Frohm v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Darlene Frohm alleged that she was qualified for, and performed work associated with, a higher 0941 job classification while employed by the City as an Assistant Deputy Director in a 0932 position. She alleged that the City did not promote or reclassify her, and paid her less than it would have paid her in the higher classification, because she is African American. She brought race-discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII, a retaliation claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and claims under the federal and California Equal Pay Acts.

The City moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally recognized claim supported by enough factual allegations.

Race-discrimination claims

The court held that Frohm plausibly alleged race discrimination under both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII. The court found sufficient allegations about her qualifications, including supervisory experience, management of employees, service as Acting Deputy Director for Operations, and statements by supervisors that she was qualified for the 0941 classification.

The court also found that the denial of reclassification could qualify as an adverse employment action because Frohm alleged that the higher classification would have affected her pay. Finally, the court found that her allegations about the racial makeup of classifications and departments, different treatment of employees in other divisions, and changing explanations from Human Resources supported an inference that race played a role. The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss these claims.

Retaliation claim

Frohm alleged that she complained in 2018 and 2020 that the handling of 0941 positions limited her advancement and financial equity because she was Black. The City did not dispute that such complaints, if made, could be protected activity under the state law.

The court nevertheless dismissed the retaliation claim because the complaint did not allege that the people to whom Frohm complained took an adverse action against her or that the decisionmakers who allegedly took adverse action knew about her complaints. The court granted leave to amend because it was not clear that the defect could not be cured with additional allegations.

California Equal Pay Act claim

The court dismissed Frohm’s California Equal Pay Act claim because she did not present that claim to the City before filing suit, as required by the California Government Claims Act. The court rejected her argument that including pay-related allegations in complaints to the state civil-rights agency and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission substantially complied with that requirement.

The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend, but without prejudice to filing a new case. The court explained that filing a government claim after the lawsuit began would not cure the failure to present the claim beforehand.

Federal Equal Pay Act claim

Frohm alleged that she was paid less than male counterparts who performed equal or substantially similar work. The court dismissed the federal claim because the complaint did not provide specific facts describing the work performed by the alleged comparators, who worked in different bureaus. The court granted leave to amend because additional facts might cure the deficiency.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the City’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The motion was denied as to Frohm’s discrimination claims and granted as to her remaining claims. The California Equal Pay Act claim was dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to filing a new case. Frohm was granted leave to amend only the retaliation and federal Equal Pay Act claims, and any amended complaint was due within 21 days. If she did not amend on time, those two claims would be dismissed with prejudice.