Knox v. Contra Costa County

Background

Mary Elizabeth Knox, Rachel Piersig, Alison Chandler, Mary Blumberg, and Jill Henderson, who are deputy district attorneys in the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, sued Contra Costa County, the District Attorney’s Office, and Doe defendants. They alleged an ongoing pattern of gender and age discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). They also asserted a FEHA claim for failure to prevent discrimination and sought injunctive and other relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rules 8, 10(b), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not alleged enough facts showing discriminatory or retaliatory employment actions, age discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, or entitlement to injunctive relief. They also asked the court to dismiss the Doe defendants.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Second Amended Complaint satisfied Rule 10(b) because it included specific factual allegations within each claim identifying the conduct involved for each plaintiff. The court also held that the claims met Rules 8 and 12(b)(6).

For the gender-discrimination claims under FEHA and Title VII, the court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they were qualified women who experienced adverse employment actions and that less qualified men received more favorable treatment. The alleged actions included demotions, denial of promotions, reduced supervisory responsibilities, and replacement or supervision by less experienced men.

For the age-discrimination claims under FEHA and the ADEA, the court found that Knox, Piersig, Chandler, and Henderson plausibly alleged that they were over 40, suffered adverse employment actions, and were demoted or passed over in favor of younger, less qualified male attorneys. The court stated that no more was required at the pleading stage.

The court also found that all five plaintiffs plausibly alleged retaliation. They alleged that they complained about improper or unlawful conduct and filed charges with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, followed by adverse employment actions. Because the court rejected the defendants’ challenges to the discrimination claims, it also rejected their argument that the failure-to-prevent-discrimination claim should be dismissed as derivative.

The court denied the request to dismiss the plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary and permanent injunctions. It relied on the allegations that the plaintiffs remained employed at the District Attorney’s Office and that discriminatory conduct based on gender and age was ongoing.

Doe defendants and disposition

The court granted the motion to the extent it sought dismissal of the Doe defendants on the federal claims—Claims Five, Six, and Seven, involving gender discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation under federal law. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not provided specific facts about those Doe defendants. However, relying on California law governing Doe pleading, the court denied the motion as to Doe defendants named in the FEHA claims.

Result

The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted only as to dismissal of the Doe defendants on the federal claims and was denied in all other respects.