# Muto v. County of Mendocino

> District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071456

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** May 3, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071456

## Opinion text

1
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5 MARY MUTO, Case No. 20-cv-06232-SK

6 Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
7 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO,
Regarding Docket Nos. 38, 38-14; 56
9 Defendant.

10 Defendant County of Mendocino (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment in this
11 matter. (Dkt. Nos. 38, 56.) Having considered the submissions of the parties, the record in the
12 case, and the relevant legal authorities, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court
13 HEREBY GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, for the reasons set forth below.
14 The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Dkt. No. 38-14.)
15 The Court OVERRULES objections by Plaintiff Mary Muto (“Plaintiff”) to Defendant’s evidence
16 (Dkt. No. 43 at page 13) and OVERULES Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence (Dkt.
17 No.47 at 8, 14).
18 BACKGROUND
19 Starting in February 2015, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Social Worker
20 Assistant II in the Department of Social Services’ Adult Protective Services Program and was later
promoted to Social Worker III. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl.).)1 The job description for Social
21
Worker III included as examples of required “knowledge, skills, and abilities” the following: the
22
ability to “work constructively within a community setting and effectively use appropriate
23
resources and services,” to “establish and maintain professional working relationships with agency
24
staff, client and others,” to “work effectively in emotionally charged or stressful
25
setting/emergencies,” and “accept and use consultative supervision and constructive feedback.”
26
27
1 (Id. (Muto Decl. Ex. A).)
2 In 2017, Plaintiff began experiencing problems with memory, lack of focus, and mood
3 swings. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. ¶ 2).) On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff received a Letter of
4 Reprimand for inappropriate behavior and failure to exercise professional behavior after she
5 referred to another coworker, Christine Kelly (“Kelly”), as “bitch.” (Dkt. No. 38-11 (Rivera Decl.
6 Ex. B); Dkt. No. 38-9 (Kelly Decl. Ex. A).) In her June 30, 2021 deposition, Plaintiff described
the conversation with her co-worker Kelly:
7
8 She was outside when it happened. She was not – she had not given
me the paperwork I had asked for, and I went outside – I followed
9 her outside and I said, “I don’t understand, I thought we were doing
better and I don’t understand why you’re such a bitch to me.” And I
10
– this has been clarified many times, my thought to hers. I did not
11 call her a bitch and I was walking away from her at the time and I
said – and I was saying kind of under –under my breath, but out
12 loud, “I just don’t understand why she’s such a bitch to me” because
I really didn’t understand. I thought we had it all solved.
13
(Dkt. No. 50 (Blanton Decl. Ex. A at 119:4-16).)
14
Also in 2017, Plaintiff’s coworker Chela Ruano (“Ruano”) “witnessed Plaintiff arguing
15
and yelling at [Cathy] Lonergan on several occasions.” (Dkt. No. 38-12 (Ruano Decl. ¶ 5).)
16
Ruano also saw Plaintiff yelling at other coworkers, including James “Rusty” Petrella, and saw
17
Plaintiff “yelling at clients and service providers over the phone.” (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.)
18
That same year, Plaintiff “lashed out and yelled at” Ruano so much that Ruano started
19
crying. (Id. ¶ 6.) In that incident, even though Plaintiff was not Ruano’s supervisor, Plaintiff
20
yelled at Ruano for failing to tell Plaintiff where Ruano would be and for failing to obtain
21
permission for home visits for clients. (Id.) Plaintiff admitted at deposition that she “snapped” at
22
Ruano on that occasion and that she behaved as if she were Ruano’s supervisor. (Dkt. No. 50
23
(Blanton Decl. Ex. A at 116:7-117:12, 122:2-15).)
24
Plaintiff also yelled at colleague Teresa Baumeister (“Baumeister”), and Plaintiff stomped
25
her feet and slammed the door after yelling at her. (Dkt. No. 38-2 (Baumeister Decl. ¶ 4).) Ruano
26
witnessed this event. (Dkt. No. 38-12 (Ruano Decl. ¶ 10).) Plaintiff also made inappropriate
27
comments to Baumeister at work. Once Plaintiff told Baumeister that her shoes “must have been
1 an impulse buy” and that Baumeister appeared to be the “most depressed unhappy person” that
2 Plaintiff had ever met. (Dkt. No. 38-2 (Baumeister Decl. ¶ 3).) If Plaintiff had continued working
3 with Defendant, Baumeister would have resigned from her job or transferred because she could no
4 longer work with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.)
5 On many occasions, Plaintiff’s supervisors talked to Plaintiff about her behavior with
6 coworkers. (Dkt. No. 38-10 (Mitchell Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4-6); Dkt. No. 38-11 (Rivera Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7-8),
Dkt. No. 50 (Blanton Decl. Ex. B at 64:14-65:22, 80:18-81:9, 117:9-118:11).) Lynnette Mitchell
7
(“Mitchell”) was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor part of the time that Plaintiff worked with Defendant,
8
and she was later the supervisor of Plaintiff’s supervisor during part of the time. (Dkt. No. 38-10
9
(Mitchell Decl. ¶ 2).) Kelsey Rivera (“Rivera”) was also Plaintiff’s supervisor during part of the
10
time. (Dkt. No. 38-11 (Rivera Decl. ¶ 3).)
11
On July 9, 2017, Plaintiff wrote an email to Mitchell, then her direct supervisor, explaining
12
that coworker Kelly had taken some action without informing Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto
13
Decl. Ex. F).)
