Muto v. County of Mendocino

Background

Mary Muto worked for the County of Mendocino as a Social Worker Assistant II and later as a Social Worker III. Beginning in 2017, she experienced memory, focus, and mood problems and was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment. The record described repeated conflicts between Muto and coworkers, including yelling, hostile or inappropriate comments, and other confrontational conduct. Muto’s supervisors addressed some of these incidents, and she received written performance reviews that generally rated her as standard or above standard but rated her weak or unsatisfactory in getting along with fellow employees.

After additional workplace complaints, including a March 2019 confrontation with coworker Chela Ruano, the County investigated Muto and placed her on paid administrative leave. The County later issued a notice of intent to terminate her employment. Following a hearing, the County terminated her employment effective August 26, 2019. Muto appealed to the Mendocino County Civil Service Commission, which upheld the termination. Muto did not seek judicial review of that decision through a writ of mandamus.

Age-discrimination claims

Muto asserted age-discrimination claims under federal and California law. The court explained that these claims required evidence including that Muto was at least 40, was performing her job satisfactorily, and was replaced by a younger employee. The County presented evidence that an older employee replaced Muto. Muto offered no evidence to rebut that showing or to show that the County’s stated reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. At the hearing, she conceded that she had no such evidence and withdrew both age-discrimination claims.

The court therefore granted summary judgment for the County on the federal and state age-discrimination claims, identified as Claims One and Two in the complaint.

State disability-discrimination claim

The County argued that the prior state administrative proceedings had a preclusive effect. “Preclusive effect” means that a prior decision prevents a later tribunal from reconsidering an issue that was already fairly decided. The court held that the administrative proceedings were binding on Muto’s California disability-discrimination claim because she received an adverse decision after hearings in which the disputed issues were resolved, and she did not obtain judicial review of that decision.

The court noted that Muto conceded at the hearing that the state agency’s finding was binding on her California claims. The court also concluded that the administrative proceeding concerned the same right to continued employment at issue in the state disability claim.

Federal disability-discrimination claim

Muto claimed that the County terminated her because of her disability. She did not claim that the County failed to provide a requested accommodation or failed to participate in an accommodation process, and she conceded that she had not requested an accommodation. The court analyzed the claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires a plaintiff to show that she was disabled, qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and terminated because of the disability.

The court found no genuine dispute that getting along with coworkers was an essential function of Muto’s job. It relied on numerous unrebutted accounts of hostile or disruptive interactions with coworkers and concluded that Muto had not shown she could perform that function. The court rejected Muto’s unsupported assertion that coworkers had been pressured to lie or exaggerate and held that her criticisms of the County’s investigation did not create a factual dispute. The court also found that the evidence from Christine Naber did not establish that Muto could perform the job with reasonable accommodations. Naber’s evaluation expressly was not an assessment of Muto’s ability to work competently, described possible accommodations only as suggestions to try, and did not address Muto’s difficulty getting along with coworkers.

The court also considered Muto’s argument that her disability caused her workplace behavior and that the County fabricated other reasons to terminate her. It held that this theory differed from the theory presented in her complaint and that, even if considered, it failed because the undisputed evidence showed that the County terminated her for her inability to get along with coworkers. The court further held that the federal disability claim required proof that the termination would not have occurred but for the disability, and Muto could not make that showing.

Ruling

The court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted the County’s request for judicial notice, overruled Muto’s objections to the County’s evidence, and overruled the County’s objections to Muto’s evidence. The order was signed by Sallie Kim, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 3, 2022.