Page 32010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80381, *was only permitted to take one and a half days off togrieve, with the time coming from plaintiff's earned sick leave. Id.As to religion, plaintiff's third government claim al-leges that she "was repeatedly told [that] there were toomany Christians in Children's Protective Services, andwas subjected to criticism because she and many of herstaff were Christians." SAC Ex. 3 at 28.The SAC and government claims contain no furtherallegations regarding equal protection or union activity.Plaintiff's opposition to the present motion indicates thatthe claim regarding union activity relates [*8] to therefusal to re-hire plaintiff after state administrative pro-ceedings, as discussed below.
B. State Administrative Proceedings
Plaintiff appealed her demotion and dismissal. Thisappeal was heard by a state administrative law judge("ALJ"), who held a dozen hearings on the matter overthe course of two years. The ALJ issued a 49 page order.The ALJ held that some cause existed for the county'sactions, but nonetheless reduced the April 16, 2007 de-motion to a three month suspension and reduced the May25, 2007 termination to a demotion from the position of Social Worker Supervisor II to Social Worker III and asix month suspension.
Defs.' Request for Judicial No-tice, Ex. A, at 48. In this suit, plaintiff alleges that con-trary to the ALJ's determination, there was not cause forthe imposition of any discipline. The ALJ awarded plain-tiff back pay, with interest, and benefits in accordancewith the reduction in discipline. The parties apparentlyagree that these findings obliged the County to re-hireplaintiff.2 The ALJ's order appears not to have specifiedwhether the three and six month suspensionswere consecutive. This question is not pertinentto the instant motion, however.The [*9] ALJ's order was reviewed by the Califor-nia State Personnel Board. On October 22, 2009, theBoard adopted these findings in full, with one exceptionnot relevant here. The County has refused to re-hireplaintiff in the capacity ordered. SAC P 20.
Neitherparty has indicated whether the County has compliedwith the other obligations imposed by this order.3 Plaintiff states, in her opposition to the presentmotion, that although the County has refused toemploy plaintiff as a Social Worker III, theCounty has offered to hire plaintiff as an Envi-ronmental Health Specialist with the Sheriff's de-partment. Opp'n at 3. Plaintiff argues that this of-fer is unacceptable because her earlier complaintsof misallocation of funds involved the Sheriff'sdepartment, such that the Sheriff retains animos-ity toward plaintiff, and because the Sheriff would be able to terminate plaintiff during theprobationary period that would accompany thisposition. Plaintiff also states that she is unquali-fied for this position. Id. at 4. None of these alle-gations appear in the complaint or the exhibitsthereto.Plaintiff further alleges that the stress follow-ing the County's refusal to rehire her has "drivenher to [*10] medical disability." Id. at 4, 6. Al-though the SAC alleges that plaintiff has suffered"physical injuries, physical sickness, mental dis-tress, and emotional distress," the SAC does notcontain any discussion of disability. See, e.g.,SAC P 16.
C. Procedural History
The instant suit began with a complaint filed in statecourt. Before serving the complaint on any defendant,plaintiff substituted a first amended complaint. Defen-dants removed the suit to federal court on the basis of thefederal claims alleged therein. Defendants then filed amotion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On theparties' stipulation, the court granted this motion in fulland granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaintwithout reaching the merits of the motion. Plaintiff filedthe operative SAC and defendants timely filed the pre-sent motion to dismiss.
II. Standard for a
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
motion challenges a com-plaint's compliance with the pleading requirements pro-vided by the Federal Rules. Under
Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 8(a)(2)
, a pleading must contain a "short andplain statement of the claim showing that the pleader isentitled to relief." [*11] The complaint must give defen-dant "fair notice of what the claim is and the groundsupon which it rests."
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)
(in-ternal quotation and modification omitted).To meet this requirement, the complaint must besupported by factual allegations.
Ashcroft v. Igbal,U.S. , , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868(2009)
. "While legal conclusions can provide the frame-work of a complaint," neither legal conclusions nor con-clusory statements are themselves sufficient, and suchstatements are not entitled to a presumption of truth.
. Iqbal and Twombly therefore prescribe a twostep process for evaluation of motions to dismiss. Thecourt first identifies the non-conclusory factual allega-