Onita Tuggles v. City of Antioch

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Onita Tuggles appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees on Tuggles’s claim that Appellees Schwitters and Bittner violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov.Code § 12955(g), by discriminating against her on the basis of her source of income. Tuggles argues Section 8 housing assistance constitutes “income” for purposes of the FEHA. Tuggles also argues that, to the extent her FEHA source-of-income claim survived summary judgment, the district court abused its discretion by excluding expert witness testimony and rejecting proposed jury instructions about source-of-income discrimination.

The California Court of Appeal has held that Section 8 aid does not qualify as a source of income. Sabi v. Sterling, 183 Cal.App.4th 916, 937 , 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 805 (Cal.Ct.App.2010). In the absence of con vincing evidence that the California Supreme Court would decide differently, we are bound by Sabi’s holding that Section 8 is not a source of income. Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 505 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir.2007). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Schwitters on Tuggles’s source-of-income…