Malae v. City of Santa Clara

Background

Jacob Malae alleged that he had worked for the Santa Clara Police Department for more than 22 years and had been a sergeant for more than 10 years. He alleged that the defendants—the City of Santa Clara, Police Chief Patrick Nikolai, and Captain Todd Cummins—discriminated against him because he is Samoan by denying him promotions and overtime. He also alleged that they retaliated against him after he spoke about systemic racism, possible corruption, alleged cover-ups of misconduct, and related issues within the department.

Malae alleged that he scored second on a 2019 lieutenant’s promotional examination but was passed over after coworkers described his presence as intimidating or said that an interaction with him made one coworker feel threatened. He alleged that those incidents were not investigated or documented as required by department policy. He further alleged that promotional lists on which he appeared were later terminated, that Caucasian employees’ promotional lists were not terminated, and that the Traffic Unit—including Malae—was denied overtime.

First Amendment retaliation claim

Malae brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for certain constitutional violations. He alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for speech protected by the First Amendment by terminating promotional lists and denying overtime.

The court dismissed the official-capacity claims against Chief Nikolai and Captain Cummins because those claims duplicated the claim against the City. As to the individual-capacity claims, the court found that the complaint did not adequately allege Captain Cummins’s knowledge of Malae’s speech or facts showing that the speech motivated Cummins’s decision to deny overtime. The court also found that the complaint did not clearly allege Chief Nikolai’s involvement in terminating the promotional lists or denying overtime. The court granted Malae leave to amend those claims and did not decide the defendants’ qualified-immunity arguments.

The court also held that the complaint did not adequately allege a basis for holding the City liable under Monell. That doctrine requires facts showing that an official policy, custom, deliberately indifferent omission, or final policymaker’s involvement or ratification caused the constitutional violation. The court said Malae’s allegations did not sufficiently connect such a policy or conduct to retaliation for his speech. The court found, however, that Malae adequately alleged that he spoke as a private citizen about matters of public concern. The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation cause of action with leave to amend.

Race and national-origin discrimination

The court denied the dismissal motion as to Malae’s allegations that the failure to promote him and the termination of promotional lists were discriminatory. The court found that his allegations about his Samoan identity, qualifications, favorable evaluations, examination score, unexplained treatment of alleged complaints against him, termination of promotional lists, and more favorable treatment of non-Samoan or Pacific Islander employees supported an inference of discriminatory motive.

The court granted the dismissal motion as to the allegation that denying overtime was discriminatory. Malae alleged that the entire Traffic Unit was denied overtime, but he did not allege that similarly situated people outside his protected class were treated differently or facts suggesting that the overtime denial was motivated by discrimination. The court allowed him to amend if he wished to pursue that allegation and required him to clarify whether the claim arose under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, or both.

Employment-retaliation claim

Malae also alleged that the City retaliated against him under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act because he opposed racism and the department’s alleged failure to promote non-white officers. The court found that he adequately alleged protected activity and adverse employment actions but did not adequately allege a causal link between the two. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

Punitive damages

The court struck the punitive-damages claim against the City because the parties agreed that punitive damages were unavailable against the City under § 1983, Title VII, or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court dismissed the punitive-damages claim against Chief Nikolai and Captain Cummins with leave to amend. If Malae continued to pursue individual-capacity claims and punitive damages, he was required to add facts supporting the required showing of malice or reckless indifference.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, it dismissed the § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend; denied the motion as to discrimination involving the promotion denial and termination of promotional lists; granted the motion with leave to amend as to discriminatory denial of overtime; dismissed the Title VII and California Fair Employment and Housing Act retaliation claim with leave to amend; struck the punitive-damages claim against the City; and dismissed the punitive-damages claim against the individual defendants with leave to amend. Malae’s amended complaint was due by August 17, 2021.