Wilson v. Oakland Unified School District

Background

Mark A. Wilson proceeded without a lawyer and alleged that the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) took unlawful disciplinary action against him while he was employed as a school security guard at Rudsdale High School. He alleged that he performed duties beyond his formal job description, reported problems at the school, was sent home and barred from campus on September 17, 2018, and was later accused of inappropriate physical contact with a student. He alleged that the misconduct report contained factual inaccuracies and that defendants later worked to portray him negatively and collect additional complaints.

Wilson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in May 2020. The EEOC issued him a notice of the right to sue in September 2021, and he filed this action in November 2021. His operative complaint asserted six claims: an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim and a Title VII claim against Jeanine Lindsey and Gregory Hom; and claims against OUSD under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Title VI, Title IX, and California Labor Code section 1102.5.

Issues and analysis

OUSD moved to dismiss claims three through six under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. OUSD argued that the claims were barred by filing deadlines and that Wilson had not timely completed required administrative procedures.

The court held that the Title VI and Title IX claims were untimely as pleaded. Those claims used a two-year limitations period, and the complaint showed that Wilson knew of the injuries underlying his claims no later than November 1, 2018, while he filed suit on November 26, 2021. The court also held that the California Labor Code section 1102.5 retaliation claim was untimely as pleaded under a three-year limitations period.

For the FEHA claim, the court explained that a person generally must file an administrative charge within one year of the alleged unlawful employment conduct and obtain a notice of the right to sue. The opinion did not indicate that Wilson filed a charge with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Even assuming that his EEOC charge could satisfy both federal and state administrative requirements, the court found that the charge was filed more than one year after the alleged conduct and was therefore too late as pleaded.

Wilson argued at the hearing that additional facts might support tolling, meaning delaying, the filing deadlines. Because he proceeded without a lawyer, the court gave him an opportunity to add those facts, including facts explaining why he waited to file his EEOC charge and lawsuit.

Disposition

The court granted OUSD’s motion to dismiss. Claims three, four, five, and six against OUSD were dismissed with leave to amend, and the amended complaint was due within 30 days. The opinion did not state that the court dismissed claims one and two. It separately noted that Wilson had not yet served Lindsey and that OUSD represented Hom was deceased; the court said Wilson should promptly serve Lindsey if he still wished to pursue a case against her.