14
On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff received a written performance review in which she was
15
rated as either “Standard” or “Above Standard” in all categories of her job except for one rating of
16
“Weak” and one rating of “Unsatisfactory” (in “[g]etting along with fellow employees”). (Id.
17
(Muto Decl. Ex. B).)
18
During 2017, Mitchell addressed several incidents with Plaintiff: an incident in which
19
Plaintiff told colleague Lonergan that Lonergan had to choose between being a friend to Plaintiff
20
or another coworker, an incident in which Plaintiff “verbally attacked” coworker Jody Johnston
21
(“Johnston”), an incident or incidents in which Plaintiff made unnecessary and negative
22
comments, and the incident in which Plaintiff made Ruano cry, described above. (Dkt. 38-10
23
(Mitchell Decl. ¶ 5).) Plaintiff’s supervisors also talked with Plaintiff about other behavior, such
24
as using profanity at work and refusing to log in her location on the “in/out board. ” (Dkt. 38-10
25
(Mitchell Decl. ¶ 5 and Ex. A); Dkt. No. 50 (Blanton Decl. Ex. B at 65:8-66:12, 114: 11-18, 115:
26
13-25 and Ex. 6).)
27
In September and then again in December of 2017, Plaintiff received a diagnosis of mild
1 cognitive impairment from a medical doctor. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. Exs. C-D).) Plaintiff
2 told her supervisor at the time, Kristina Bryce (“Bryce”), about her diagnosis “after the Holidays
3 that same year” and told Mitchell about her diagnosis in the spring of 2018. (Id. ¶ 11.)2
4 Plaintiff alleges, with no additional facts, that, after “learning of the medical testing and the
5 results, Defendant started to fabricate workplace issues with me.” (Id. ¶ 13.)
6 On November 5, 2018, Plaintiff received a written performance review in which she was
rated as either “Standard” or “Above Standard” in all categories of her job except for a rating of
7
“weak” in “[g]etting along with fellow employees. (Id. (Muto Decl. Ex. B.)) The review also
8
described her as a “skilled social worker.” (Id.)
9
In November 2018, there was another “incident” between Plaintiff and Kelly. (Dkt. No.
10
38-10 (Mitchell Decl. ¶ 8).) Plaintiff allegedly followed Kelly outside and then back into the
11
building and “yelled at her.” (Id.) On December 3, 2018, Kelly filed a complaint about Plaintiff’s
12
conduct. (Dkt. 38-9 (Kelly Decl. Ex. A).) Plaintiff disputed Kelly’s “perspective” and disputed
13
the characterization as “yelling” but admitted that the “dates and situations” in Kelly’s complaint
14
were accurate and that she did get easily frustrated and emotional. (Dkt. No. 50 (Blanton Decl.
15
Ex. A at 162: 4-15, 167:6-168:23), Dkt. 38-6 (Cranmer Dec. Ex. B at 483:7- 484:24).)
16
On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff also wrote a letter to Bryce, Mitchell, and Human
17
Resources about Kelly’s behavior in walking away from Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. Ex.
18
G).) According to Plaintiff, although Kelly told Plaintiff that she hates Plaintiff’s voice and hates
19
Plaintiff, no action was taken against Kelly, and instead Plaintiff was required to take additional
20
actions to avoid Kelly. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. ¶¶ 14-16).)
21
Plaintiff was placed on a Corrective Action Plan after the incident with Kelly. (Dkt. No.
22
38-10 (Mitchell Decl. Ex. B).)
23
Plaintiff also “flew into a rage” with Theresa Bloyd (“Bloyd”) shortly after January 2019.
24
(Dkt. 38-4 (Bloyd Decl. ¶ 6).) After working with Plaintiff for only ten days, Bloyd “had to take a
25 mental health day” because Plaintiff was such a difficult co-worker. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff also “flew
26 into a rage again” after another incident with Bloyd in which Plaintiff “was just suddenly irate.”
27
1 (Id. ¶ 8.) At that time, Plaintiff “yelled and slammed down her hand on the desk.” (Id.)
2 Before the period of the Corrective Action Plan ended, another complaint about Plaintiff’s
3 conduct, based on an event on March 13, 2019, arose. (Dkt. No. 38-12 (Ruano Decl. ¶ 7).) On
4 March 13, 2019, Plaintiff again “lashed out” at Ruano. (Id.) Plaintiff asked a question: “Who are
5 you talking to about lunch?” (Id.) When no one answered the question, “Plaintiff just lost it and
6 started yelling” at Ruano, even though Ruano asked her three times not to yell at her. (Id.) Bloyd
witnessed this event in which Plaintiff “was screaming and yelling at” Ruano with her finger in
7
her face, while Ruano bent away physically from Plaintiff. (Dkt. 38-4 (Bloyd Decl. ¶ 10).)
8
Plaintiff, while yelling, was standing approximately a foot or foot and a half away from Ruano,
9
and Ruano thought that she might have to physically defend herself because Plaintiff was so
10
angry. (Dkt. 38-12 (Ruano Decl. ¶ 7).) Ruano had never been treated as Plaintiff treated her and
11
would have left her job if Plaintiff had returned to work. (Id.¶ 9.) Bloyd describes this incident as
12
“violent because of the intensity at which Plaintiff yelled and screamed at Ruano.” (Dkt. 38-4
13
(Bloyd Decl. ¶ 10).) Lynette Cader (“Cader”), in a separate office, was on the telephone with
14
Bloyd and heard Plaintiff’s “raised voice” that sounded angry; Cader corroborated many of
15
Ruano’s statements about the interaction with Plaintiff. (Dkt. 38-5 (Cader Decl. ¶ 3).)
