Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/29/2020 05:54 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk
20STCV03783
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Rupert Byrdsong
1 GREGORY W. SMITH (SBN 134385)
DIANA WANG WELLS (SBN 284215)
2 LEILA K. AL FAIZ (SBN 284309)
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. SMITH
3 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 345E
Beverly Hills, California 90212
4 Telephone: (310) 777-7894
Telecopier: (310) 777-7895
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 TINA RIOS
7
8 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
) CASE NO.
TINA RIOS, )
12
)
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
13 Plaintiff, )
14 ) 1. SEXUALHARASSMENT-
) HOSTILE WORK
vs. ) ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION
15
) OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
16 ) EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal ) ACT
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, )
17 inclusive, )
18 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants. )
19 )
)
20 )
)
21
22
23 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
24 1. At all times relevant hereto, TINA RIOS ("Plaintiff") was and is a resident of
25 the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff
26 was and is a competent adult.
27 2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was and is a sworn employee of the Los
28 Angeles Police Department.
-1-
COMPLAIN r FOR DAMAGES
1 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times
2 relevant hereto, Defendant City of Los Angeles ("City") is and was a municipal entity
3 organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. At all times pertinent
4 hereto, Defendant City owned, controlled, and operated the law enforcement agency
5 known as the Los Angeles Police Department ("Department" or "LAPD").
6 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants
7 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were, all times relevant hereto,
8 residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and were agents, partners,
9 and/or joint venturers of Defendants and/or each other, acting as supervisors, managers,
1O administrators, owners, and/or directors or in some other unknown capacity.
11 5. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, and
12 each of them, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to
13 Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.
14 Plaintiff will file DOE amendments, and/or ask leave of court to amend this complaint to
15 assert the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been
16 ascertained . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief
17 alleges, that each Defendant herein designated as a DOE was and is in some manner,
18 negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise, responsible and liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and
19 damages hereinafter alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were
20 proximately caused by their conduct.
21 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times
22 material herein the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, and
23 employees, or ostensible agents, servants, or employees of each other Defendant, and as
24 such, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment or
25 ostensible agency and employment, except on those occasions when Defendants were
26 acting as principals, in which case, said Defendants, and each of them, were negligent in
27 the selection, hiring, and use of the other Defendants.
28 7. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert and in furtherance
2 of the interests of each other Defendant.
3 8. This court is the proper court because injury or damage to Plaintiff occurred
4 in its jurisdictional area.
5 9. Plaintiff has complied with and/or exhausted any applicable claims statutes
6 and/or administrative and/or internal remedies and/or grievance procedures, or is excused
7 from complying therewith. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
8 ("DFEH") issued a "right-to-sue" notice to Plaintiff on or about February 1, 2019, a true
9 and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
10
11 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12 10. Plaintiff is a female Detective-I employed by the Los Angeles Police
13 Department (the "LAPD" or "Department"). Plaintiff has been subjected to sexual
14 harassment by her then-supervisor Detective-II Mathew Vandersall , as set forth below.
15 11. The harassment consisted of repeatedly propositioning Plaintiff, making
16 offensive sexual comments, leering at Plaintiff's body, continually staring at Plaintiff,
17 texting her incessantly (including on her days off), following her around for no reason
18 other than to harass her, and other unwanted sexual advances. Moreover, after Plaintiff
19 refused to go along with, and complained of, Vandersall's unwanted sexual behavior,
20 Plaintiff was further subjected to hostile and intimidating conduct by Vandersall and other
21 Department employees.
22 12. In or around late 2017, Plaintiff was assigned to Fugitive Warrants Section
23 ("FWS"), Gang and Narcotics Division ("GND"), in South Bureau. At the time, Vandersall
24 was also assigned to FWS as Plaintiff's supervisor, when he began to subject Plaintiff to
25 unwanted conduct of a sexual nature multiple times per day, including obsessively staring
26 at Plaintiff, continually leering at her in a sexual manner, and repeatedly surveying her
27 breasts, face, and other parts of her body, thus causing Plaintiff extreme discomfort and
28 disgust and interfering with her work performance. This conduct became increasingly
-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 more hostile when Plaintiff resisted Vandersall's advances and continued until at least
2 April 2018.
3 13. During this time, Vandersall also followed Plaintiff around in a stalking
4 manner and texted her incessantly, including on her days off, causing her to feel hounded
5 by him and further troubling Plaintiff and making it harder for her to perform her duties.
