Brown v. Department of Social & Health Services State of Washington, No. 3:2005cv05635 - Document 54 (W.D. Wash. 2006)
Court Description: ORDER granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Franklin D. Burgess.(SPH, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown v. Department of Social & Health Services State of Washington Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 54 Doc. 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 MAXINE BROWN, a single person, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant. 14 15 Case No. C05-5635 FDB v. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Department of Social and Health Services’ 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. After reviewing all materials submitted by the parties and relied 17 upon for authority, the Court is fully informed and hereby grants the motion. Plaintiff’s federal 18 discrimination claims based on disability and race are dismissed, with prejudice. The state law claims 19 are dismissed as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 20 21 Plaintiff Maxine Brown contracted with Washington State Department of Social and Health 22 Services (DSHS) as an independent contractor to provide psychological counseling and family 23 preservation services. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that during the course of these contracts DSHS 24 refused to provide Ms. Brown with referrals due to her disability (blindness) and race (African 25 American). Plaintiff asserts federal causes of action for violation of equal rights under 42 U.S.C. § 26 ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 2 of 9 1 1981 and violation of the Americans with Disability Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132). The complaint 2 asserts state law claims for tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with 3 business expectancy, negligence, and violation of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (RCW 4 49.60). 5 DSHS removed the action to this Court based on the claims arising under federal law. The 6 Defendant moves for summary judgment on all claims. It is DSHS’s primary contention that due to 7 Ms. Brown’s criminal history and the failure to disclose such in her contract application she was not 8 qualified to be a DSHS contractor and as such she cannot maintain this action. The Defendant 9 further contends that Ms. Brown has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination. 10 In July of 1997 Ms. Brown moved from California to Washington. In April of 1998, Ms. 11 Brown filed an application for a contract to provide services to clients of DSHS’ Division of 12 Developmental Disabilities (DDD). Because Ms. Brown had not resided in Washington for three 13 years, a fingerprint background check was run on Ms. Brown. Her fingerprints were sent to the FBI, 14 which established that she had used five aliases in the past and had an extensive criminal history in 15 Oklahoma, Nevada and California. Ms. Brown’s criminal history included prostitution, burglary, 16 robbery, drug offenses and assault with intent to murder. On the basis of this criminal history, Ms. 17 Brown was disqualified by DDD from performing contract work with developmentally disabled 18 individuals. 19 In March of 1998, Ms Brown applied for a contract with another department of DSHS, the 20 Children’s Administration, to provide professional services (therapy and treatment). Ms. Brown was 21 also required to submit to a criminal background check with this division of DSHS. She signed the 22 authorization form that she had never been convicted of a crime and never been found to have 23 abused or neglected a child. She signed under the penalty of perjury that she affirmed the 24 truthfulness of the statements made and understood that untruthfulness or misleading answers would 25 be cause for termination of the contract. Unlike the checks performed by the DDD, the background 26 ORDER - 2 Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 3 of 9 1 check performed by the Children’s Administration consisted of only in-State checks through the 2 Washington State Patrol and did not include fingerprint checks. Ms. Brown had no criminal history 3 in Washington and accordingly no disqualifying information was discovered. Ms. Brown was 4 awarded a professional service contract commencing in March 1998 that was renewed in 2001 and 5 2005. In February of 2003, Ms Brown applied for a family preservation services contract with the 6 Children’s Administration. This contract began in 2003 and was also renewed twice. 7 In 2000 the various background check units of DSHS were merged into the Background 8 Check Central Unit (BCCU). In 2002 the BCCU implemented a single process and data base for 9 background checks. Prior to this date, Ms. Brown’s disqualification due to her extensive criminal 10 history had only been available to DDD due to its more extensive fingerprint check protocol. On 11 May 8, 2006, a child placing agency submitted a background authorization signed by Ms. Brown to 12 authorize Ms. Brown to counsel foster children. Due to the implementation of centralized 13 background checks, Ms. Brown’s criminal history was accessed and she was disqualified by the 14 Children’s Administration, as she had by DDD in 1998. 15 In deposition testimony, although unable to remember all the particulars of her criminal 16 history, Ms Brown admitted to her criminal background and the use of aliases. She did not dispute 17 the criminal record, but justified her nondisclosure by indicating her criminal record had 18 been“expunged” prior to moving to Washington. Ms Brown, however, failed to provide any of the 19 requested documentation supporting her claim of expungement. 