16
Ruano then received a call from her supervisor Bryce, who asked if Ruano was okay.
17
(Dkt. 38-12 (Ruano Decl. ¶ 8).) Bryce told Ruano that she had received an anonymous complaint
18
about Plaintiff’s behavior. (Id.) Ruano submitted a complaint on March 14, 2019. (Dkt. 38-12
19
(Ruano Decl. Ex. A).) Bloyd originally made a “verbal” complaint to her supervisor, who asked
20
that Bloyd submit something in writing. (Dkt. 38-4 (Bloyd Decl. ¶ 11).) Bloyd did so and
21
reported earlier problems with Plaintiff’s behavior in the same report. (Id. (Bloyd Decl. Ex. A).)
22
Cader also reported the incident “verbally” to Mitchell, who asked Cader to send an email. (Dkt.
23
38-5 (Cader Decl. ¶ 3).) Cader did so. (Id. (Cader Decl. Ex. A).)
24
Plaintiff addresses the March 13, 2019 incident with Ruano by stating only that there was
25 an “incident” in which she became “frustrated.” (Dkt. 43-1 (Muto Decl. ¶ 19).) Plaintiff further
26 explains: “I was unable to control my reaction due to my condition, and I snapped at her.” (Id.)
27 Plaintiff does not otherwise dispute Ruano’s, Bloyd’s, or Cader’s characterization of the event.
1 (Schurtz Decl. Ex. B).)
2 Defendant investigated the incident leading to Plaintiff’s placement on administrative
3 leave. (Dkt. 38-7 (Crapo Decl. Ex. A).) Human Resources Analyst Heather Crapo (“Crapo”)
4 assisted her supervisor, Human Resources Manager Denise Bartolomei (“Bartolomei”) in
5 conducting the investigation. (Id. (Crapo Decl. ¶ 2).) During the investigation, coworkers raised
6 complaints other than the March 13, 2019 incident. (Id. (Crapo Decl. Ex. A).) Crapo interviewed
six of Plaintiff’s coworkers and supervisors and interviewed Plaintiff in recorded interviews that
7
Crapo summarized. (Id.) The summaries from Plaintiff’s coworkers were consistent with the
8
declarations described above. (Id.)
9
After Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave, Plaintiff’s supervisor Mitchell learned
10
of other incidents in which Plaintiff had treated her coworkers poorly, but those coworkers had not
11
previously reported those incidents. (Dkt. No. 38-10 (Mitchell Decl. ¶ 11).)
12
After Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave, Plaintiff “worked with” Christine
13
Naber, Ph.D., (“Naber”) to obtain coping mechanisms such as reducing stress, taking cognitive
14
mindfulness training, and beginning a medication routine[.]” (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. ¶ 12).)
15
Plaintiff met with Naber on May 15, 2019, and September 3, 2019.3
16
On July 22, 2019, Defendant issued a Notice of Intent to Take Disciplinary Action
17
(“Notice”) – termination of Plaintiff’s employment. (Dkt. No. 38-8 (Emery Decl. Ex. A).) The
18
Notice indicated that the charges against Plaintiff were incompetence or inefficiency, failure to
19
meet reasonable work performance standards and requirements, and hostile or discourteous
20
treatment of the public or other employees. (Id.) In addition to the problems with her coworkers,
21
the Notice stated that Plaintiff was not available while on paid administrative leave and that she
22
had authorized County funds to pay for an Adult Protective Services client without obtaining the
23

24 3 In her deposition, Plaintiff stated that she saw Naber when she was on paid administrative
25 leave. (Dkt. No. 50 (Blanton Decl. Ex. A at 31:9-11).) Also, in an undated letter, Naber identified
two dates of treatment in 2019: May 15, 2019, and September 3, 2019. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto
26 Decl. Ex. E).) In a separate letter dated September 27, 2019, Naber only identified September 3,
2019, as a date of treatment for Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 56-1 (Blanton Decl. Ex. 1); Dkt. No. 57-1
27 (Jaffee Decl. Ex. 5).). The records that Muto produced in response to a third-party subpoena show
1 proper approval. (Id.)
2 On August 5, 2019, Defendant held a hearing pursuant to Skelly v. State Pers. Bd., 15 Cal.
3 3d 194, 203 (1975) (the “Skelly hearing”)4, after which the “Skelly officer” determined that
4 terminating Plaintiff’s employment was appropriate. (Dkt. No. 38-13 (Schurtz Decl. ¶ 7).) At the
5 Skelly hearing, Plaintiff testified but did not make the argument that she had a disability that
6 prevented her from performing her job adequately. (Id. (Schurtz Decl. Ex. C).) The Skelly
hearing in Plaintiff’s case resulted in an Order of Disciplinary Action terminating Plaintiff’s
7
employment effective August 26, 2019. (Dkt. No. 38-6 (Cranmer Decl. Ex. G).)
8
Plaintiff then appealed the Order of Disciplinary Action to the Mendocino County Civil
9
Service Commission, which held another hearing on December 18-19, 2019. (Id. (Cranmer Decl.
10
Ex. B).) After the hearing, the Commission upheld the Order of Disciplinary Action, dated
11
August 15, 2019. (Id. (Cranmer Decl. ¶ 4 and Ex. B).) Plaintiff did not file a writ of mandamus
12
after that decision. (Id. (Cranmer Decl. ¶ 5).)
13
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
14
Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment on December 20, 2021. (Dkt. No. 38.)
