West v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

James West sued Episcopal Community Services (ECS), the City and County of San Francisco (the City), Dolores Street Community Services (DSCS), and several individuals. ECS operated the Sanctuary and Next Door homeless shelters; DSCS operated Jazzie’s Place. West alleged that he experienced racial, sexist, and homophobic harassment, threats, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, problems obtaining reasonable accommodations and transfers, and retaliation after making complaints.

West asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also asserted claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), negligence, retaliation, and breach of mandatory duty. The defendants filed three motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. West represented himself, and the court considered his opposition even though it was filed late.

Fair Housing Act claims

The court held that homeless shelters can constitute “dwellings” under the FHA, so the failure to expressly plead that fact did not by itself make West’s claims implausible.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss West’s FHA claims without leave to amend. West alleged that the City was responsible for discrimination by independent contractors, but he did not allege that the City owned, operated, or controlled the shelters or had authority to directly affect his housing. The court also rejected West’s theory that the City was liable for failing to supervise grant recipients because he had not plausibly alleged a municipal policy of discrimination.

The court granted DSCS’s motion to dismiss the FHA claim with leave to amend. West alleged harassment and a denied transfer at Jazzie’s Place, but he did not adequately allege that the conduct was based on a protected characteristic, that DSCS was liable for other residents’ conduct, or how the grievance hearing affected his housing.

The court denied ECS’s motion to dismiss West’s FHA hostile-housing-environment claim. West alleged that residents made racial, sexual, and homophobic slurs daily, that he repeatedly tried to raise his concerns with ECS staff, and that ECS did not adequately hear or address those concerns. The court found those allegations sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to plead repeated harassment and ECS’s possible responsibility for failing to respond.

The court granted ECS’s motion to dismiss West’s FHA reasonable-accommodation claim with leave to amend. The court found that West had not adequately alleged that he had a qualifying disability under the FHA, that ECS knew or should have known about it, or that the requested accommodation was necessary to give him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the shelter.

Housing and Community Development Act claim

The court granted the City’s, DSCS’s, and ECS’s motions to dismiss West’s HCDA Title I claims with prejudice. The court held that Title I does not provide a private right to sue because it governs the relationship between the federal government and local governments rather than creating enforceable rights for private individuals.

Title VI claims

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss West’s Title VI claim without leave to amend. West’s theory depended on the City being responsible for alleged Title VI violations by contractors, but he did not identify authority supporting that theory.

The court granted DSCS’s motion to dismiss the Title VI claim with leave to amend. West alleged that DSCS received federal funding, but the court found that his allegations did not adequately support a Title VI claim. The court stated that more specific facts might cure the problem.

The court denied ECS’s motion to dismiss West’s Title VI claim. West alleged frequent racial slurs by other residents, that he notified ECS staff through multiple channels, and that ECS did not give him an opportunity to have his concerns addressed. The court found those allegations sufficient to plead severe racial harassment, ECS’s actual knowledge, and deliberate indifference.

The court dismissed the Title VI claims against the individual defendants with prejudice because Title VI applies to entities receiving federal funds, not individuals.

California claims

The court granted DSCS’s motion to dismiss the FEHA claims with leave to amend and the City’s motion to dismiss those claims without leave to amend. The court applied the same standards to the FEHA and FHA claims. It rejected the defendants’ argument that West had to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing housing-discrimination claims under FEHA, explaining that the cited exhaustion provisions apply to employment discrimination rather than housing discrimination. The conclusion states that ECS’s FEHA hostile-environment claim was not dismissed.

The court dismissed the negligence claims against all defendants with leave to amend. As to DSCS, Hidalgo, and Reus, West did not adequately allege injury or damages from the alleged denial of a transfer or treatment during a grievance hearing. As to ECS, Treggiari, Brown, and Nnebe, West alleged mice, missing name tags, and an unaddressed hostile environment but did not explain what injury or damages resulted from those conditions. The City’s derivative negligence claim also failed because the underlying negligence claims against DSCS and ECS were insufficient.

The court granted dismissal of the FHA retaliation claims against ECS and DSCS with leave to amend. West did not adequately allege an adverse housing consequence caused by protected activity or resulting damages. The court also found that he did not allege that DSCS defendants made the threat to smother him or clearly connect ECS’s alleged conduct to retaliation.

The court granted dismissal of the City’s breach-of-mandatory-duty claim with leave to amend. West did not identify the San Francisco ordinance on which the claim relied, so the court could not determine whether it imposed a mandatory duty or whether a breach caused his injuries.

Disposition

Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court denied ECS’s motion as to the FHA, FEHA, and Title VI hostile-environment claims. It granted the motions as to all remaining claims, dismissing some with leave to amend and dismissing the HCDA claim against all defendants, the City’s FHA, FEHA, and Title VI claims, and the individual defendants’ Title VI claims with prejudice. West was permitted to file a second amended complaint by June 17, 2022. The court also denied DSCS’s request for judicial notice at that time because the documents were unnecessary to resolve the motions.