Duran v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Background

Ralph Duran and Michael Esparza are employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Duran is a Fire Captain. Esparza was a Fire Apparatus Engineer until about January 23, 2022, when he became a Fire Captain. The other defendants are the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR), CAL FIRE Director Joe Tyler, and CalHR Director Eraina Ortega.

In August 2021, CAL FIRE required employees either to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or undergo weekly testing. Because they did not provide proof of vaccination, Duran and Esparza were subject to weekly testing. Failure to comply could result in discipline, including dismissal. A third-party vendor, Color Health, Inc., administered the testing. The plaintiffs had to provide personal information and sign privacy waivers that, as alleged, allowed Color to disclose personal and medical information—including test results, genetic data, and family health information—to third parties.

CAL FIRE announced on September 15, 2022, that it would begin transitioning away from mandatory testing. The plaintiffs alleged that mandatory testing was no longer required, but that Color retained their information, had disclosed it to third parties, and could continue using or sharing it under its policies. They asserted seven claims involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Article I of the California Constitution, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought declarations and court orders requiring future conduct.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court explained that this motion applies essentially the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6): the court may grant it when the material facts are not disputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A complaint must provide enough factual allegations to make the claimed violation plausible, rather than merely possible or speculative.

Eleventh Amendment immunity

The court first held that the state-agency defendants, CAL FIRE and CalHR, were protected by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. A state generally cannot be sued by a private party in federal court unless it has validly waived that protection or Congress has validly removed it. The court found no clear waiver by California. It therefore held that the plaintiffs’ state constitutional privacy claim—the only claim asserted against the agency defendants—was barred.

The court also held that the exception allowing suits against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law did not apply to Tyler and Ortega. That exception permits prospective relief, such as an order governing future conduct, but requires the complaint to plausibly allege an ongoing violation and a direct connection between the official and enforcement of the challenged conduct.

The plaintiffs alleged that Color had disclosed their information and continued to disclose it. The court found those allegations insufficient because they were based only on “information and belief” and did not identify facts showing that disclosure had actually occurred or that future disclosure was more than speculative. The allegations therefore supported, at most, relief for past conduct rather than the prospective relief required for a suit against the state officers.

The court separately found that Tyler and Ortega lacked the required direct connection to the alleged violations. Although the plaintiffs alleged that the officials had disciplinary authority over CAL FIRE employees, they did not allege that those officials selected Color, negotiated Color’s contract, or controlled the privacy terms imposed by Color. The complaint stated that California’s Public Health Department entered into the agreement with Color. The court concluded that the connection between the officers’ disciplinary authority and the alleged privacy violations was too indirect.

Standing

The court next held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to show a concrete injury that is actual or imminent, traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The court addressed only whether the alleged injury was concrete.

The court recognized that privacy injuries can be concrete when personal information is unlawfully disclosed or unlawfully collected. But it found that the plaintiffs had alleged neither. They had not plausibly alleged that Color disclosed their information, and they did not challenge the testing program’s collection of the information as unlawful. Alleging that Color’s policies permitted disclosure was not enough to establish a concrete injury.

Mootness

The court also held that the claims were moot, meaning that the dispute no longer presented a live controversy for a federal court to decide. Because the testing program had ended, the court focused on whether the defendants might restart it and thereby cause future harm.

The plaintiffs argued that ending the program did not make the case moot because CAL FIRE could reinstate mandatory testing. The court rejected that argument. It noted that courts generally treat withdrawn COVID-19 policies as unlikely to recur, particularly when the government has stopped the challenged conduct. CAL FIRE had not announced that testing would return, and the plaintiffs had not alleged that testing continued after the transition announcement. The possibility of a future restart was therefore speculative.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. It stated that the claims failed on sovereign-immunity, standing, and mootness grounds, and denied leave to amend as futile. The ruling did not reach the merits of whether the defendants’ conduct violated the statutes, the California Constitution, or the federal constitutional provisions identified in the complaint.