Monegas v. City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-04633
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Monegas v. Department of Public Health: Judge Donato dismissed Monegas’s disability-discrimination case but allowed her to amend it.
April Monegas, who represented herself, must file an amended complaint by May 22, 2023, if she wishes to continue the case. The City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health obtained dismissal of the first amended complaint.
What happened
In Monegas v. City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health, April Monegas alleged that her former employer fired her after she declined COVID-19 vaccination without a medical or religious exemption. She claimed this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court found that Monegas had not plausibly alleged that she had a disability or that the defendant acted because of one. The court also found that her lawsuit appeared late because she received a right-to-sue letter on May 10, 2022, but the clerk received her complaint on August 10, after the 90-day deadline.
Judge James Donato dismissed the first amended complaint and allowed Monegas to file another amended complaint by May 22, 2023. The court said she could allege facts supporting a deadline extension or otherwise showing that her claims were timely.
The detailed version
- Monegas v. City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health · No. 4:22-cv-04633
- Jeffrey White
- May 1, 2023
Background
April Monegas, representing herself, sued the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health after her employment ended. The opinion describes the City and County of San Francisco as her former employer. Monegas alleged that she was fired from her position as a Senior Administrative Analyst because she declined COVID-19 vaccination without a medical or religious exemption. She brought claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The defendant asked the court to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.
Court’s analysis
The court said an Americans with Disabilities Act claim requires a plaintiff to allege that she is a qualified person with a disability and that the defendant discriminated against her because of that disability. The law defines disability to include a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.
The court found that Monegas had not plausibly alleged a disability. According to the court, the complaint suggested only that the defendant may have viewed unvaccinated employees as potential infection risks to others. The court said that this was not an established disability under the Act and that the complaint did not identify a physical or mental condition or allege discrimination based on such a condition.
The court also found that the claims appeared untimely. It stated that an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit generally must be filed within 90 days after the plaintiff receives a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The parties agreed, and the attached exhibit showed, that Monegas received her letter by email on May 10, 2022. Excluding that day, the 90-day period began on May 11 and ended on August 9, 2022. Although Monegas said she mailed her initial complaint on August 9, the court explained that a mailed filing is complete when the clerk receives it. The clerk received and docketed the complaint on August 10, 2022.
Disposition
The court dismissed the first amended complaint and allowed Monegas to file an amended complaint by May 22, 2023. The court stated that any amended complaint should allege facts that might support extending the filing deadline or otherwise establish that the claims were timely. The court further stated that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.