Evans v. City & County of San Francisco

Background

Rachell Evans sued the City and County of San Francisco. The City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide claims based on the pleadings filed so far, and also sought to strike some allegations. The court canceled the scheduled hearing and decided the motion without oral argument.

Statute of limitations

The court ruled that claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were subject to California’s two-year limit for personal-injury claims. Because Evans filed her original complaint on October 20, 2020, events occurring on or after October 20, 2018, could support her § 1983 claims.

Discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims

The City argued that the timely employment actions Evans identified were not legally adverse employment actions and that she had not shown a causal connection for retaliation. The court rejected those arguments at the pleading stage, agreeing with Evans that whether the actions were adverse or retaliatory raised factual questions. The court noted that many of the City’s cited cases were decided on summary judgment or after trial, and stated that the City could renew its arguments on a fuller factual record.

The court also found that Evans sufficiently alleged a hostile-work-environment or harassment claim. In addition to the listed employment actions, Evans alleged that she was transferred to a racially segregated workplace and for some time was required to perform two jobs simultaneously. The court stated that the City could explore those issues in discovery.

The court noted that the amended complaint did not contain factual allegations supporting a discrimination claim based on a January 24, 2020 job notice. It stated that Evans could seek to amend the complaint if she wished to pursue that claim.

Section 1983 disparate-impact claim

Evans clarified that her disparate-impact claim was based on the City’s 2017 reassignment of African-American employees, including Evans, to the newly created Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. The court ruled that the claim was untimely under the two-year limitations period and granted the City’s motion to dismiss this claim.

Medical-whistleblowing retaliation claim

Evans alleged that she reported to the local Adult Protective Services agency that a patient had engaged in self-harm at the Windsor Hotel, and that she was disciplined afterward. She brought the claim under California Health and Safety Code § 1278.5. The City argued that the hotel was not a health facility, that the report did not concern poor patient care, and that the alleged retaliation was not an adverse employment action. The court concluded that Evans had stated a claim and that the City’s arguments raised factual questions that could not be resolved from the pleadings.

Motion to strike background allegations

The City sought to strike allegations it considered time-barred and irrelevant. Evans responded that the allegations supplied background and context rather than serving as the basis for her claims. The court declined to strike them because Evans was not basing her claims on the time-barred conduct and the allegations provided context. The court stated that, if the case reached trial, it could give the jury an instruction limiting how those allegations could be used.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or to strike. It granted the motion to dismiss Evans’s § 1983 disparate-impact claim, allowed her other challenged claims to proceed at this stage, and declined to strike the background allegations.