6 14. Moreover, Vandersall also repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances to
7 Plaintiff. In one instance, in or around December 2017, Vandersall texted Plaintiff to ask if
8 he could follow her home shortly after she left a gathering of her colleagues after work.
9 Plaintiff found Vandersall's request extremely disturbing.
10 15. Also , in or around December 2017 , during the FWS holiday luncheon ,
11 Vandersall complimented Plaintiff on her appearance and, when the event ended,
12 Vandersall repeatedly asked Plaintiff to stay or go somewhere else to have drinks with
13 him. Plaintiff refused .
14 16. Shortly thereafter, in or around early 2018, Plaintiff received a call from
15 Vandersall on her day off. Vandersall invited Plaintiff to his home for drinks. Plaintiff could
16 tellhe had been drinking. Plaintiff refused . Vandersall insisted and, when Plaintiff still
17 would not agree to come, Vandersall stated: "I am borderline ordering you to cancel your
18 plans and come drink with us", or words to that effect. Despite Vandersall's efforts to
19 pressure Plaintiff, Plaintiff still refused.
20 17. Later, also in or around early 2018 , near the end of a gathering of the whole
21 FWS squad in downtown Los Angeles, Vandersall approached Plaintiff. He asked if
22 Plaintiff could tell how he felt about her and that he liked her. Plaintiff rejected Vandersall's
23 unwanted advance . Yet, Vandersall was undeterred. He told Plaintiff he wanted to kiss
24 her. He said he had also wanted to kiss her at the FWS holiday luncheon. Plaintiff was
25 incredulous and she expressed her disbelief at Vandersall's brazen conduct. Plaintiff felt
26 stuck and unable to stop Vandersall's unwanted advances. In an attempt to deter further
27 advances, Plaintiff mentioned that Vandersall's wife would be back from the restroom
28 shortly. Vandersall responded that his wife was ok with it.Vandersall then proceeded to
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 sexually proposition Plaintiff.
2 18. Vandersall's conduct was thoroughly unwelcome and offensive to Plaintiff.
3 During the foregoing exchange, Plaintiff repeatedly rejected Vandersall's advances and
4 told him she was not interested in what he was offering . Yet, Vandersall persisted and
5 escalated the exchange. Plaintiff felt trapped and cornered by Vandersall, causing her to
6 experience fear and distress.
7 19. Thereafter, on or about February 9, 2018, after another gathering of the
8 FWS squad in downtown Los Angeles, Vandersall called Plaintiff after she left the event
9 and repeatedly propositioned her and made unwelcome sexual advances to her, despite
1O Plaintiff's repeated and emphatic rejections. Once again, Plaintiff felt powerless to stop the
11 offensive conduct, which she was forced to endure despite her repeated objections for
12 what seemed like an interminable time, causing her further distress.
13 20. Shortly after, on or about February 11, 2018, Vandersall texted Plaintiff on
14 her day off and asked to speak with her. Plaintiff immediately felt a knot in her stomach at
15 the thought of another conversation where she is forced to endure unwanted sexual
16 advances from her supervisor. In the phone call that ensued, Vandersall continued to
17 proposition Plaintiff and to make unwanted sexual advances to her, which she repeatedly
18 rejected.
19 21. After Plaintiff repeatedly rejected Vandersall's advances, his conduct
20 became increasingly more hostile and threatening. Vandersall began to glare at Plaintiff in
21 an intimidating and challenging way, seemingly trying to get a reaction out of her. Then,
22 he would repeatedly challenge Plaintiff by snidely stating "what's wrong?", or words to that
23 effect, over and over again. This conduct interfered with Plaintiff's ability to perform her
24 duties and even forced her to leave the area where she was working at times. This
25 conduct continued until at least in or around April 2018.
