Grigorescu v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist.

VIOLETA GRIGORESCU, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OFTHE SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05932-EMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

April 24, 2019

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Docket No. 14

Plaintiff Violeta Grigorescu has filed suit against the San Mateo Community College District ("District") and several of its employees, namely, Eugene Whitlock, Charlene Frontiera, and Harry Joel (collectively "Defendants"). Ms. Grigorescu asserts violations of both federal and state law, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981, Title VII, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC"). Docket No. 14 ("Mot."). Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss, but gives Ms. Grigorescu leave to amend.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the FAC, Ms. Grigorescu alleges as follows.¹ In 2004, Ms. Grigorescu started to workfor the District as a lab tech at the College of San Mateo ("CSM"). In 2008, she was hired as a faculty member at CSM. More specifically, she worked as a part-time (adjunct) physics professor. See FAC ¶¶ 1, 22.

Starting in 2011, Ms. Grigorescu began to experience problems with her employment by the District. See FAC ¶ 4. In particular, she "lost favor with Defendants when she organized a group called Friends of CSM Gardens." FAC ¶ 24. Friends "opposed conversion of [a] 50-year old open space known as the Garden into a parking lot." FAC ¶ 24. Ms. Grigorescu "organized students, contacted political figures, and advised members of the CSM Garden Club to attend campaign events of the President of the District's Board of Trustees, who was running for a position on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors[,] and [to] raise questions about support for converting the Garden into a parking lot." FAC ¶ 24.

In September 2011, Friends filed a lawsuit against, inter alia, the District in state court. See Friends of the Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. CIV 508656 (Cal. Super. Ct.). In the lawsuit, Friends argued that the District's decision to demolish, inter alia, the Garden without preparing an environmental impact report violated the California Environmental Quality Act. In June 2012, the state trial court issued a decision in favor of Friends. See Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. CIV 508656, 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 11934 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 6, 2012). In September 2013, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. See Friends of the Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. A135892 (Cal. App. Ct.). Subsequently, in September 2016, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the intermediate appellate court and remanded for further proceedings. See Friends of the Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. S214061 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). In May 2017 - on remand from the California Supreme Court - the intermediate appellate court again found in favor of Friends and affirmed the judgment. See Friends of the Coll. of San MateoGardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. A135892 (Cal. App. Ct.).²

At or about the time that Friends first initiated the state environmental lawsuit in 2011, Ms. Grigorescu began to have medical problems which required treatment. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 27, 32. The District, Mr. Joel (Vice Chancellor of Human Resources for the District), and/or Ms. Frontiera (Dean of the District's Math and Science Division) were resistant to her returning to work and made efforts to prevent her return. See FAC ¶ 27 et seq. In August 2011, after Ms. Grigorescu's union intervened, she was allowed to resume her position as a part-time adjunct professor. However, in 2013, Ms. Grigorescu began to have different medical problems which required treatment, and Defendants again made efforts to bar Ms. Grigorescu from working for the District. See FAC ¶ 34. Eventually, in January 2014, the District allowed Ms. Grigorescu to return to work as a lab tech but gave the physics class that Ms. Grigorescu was scheduled to teach "to an instructor with less seniority." FAC ¶ 39.

In July 2014, Mr. Joel retired, and Mr. Whitlock replaced him as Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. Mr. Whitlock, an attorney, had advised and represented the District in the state environmental lawsuit that Friends filed against, inter alia, the District. See FAC ¶ 40.

In October 2014, a full-time position for a physics teacher opened up. See FAC ¶ 42. In March 2015, Ms. Grigorescu (then only a part-time (adjunct) physics teacher) applied for the position. See FAC ¶ 43. "Within days[,] [Mr.] Whitlock removed [her] from the applicant pool," claiming that she "did not have the qualifications required." FAC ¶ 43. Mr. Whitlock told Ms. Grigorescu that he had "conducted a Google search regarding degrees she received in Romania" and "his Google search showed the master's degree she received in Romania was only equivalent to a bachelor's degree." FAC ¶ 44. Mr. Whitlock accused Ms. Grigorescu of "dishonesty and . . . misrepresenting her educational credentials." FAC ¶ 44.

