disability. The court explained that section 4311 prohibits discrimination because of an employee’s military service and applies when military membership or service obligations are a motivating factor in an adverse employment action.

The court agreed with the County that the amended complaint repeated the deficiencies identified in the earlier order. The earlier order found that Cooks alleged he was discharged because of his disability, not because of membership in the uniformed services. The amended complaint added no facts showing that the County took action because of Cooks’s status as a former member of the uniformed services. The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim and dismissed it with prejudice because further amendment would be futile.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the County’s second motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and dismissed both claims with prejudice.