26 22. Moreover, Vandersall undermined Plaintiff's ability to do her job in other
27 ways. For example, as the supervisor in FWS, Vandersall had the authority to decide
28 which arrest warrants would be served by the squad on any given day. After Plaintiff
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 rejected his advances, he would repeatedly pass over Plaintiff's arrest warrants, artificially
2 causing delays in apprehending certain suspects that Plaintiff had been responsible for
3 locating, thus creating a false impression that Plaintiff was delinquent in completing her
4 duties.
5 23. Moreover, Vandersall repeatedly spoke threateningly to Plaintiff about his
6 connections in Internal Affairs. Vandersall continually told Plaintiff that he knew people in
7 Special Operations Division , the section of LAPD responsible for surveillance of officers
8 accused of serious misconduct. He menacingly stated to Plaintiff numerous times that he
9 "could get people followed", or words to that effect. Plaintiff had become so fearful of
1O Vandersall that she even looked under her car to check for a tracker.
11 24 . On or about April 15, 2018, Plaintiff complained of the above-referenced
12 conduct by Vandersall to Department supervisors.
13 25. However, the ensuing actions of Department supervisors served only to
14 condone Vandersall's conduct and to suggest that it was Plaintiff who did something
15 wrong by complaining of harassment. For example, the Department did not update
16 Plaintiff on the status of her complaint, as though this was an insignificant matter and
17 Plaintiff did not even deserve to know whether the Department found her allegations to be
18 supported or would take any remedial actions in response thereto. Significantly, the
19 Department did not take any disciplinary action against Vandersall, who remains a
20 Detective-II supervisor to this day.
21 26. The Department's dismissive response to her complaint further caused
22 Plaintiff to feel powerless to remedy the harassment she experienced and served to
23 compound the harm she already suffered as a result of Vandersall's conduct, resulting in
24 further distress to Plaintiff and further interfering with her work performance. Also, the lack
25 of support from Department supervisors perpetuated and exacerbated the stigma already
26 associated with making a sexual harassment complaint against another officer, causing
27 Plaintiff to be even more ostracized and to further experience hostility in the workplace .
28 Ill
-6-
COMPLAIN I FOR DAMAGES
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
3 IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
4 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM
5 27 . Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 as
6 if set forth in full herein.
7 28. During the term of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff was subjected to
8 discrimination, including but not limited to, sexual harassment, including, inter a/ia , a
9 hostile work environment. The hostile work environment consisted of sexual harassment
1O directed at Plaintiff. The harassing conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or
11 pervasive that it had the purpose or effect of altering the conditions of Plaintiff's
12 employment and creating an intimidating, hostile, abusive, or offensive working
13 environment. Moreover, the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff's
14 work performance , and a reasonable person subjected to the harassing conduct would
15 find, as Plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to make it more
16 difficult to do the job. The environment created by the conduct as described above would
17 have been perceived as intimidating, hostile, abusive, or offensive by a reasonable
18 woman in the same position as Plaintiff, and the environment created was perceived by
19 Plaintiff as intimidating , hostile, abusive, or offensive. The harassment included, but was
20 not limited to, the above mentioned verbal harassment, epithets, demeaning comments,
21 and/or slurs, as well as other harassment. The hostile work environment caused Plaintiff
22 injury, damage, loss, or harm.
23 29 . Said actions and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, consisting of the
24 aforementioned unwelcome sexual conduct and sexual harassment, resulted in a hostile
25 work environment and unlawful employment practices pursuant to California Government
26 Code section 12940, et seq. Such violations were a substantial factor in causing damages
27 and injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below.
28 30. The aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
-?-
COMP LAIN I FOR DAMAGES
1 constituted unlawful employment practices. Such violations were a substantial factor in
2 causing damages and injuries to Plaintiff, as set forth below.
3 31. As a legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff
4 has suffered and will continue to suffer physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain,
5 distress, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification ,
6 injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical,
7 mental, and emotional reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic
8 damages, in a sum to be ascertained according to proof.
9 32. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
1O Plaintiff suffered other incidental and consequential damages, in an amount according to
11 proof.
12 33 . As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
13 Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs in an amount according to proof pursuant to
14 California Government Code section 12965.
15 34. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
16 Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3287
17 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest.
