Denson-Henry v. The Permanente Medical Group

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06856
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KELLYE DENSON-HENRY, Case No. 25-cv-06856-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING 9 v. COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING HEARING; 10 THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT GROUP, CONFERENCE 11 Defendant.

13 14 Before the Court is defendant The Permanente Medical Group's Motion to 15 Dismiss, filed September 9, 2025. Plaintiff Kellye Denson-Henry, who proceeds pro se, 16 has filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and considered the 17 papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter 18 appropriate for determination on the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES 19 the hearing scheduled for October 17, 2025, and hereby GRANTS the motion, as follows: 20 1. To the extent the Complaint asserts claims under Title VII based on 21 harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation on the basis of an "underlying medical 22 condition" (see Compl. ¶¶ 4.d, 5.e), the Complaint is subject to dismissal, for the reason 23 that Title VII does not protect against conduct occurring because of a medical condition, 24 see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (prohibiting employer from discriminating against employee 25 "because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"), or conduct 26 occurring because an employee has opposed employer practices pertaining to medical 27 conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (prohibiting employer from retaliating against 1 || [Title VIl]"). 2 2. To the extent the Complaint asserts claims under Title VII based on 3 || harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation on the basis of "race or color" (see Compl. 4 || 4.d, 5.a), the Complaint is subject to dismissal, for the reason that the Complaint 5 includes no facts to support such conclusory assertions, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 6 || 662, 678 (2009) (holding "conclusory statements" fail to state cognizable claim). 7 3. To the extent the Complaint asserts claims under Title VII based on 8 || discrimination and/or retaliation on any basis, the Complaint is subject to dismissal, for 9 || the reason that a negative performance review, the only conduct on which plaintiff bases 10 || such claims, is insufficient to support them. See Bryant v. Covina-Valley Unified School 11 || Dist., 2017 WL 10543559, at *1, *5 (C.D. Cal. October 16, 2017) (holding "a negative g 12 || performance review, without more, does not constitute an adverse employment action" s 13 || necessary to support "discrimination" or "retaliation" claims) (citing cases). 14 4. As the Complaint consists of claims brought under Title VII, none of which, as 2 15 || set forth above, has been sufficiently pleaded, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The a 16 || Court will, however, afford plaintiff leave to amend for purposes of curing the above- g 17 || referenced deficiencies in her Title VI| claims, and/or for purposes of asserting any non- 18 || Title VII claims she may have grounds to assert. Any such First Amended Complaint 19 || shall be filed no later than October 31, 2025. 20 Lastly, in light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby 21 CONTINUED from November 14, 2025, to January 16, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case 22 || Management Statement shall be filed no later than January 9, 2026. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 || Dated: October 9, 2025 fins Md, Chats MAXINE M. CHESNEY 26 Unitéd States District Judge 27 28