15
The Court extended the briefing schedule at the request of the parties. (Dkt. No. 44.) On March 1,
16
2022, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to disclose expert witnesses. (Dkt. No. 53.) The
17
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on March 7, 2022. (Dkt. No. 54.) The day
18
after the hearing, on March 8, 2022, the Court extended the deadline for expert disclosures to
19
April 8, 2022, and also allowed the parties to submit additional briefs on the summary judgment
20
motion. (Dkt. No. 55.) The order also noted that the deadline for expert discovery would be
21
extended if the case went forward and that parties could engage in expert discovery if needed.
22
(Id.) The parties submitted their additional briefs on April 15, 2022, and April 22, 2022. (Dkt.
23
Nos. 56, 57)).
24
DISCUSSION
25
A principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of
26
27
1 factually unsupported claims. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary
2 judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
3 and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “In considering
4 a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility
5 determinations, and is required to draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving
6 party.” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997).
7 The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those
8 portions of the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
9 of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. An issue of fact is “genuine” only if there is sufficient
10 evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
11 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). A fact is “material” if it may affect the outcome of the case.
12 Id. at 248. If the party moving for summary judgment does not have the ultimate burden of
13 persuasion at trial, that party must produce evidence which either negates an essential element of
14 the non-moving party’s claims or that party must show that the non-moving party does not have
15 enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. Nissan
16 Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).
17 Once the moving party meets his or her initial burden, the non-moving party must go
18 beyond the pleadings and, by its own evidence, set forth specific facts showing that there is a
19 genuine issue for trial. Id. In order to make this showing, the non-moving party must “identify
20 with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.” Keenan v. Allan,
21 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). In addition, the party seeking to establish a genuine issue of
22 material fact must take care to adequately point a court to the evidence precluding summary
23 judgment because a court is “not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion
24 for summary judgment.” Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029
25 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
26 If the non-moving party fails to point to evidence precluding summary judgment, the
27 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
A. Claims for Age Discrimination.
1
Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to oppose summary judgment on
2
her claims for age discrimination under both federal and state law. Under both California state
3
and federal law, a plaintiff opposing summary judgment can establish a prima facie case for age
4
discrimination by showing: that she suffered an adverse employment action; that, at the time of the
5
adverse action, she was 40 years or older; that she was satisfactorily performing her job; and that a
6
younger employee replaced her. Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co., 902 F.2d 1417, 1421 (9th Cir. 1990)
7
(federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) (“ADEA”)); Hersant v.
8
Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 57 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1003 (1997) (California state law). Once a plaintiff
9
makes this prima facie showing, the defendant must show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive
10
for the decision. Rose, 902 F.2d at 1420; Hersant, 57 Cal. App. 4th at 1003. If the employer
11
makes this showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show pretext. Rose, 902 F.2d at
12
1420-21; Hersant, 57 Cal. App. 4th at 1003. Here, Defendant proffered evidence that an
13
employee older than Plaintiff replaced her after Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
14
(Dkt. No. 38-1 (Baker Decl. ¶¶ 1-3); Dkt. No. 38-11 (Rivera Decl. ¶ 14).) Plaintiff cited no
15
evidence to rebut this evidence and presented no evidence to show pretext in her opposition
16
briefing. Thus, Plaintiff failed to make her prima facie showing. At the hearing on this matter,
17
Plaintiff conceded that she has no evidence to rebut Defendant’s evidence, and Plaintiff withdrew
18
her claims for age discrimination under both federal and state law. The Court thus GRANTS
19
summary judgment in favor of Defendant on these two claims for age discrimination under federal
20
and state law (Claims One and Two in the Complaint).
21
B. Preclusive Effect of State Agency Decision on Claims for Disability Discrimination.
22
Defendant also argued that res judicata bars all of Plaintiff’s claims under California state
23
law and federal law. Because Plaintiff withdrew her claims for age discrimination under both
24
federal and California state law, this analysis applies only to Plaintiff’s claims for disability
25
discrimination under federal and California state law.5 A state court record or judgment has
26

27
5The Court notes that, although Plaintiff withdrew her claim for age discrimination under
1 preclusive effect in federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1738. Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788,
2 794 (1986). In addition, in the absence of a statute, there are common law principles regarding the
3 preclusive effect of state court records or judgments. Id. Even if there is no state court judgment,
4 a decision of a state’s administrative proceeding can have preclusive effect on later federal claims
5 under certain circumstances. Id. The Supreme Court in Elliott explained that, “when a state
6 agency ‘acting in a judicial capacity . . . resolves disputed issue of fact properly before it which the
7 parties have had adequate opportunity to litigate,’” then “federal courts must give the agency’s
8 factfinding the same preclusive effect to which it would be entitled in the State’s courts.” Id. at
9 799 (citing United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966)).
10 The determination whether Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims are barred by the
11 principle of res judicata thus requires analysis of the preclusive effect of a state administrative
12 proceeding under California law. Under California law, where “a public employee pursues
13 administrative civil service remedies, receives an adverse finding, and fails to have the finding set
14 aside through judicial review procedures, the adverse finding is binding on discrimination claims.”
15 Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal. 4th 61, 76 (2000). California courts also require that the
16 finding of the state administrative proceeding is binding only if the administrative process adheres
17 to the standards of fairness set forth in Utah Construction, supra. Miller v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 39
18 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 1994). Utah Construction requires that the administrative agency have
19 acted in a judicial capacity to resolve disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties
20 have had an adequate opportunity to litigate. 384 U.S. at 422.
