Truck Drivers' Conspiracy, Defamation Claims Get Green Light

Four truck drivers for a California waste management company will be able to pursue claims that the sex discrimination, defamation and emotional distress they allegedly suffered on the job violated state and federal law, according to a federal judge in San Francisco.

At the same time, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California granted judgment on the pleadings to the company, Cal Waste Solutions, on the plaintiffs' claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the state constitution and federal civil rights laws.

In particular, Judge Alsup took issue with the plaintiffs' argument that their hostile-work-environment claims were viable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for violation of constitutional rights by state actors.

The judge explained that simply because a private company acts a as "collector and disposer of recyclable materials" and may have performed a public "health and safety function" in doing so, that does not make it a state actor.

"Private activity only becomes a public function if the 'function performed has been traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state," Judge Alsup said.

The collection and disposal of recyclable materials is not a function that has been traditionally performed by the state exclusively, he explained.

The plaintiffs, who are black, worked for Cal Waste as truck drivers. They complained to the company about alleged racial harassment from co-workers and the fact that managerial employees "condoned, supported and knowingly failed to remedy" the situation.

One of the plaintiffs also alleged that his immediate supervisor made unwanted sexual advances toward him and that the advances were witnessed by another of the plaintiffs.

According to the lawsuit, Cal Waste retaliated against three of the plaintiffs and terminated one of them because of their complaints. One plaintiff still works for the company.

They sued Cal Waste and the managers allegedly responsible for the hostile work environment at the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Their claims included sexual harassment in violation of the California Constitution, hostile work environment, retaliation, conspiracy to discriminate, defamation and emotional distress.

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, and Judge Alsup granted the motion in part.

The claim of a hostile environment due to sexual harassment under the California Constitution was not viable because the plaintiffs made only "vague references" to the constitution in their complaint, when they should have constructed specific detailed claims, Judge Alsup said.

Failure to state a material issue of fact against the defendants on the face of the pleadings must result in dismissal of the claim, he concluded.

Next, Judge Alsup dismissed the Section 1983 claim because "detailed regulation of and substantial funding for private actors are not sufficient to transform the party's conduct into state action."

Cal Waste's franchise agreement with the city of Oakland was not sufficient to show state action on the part of the company, the judge said, and besides, the plaintiffs failed to show that the city had any connection to the adverse employment actions they complained about.

However, Judge Alsup did allow the plaintiffs' claims for conspiracy to discriminate based on sex under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 to proceed. He said he found a material issue of fact regarding such a conspiracy, explaining that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have held that classifications based on gender required the heightened level of judicial scrutiny provided in the federal statute.

Summing up, Judge Alsup noted that the claims remaining in the lawsuit against Cal Waste include race harassment, race discrimination, retaliation, conspiracy to discriminate based on race and sex, violation of public policy, constructive discharge, wrongful termination, defamation, sexual battery, and emotional distress.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

The plaintiffs are represented by Angela Morgan in Oakland, Calif.Counsel for the defendants are Wallace Doolittle, John Sweeney and Bradley Bayan in Hayward, Calif.