Frohm v. City and County of San Francisco

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted and partially denied the City and County of San Francisco’s motion for summary judgment in Darlene Frohm’s employment discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act action. The court granted summary judgment on Frohm’s discrimination claims and most asserted retaliation theories, but denied it as to retaliation based on the denial of a request to upgrade her position and as to the merits of her Equal Pay Act claim. The court applied a two-year statute of limitations to the Equal Pay Act claim.

Holdings

1. The City was entitled to summary judgment because Frohm did not establish that she was qualified for the permanent 0932, 0941, or 0954 positions at issue; she failed the required management test battery.
2. The Title VII equal-pay claim failed because Frohm could not show that she was qualified for a 0941 position and did not present evidence giving rise to an inference of racial discrimination.
3. The court declined to consider newly asserted bases for liability that were not adequately disclosed in the operative complaint or discovery responses. In any event, the theories would fail on the merits for lack of evidence supporting an inference of race discrimination.
4. The City was not entitled to summary judgment on Frohm's retaliation claim based on the denial of the request to upgrade her position from 0932 to 0941.
5. The court granted summary judgment on, or declined to consider, the CAT 18 retaliation theory because Frohm's vague deposition testimony did not put the City on notice of that specific claim. The court also held that the theory would fail because Frohm did not show that the identified decisionmaker knew of her protected activity.
6. The City was not entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Frohm's Equal Pay Act claim because it did not establish the absence of disputed facts concerning whether the pay differential was based on a factor other than sex.
7. The court applied a two-year limitations period because Frohm did not present evidence creating a disputed fact concerning whether the City's alleged violation was willful.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the City was entitled to summary judgment on Frohm's FEHA and Title VII race-discrimination claims based on alleged failures to promote or reclassify her.
2. Whether Frohm's Title VII equal-pay claim could proceed under a failure-to-promote framework.
3. Whether newly asserted discrimination theories raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment could be considered and, if considered, whether they survived summary judgment.
4. Whether the City was entitled to summary judgment on Frohm's FEHA retaliation claim concerning the denial of a request to upgrade her position from 0932 to 0941.
5. Whether the City was entitled to summary judgment on Frohm's retaliation theory concerning a CAT 18 temporary placement.
6. Whether the City was entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Frohm's Equal Pay Act claim based on the City's classification and compensation system.
7. Whether Frohm's Equal Pay Act claim was subject to a two-year or three-year limitations period.

Disposition

other