Cherrish Castaneda v. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screens Plaintiff Cherrish Castaneda’s First Amended Complaint concerning her employment with the California Department of Motor Vehicles during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court maintains the dismissal of claims against the DMV that are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, permits amendment of deficient Title VII, FEHA, ADA, and Section 1983 claims, and finds that the First Amendment retaliation allegations are potentially cognizable but improperly directed at Defendant Steve Gordon. Service is deferred pending an opportunity to amend.

Holdings

1. Title VII validly abrogates state sovereign immunity for discrimination claims, so the DMV is an appropriate defendant for such claims if adequately pled.
2. Plaintiff failed to adequately plead a causal nexus between a sincerely held religious belief and her refusal to vaccinate, mask, or consent to testing.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the ADA because she did not establish she had a disability under the ADA, as her pregnancy-related conditions were not shown to be abnormal complications.
4. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to find her speech was protected under the First Amendment and that adverse employment action was taken in retaliation, but the claim fails as to Defendant Gordon because he was not personally involved in the retaliation.
5. Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of genetic information privacy against the DMV under GINA for screening purposes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the DMV is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for various claims
2. Whether Plaintiff states a claim for religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII
3. Whether Plaintiff states a claim under the ADA for disability discrimination
4. Whether Plaintiff states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First and Fourteenth Amendment violations
5. Whether Plaintiff states a claim under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
6. Whether Plaintiff states state law claims for breach of privacy or contract

Disposition

other