Frohm v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Darlene Frohm’s second amended complaint asserted discrimination, retaliation, and Federal Equal Pay Act claims against the City and County of San Francisco. The City moved to dismiss only the retaliation claim.

The court applied the requirements for a retaliation claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act: the plaintiff must allege protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between them. The court had previously dismissed Frohm’s retaliation claim with leave to amend because she had not adequately alleged that the people who took adverse employment actions knew about her complaints.

In the second amended complaint, Frohm alleged that she complained about discrimination to supervisors Alaric Degrafinried and Carla Short on several occasions during 2020. She alleged that they were required under City policy to report such complaints to human-resources or equal-employment personnel, and that Degrafinried spoke with human resources after hearing one of her complaints. She also alleged that human-resources personnel failed to reclassify her to a 0941 position in August 2021, that she was not selected for an interview for a 0954 Deputy Director of Operations position, and that she was not allowed to permanently fill a 0932 position that she had occupied on a backfilled basis.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted the motion as to the alleged failure to approve a 0941 position requested by Degrafinried. Frohm did not plausibly allege that Julia Dawson, whom Frohm identified in connection with that decision, knew about Frohm’s protected complaints. The court explained that possible discussion of the complaints at meetings was not enough to move the allegation from possibility to plausibility.

The court denied the motion as to the alleged failure to reclassify Frohm to a 0941 position in August 2021. Frohm’s allegations that Degrafinried had to report her complaints and had spoken with human resources after hearing them plausibly alleged that human-resources personnel knew about the complaints. The court also concluded that Frohm’s allegation about Dawson’s control over budgeted positions referred to the 2018 removal of a 0941 position, not necessarily to the 2021 reclassification decision.

The court granted the motion as to Frohm’s allegation concerning the 0954 position because she had not adequately alleged Dawson’s knowledge of her protected activity. It also granted the motion as to the 0932 position because Frohm did not allege that remaining in the position on a backfilled basis materially affected the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the City’s motion to dismiss Frohm’s retaliation claim in part and denied it in part. The motion was denied as to the alleged failure to reclassify Frohm to a 0941 position in August 2021 and granted in all other respects. The court stated that dismissal was with leave to amend and set January 26, 2024, as the deadline for any amended complaint.