18
19 PRAYER
20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants, and each of them, for:
21 1. Physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish,
22 fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock,
23 humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional
24 reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages, in a sum to be
25 ascertained according to proof;
26 2. Health care, services, supplies, medicines, health care appliances,
27 modalities, and other related expenses in a sum to be ascertained according to proof;
28 3. Other actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages in a sum to be
-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 ascertained according to proof;
2 4. Attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Government Code
3 section 12965, C. C.P. 1021.5, and other authorities;
4 5. Costs of suit herein incurred;
5 6. Pre-judgment interest;
6 7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
7
FFlc sbF GREGORY W. SMITH
8 Dated: January 29, 2020
7
9
By: /
/
10 ORYW. SMITH
DIANA WANG WELLS
11
LEILA K. AL FAIZ
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff
TINA RIOS
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
COMP[AINT FOR DAMAGES
EXHIBIT "1"
STATE Of CALIFORNIA I BLtsinoss Cpnsumer SSMoos nnd HOYS'M Aaencv GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email : contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
February 1, 2019
Tina Rios
9100 Wilshire Blvd Suite 345E
Beverly Hills, California 90212
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 201902-05001701
Right to Sue: Rios / City of Los Angeles
Dear Tina Rios,
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective
February 1, 2019 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will
take no further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b ),a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/29/2020 05:54 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk 20STCV03783 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Rupert Byrdsong 1 GREGORY W. SMITH (SBN 134385) DIANA WANG WELLS (SBN 284215) 2 LEILA K. AL FAIZ (SBN 284309) LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. SMITH 3 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 345E Beverly Hills, California 90212 4 Telephone: (310) 777-7894 Telecopier: (310) 777-7895 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 TINA RIOS 7 8 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 ) CASE NO. TINA RIOS, ) 12 ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 13 Plaintiff, ) 14 ) 1. SEXUALHARASSMENT- ) HOSTILE WORK vs. ) ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION 15 ) OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR 16 ) EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal ) ACT corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, ) 17 inclusive, ) 18 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 22 23 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 24 1. At all times relevant hereto, TINA RIOS ("Plaintiff") was and is a resident of 25 the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff 26 was and is a competent adult. 27 2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was and is a sworn employee of the Los 28 Angeles Police Department. -1- COMPLAIN r FOR DAMAGES 1 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times 2 relevant hereto, Defendant City of Los Angeles ("City") is and was a municipal entity 3 organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. At all times pertinent 4 hereto, Defendant City owned, controlled, and operated the law enforcement agency 5 known as the Los Angeles Police Department ("Department" or "LAPD"). 6 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants 7 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were, all times relevant hereto, 8 residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and were agents, partners, 9 and/or joint venturers of Defendants and/or each other, acting as supervisors, managers, 1O administrators, owners, and/or directors or in some other unknown capacity. 11 5. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, and 12 each of them, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to 13 Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. 14 Plaintiff will file DOE amendments, and/or ask leave of court to amend this complaint to 15 assert the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been 16 ascertained . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief 17 alleges, that each Defendant herein designated as a DOE was and is in some manner, 18 negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise, responsible and liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and 19 damages hereinafter alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were 20 proximately caused by their conduct. 21 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times 22 material herein the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, and 23 employees, or ostensible agents, servants, or employees of each other Defendant, and as 24 such, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment or 25 ostensible agency and employment, except on those occasions when Defendants were 26 acting as principals, in which case, said Defendants, and each of them, were negligent in 27 the selection, hiring, and use of the other Defendants. 