Robinson v. Alameda Cnty.

875 F.Supp.2d 1029

Roseanna Martha ROBINSON, Plaintiff,

v.ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. C 12–00730(JCS).

United States District Court, N.D. California.

June 21, 2012.

Dorothy Davis Guillory, Attorney at Law, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff.

Andrea S. Carlise, Timothy Patrick O'Donnell, Oakland, CA, David K. Leatherberry, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING TOY AND ROBINSON'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING TOY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

JOSEPH C. SPERO, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Herbert Robinson (“Robinson”) and Michael Toy (“Toy”) have filed a Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim [F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) ] (“Motion to Dismiss”). Defendant Toy has separately filed a Special Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Claim For Defamation [Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16] (“Motion to Strike”). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c). The Court finds that the Motions are suitable for disposition without oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUNDA. Factual History

Roseanna Martha Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a sixty year old woman who has worked for the Alameda County Probation Department (“County”) since August 10, 1998. Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 10. She began work as a Group Counselor–Intermittent at the San Leandro Juvenile Hall Facility and has remained in that position since 1998, although in 2007 the name of her position was changed to JIO—Intermittent (“JIO–I”). Id., at ¶ 11. She is responsible for ensuring the care, custody, and control of juvenile detainees. Id., at ¶ 12.

In 1999, when Plaintiff was forty eight, she applied for a JIO–I permanent position. Id., at ¶ 14(a). Plaintiff was the oldest candidate and put on the eligible candidate list, but she was not given the promotion. Id. The County promoted all of the other candidates on the list. Id. Plaintiff complained to the County that all of other candidates were promoted except for her, but the County did not respond to her complaints. Id.

In 2001, when she was fifty years old, Plaintiff applied for a JIO–I permanent position, passed the oral interview, and was ranked as the top eligible candidate. Id., at ¶ 14(b). However, the County promoted a younger candidate who ranked lower. Id. On or about January 2005, Plaintiff again applied for the JIO–I and JIO–III permanent positions. Id., at ¶ 14(c). She was ranked number two on the JIO–I list and number one on the JIO–III list of eligible candidates, but the County did not give her either of those promotions. Id. She complained of age discrimination, and alleges that her employer retaliated against her as a result of her complaint. Id.

On or about January 8, 2010, Plaintiff again applied for a promotion to be a JIO–I permanent. Id., at ¶ 14(g). She passed both the physical and medical exams and the background check, but was told she must submit to Dr. Tong's (“Tong”) psychological evaluation and testing. Id. Tong told her secretary to administer the test and did not make sure Plaintiff fully understood the purpose of the exam and the uses to which it may be put. Id. During the test, Tong pressured Plaintiff to hurry up because she claimed that Plaintiff was taking too long. Id.

On or about January 14, 2011, Robinson, an upper-level supervisor at the San Leandro Juvenile Hall Facility, told Michael Rodrigues (“Rodrigues”), a County IS–I, that Plaintiff did not pass the psychological exam for the JIO–I permanent position and that she was unfit to work as a JIO.¹Id., at ¶¶ 9, 15. Plaintiff alleges that this is false. Id., at ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges further that she did not give Robinson consent to access her results from Tong's examination. Id. Tong and the County distributed her exam and testing results to numerous other County employees. Id. Rodrigues then told Plaintiff not to come into work. Id., at ¶ 16. The County has not scheduled Plaintiff to work for over a year because it claims she failed Tong's psychological examination. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Tong and the County have not allowed Plaintiff or her designees to review the examination results, making it impossible for her to refute the results and assess if the test results were accurate. Id. Plaintiff has asked the County to specify which portions of the exam or minimum requirements she did not pass, but the County has refused. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that she has provided the County with an assessment from another qualified psychologist, which states that Plaintiff is fit to work. Id. Plaintiff has alleged that County refuses to accept that psychologist's assessment. Id.

A separate incident occurred on November 22, 2008. On that day, Plaintiff, Michael Toy (a permanent JIO from whom Plaintiff received directives), and two of their co-workers (Felila Caraballo and Charles Brown) were supervising the San Leandro Juvenile Hall Facility detainees. Id., at ¶ 13(i). During their shift, Plaintiff and Caraballo went on a break, at which time Toy checked and was responsible for ensuring each detainee was in his or her designated room. Id. Caraballo then returned from her break, checked the detainee's rooms, and noticed one of the detainees was not in her designated room but was hiding in another detainee's room. Id.

Plaintiff, Toy, and Caraballo were required to submit individual reports to Robinson detailing the incident and providing a reason that a designee was not in her designated room. Id. Plaintiff alleges Toy told her that he and Caraballo agreed they would falsely claim that the detainee was not in her proper room because when Toy checked the detainee's rooms he thought the detainee's designated room was empty and not assigned to a detainee. Id. Plaintiff informed Toy that she was unwilling to file a false report. Id.; Declaration Of Roseanna Martha Robinson In Support Of Opposition To Anti–SLAPP Motion (“Plaintiff's Affidavit”). Plaintiff alleges that Robinson then recommended Plaintiff for a five-day suspension based on four charges of misconduct, and Toy and Caraballo were recommended for two-day suspensions based on two charges of misconduct. Compl., ¶ 13(i). Assistant Chief William Fenton accepted Robinson's recommendation. Id. Plaintiff alleges Toy told her that Robinson and Fenton told Toy they were going to take care of him and wanted him to cooperate with them. Id.; Plaintiff's Affidavit. Plaintiff alleges that she complained that she was being wrongfully disciplined and being treated differently than the other employees. Compl., ¶ 13(I). She contends that the suspension and misconduct charges harmed her prospects for a promotion and employment outside of the County, and caused a loss in her pay. Id.

Plaintiff appealed her suspension to the Alameda County Civil Service Commission. Id.; Motion to Dismiss at 3. On July 20, 2011, Toy was scheduled to testify at the appeal hearing and sat in the waiting room area before his testimony. Compl., at ¶ 18; Motion to Strike at 2. Plaintiff alleges Toy falsely told Internal Affairs that she threatened him prior to his testimony. Compl., ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that a third-party who is not an employee of the County overheard Toy and Plaintiff's conversation and has stated that Plaintiff did not threaten Toy.²³Id.

Later that day, Toy e-mailed Craig Emmons in the Probation Department's Internal Affairs Unit (“Internal Affairs”) and falsely told him that Plaintiff threatened him.⁴Id. Plaintiff alleges the complaint was false and defamatory, and that Toy was influenced to make the accusation because his superiors sought to manufacture grounds for Plaintiff's termination. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that the dissemination of this false psychological information invaded her privacy, hurt her prospects for promotion, prevented her from working, reduced her chances of obtaining employment outside the County, and has subjected her to embarrassment, humiliation, and ridicule. Id., at ¶ 15.

B. Procedural History

On February 14, 2012 Plaintiff filed her Complaint, which alleges five causes of action. Plaintiff's Complaint is silent as to whether or not she filed a government claim pursuit to the California Government Claims Act (“CGCA”), codified at California Government Code section 950.2, prior to the filing of her Complaint.

First, Plaintiff alleges that the County violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 621 through 634) as it discriminated and harassed her because she is sixty years old. Compl., ¶¶ 22, 27. Plaintiff alleges she is qualified both to work as a JIO–I and for a promotion to a permanent JIO position, but her work schedule was shortened, she was not scheduled for advanced training, and she was not given a promotion. Id., at ¶¶ 24–26.

Second, Plaintiff asserts a claim against the County for retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000e–5 et seq.). Plaintiff alleges her complaints against the County for age discrimination, harassment, refusal to hire her as a permanent JIO, and reports of inappropriate sex-based comments were protected activities. Compl., at ¶ 32. She alleges the County retaliated against her, as it reduced her work hours, hired and promoted younger workers over her, referred her to Internal Affairs on unwarranted charges, wrongfully disciplined her, and subjected her to an abusive and hostile work environment. Id., at ¶ 33.

Third, Plaintiff states a claim against Defendant Tong for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”). Plaintiff alleges HIPPA establishes strict procedures to maintain the confidentiality and security of healthcare records. Id., at ¶ 39. She also alleges HIPPA required Tong to allow her or her designees to review her results of Tong's psychological examination, but Tong refused. Id., at ¶¶ 40–41. Plaintiff...