20 Ms. Brown contends she did not obtain any referrals from DSHS on the basis of her 21 disability, blindness. Ms. Brown’s allegation of racial discrimination consists of the fact that she is an 22 African American woman and she feels she was treated like a child, talked down to, and no one ever 23 shook her hand. 24 The Defendant responds that the services contracts do not provide a right to referrals. The 25 terms of the professional services contracts with Children’s Administration required the contractor to 26 ORDER - 3 Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 4 of 9 1 provide services only upon receipt of and in accordance with a written authorization form issued by 2 DSHS. The contract provides that DSHS shall only pay for authorized services actually performed 3 and authorized, in advance, in writing. The contract also provided for dispute resolution through an 4 adjudicative proceeding. The terms of the family preservation services contracts provide that the 5 contract does not obligate DSHS to purchase services from the contractor. Services are requested 6 on a as-needed basis and payment made on a fee-for service basis. This contract also provides for 7 dispute resolution as the sole administrative remedy. Defendant contends there is no evidence that 8 Ms. Brown was discriminated against because of her disability or race. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS 9 10 Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the 11 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party 12 bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex 13 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met this burden, the 14 opposing party must show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Matsushita Elec. 15 Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is 16 "genuine" if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving 17 party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The opposing party may not rest 18 upon the mere allegations or denials of the moving party's pleading, but must present significant and 19 probative evidence to support its claim. Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d 20 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). For purposes of this motion, reasonable doubts as to the existence of 21 material facts are resolved against the moving party and inferences are drawn in the light most 22 favorable to the opposing party. Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 Summary judgment is mandated where the facts and the law will reasonably support only one 24 conclusion. 25 26 ORDER - 4 Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Filed 11/09/2006 Page 5 of 9 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 1 2 Document 54 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that "no qualified individual 3 with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the 4 benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by 5 any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In order to state a claim that a public program or service 6 violated Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; 7 (2) she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's services, 8 programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such 9 exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of her disability. McGary v. City of 10 Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124,1135 (9th 11 Cir. 2001). 12 With respect to the first element, DSHS asserts that Ms. Brown is not a “qualified individual” 13 with a disability due to her criminal history and her failure to disclose such in her applications for 14 service contracts. This Court is in agreement. A qualified individual with a disability is defined as an 15 individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications, meets the essential 16 eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities 17 provided by a public entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); U.S. v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 126 S.Ct. 877, 18 879 (2006). Ms. Brown’s criminal history and /or failure to disclose precludes her from meeting the 19 essential eligibility requirements of providing contract services for DSHS. 20 Additionally, in respect to the second element, Title II of the ADA does not apply to 21 employment contracts. Obtaining or retaining a job is not “the receipt of services,” nor is 22 employment a “program or activity” provided by a public entity. The statute governs a relationship 23 between a public entity, on the one hand, and a member of the public, on the other. Zimmerman v. 24 Oregon Dept. of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1176 (9th Cir. 1999). Ms. Brown in seeking recovery based 25 on her contractual relationship with DSHS is not acting as a member of the public, but as a 26 ORDER - 5 Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 6 of 9 1 contractor in a employment relationship. Accordingly, she may not maintain an action pursuant to 2 Title II of the ADA. 3 Further, it appears that Ms. Brown was not denied any benefit of the service contracts. She 4 was awarded two types of contracts. The contracts did not provide an entitlement to referrals. 5 DSHS fulfilled its obligation under the contracts by placing Ms. Brown’s name on the approved 6 provider lists. 7 8 Any one of these basis independently provide that Ms. Brown cannot maintain a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1981 9 10 Ms. Brown’s complaint asserts an all encompassing equal rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1981 on the basis of racial discrimination. The complaint states Plaintiff suffered race 12 discrimination in the form of disparate treatment, termination, constructive discharge, retaliation, and 13 other racially hostile actions. 14 These allegation deserve little comment as the Court finds no evidence to support these 15 allegations. Plaintiff must meet the same standards in proving a § 1981 claim that she must meet in 16 establishing a claim under Title VII and § 1983. Manatt v. Bank of America, NA, 339 F.3d 792, 797 17 (9th Cir. 2003); Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. Coll. Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 To establish a violation of the equal protection guarantee, a plaintiff must show that the defendant 19 intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of her race. Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 20 1344 (9th Cir. 1989); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976). 21 To make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment, Ms. Brown must show that: (1) she 22 belonged to a protected class; (2) she was performing his job in a satisfactory manner; (3) she was 23 subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated employees not in her protected 24 class received more favorable treatment. Kang v. U. Lim America, Inc., 296 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 25 2002). Ms. Browns’s allegations that she was treated differently based on her race are supported by 26 ORDER - 6 Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 7 of 9 1 nothing more than Plaintiff’s subjective belief. Ms. Brown has failed to establish a prima facie case 2 of discrimination based on race. 3 To establish prima facie hostile work environment claim under either Title VII or § 1981, 4 employee must raise triable issue of fact as to whether (1) he was subjected to verbal or physical 5 conduct because of his national origin, (2) conduct was unwelcome, and (3) conduct was sufficiently 6 severe or pervasive to alter conditions of his employment and create abusive work environment. 7 Manatt v. Bank of America, NA, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003). A hostile work environment 8 exists when the work place is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is 9 sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the condition of the victim's employment and create an 10 abusive working environment. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786 (1998). The conduct 11 must be severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment; an 12 environment a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find hostile or abusive considering 13 all the circumstances. Faragher, at 787; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 14 81 (1998); Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 879 (9th Cir.1991). The Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of 15 the severity of conditions that constitute a hostile work environment. See, Vasquez v. County of 16 Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Plaintiff must produce specific and substantial 18 evidence that she (1) engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) thereafter suffered an adverse 19 employment action at the hands of her supervisors and (3) a causal link exists between her protected 20 activity and the adverse employment action. Vasquesz v. County of Los Angeles, 307 F.3d 884, 896 21 (9th Cir. 2002); William Ray v. William Henderson, Postmaster General, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th 22 Cir. 2000). Plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to raise an inference that her protected activity 23 was the “likely reason” for the adverse action. Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 24 1982). Ms. Brown has produced no evidence of a causal link between her discrimination complaint 25 and any adverse employment action. 26 ORDER - 7 Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB 1 Document 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 8 of 9 Plaintiff’s complaint and deposition testimony provide nothing more than bare assertions of 2 racial discrimination. These are insufficient to sustain a claim of purposeful discrimination. See, 3 Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983); Lindahl v. Air France, 930 F.2d 1434, 4 1437 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented no evidence to establish intentional discrimination. 5 Plaintiff’s subjective personal judgment that there must have been discrimination because she was not 6 provided referrals does not raise a genuine issue of material fact to support a claim of race 7 discrimination. See, Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996). 8 9 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1367(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental 11 jurisdiction over state-law claims where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 12 jurisdiction. Voigt v. Savell, 70 F.3d 1552, 1565 (9th Cir. 1995). “In the usual case in which all 13 federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the 14 pendent jurisdiction doctrine-judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity-will point toward 15 declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. 16 Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988). The balance of factors generally indicates that a case belongs 17 in state court when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only 18 state-law claims remain. Id. 19 Here, Ms. Brown’s federal claims will all be dismissed prior to trial. Because the Court is 20 able to decide plaintiff's federal claims without reaching the issues underlying plaintiff's state-law 21 claims remaining in this case, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 22 state-law claims pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1367(c)(3). See, Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 23 999, 1000 (9th Cir.1997). 24 CONCLUSION 25 26 ORDER - 8 Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 54 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 9 of 9 1 For the reasons set forth above, Defendant is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims of 2 discrimination based on disability (ADA) and race (Section 1981). The Court declines to retain 3 supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 4 ACCORDINGLY, 5 IT IS ORDERED: 6 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt #44] is GRANTED. The federal claims 7 are dismissed with prejudice and the state law claims dismissed, as the Court declines supplemental 8 jurisdiction. 9 10 DATED this 8th day of November, 2006 11 A 12 13 FRANKLIN D. BURGESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER - 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