28 7. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert and in furtherance 2 of the interests of each other Defendant. 3 8. This court is the proper court because injury or damage to Plaintiff occurred 4 in its jurisdictional area. 5 9. Plaintiff has complied with and/or exhausted any applicable claims statutes 6 and/or administrative and/or internal remedies and/or grievance procedures, or is excused 7 from complying therewith. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 8 ("DFEH") issued a "right-to-sue" notice to Plaintiff on or about February 1, 2019, a true 9 and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1." 10 11 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12 10. Plaintiff is a female Detective-I employed by the Los Angeles Police 13 Department (the "LAPD" or "Department"). Plaintiff has been subjected to sexual 14 harassment by her then-supervisor Detective-II Mathew Vandersall , as set forth below. 15 11. The harassment consisted of repeatedly propositioning Plaintiff, making 16 offensive sexual comments, leering at Plaintiff's body, continually staring at Plaintiff, 17 texting her incessantly (including on her days off), following her around for no reason 18 other than to harass her, and other unwanted sexual advances. Moreover, after Plaintiff 19 refused to go along with, and complained of, Vandersall's unwanted sexual behavior, 20 Plaintiff was further subjected to hostile and intimidating conduct by Vandersall and other 21 Department employees. 22 12. In or around late 2017, Plaintiff was assigned to Fugitive Warrants Section 23 ("FWS"), Gang and Narcotics Division ("GND"), in South Bureau. At the time, Vandersall 24 was also assigned to FWS as Plaintiff's supervisor, when he began to subject Plaintiff to 25 unwanted conduct of a sexual nature multiple times per day, including obsessively staring 26 at Plaintiff, continually leering at her in a sexual manner, and repeatedly surveying her 27 breasts, face, and other parts of her body, thus causing Plaintiff extreme discomfort and 28 disgust and interfering with her work performance. This conduct became increasingly -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 more hostile when Plaintiff resisted Vandersall's advances and continued until at least 2 April 2018. 3 13. During this time, Vandersall also followed Plaintiff around in a stalking 4 manner and texted her incessantly, including on her days off, causing her to feel hounded 5 by him and further troubling Plaintiff and making it harder for her to perform her duties. 6 14. Moreover, Vandersall also repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances to 7 Plaintiff. In one instance, in or around December 2017, Vandersall texted Plaintiff to ask if 8 he could follow her home shortly after she left a gathering of her colleagues after work. 9 Plaintiff found Vandersall's request extremely disturbing. 10 15. Also , in or around December 2017 , during the FWS holiday luncheon , 11 Vandersall complimented Plaintiff on her appearance and, when the event ended, 12 Vandersall repeatedly asked Plaintiff to stay or go somewhere else to have drinks with 13 him. Plaintiff refused . 14 16. Shortly thereafter, in or around early 2018, Plaintiff received a call from 15 Vandersall on her day off. Vandersall invited Plaintiff to his home for drinks. Plaintiff could 16 tellhe had been drinking. Plaintiff refused . Vandersall insisted and, when Plaintiff still 17 would not agree to come, Vandersall stated: "I am borderline ordering you to cancel your 18 plans and come drink with us", or words to that effect. Despite Vandersall's efforts to 19 pressure Plaintiff, Plaintiff still refused. 20 17. Later, also in or around early 2018 , near the end of a gathering of the whole 21 FWS squad in downtown Los Angeles, Vandersall approached Plaintiff. He asked if 22 Plaintiff could tell how he felt about her and that he liked her. Plaintiff rejected Vandersall's 23 unwanted advance . Yet, Vandersall was undeterred. He told Plaintiff he wanted to kiss 24 her. He said he had also wanted to kiss her at the FWS holiday luncheon. Plaintiff was 25 incredulous and she expressed her disbelief at Vandersall's brazen conduct. Plaintiff felt 26 stuck and unable to stop Vandersall's unwanted advances. In an attempt to deter further 27 advances, Plaintiff mentioned that Vandersall's wife would be back from the restroom 28 shortly. Vandersall responded that his wife was ok with it.Vandersall then proceeded to -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 sexually proposition Plaintiff. 2 18. Vandersall's conduct was thoroughly unwelcome and offensive to Plaintiff. 3 During the foregoing exchange, Plaintiff repeatedly rejected Vandersall's advances and 4 told him she was not interested in what he was offering . Yet, Vandersall persisted and 5 escalated the exchange. Plaintiff felt trapped and cornered by Vandersall, causing her to 6 experience fear and distress. 7 19. Thereafter, on or about February 9, 2018, after another gathering of the 8 FWS squad in downtown Los Angeles, Vandersall called Plaintiff after she left the event 9 and repeatedly propositioned her and made unwelcome sexual advances to her, despite 1O Plaintiff's repeated and emphatic rejections. Once again, Plaintiff felt powerless to stop the 11 offensive conduct, which she was forced to endure despite her repeated objections for 12 what seemed like an interminable time, causing her further distress. 