Lee v. Foothill-De Anza Community College District

Background

Dr. Tabia Lee sued De Anza Community College, the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, members of the District’s board of trustees, and District employees. The opinion describes Lee as an educational sociologist who was hired in August 2021 as a full-time tenure-track faculty member to direct the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education and chair that department.

Lee alleged that defendants retaliated against, discriminated against, and censored her because of her expression of ideas and exercise of academic freedom. Her allegations included criticism of her statements, limits on promoting or listing her presentations and workshops, restrictions on her participation in college activities, failures to respond to her complaints, and termination following two tenure-review committees’ recommendations. Lee’s last day of work was June 30, 2023.

Her amended complaint asserted seven claims. She conceded that four claims—claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Constitution, plus two state-law wrongful-termination claims—should be dismissed.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and viewed them favorably to Lee, but required factual allegations that plausibly showed an entitlement to relief and gave defendants enough notice to respond.

First Amendment and Section 1983 claim

Lee alleged under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that individual defendants censored her and retaliated against her for exercising free-expression rights. Section 1983 provides a way to sue a state official who violates rights secured by federal law. Lee sought damages and reinstatement.

The court held that Lee had not adequately identified speech protected by the First Amendment. Speech made as part of a public employee’s official duties generally is not protected under the rule discussed in the opinion. Academic speech is evaluated under a separate two-part test that asks whether the speech concerned a matter of public concern and whether the employee’s interest outweighed the government employer’s interest in operating its services effectively.

The court found that many statements described in the complaint appeared to have been made as part of Lee’s official duties but were not clearly teaching or academic writing. Although Lee alleged generally that she published scholarship, spoke at conferences, and appeared in the media about matters of public concern, she did not connect that speech to the alleged censorship or retaliation. The court dismissed the claim with leave to amend and directed Lee to identify the specific academic or non-official speech involved.

The court also rejected the censorship theory as pleaded. The allegations showed that the College declined to promote, endorse, or circulate Lee’s speech, but did not show that defendants prevented her from speaking or imposed a prior restraint. The court therefore concluded that these allegations did not establish direct censorship.

The retaliation theory was also insufficiently pleaded. Lee did not identify which individual defendants retaliated against her, explain what each defendant did, identify which speech prompted each alleged action, or adequately connect each defendant’s conduct to her injuries. The court dismissed this theory with leave to amend.

As to remedies, the court stated that California community college districts are arms of the state and cannot be sued directly under Section 1983. It dismissed without leave to amend Lee’s claim for damages against individual defendants in their official capacities. The court allowed damages claims against defendants in their non-official capacities to be amended, subject to issues including qualified immunity. The court also dismissed Lee’s reinstatement claim with leave to amend because the complaint did not identify which defendant had authority to reinstate her.

Title VII claims

Lee claimed that the District and College violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her, retaliating against her, and subjecting her to a hostile work environment because of race.

For disparate treatment, the court found that Lee adequately alleged that she was a member of a protected racial group and was qualified for her position. But she did not adequately allege that she personally experienced an adverse employment action because of her race, that similarly situated non-Black employees were treated more favorably, or other facts supporting an inference of racial discrimination. The court noted that Lee alleged she was terminated because of her views about race, not because of her race itself. It dismissed the disparate-treatment claim with leave to amend.

For retaliation, Lee alleged that she complained about allegedly race-based policies and a hostile environment, and that defendants responded by censoring her, preventing her from doing her job, and terminating her. The court found that the complaint did not clearly identify the complaints for which Lee claimed she was retaliated against. It also was unclear whether her specific complaint about a hostile environment concerned an employment practice she believed violated Title VII or only a comment by another employee. The retaliation claim was dismissed with leave to amend.

For hostile work environment, the court explained that the alleged conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive, considered in context, to alter the conditions of employment. The court found that some allegations were too vague and that the specific allegations—including comments directed at Lee, comments about race generally, and a presentation about race—did not appear sufficiently severe and pervasive in the context of an academic workplace where race-related topics were central to Lee’s job responsibilities. The hostile-environment claim was dismissed with leave to amend.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act claim

Lee asserted a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act against the District, the College, and individual defendants. The court dismissed the FEHA claim against the College and District without leave to amend because, as Lee appeared to concede, those state entities were immune under the Eleventh Amendment. Because the Title VII claims were inadequately pleaded, the court dismissed the FEHA claims against the individual defendants with leave to amend.

Other claims and disposition

The court dismissed Lee’s Title VI claims, California Constitution claims, and two state-law wrongful-termination claims without leave to amend because Lee conceded that they were not adequately pleaded.

The court concluded that all claims were dismissed, some without leave to amend and some with leave to amend. An amended complaint, if Lee chose to file one, was due May 31, 2024. The court reset the case-management conference to September 26, 2024, and required a joint case-management statement by September 12, 2024.