Ms. Grigorescu disputed Mr. Whitlock's claims. See FAC ¶ 45. After her union and the District academic senate intervened on her behalf, Mr. Whitlock stated that he would allow Ms.Grigorescu to be a part of the applicant pool and also to resume teaching as a part-time (adjunct) physics teacher, but only provided that she "go through a new process of requesting equivalency from a newly formed or created faculty qualifications committee." FAC ¶ 47. The stress on Ms. Grigorescu led to more medical problems that the District, Mr. Whitlock, and/or Ms. Frontiera refused to accommodate. See FAC ¶ 50. In April 2015, Ms. Grigorescu "reluctantly" agreed to a new process of requesting equivalency, after which she was allowed to re-enter the applicant pool for the full-time physics teaching position. FAC ¶¶ 51-52.

The day after signing the equivalency form, Ms. Grigorescu interviewed for the position, but she was not allowed to do a classroom demonstration and Ms. Frontiera caused Ms. Grigorescu "to break[]down and cry in front of the interviewing committee." FAC ¶ 53. Within a few days after the interview, Ms. Grigorescu was told that "she was not selected to advance in the recruitment process." FAC ¶ 54.

In May 2015, the District, Mr. Whitlock, and/or Ms. Frontiera purported to discuss medical accommodations with Ms. Grigorescu but ultimately concluded that she could not perform her job duties as an adjunct professor. See FAC ¶ 55 et seq.

After Ms. Grigorescu signed the equivalency forms, Mr. Whitlock continued investigating Ms. Grigorescu's Romanian degrees in May 2015. See FAC ¶ 58. In June 2015, Mr. Whitlock informed Ms. Grigorescu that he was recommending her suspension and termination on the ground that she had "falsely claimed she had a master's degree and the equivalency of a minor in mathematics" and that she had misrepresented "her Diploma de Baccalaureate as a Bachelor's degree credential in an informal conversation with another employee." FAC ¶ 60; see also Defs.' RJN, Ex. 1 (State Court Pet. ¶ 10).

In June 2015, a Skelly hearing was held before a District employee, Mike Claire, who upheld the proposed suspension and termination. See Defs.' RJN, Ex. 1 (State Court Pet. ¶ 11). A Skelly hearing is a pre-termination hearing for a public employee, in which the employer must provide, at minimum, "notice of the proposed action, the reasons therefor, a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based, and the right to respond, either orally or in writing, to the authority initially imposing discipline." Skelly v. State Pers. Bd., 15 Cal. 3d 194, 215(1975).

In July 2015, an administrative hearing followed the Skelly hearing. This hearing was conducted before Kathryn E. Meola, "a Chief Deputy County Counsel for San Mateo County." Defs.' RJN, Ex. 1 (State Court Pet. ¶ 12). In August 2015, Ms. Meola issued her written findings and recommendations, stating in relevant part as follows: "I find and recommend that, while there is some evidence that would support the imposition of discipline on [Ms. Grigorescu] for misrepresentation of her academic qualifications, there is insufficient cause to terminate her employment." Defs.' RJN, Ex. 1 (State Court Pet., Ex. 1) (Meola Decision at 2). Ms. Meola elaborated: "I find that the District did not meet its burden to establish that [Ms. Grigorescu] has engaged in dishonesty or falsified information supplied to the District in [her] claims that she obtained the equivalent to a master's degree from the University of Bucharest." Defs.' RJN, Ex. 1 (State Court Pet., Ex. 1) (Meola Decision at 2-3). However,

the District did establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [Ms. Grigorescu] engaged in a pattern of dishonesty by misrepresenting that [she] possessed a minor in mathematics, and in her claim to David Feune that her Diploma de Baccalaureate was a bachelor's degree, but that, owing to its relatively minor nature and the lack of progressive discipline to date, this dishonesty does not, in my opinion, support termination of [her] employment.

Defs.' RJN, Ex. 1 (State Court Pet., Ex. 1) (Meola Decision at 3).

In October 2015, the Board adopted Ms. Meola's findings and recommendations and reinstated Ms. Grigorescu to active, paid employment. See Defs.' RJN, Ex. 1 (State Court Pet. ¶ 12 & Ex. 2) (Board Final Decision at 1-2). The Board, however, only allowed Ms. Grigorescu to resume her job as a lab tech, and not as a part-time (adjunct) physics teacher. See FAC ¶ 62.

In December 2015, Ms. Grigorescu filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment...