Monegas v. City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health

Background

April Monegas, representing herself, sued her former employer, the City and County of San Francisco, for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendant was captioned as the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health, but the opinion states that the City was erroneously sued under that name.

Monegas alleged that the City fired her from the position of Senior Administrative Analysis because she declined to receive a COVID-19 vaccine without a medical or religious exemption. Her second amended complaint asserted three causes of action: ADA discrimination, ADA retaliation, and violations based on alleged disability-related inquiries and medical examinations. For the first two claims, she alleged that the City regarded her as disabled because she refused vaccination, rather than alleging that she actually had a qualifying disability. For the third claim, she challenged COVID-19 testing, vaccination-status inquiries, health surveys, vaccination requirements, masking, and isolation requirements.

Timeliness and Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that it generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true but does not accept conclusory allegations or unreasonable factual deductions.

The court had previously determined that Monegas failed to bring the action within 90 days after receiving her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter. It had allowed her to amend by May 22, 2023, and warned that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Monegas filed the second amended complaint on May 24, 2023. The court stated that mailing the complaint on the due date did not make it timely filed because filing occurred when the document was delivered for filing. The court also found that Monegas alleged no new facts supporting equitable tolling or otherwise establishing timely claims.

Based on the late filing of both the second amended complaint and the original complaint, the court granted the City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

ADA discrimination and retaliation claims

The court separately addressed the substance of Monegas’s ADA claims. To state an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must allege that she is a qualified individual with a disability and that the employer discriminated against her because of that disability. The ADA defines disability to include an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.

The court had previously found that alleging the City regarded unvaccinated employees as a potential infection risk was not enough to show an ADA disability. In the second amended complaint, Monegas again relied on the City’s vaccine policy and did not allege that she had, or was regarded as having, a qualifying physical or mental impairment. The court again concluded that the allegations did not state cognizable ADA discrimination and retaliation claims. It granted the City’s motion to dismiss those two counts with prejudice.

Inquiries and examinations claim

The court also granted the motion as to Monegas’s third cause of action, with prejudice. It concluded that asking about vaccination status was not a disability-related inquiry recognized under the ADA because being unvaccinated or being perceived as potentially having COVID-19 did not qualify as an ADA disability under the allegations presented.

The court further relied on guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stating that employer COVID-19 screening testing met applicable ADA standards during the relevant period. It reasoned that health surveys were likewise compliant and that the vaccine, mask, and isolation requirements did not qualify as medical examinations. The court also stated that Monegas had not plausibly alleged facts showing otherwise.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. It directed that a separate judgment issue and instructed the clerk to close the file. Judge Jeffrey White entered the order on September 1, 2023.