Duke v. San Francisco Community College District

Background

Shalamon Duke was employed by City College of San Francisco (CCSF) as Associate Vice Chancellor of Student Development beginning in June 2018. Before that, he worked for the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). A LACCD student-employee had filed a sexual-harassment complaint against Duke, and LACCD had placed him on administrative leave. LACCD later issued an investigative report that, according to the opinion, found the elements of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation satisfied for the incidents it considered. Duke testified that he received the report in November 2018 but did not tell CCSF about it.

After a civil complaint concerning the allegations was filed in Los Angeles County in December 2018, CCSF placed Duke on administrative leave. During a December 10 call, Duke told CCSF officials that he had been cleared and had an email welcoming him back to work at LACCD, although he did not tell them about the investigative report. CCSF later accused him of failing to disclose the LACCD complaint and of making an untruthful statement about a document showing he had been cleared. After a pre-disciplinary hearing, the CCSF Board of Trustees voted to terminate Duke’s employment on January 24, 2019.

Duke originally sued CCSF and individual defendants in state court. After removal and earlier rulings on motions to dismiss, five claims against CCSF remained: negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of California Government Code section 54957, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation under California Government Code section 12940(h), and violation of the federal Equal Pay Act. CCSF moved for summary judgment on all five claims. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Court’s analysis and rulings

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

Duke based this claim on the argument that CCSF violated California Education Code section 87732 by dismissing him for reasons not listed in that statute. The court concluded that CCSF’s stated grounds—unprofessional conduct and dishonesty—were consistent with section 87732. The court treated the disciplinary report’s reference to lack of good judgment as sufficiently similar to unprofessional conduct and noted that dishonesty was an independent statutory basis for dismissal. Because Duke could not show a triable issue that the dismissal was negligent on this theory, the court granted CCSF’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action.

California Government Code section 54957

Duke argued that CCSF failed to provide proper notice of a December 13, 2018 closed board session because the notice was emailed rather than delivered in another manner. The court found that no board action concerning Duke was taken at that meeting. The evidence instead showed that the termination-related action occurred at the January 24, 2019 meeting, after Duke’s January 9 pre-disciplinary hearing and the January 14 disciplinary report. Because there was no December 13 action to declare void, Duke could not establish a triable issue. The court granted CCSF’s motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action and did not need to decide whether the meeting involved the type of complaints or charges covered by the notice provision.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court held that Duke’s disciplinary process—written notices, administrative leave, and a pre-disciplinary hearing—was not conduct so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded what is ordinarily tolerated in a civilized community. The court also relied on its conclusion that the dismissal was consistent with California Education Code section 87732. It therefore granted CCSF’s motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action.

Retaliation under California Government Code section 12940(h)

Duke alleged that he complained about being paid less than Elizabeth Coria and that CCSF terminated him in retaliation for that complaint. The court found that Duke had not identified evidence showing that the disciplinary proceedings began because of his pay request. It also concluded that CCSF’s reasons for terminating him were legitimate and non-retaliatory under the analysis of his first claim. The court therefore granted CCSF’s motion for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action.

Equal Pay Act

Duke alleged that CCSF paid him less than Coria, a female counterpart. CCSF argued that the difference was permitted by the Equal Pay Act’s exception for a seniority system because Coria had already worked for CCSF for more than three years before taking the same role. The court found undisputed evidence that Coria had greater seniority within the CCSF system. Duke did not address that argument in his opposition. The court accordingly granted CCSF’s motion for summary judgment on the sixth cause of action.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s conclusion states that CCSF’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to all five of Duke’s remaining claims.

The opinion also addresses CCSF’s separate motion to seal Duke’s journal. Because the motion relied on Duke’s confidentiality designation, the court gave Duke until May 24, 2021, to file the declaration required by the local rules. The court stated that if he did not file it, the motion to seal would be denied and the journal would be filed on the public docket. The opinion does not state a final ruling on that sealing motion.