Jackson v. Genentech, Inc.

[1] 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [4] 5 CLARENCE JACKSON, CASE NO. 21-cv-05265-YGR 6 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE 7 vs. TO AMEND 8 GENENTECH, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 17 9 Defendant. 10 Plaintiff filed this action against defendant on July 8, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1.) Currently 11 pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss and/or strike or, in the alternative, for a more definite 12 statement. (Dkt. No. 17.) Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted on 13 the motion, and for the reasons stated on the record at the September 28, 2021 hearing, the Court 14 GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss. Specifically, the motion is DENIED 15 as to the disability discrimination claim based on a failure to accommodate and the wrongful 16 termination claim. With respect to the failure to accommodate claim, plaintiff is not required to 17 allege discriminatory intent to make out such a claim. See McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 18 1259, 1266 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A plaintiff need not allege either disparate treatment or disparate 19 impact in order to state a reasonable accommodation claim.”) (citation omitted); see also Peebles 20 v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir. 2004) (liability for failure to accommodate claims does not 21 “turn on the employer’s intent or actual motive”). Moreover, given that plaintiff allegedly 22 requested the accommodation one month prior to notice of his termination, an EEOC investigation 23 into the termination charge could have reasonably uncovered the alleged failure to accommodate. 24 See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); see also B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, [25] 276 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th Cir. 2002); Yamaguchi v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475 , 26 1480 (9th Cir. 1997) (in determining exhaustion, courts must construe EEOC charge “with the 27 utmost liberality”) (quoting EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1994)). ] animus or for failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies is DENIED. With respect to the 2 || wrongful termination claim, the Court finds that plaintiffs filing of the second EEOC charge 3 || equitably tolled the applicable statute of limitations. See McDonald v. Antelope Valley Commun. 4 || College Dist., 45 Cal. 4th 88, 102 (2008) (“The filing of an administrative claim, whether 5 || mandated or not, affords a defendant notice of the claims against it so that it may gather and 6 || preserve evidence, and thereby satisfies the principal policy behind the statute of limitations.”’). 7 Therefore, the motion to dismiss this claim as time-barred is DENIED. 8 However, the remaining claims for disability discrimination (based on the termination), 9 || age discrimination, and race discrimination are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The motion 10 || to strike or for more definitive statement is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant’s request for judicial 11 notice of the EEOC charges is GRANTED as unopposed. (Dkt. No. 18.) As discussed at the 12 || hearing, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than October 18, 2021. Defendant shall 13 || respond to the filing no later than November 8, 2021. This matter is REFERRED to Magistrate 14 || Judge Jacqueline Corley for an early settlement conference. The initial case management 3 15 conference currently set for October 25, 2021 is CONTINUED to January 31, 2022. Should a 16 || settlement conference be set for a date after January 31, the parties may request to further continue i 17 || the case management conference. Zz 18 This Order terminates Docket Number 17. 19 IT Is SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: September 29, 2021 Zaroee lees YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE