Storms v. County of Monterey

Background

Richard Storms sued the County of Monterey under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, California’s whistleblower statute, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case concerns Storms’s employment, disability accommodations, discipline, complaints about workplace treatment, and unsuccessful promotion requests. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, meaning each asked the court to decide some issues because they claimed the evidence required a ruling in their favor without a trial.

Storms was diagnosed with diverticulitis in 2015. The County approved accommodation requests in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Storms alleged that the County discriminated against him because of his disability, failed to accommodate him, harassed him, retaliated against him for complaints, retaliated against him for taking protected family and medical leave, retaliated against him for whistleblowing, and violated his federal rights. The County disputed several of these allegations and argued that some claims were unsupported or filed too late.

Rulings on Storms’s disability-related claims

For the California disability-discrimination claim, the court granted Storms’s motion for partial summary judgment on three points: the County was his employer, Storms had a disability under the state statute, and he was qualified to perform his job. The court also granted Storms’s motion on the point that the 2019 disciplinary notice was an adverse employment action.

The court denied Storms’s motion on whether his 2018 performance evaluation was an adverse employment action. The evaluation contained both criticism and praise, and Storms had not established that its negative comments were undeserved. The court also denied his motion on whether his more burdensome caseload was an adverse employment action because factual disputes remained about the workload and how it compared with other district attorneys.

The court denied Storms’s motion on whether the 2018 evaluation was motivated by his disability. It found no direct evidence conclusively linking the evaluation’s references to illness and medical orders with the criticisms of his work. The court also denied the County’s motion concerning whether discipline was supported by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, because factual disputes remained about whether the County’s stated reasons were a pretext, or an excuse masking unlawful discrimination.

For the disability-harassment claim, the court denied the County’s motion. Storms presented evidence beyond the alleged comments that Matheson made about his medical condition, including alleged bathroom intrusions, snorting, and failure to address his complaints. The County disputed many of these facts, so the court found that summary judgment was inappropriate.

For the failure-to-accommodate claim, the court denied Storms’s motion and granted the County’s motion on the issue of whether Storms’s 2017 accommodation claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court reasoned that the alleged failure occurred in 2017, the accommodation expired in December 2017, and Storms did not file his administrative complaint until June 2019. The court also denied Storms’s motion concerning whether the County failed to accommodate him by not reducing his caseload.

For the failure-to-engage-in-an-interactive-process claim, the court granted the County’s motion. Storms did not dispute that the County engaged in interactive processes with him in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

For the FEHA retaliation claim, the court denied the County’s motion because factual disputes remained about retaliatory motive and causation. The court did not resolve those issues in the County’s favor.

Other claims

The court granted the County’s motion on Storms’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. Storms’s own testimony established that he did not take family and medical leave in the years at issue, so the court found no evidence that he engaged in protected activity under that statute.

The court granted the County’s motion on Storms’s California Labor Code section 1102.5 whistleblower-retaliation claim because it was barred by the statute of limitations. Although Storms argued that he never received the claim-rejection notice, the court found that the County proved it mailed the notice in March 2019. The court also denied the County’s motion insofar as it argued that Storms lacked evidence of a causal link, but the limitations ruling disposed of the claim.

The court granted the County’s motion on Storms’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state law. The court found that Storms did not support the rights identified in his complaint with legal authority or evidence, including his argument that his disciplinary hearing had a biased and predetermined outcome.

The court granted the County’s motion concerning Storms’s allegations about denied promotions. Storms did not oppose the County’s argument that he was not deprived of promotional opportunities and that retaliation did not affect the promotion decisions.

Affirmative defenses and final disposition

The County withdrew several affirmative defenses, and the court dismissed Affirmative Defense No. 19 as moot, subject to the limitations stated in the order. The court struck numerous other defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to remove an insufficient defense from a pleading. The struck defenses included defenses based on failure to state a claim, negligence, failure to mitigate damages, failure to comply with the Government Claims Act or FEHA, the County’s reasonableness, the alleged absence of severe or pervasive conduct, lack of retaliation, failure to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act, lack of disability, lack of constitutional injury, and related issues.

The County’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted on the 2017 accommodation limitations issue, the interactive-process issue, the Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim, the whistleblower claim’s limitations defense, the § 1983 claim, and the promotion allegations. It was denied on the County’s asserted legitimate reasons for discipline, the hostile-work-environment issue, FEHA retaliation causation, and whistleblower-retaliation causation.

Storms’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted on the employer, disability, qualification, and 2019 disciplinary-notice issues. It was denied on the 2018 evaluation, the caseload, the evaluation’s motivation, the alleged direct evidence of pretext, and the claim that the County failed to accommodate him by not reducing his caseload.

The court stated that the remaining claims for trial were Claim One, FEHA disability discrimination; Claim Two, FEHA harassment; Claim Five, FEHA retaliation; and Claim Six, FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins signed the order on June 8, 2022.