Rogers v. City of San Francisco

Background

Brian F. Rogers alleged that he applied for a Senior Account Clerk position with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), was interviewed, and was not hired even though he was highly qualified. He alleged that the SFPUC hired two less-qualified applicants because they were White and Asian, and that race was the only reason he was not hired.

Rogers asserted five claims: violation of equal-protection rights, discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sex discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and race and national-origin discrimination under that state law. He sought compensatory and punitive damages and employment benefits.

The City of San Francisco and the SFPUC moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the IIED claim for failure to state a claim. They argued that Rogers had not complied with the California Government Claims Act and that municipalities cannot be liable for common-law torts. They also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike the punitive-damages request, arguing that municipalities cannot be liable for punitive damages.

IIED Claim

The California Government Claims Act generally requires a person asserting a state-law tort claim against a public entity to submit a written claim within six months after the claim accrues and to wait for the public entity to act on or reject the claim before filing suit. The court explained that failure to satisfy those requirements generally bars the related civil action unless the plaintiff alleges a recognized excuse or exception.

The court rejected the City’s argument that it was immune from the IIED claim simply because IIED is a common-law tort. A public entity may be vicariously liable for an employee’s tortious acts within the scope of employment when the employee is not protected by discretionary-act immunity. The court found that nothing in the record showed that the failure to hire Rogers resulted from a basic policy decision, and the defendants had not argued that the failure to hire was a discretionary act.

The court nevertheless agreed that Rogers had not adequately alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act. His complaint did not allege that he filed a claim with the City. The letters attached to his opposition did not resolve the issue because Rogers did not provide the underlying claim, the letters did not establish that the claim concerned the conduct at issue in the IIED claim, and the letters indicated that a claim submitted on September 22, 2023, concerning a March 8, 2023 incident was untimely. The letters also stated that his request to file a late claim was denied.

Punitive Damages

The court denied the motion as to the request to strike punitive damages. Although California Government Code section 818 provides that a public entity is not liable for exemplary or other primarily punitive damages, the court held that Rule 12(f) does not authorize district courts to strike a damages claim on the ground that the damages are legally unavailable.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It granted the motion as to Rogers’s IIED claim, which it dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. It denied the motion as to the request to strike punitive damages. The court allowed Rogers to file an amended complaint alleging facts showing that he submitted a timely claim or that a recognized excuse or exception to the Government Claims Act applied. The amended complaint was due by April 5, 2024. The opinion states that Rogers was not represented by counsel. The conclusion refers once to an “IED” claim, but the opinion consistently identifies the claim as IIED.