Allen v. The Regents of the University of California

Background

Ruby L. Allen sued the Regents of the University of California, Paul Landry, and Jaycee De Guzman over alleged age, disability, and race discrimination and retaliation arising from her employment at the University of California, San Francisco. She asserted claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Allen alleged that beginning around 2018 she was called “old” and “Grandma,” criticized for working more slowly than other employees, questioned about when she would leave or retire, and treated differently because of her disability. She also alleged that management and coworkers harassed her and retaliated after she complained. The defendants disputed aspects of her account and argued, among other things, that certain claims were untimely and that the Regents had immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Court’s Analysis

The court determined that the relevant limitations dates were December 31, 2019, for the FEHA claims; April 17, 2020, for the Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims; and May 21, 2020, for the Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 claims. The court stated that conduct outside those periods could still be relevant in some circumstances, but could not independently support liability if it was not connected to timely conduct.

The court overruled the defendants’ unsupported objections to Allen’s declaration. It sustained the defendants’ objections to subpoenas Allen served on Landry and De Guzman because oral testimony had not been authorized and discovery had closed. The court also struck evidentiary objections Allen filed separately from her opposition brief because the local rules required such objections to be included in the brief or memorandum.

For the ADEA age-discrimination claim, the court held that the Regents had not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity and was entitled to summary judgment. The court reached the same conclusion on Allen’s Title I ADA disability-discrimination claim, explaining that the Regents had not waived immunity. The court also granted summary judgment to Landry and De Guzman on Allen’s FEHA retaliation claim because Allen acknowledged that she could not bring that claim against them.

Allen withdrew her FEHA race-discrimination claim against the Regents and her § 1983 race-discrimination claim against Landry and De Guzman. The court found those claims moot for purposes of summary judgment. It stated that no pending claims remained against Landry or De Guzman.

Disposition

The court GRANTED IN PART the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment on Allen’s first and second claims—the ADEA and ADA claims against the Regents—and on her sixth claim, the FEHA retaliation claim, as to Landry and De Guzman. The court found that Allen had withdrawn her seventh and eighth claims, making those claims moot for purposes of summary judgment.

The court DEFERS ruling on Allen’s third, fourth, and fifth claims—the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII retaliation, and FEHA age-discrimination claims—and on the sixth claim as to the Regents. Allen was ordered to provide a supplemental declaration with relevant dates within two weeks, and the Regents could respond within one week. The court stated that it would issue a later order resolving the remaining claims. The opinion is signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore.