Government Liability Update

The Unruh Act Does Not Apply to School Districts or Other Public Entities

In Brennon B. v. Superior Court (West Contra Costa Unified School Dist.), published August 4, 2022, the California Supreme Court affirmed a demurrer sustained to a cause of action against a school district for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.  The plaintiff, a disabled student, alleged that the school district violated the Unruh Act by failing to protect him against sexual assault.  The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the district was not a "business establishment" within the meaning of the act.  The plaintiff petitioned the lower court of appeal for writ relief.  The appellate court agreed with the trial court.

The California Supreme Court agreed as well. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51, subdivision (b) bars discrimination "in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." The court examined the language of the Unruh Act, its legislative history, and the history of cases interpreting it, and concluded that the phrase "all business establishments of every kind whatsoever" is limited to entities acting as private business establishments.  In particular, earlier versions of the bill that became the Unruh Act stated that it applied to schools, but reflect a progressive narrowing of the legislation's applicability to "schools' before completely eliminating the reference to schools, while leaving the language concerning "business establishments" untouched.  The district was therefore not a "business establishment" when it provided educational services for the plaintiff.  The court also rejected an alternative argument that subdivision (f) of Civil Code section 51, which makes a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 actionable under the Unruh Act, expanded the Unruh Act's application to school districts.  Analyzing the language and legislative history, the court concluded that subdivision (f) means that any violation of the ADA by a business establishment is also a violation of the Unruh Act.  The court further rejected an argument that the language of Education Code section 201, subdivision (g), as amended in 1998, stating a legislative intent that the chapter of the Education Code be interpreted as consistent with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, incorporated the Unruh Act's remedies into the Education Code.  Treating the amendment as bringing public school districts within the ambit of the Unruh Act would have exceeded the stated intention behind the 1998 amendment and been in tension with the Legislature's professed goal of mitigating litigation costs for schools.

Because State Law Did Not Clearly Establish Contractor Had Property Interest in Municipal Contract, City Attorney Entitled to Qualified Immunity to Due Process Claim for Recommending Ending Contract

In DePaul Industries v. Miller, published September 28, 2021, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed denial of qualified immunity to a defendant city attorney in a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1982.  The plaintiff contracted with the city to provide unarmed security at city buildings.  The plaintiff was a qualified nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities, or QRF, under an Oregon law that requires cities to contract with QRFs in certain circumstances.  An employee of the plaintiff sued the city for alleged retaliation, and the plaintiff declined to defend and indemnify the city under an indemnification clause in the contracts.  When the contracst ended, the city elected to modify its security services by requiring that the security service employees be armed.  The plaintiff was the only QRF in the county providing unarmed security services.  The city decided not to renew the plaintiff's contracts, and awarded them to another security service.  The plaintiff sued the city and various city officials, including the city attorney, in their individual and official capacities.  One claim alleged the city attorney violated the plaintiff's substantive and procedural due process rights.  The city attorney moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.  The district court decided that the plaintiff had a clearly established property interest in its contracts with the city, and that a reasonable jury could conclude that the city used a pretext to cancel the contracts.

The 9th Circuit held that the district court erred, because the plaintiff's property interest in the contracts was not clearly established.  The Oregon QRF statute is not clear about whether it creates a protected property interest in annually renewable city contracts.  No Oregon court had considered the question.  Two cases cited by the district court were district court opinions that did not address QRFs at all.  The 9th Circuit noted its hesitancy to rely on district court decisions for the qualified immunity analysis.  Because the plaintiff did not have a clearly established property right to be protected by due process, the city attorney was entitled to qualified immunity.

Failure to Adopt Recommendations in Department of Education "Dear Colleague" Letters Is Not Actionable Failure to Accommodate

In Csutoras v. Paradise High School, published September 7, 2021, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendant school and district in a lawsuit seeking money damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The plaintiff high school student requested and was granted accommodations under a section 504 plan concerning his schoolwork.  A male classmate assaulted the plaintiff at a football game while he was talking to a girl.  The assailant's motivation was jealousy over the girl.  It was not motivated in any way by the plaintiff's disability.  The school had no prior knowledge of harassment or bullying involving the plaintiff.  The plaintiff alleged that the school violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by failing to satisfy various Dear Colleague letters issued by the Department of Education.  The district court concluded that the Dear Colleague letters were not binding.

The 9th Circuit agreed.  While the letters set out a four-factor test for determining whether the Department may seek enforcement against a claimed violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act where a student is bullied based on a disability, the bullying is sufficiently serious to create a hostile environment, school officials knew or should have known of the bullying, and the school does not respond appropriately, the letters themselves limit the test to administrative enforcement actions and suits for injunctive relief.  Precedent creates a much higher bar for plaintiffs seeking damages under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act:  They must prove that the defendant intended to discriminate on the basis of the disability, or was deliberately indifferent to the disability.  The letters also disclaim any binding authority, and explicitly state that they do not apply to private suits for money damages.

Because School Districts Are Not Business Establishments, the Unruh Act Does Not Apply to Them

In Brennon B. v. Superior Court (West Contra Costa Unified School District), published November 13, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 1 denied a petition for a writ of mandate challenging an order sustaining the real party school district's demurrer to the petitioner's cause of action under the Unruh Act without leave to amend.  The petitioner, who suffers from autism, alleged he has been the victim of disability discrimination by the school, and that the school had violated the Unruh Act.  He contended that the school district was a "business establishment" under the Unruh Act.  He alternatively argued that even if a school district is not a business establishment, Civil Code section 51, subdivision (f) made any violation of the ADA a violation of the Unruh Act.

The appellate court rejected both arguments. The California Supreme Court has not addressed whether a government entity, and specifically a public school district, is a business establishment within the meaning of the Unruh Act.  The appellate court followed the analytical template the Supreme Court has employed in deciding whether a particular entity is a business establishment for purposes of the Act.  The court examined the historical background of the Act, and concluded nothing in that historical context (as a legislative reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's Civil Rights cases, dealing with federal legislation imposing antidiscrimination protections on private enterprises) supported application to public entities.  In examining the Unruh Act's legislative history, the court noted that successive versions of the legislation reduced the statute's discussion of "schools," first limiting it to business and vocational training schools and then eliminating any mention of schools.  By the time the Unruh Act was enacted, Brown v. Board of Education had already held racial discrimination in public schools unconstitutional.  Nothing in the legislative history of the Act suggests that it was intended to reach discriminatory conduct by state agents, such as public schools.  Supreme Court precedent grappling with the meaning of the term "business establishment" in the Unruh Act confirm that the elements the Court viewed as determining an entity was a business establishment--overall function enhancing economic value; providing athletic facilitiesas a principal activity and reason for existence; providing a physical plant for patrons to use at their convenience; conducting commercial transactions as an integral part of overall operations;  providing the functional equivalent of a classic place of public accommodation or amusement; or providing the sale of a good--apply to school districts.  Other lower court decisions have examined various legislative activities by public entities and concluded they were not the acts of a "business establishment" for purposes of the Unruh Act.  Those California court decisions that have discussed the Act as applying to public entities have not analyzed the issue.  Federal district court cases have split on whether the Unruh Act applies to California public school districts.  The ones that conclude that it does do not properly analyze the issue.  The court addressed whether Education Code section 200 et. seq.'s statement that the statute shall be interpreted as consistent with the Unruh Act did not expand the Act to covering school districts.

The appellate court also analyzed the argument that under statutory language, any violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act.  It concluded that this language actually indicates that any violation of the ADA by a business establishment is a violation of the Unruh Act.  The amendment of the Act to address ADA violations consistently discusses disability discrimination by business establishments.  An interpretation of the Act to apply to any violation of the ADA would also run afoul of the California Supreme Court's holding that employment discrimination is not covered by the Unruh Act.

Warrantless Seizure of Firearms in Household of Person Detained for 72-Hour Observation Did Not Violate Fourth Amendment; Second Amendment Argument Barred by Issue Preclusion

In Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, published July 23, 2019, the 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendant city, its police department, and a police officer in a lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.  Officers responded to the plaintiff's 911 call for a welfare check on her husband.  The husband was ranting, mentioned shooting up schools, and stated he had a gun safe full of guns.  The officers detained the husband under Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 for 72 hours observation. After the husband was removed from the house, the plaintiff confirmed that there were firearms in the house.  The officers found 12 firearms in the house--one registered to the plaintiff alone, the rest unregistered or registered to the husband.  The plaintiff objected to the removal of her personal handgun.  The officers confiscated all of the firearms.  The husband was evaluated at the hospital, admitted, and released a week later.  Later, the city filed a petition for forfeiture of the firearms.  The plaintiff intervened, asserting personal ownership of her handgun and community ownership of the others.   She asserted her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, since she was not prohibited from possessing or owning guns.  The court granted the city's petition.  The state court of appeal affirmed that the seizure did not violate the plaintiff's Second Amendment rights.  After the decision, the plaintiff changed the registration and ownership so that all the guns were in her name only, and obtained gun release clearances from the state department of justice.  The city declined her request to return the guns.  She then brought this lawsuit, joined by two gunowners' rights organizations.  She asserted violations of her Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the warrantless seizure of the firearms did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The public health and safety protection exception to the warrant requirement applied.  A seizure of a firearm in the possession or control of a person who has been detained because of an acute mental health episode responds to an immediate threat to community safety.  When asking whether the seizure falls within an exception to the warrant requirement, three factors must be balanced, based on all the facts available to an objectively reasonable officer:  The public safety interest; the urgency of that interest; and the individual property, liberty, and privacy interests.  Here, the seizure of the guns from the home affected a serious private interest in the personal property kept in the home.  But because the officers had probable cause to detain involuntarily an individual experiencing an acute mental health episode and send him for evaluation; the individual had threatened to use the firearms; and the officers did not know whether the hospital would detain the individual or keep him detained long enough to permit the officers to seek a warrant, the urgency of a significant public safety interest was sufficient to outweigh the significant property interest.

The 9th Circuit also concluded that the Second Amendment claim was precluded by the final decision of the state court, in which the plaintiff's Second Amendment rights were litigated.  The addition of the advocacy groups as plaintiffs did not change the issue preclusion analysis, because they lacked institutional standing.  They failed to show that the issue of whether a single gun owner's firearms should be returned either impeded their ability to carry out their mission or required them to divert substantial resources away from the organizations' preferred uses.

Complaint Alleging Improper Solitary Confinement of Mentally Ill Inmates Stated Claim under Eighth Amendment

In Disability Rights Montana, Inc. v. Batista, published July 19, 2019, the 9th Circuit reversed the dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit at the pleading stage.  An organization tasked by Congress with protecting the rights of mentally ill persons filed suit alleging Montana prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment through policies and practices of placing mentally ill prisoners in longterm solitary confinement and failing to properly diagnose and medicate them.  The district court granted a motion to dismiss the action.

The 9th Circuit ruled that the complaint adequately pleaded a claim under the Eighth Amendment.  Where a plaintiff alleges systemwide deficiencies that expose inmates in a prison's custody to a substantial risk of serious harm, courts assess the claim through a two-prong inquiry.  The first, objective prong requires that the plaintiff show that the prison's conditions pose a substantial risk of serious harm.  The second, subjective prong requires a showing that a prison official was deliberately indifferent by being aware of the facts from which an inference can be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and also drawing the inference.  The complaint satisfied the first prong by alleging patterns of prisoners being denied diagnosis and medication, and policies placing mentally ill prisoners in solitary for weeks and months at a time without significant mental health care.  It also satisfied the prong by providing multiple examples of the defendants' policies causing prisoners' mental health to worsen, resulting in self-harm or suicide.  The complaint satisfied the second prong by alleging that the prison system had been sued twice  complaining about factually similar problems; that the prison sought certification from a national body whose mental health care standards would have put them on notice of the problems, that the prison received regular grievances from prisoners about the complaints, and that the organization had repeatedly informed prison officials of the deficiencies in treatment.

Decision to Release 5150 Detainee Is Not Protected by Anti-SLAPP Law

In Swanson v. County of Riverside, published June 17, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed a trial court's denial of a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute.  The plaintiffs sued the defendant county because the county released a Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 detainee after evaluation under Welfare & Institutions Code section 5152.

The appellate court concluded that an evaluation under section 5152 is not speech protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.  It is not analogous to a peer review, which is protected.  The suit is for the county's act in releasing the detainee, not for a statement.  The appellate court declined to analyze the plaintiffs' chances for success.

Prosecutor's Disclosure to Superiors of Lack of Probable Cause to Prosecute Defendant Is Protected under Whistleblowing Statute

In Ross v. County of Riverside, ordered published June 10, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant county on the plaintiff's claims for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 and the disability discrimination provisions of FEHA.  The plaintiff, a deputy district attorney, inherited a case from another attorney, who informed her superiors and the plaintiff that she believed the defendant was innocent and that the defendant's confession was coerced.  The plaintiff repeatedly informed his superiors that he believed the DA's office lacked probable cause to prosecute the defendant.  He sent evidence out for DNA testing, obtained results that exculpated the defendant, and turned the results over to defense counsel.  The DA eventually dismissed the charges against the defendant.  Meanwhile, the plaintiff underwent testing for suspected neurological and autoimmune conditions, and requested that he be accommodated by minimizing his stress at work and not assigning him new cases until his testing was complete.  The DA's office allegedly failed to accommodate him.  The plaintiff left his position, alleging constructive termination.  The DA's office eventually declared he had abandoned his job.  The trial court granted the county summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish he engaged in activity protected under section 1102.5 and that he could not establish he was disabled.

The appellate court ruled that the evidence, if credited by a trier of fact, showed that the plaintiff had disclosed information protected by Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b).  That subdivision forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, or a person with authority over the employee, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.  Disclosing information to his superiors that he reasonably believed disclosed a violation or noncompliance with the federal and state law applying to criminal prosecutions and prosecutors is protected by subdivision (b).  That includes a prosecution that the disclosure reasonably believes violates the defendant's due process rights and a prosecutor's ethical duties under state law.  The appellate court did not determine whether there was a triable issue on whether the DA's office retaliated against the plaintiff based on the disclosure.  The appellate court also determined the evidence raised a triable issue of fact on whether the plaintiff was temporarily disabled at the time he requested accommodation.

University Not Immune to Potential Liability for Failing to Prevent Mentally Ill Student from Attacking Fellow Student

In Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court (Rosen), published December 3, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 7, on remand from the California Supreme Court, affirmed denial of the defendant Regents and university personnel's motion for summary judgment in a negligence case brought by a UCLA student who was stabbed in chemistry lab during a class by a fellow student.  Before the attack, the university received several indications that the attacker was having hallucinations, accused other students of insults that they did not make, and physically confronted one student.  The university moved him to a different dorm and required him to participate in counseling.  The plaintiff's experts opined that the university should have taken further action to address the disturbed student.  The university contended that it did not violate any duty of care to the injured student, and alternatively that it was immune from liability.  It challenged denial of its summary judgment motion by petitioning for writ relief.  The appellate court initially found no duty and granted the petition.  The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that universities owe a duty of reasonable care to students to protect them from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities.  It remanded the matter to the appellate court to determine the standard of care under the duty, whether triable issues of fact existed on breach of the duty, and whether the defendants were statutorily immune.

The appellate court held that the standard of care that applied was the reasonable person standard that generally applies to negligence cases, rather than the more limited standard applied to mental health professionals who fail to prevent their patients from attacking others.  The plaintiff must prove three elements to establish the university's vicarious liability under Government Code section 815.2 for its personnel's breach of the duty to protect students:  That the injury occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in activities that are part of the school’s curriculum or closely related to its delivery of educational services; that the university was aware of information that placed, or should have placed, it on notice that the perpetrator presented a foreseeable threat of violence to other students; and that the university failed to act with reasonable care in response to the foreseeable threat of violence.  The reasonable person standard of care is similar to that applied in K-12 school situations, although the degree of care may vary due to the different circumstances in a university, which deals with older students.  Based on the information the university personnel had before the attack, triable issues of fact exist on whether the student presented a foreseeable risk of violence and whether the university could have done more to prevent the attack.  The defendants are not immune under Government Code section 856, which immunizes decisions on whether to confine a person for mental illness.  The plaintiff did not contend that the university is liable for failing to confine the attacker, but rather that the school was negligent in its behavior toward the attacker, including failure to use the intervention techniques that were available to the school under its existing policies and procedures.  Discretionary immunity under Government Code section 820.2 also did not apply.  The  immunity applies only to policy and planning decisions.  The plaintiff did not challenge the school's policies and procedures, but rather how those policies were implemented.

Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Limiting Mini-Openings and Declining Challenges for Cause in Student Supervision Case

In Alcazar v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., ordered published November 15, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed judgment for the defendant school district after a jury trial.  The plaintiff was a middle-school student with learning disabilities who fell and was injured after swinging on a tree branch that broke.  The plaintiff alleged the school failed to properly supervise him.  During voir dire, the trial court initially allowed the parties to give mini opening statements.  During questioning of the first panel, some jurors expressed pre-judgment of the case based on the details given during the mini-openings.  The court then ordered that for subsequent panels the parties could not give mini-openings; instead, the court would read the statement of the case to which the parties had agreed.  The plaintiff's counsel was permitted to give several details of the case in his questioning of jurors.  Two jurors expressed uncertainty on whether they could be fair, but ultimately said they could.  The court declined the plaintiff's challenge to the jurors for cause.  The jury entered a defense verdict.  The plaintiff alleged that the court had exceeded its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 222.5 in limiting the use of mini-openings; and that the court abused its discretion in denying the challenges for cause.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's exercise of its discretion.  Section 222.5, as it existed at the time of the trial, preserved the trial court's discretion to disallow mini-openings depending on the circumstances.  The circumstances here included jurors stating they had prejudged the case based on the mini-openings given.  The court has discretion to deny a challenge for cause, unless the juror expresses views indicative of an unalterable preference in favor of one side.  Since both jurors here stated they could keep an open mind, the court had discretion to deny the challenge.