21 Here, an administrative Skelly hearing resulted in an adverse finding against Plaintiff, a
22 public employee. (Dkt. 38-6 (Cranmer Decl. Ex. G).) That finding took the form of an Order of
23 Disciplinary Action which upheld Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
24 (Id.) Plaintiff appealed the Order of Disciplinary Action to the Mendocino County Civil Service
25 Commission, which held another hearing on December 18-19, 2019. (Id. (Cranmer Decl. Ex. B).)
26

27
Astoria Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 110 (1991) (“We reach the same
1 After the hearing, the Commission upheld the Order of Disciplinary Action, dated August 15,
2 2019. (Id. (Cranmer Decl. ¶ 4 and Ex. B).) Plaintiff did not file a writ of mandamus appealing
3 that decision. (Id. (Cranmer Decl. ¶ 5).) The ruling of the administrative proceeding thus became
4 binding. Johnson, 24 Cal. 4th at 69-70. The issue in the state administrative proceeding was the
5 “same primary right” to “continued employment” that is at issue here, and thus the decision of the
6 administrative proceeding is binding on this Court for the state disability discrimination claim.
Miller, 39 F.3d at 1034.
7
At the hearing on this matter, Plaintiff conceded that the state agency’s finding is binding
8
on the California state law claims. Because the state agency’s finding is binding on the California
9
state law claims and because Plaintiff withdrew her claim for age discrimination under both
10
federal and state law, the sole question remains whether the state agency’s finding is binding on
11
Plaintiff’s claim for disability discrimination under federal law. Although no Ninth Circuit case
12
has addressed this issue directly, the Court finds that there is no preclusive effect of a state
13
administrative proceeding on the federal claim for disability discrimination. Other circuits have
14
addressed this issue and reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Thomas v. Contoocook Valley
15
Sch. Distr., 150 F.3d 31, 39 n.5 (1st Cir. 1998); Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assoc., P.C.,
16
274 F.3d 706, 735-36 (2d Cir. 2001); Smith v. Perkins Bd. of Ed., 708 F.3d 821, 828 (6th Cir.
17
2013). The courts in those cases applied the reasoning of Elliott, where the Supreme Court found
18
that a state administrative decision is not binding on later Title VII claims because Title VII
19
provides that the Equal Employment Commission is required to give only “substantial weight to
20
findings and orders made by State or local authorities in proceedings commended under State or
21
local” employment discrimination law. Elliott, 478 U.S. at 795. The language of Title VII shows
22
that Congress intended for Title VII to allow trial de novo after an administrative hearing and to
23
overcome the presumption of res judicata under common law, and allowing preclusive effect for
24
rulings of state agencies would be contrary to the rationale of the statute. Id. The ADA
25
incorporates Title VII’s procedural requirements, including the right to trial de novo. 42 U.S.C.
26
§12117(a). Title VII and the ADA are identical in this regard, so the rationale of Elliott should
27
1 Plaintiff is not binding on her claim for disability discrimination under federal law.
2 C. Claim for Disability Discrimination under Federal Law.
3 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated her employment because of her disability.6 In
4 her Complaint, she originally alleged that she was performing her job adequately but that
5 Defendant, after learning of her disability, fabricated reasons to terminate her employment to
6 avoid paying her costly retirement benefits. (Dkt. No. 1.) In opposing this motion, Plaintiff
7 shifted to an alternate theory that she was sometimes “inappropriate” in her communications with
8 her coworkers or that she had problems with “reactivity to co-workers” (Dkt. No. 43 at page 18),
9 but that her behavior did not rise to the level to require termination of her employment. Finally,
10 Plaintiff argues that, even if she had been unable to get along with her coworkers, her inability to
11 do so was caused by her disability, and any adverse action taken against her for failure to get along
12 with her coworkers was an adverse action based on her disability. See, e.g., Dark v. Curry
13 County, 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2006) (termination of employment based on action caused by
14 disability is adverse action “because of” disability); Humphrey v. Memorial Hospital Ass’n, 239
15 F.3d 1128, 1139-1140 (9th Cir. 2001) (“with few exceptions, conduct resulting from a disability is
16 considered to be part of the disability, rather than a separate basis for termination.”).
17 Under any of the three theories Plaintiff asserts, to prevail on her disability discrimination
18 claim under the ADA, Plaintiff must show sufficient facts to make a prima facie case of the
19 following: (1) that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that she was qualified for
20 the job, i.e., that she could perform the essential functions of the job at issue, with or without a
21 reasonable accommodation, and (3) that her employer terminated her employment because of her
22 disability. Wellington v. Lyon Cty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal
23 citation omitted). Once she makes that prima facie showing, the burden shifts to Defendant to
24

25
6 Plaintiff does not allege in her Complaint or in opposing summary judgment that
Defendant failed to provide accommodations in response to her request, and Plaintiff conceded at
26
the hearing on this motion that she never made such a request. Plaintiff also does not allege
failure to engage in the interactive process in her Complaint or in opposing summary judgment
27
and conceded at the hearing on this motion that she does not assert this claim. The only claim
1 show a legitimate, non-discriminatory motive for the adverse action. Norton v. PHC-Elko, Inc.,
2 46 F. Supp. 3d 1079, 1086-87 (D. Nev. 2014) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 U.S.
3 792, 802-04 (1973); see also Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1186-87 (9th Cir. 2003). If
4 Defendant meets that burden, then the burden shifts back to Plaintiff to show that the reason is
5 pretextual. Id.
6 1. Ability to Perform Job Adequately.
7 The undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff was not performing her job adequately, and
8 Plaintiff points to no admissible evidence to show that her coworkers’ complaints were fabricated.
9 Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to show that she was qualified for her job because she could
10 not perform an essential function of her job – getting along with coworkers. Defendant submitted
11 evidence that getting along with coworkers is an essential function of the job of Social Worker.
12 (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. Ex. A); Dkt. No. 38-3 (Emery Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8).) That standard is also
13 established under the law. Mayo v. PCC Structurals Inc., 795 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2015) (an
14 “essential function of almost every job is the ability to appropriate handle stress and interact with
15 others”). Plaintiff also conceded at the hearing on this matter that getting along with coworkers is
16 an essential function of Plaintiff’s job.
17 There is no factual dispute that Plaintiff did not get along with her coworkers and actually
18 antagonized them. Although Plaintiff submitted some evidence to rebut the evidence of many
19 employees who wrote of her many problems working with them, there are many unrebutted
20 statements, described in detail above. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence to counter all of the
21 allegations contained in the declarations submitted for this motion and which Defendant
22 considered before making the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. The complaints that
23 Plaintiff did not rebut were numerous and alone justified termination of Plaintiff’s employment.
24 The weight and number of complaints about her from her co-workers is stunning in the aggregate.
25 Two of her co-workers actually said that they would not have returned to their jobs if Plaintiff had
26 returned to her job.
27 The first major dispute that occurred was Plaintiff’s dispute with her coworker Kelly.
1 “bitch” in talking to or referring to Kelly, as she admitted in her deposition that she used that word
2 in talking with Kelly and in walking away from her, and there is no mention of any profanity
3 Kelly used in her encounter with Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 50 (Blanton Decl. Ex. A).) Plaintiff cannot
4 distance herself from her deposition testimony. See, e.g., Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Corp.,
5 520 F. 2d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1975) (a plaintiff cannot “create” an “issue of fact by an affidavit
6 contradicting . . . prior deposition testimony.”).
7 The second major dispute was Plaintiff’s interaction with her colleague Ruano on March
8 13, 2019. Plaintiff does not dispute that she raised her voice with Ruano, and that she yelled at
9 Ruano for one to one and a half minutes, with her face close to Ruano’s face, so loudly that a
10 coworker on the phone in another office could hear it. (Compare Dkt. No. 43-1 with Dkt. Nos. 38-
11 4, 38-5, 38-12.) Plaintiff does not dispute that not only Ruano but also Bloyd and Cader filed
12 complaints about Plaintiff’s behavior. (Id.)
13 Plaintiff has no response at all to the detailed descriptions from several of her coworkers,
14 described above, of many occasions of hostility where Plaintiff argued with and yelled at
15 coworker Lonergan; lashed out at Ruano, causing her to cry on another occasion in 2017; yelled at
16 coworker Petrella; yelled at clients and service providers over the phone; yelled at Baumeister;
17 stamped her feet and slammed the door after yelling at Baumeister; made inappropriate comments
18 to Baumeister about her clothing and affect; and flew into a rage with Bloyd on at least two
19 occasions. (Dkt. Nos. 38-2, 38-4, 38-5, 38-6.) These undisputed facts show that Plaintiff did not
20 perform the essential function of her job to get along with coworkers.
21 Instead of providing evidence to rebut the specific, numerous allegations of her hostile
22 interactions with colleagues, Plaintiff makes three arguments. First, she argues that un-named
23 people pressured all of the declarants into lying or exaggerating their allegations. Second, she
24 argues that the investigation that Defendant conducted was tainted, and she submits an expert
25 report criticizing the manner in which Defendant conducted that investigation. Third, she argues
26 that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job with accommodations.
27 i. Plaintiff’s Allegation that All Coworkers Lied.
1 exaggerating their complaints about her. (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. ¶ 17).) She provides no
2 other facts to support this sweeping statement. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges, with no citation to specific
3 facts, that her supervisors encouraged her coworkers to fabricate charges against her so that
4 Defendant could terminate her employment. (Id. (Muto Decl. ¶ 20).) Plaintiff states that several
5 un-named coworkers told her that they had no issues with her and that they were unaware of any
6 issues with her. (Id.) In contrast, the coworkers who submitted complaints about Plaintiff or
investigated complaints stated that they never were asked or never asked anyone to fabricate or
7
exaggerate complaints against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 38-2 (Baumeister Decl. ¶ 5); Dkt. No. 38-4
8
(Bloyd Decl. ¶ 14); Dkt. No. 38-9 (Kelly Decl. ¶ 6); Dkt. No. 38-10 (Mitchell Decl. ¶ 14); Dkt.
9
No. 38-11 (Rivera Decl. ¶ 12); Dkt. No. 38-12 (Ruano Decl. ¶ 12)).
10
In the face of these specific denials, Plaintiff provides no evidence other than her
11
speculation that other employees were pressured into lying or exaggerating their complaints about
12
her. “To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of
13
specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.” Cafasso v. Gen. Synamics C4 Syt., Inc., 637
14
F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting speculation that other employees “poisoned” the
15
decisionmaker against plaintiff in employment decision). Plaintiff does not meet her burden here.
16
ii. Alleged Flaws in Defendant’s Investigation.
17
Plaintiff challenges the method in which Defendant’s investigation was conducted, but
18
those challenges are not sufficient to overcome the sworn declarations submitted by her coworkers
19
that show that she did not get along with her coworkers. Plaintiff’s coworkers submitted detailed,
20
specific declarations for this motion that create the undisputed facts listed above. The Court need
21
not rely upon the investigation to show these undisputed facts because the declarations, which are
22
admissible, support the undisputed facts. The Court concludes that the undisputed evidence shows
23
that Plaintiff was not able to perform the essential function of her job of getting along with
24
coworkers.
25
Moreover, even if the investigation were flawed, those flaws do not undermine
26
Defendant’s good faith belief that the complaints were accurate. See, e.g., Villiarimo v. Aloha
27
1 (“courts only require that an employer honestly believed its reason for its actions, even if is reason
2 is foolish or trivial or even baseless”). Here, decisionmaker Emery based the decision to terminate
3 Plaintiff’s employment both on the investigation and on the documentation collected by Plaintiff’s
4 supervisors about Plaintiff’s behavior. (Dkt. 38-8 (Emery Decl. ¶ 5).) Later, the Skelly officer
5 made his decision to uphold the termination of Plaintiff’s employment after hearing that Plaintiff
6 did not deny misconduct, and he based his decision on the evidence of misconduct that was
7 reported in the investigation and the extensive documentation of Plaintiff’s behavior. (Dkt. 38-13
8 (Schurtz Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7).) Plaintiff cannot point to evidence showing that the belief, even if
9 mistaken, was dishonest.
10 Because the undisputed facts show that Plaintiff cannot meet one element of her claim (that
11 she could perform the essential functions of her job), the next question is thus whether Plaintiff
12 could perform the essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodations.
13 iii. Ability to Perform Job with Accommodations.
14 Plaintiff argues that she was able to perform her job with accommodations. However, the
15 only evidence she points to is not sufficient to meet her burden on summary judgment. Plaintiff
16 points to the September 27, 2019 report and undated letter from Naber (“Naber Report and
17 Letter”) to support her argument that she could perform her job with accommodations. 7 (Dkt. No.
18 43-1 (Muto Decl. Ex. E); Dkt. No. 56-1 (Blanton Decl. Ex. 1); Dkt. No. 57-1 (Jaffee Decl. Ex. 5).)
19 a. Admissibility of Naber Report and Letter Because of Late
Disclosure.
20
Defendant objects to the admissibility of the Naber Report and Letter because Plaintiff
21
allegedly disclosed them after the deadline and because they are hearsay. Defendant argues that
22
the Naber Report and Letter are not admissible because Plaintiff did not provide a written report
23
from Naber. On March 8, 2022, the Court issued an Order extending the deadline for expert
24
disclosure until April 8, 2022. (Dkt. No. 55.) On April 8, 2022, Plaintiff disclosed Naber as a
25
non-retained expert and provided the subject and summary of her opinion. (Dkt. No. 56-1
26
(Blanton Decl. Ex. 1).) Plaintiff met the new deadline set by the Court. Additionally, in the
27
1 further briefing permitted by the same Order, Plaintiff indicated that the materials underlying
2 Naber’s opinion were produced to Defendant on December 4, 2020. (Dkt. No. 51-1 (Jaffee Decl.
3 ¶ 2).) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C), Plaintiff was only required to provide
4 the subject matter and a summary of the facts and opinions on which Naber would testify, which
5 Plaintiff provided in her April 8, 2022 disclosure. Even earlier on December 4, 2020, Plaintiff had
6 produced Naber’s underlying documents (the undated report and the September 27, 2019 letter) as
7 part of her initial disclosures and identified Naber as a potential witness in the Initial Disclosures
8 on the same date. (Dkt. No. 57-1 (Jaffee Decl. ¶ 3; Exs. 5-6).) Late disclosure thus does not bar
9 consideration of the Naber Report and Letter.
10 b. Admissibility of Naber Report and Letter under Hearsay Rules.
11 Defendant also argues that the Naber Report and Letter constitute inadmissible hearsay. It
12 is axiomatic that the opinion of an expert witness is not hearsay. Finally, the form of the content
13 does not control the admissibility of evidence for summary judgment. Fraser v. Goodale, 342
14 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2003). If called as an expert witness at trial, Naber could provide her
15 opinion. And even if there were hearsay contained in the Naber Report and Letter, the exception
16 for statements for medical diagnosis or treatment under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) applies.
17 Thus, the Court can consider the Naber Report and Letter for this motion.
18 c. Opinions in Naber Report and Letter of September 27, 2019.
19 The opinions in the Naber Report and Letter do not show that Plaintiff could perform the
20 essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodations. In her undated report, Naber
21 wrote about Plaintiff:
22
With respect to questions concerning work, it is noted that the
23 evaluation performed was not an evaluation of the ability to do work
competently. Nonetheless, it is suggested that Ms. Muto’s current
24 cognitive functioning is weaker than her premorbid functioning, and
that her job is likely to be very demanding, as a result. Work
25 disability should be considered due to the degree of cognitive
impairment. Alternatively, accommodations for increased time and
26
adequate supervision could be tried.
27
Specifically, issues with persistence could be addressed by use of
supervisor for task completion. Issues with memory retrieval could
1
be compensated for by use of calendars, verbal reminders, and
2 alarms to assist in prompting recall. ln addition, verbal memory
strengths will assist her in compensation. Executive difficulties
3 could be assisted by providing Ms. Muto with step-by-step task lists.
In addition, tasks should be allowed to be completed before
4 assigning new duties, as this will make issues with cognitive
flexibility less problematic. Giving additional time for assignments
5
will also assist with underlying cognitive inefficiencies. If Ms. Muto
6 appears to become agitated, she could be cued to perform a physical
reset (e.g., snapping her fingers, clapping her hands, etc.), as such
7 activities can derail the behavioral upset that can be triggered by an
underlying neurodegenerative order. If such reasonable
8 accommodations cannot be accomplished in Ms. Muto’s current
place of employment, then disability is supported. Her condition is
9
progressive, and disability would be warranted if accommodations
10 are not available or if compensatory techniques cease to assist in
accommodating neurocognitive challenges.
11
12 (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto Decl. Ex. E)) (emphasis added).
13 In the letter dated September 27, 2019, Naber wrote that Plaintiff had been diagnosed with
14 a mild cognitive impairment by UCSF in 2017 and opined: “It is highly likely that the behavioral
15 difficulties that have occurred at work are due to her diagnosis.” (Dkt. No. 56-1 (Blanton Decl.
16 Ex. 1); Dkt. No. 57-1 (Jaffee Decl. Ex. 5).)
17 There are four reasons why Naber’s assessment does not show that Muto could perform
18 the essential functions of her job with accommodations. First, Naber explicitly states that her
19 evaluation is not “an evaluation of the ability to do work competently.” (Dkt. No. 43-1 (Muto
20 Decl. Ex. E).) Thus, Naber’s own disclaimer prevents the Court from relying upon it to find that
21 Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of her job with accommodations. Second, Naber’s
22 assessment is equivocal in stating that certain accommodations “could be tried” or that certain
23 problems “could be addressed” with certain accommodations. (Id.) Again, this evidence is not
24 sufficient to show that Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of her job with
25 accommodations because the comments are suggestions about what might work. Third, Naber’s
26 report does not address the key problem: Plaintiff’s inability to get along with her coworkers.
27 There is no indication in the report that any accommodation would help Plaintiff get along with
1 Finally, Naber implicitly admits that these suggested accommodations may not be appropriate in
2 Plaintiff’s job, when Naber opines: “If such reasonable accommodations cannot be accomplished
3 in Ms. Muto’s current place of employment, then disability is supported.” (Id.)
4 Given that the undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff could not perform the essential
5 functions of her job with reasonable accommodations, summary adjudication is warranted for
6 Defendant on this basis alone. However, the Court will examine the third element of the claim:
7 whether Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment “because of” her disability.
8 2. Termination of Employment “Because of Disability.”
9 As noted above, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s theory that Defendant took
10 action against her in order to cut off her retirement benefits, and the only evidence shows that
11 Defendant terminated her employment because she could not get along with coworkers. The
12 undisputed evidence does not support Plaintiff’s last theory – that her disability caused her to fail
13 to get along with coworkers.
14 Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot assert this new theory of discrimination that she met
15 the essential standards of her job but that Defendant fabricated excuses to fire her after Defendant
16 learned of her disability, because Plaintiff did not assert this theory until opposing summary
17 judgment. Under Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000), a party
18 cannot assert a new theory of discrimination on summary judgment if not pled in the complaint.
19 In Coleman, the court considered a summary judgment motion in a case for age discrimination
20 where plaintiffs had failed to argue disparate impact until the motion for summary judgment was
21 filed. Id. at 1291-1292. The Court noted that an employee can proceed in an age discrimination
22 claim “under two theories of liability: disparate treatment or disparate impact.” Id. at 1291. The
23 plaintiffs in Coleman had only alleged disparate treatment and had not disclosed the theory of
24 disparate impact until opposing the motion for summary judgment and thus were barred from
25 doing so. Id. at 1291-1294.
26 In her Complaint, Plaintiff clearly advanced a theory of disability discrimination which is
27 different from the one she now asserts. Plaintiff alleged: “Plaintiff got along well with her co-
1 at page 3.) “Following learning of the medical testing and its results, Defendant started to
2 fabricate workplace issues with” Plaintiff “in an effort to reprimand her.” (Dkt. No. 1 at page 4.)
3 Defendant allegedly “called co-workers into meetings to discuss” Plaintiff “in an effort to create
4 false complaints about her.” (Id.) When she lost her job, Plaintiff was six months from vesting of
5 her “employment benefits.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleged in her Complaint that Defendant used the false
6 complaints as part of a campaign to avoid providing costly benefits and accommodations to
7 Plaintiff. (Id.) Moreover, when Plaintiff testified in her deposition, she explained why she was
8 fired, and she did not say that she was fired because her disability caused her to fail to get along
9 with co-workers. (Dkt. 50 (Blanton Decl. Ex. A at 102:18-103:13).) Plaintiff is estopped from
10 asserting this new theory of discrimination, but even if the Court considers this theory, it also fails
11 for the same reasons described above. The key to this theory is that Defendant fabricated reasons
12 to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, but as described above, the undisputed evidence shows that
13 Plaintiff lost her job because she was not able to get along with coworkers.
14 Plaintiff argues that, even if Defendant terminated her employment based partially on her
15 disability, she can make her claim. She is mistaken. Unlike other claims for discrimination under
16 federal law and unlike California state law disability law, a plaintiff in a federal disability action
17 under the ADA must prove that the adverse employment action would not have happened but for
18 the disability. Murray v. Mayo Clinic, 934 F.3d 1101, 1105-1107 (9th Cir. 2019). In Murray, the
19 Ninth Circuit specifically overruled the holding in Head v. Glacier Northwest, Inc., 413 F.3d 1053
20 (9th Cir. 2005) “that a plaintiff bringing a discrimination claim under Title I of the ADA need
21 show only that a disability was a motivating factor of the adverse employment action.” Id. at
22 1105. “We hold instead that an ADA discrimination plaintiff bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
23 12112 must show that the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for the
24 disability.” Id. Plaintiff cannot make such a showing here.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment for Defendant.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated: May 3, 2022 { ( ° Ie ‘
5
SALLIE KIM
6 United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12

13

©
15
16

= 17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071456. Public record. Not legal advice.