13 20. Shortly after, on or about February 11, 2018, Vandersall texted Plaintiff on 14 her day off and asked to speak with her. Plaintiff immediately felt a knot in her stomach at 15 the thought of another conversation where she is forced to endure unwanted sexual 16 advances from her supervisor. In the phone call that ensued, Vandersall continued to 17 proposition Plaintiff and to make unwanted sexual advances to her, which she repeatedly 18 rejected. 19 21. After Plaintiff repeatedly rejected Vandersall's advances, his conduct 20 became increasingly more hostile and threatening. Vandersall began to glare at Plaintiff in 21 an intimidating and challenging way, seemingly trying to get a reaction out of her. Then, 22 he would repeatedly challenge Plaintiff by snidely stating "what's wrong?", or words to that 23 effect, over and over again. This conduct interfered with Plaintiff's ability to perform her 24 duties and even forced her to leave the area where she was working at times. This 25 conduct continued until at least in or around April 2018. 26 22. Moreover, Vandersall undermined Plaintiff's ability to do her job in other 27 ways. For example, as the supervisor in FWS, Vandersall had the authority to decide 28 which arrest warrants would be served by the squad on any given day. After Plaintiff -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 rejected his advances, he would repeatedly pass over Plaintiff's arrest warrants, artificially 2 causing delays in apprehending certain suspects that Plaintiff had been responsible for 3 locating, thus creating a false impression that Plaintiff was delinquent in completing her 4 duties. 5 23. Moreover, Vandersall repeatedly spoke threateningly to Plaintiff about his 6 connections in Internal Affairs. Vandersall continually told Plaintiff that he knew people in 7 Special Operations Division , the section of LAPD responsible for surveillance of officers 8 accused of serious misconduct. He menacingly stated to Plaintiff numerous times that he 9 "could get people followed", or words to that effect. Plaintiff had become so fearful of 1O Vandersall that she even looked under her car to check for a tracker. 11 24 . On or about April 15, 2018, Plaintiff complained of the above-referenced 12 conduct by Vandersall to Department supervisors. 13 25. However, the ensuing actions of Department supervisors served only to 14 condone Vandersall's conduct and to suggest that it was Plaintiff who did something 15 wrong by complaining of harassment. For example, the Department did not update 16 Plaintiff on the status of her complaint, as though this was an insignificant matter and 17 Plaintiff did not even deserve to know whether the Department found her allegations to be 18 supported or would take any remedial actions in response thereto. Significantly, the 19 Department did not take any disciplinary action against Vandersall, who remains a 20 Detective-II supervisor to this day. 21 26. The Department's dismissive response to her complaint further caused 22 Plaintiff to feel powerless to remedy the harassment she experienced and served to 23 compound the harm she already suffered as a result of Vandersall's conduct, resulting in 24 further distress to Plaintiff and further interfering with her work performance. Also, the lack 25 of support from Department supervisors perpetuated and exacerbated the stigma already 26 associated with making a sexual harassment complaint against another officer, causing 27 Plaintiff to be even more ostracized and to further experience hostility in the workplace . 28 Ill -6- COMPLAIN I FOR DAMAGES 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 3 IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 4 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM 5 27 . Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 as 6 if set forth in full herein. 7 28. During the term of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff was subjected to 8 discrimination, including but not limited to, sexual harassment, including, inter a/ia , a 9 hostile work environment. The hostile work environment consisted of sexual harassment 1O directed at Plaintiff. The harassing conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or 11 pervasive that it had the purpose or effect of altering the conditions of Plaintiff's 12 employment and creating an intimidating, hostile, abusive, or offensive working 13 environment. Moreover, the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff's 14 work performance , and a reasonable person subjected to the harassing conduct would 15 find, as Plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to make it more 16 difficult to do the job. The environment created by the conduct as described above would 17 have been perceived as intimidating, hostile, abusive, or offensive by a reasonable 18 woman in the same position as Plaintiff, and the environment created was perceived by 19 Plaintiff as intimidating , hostile, abusive, or offensive. The harassment included, but was 20 not limited to, the above mentioned verbal harassment, epithets, demeaning comments, 21 and/or slurs, as well as other harassment. The hostile work environment caused Plaintiff 22 injury, damage, loss, or harm. 23 29 . Said actions and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, consisting of the 24 aforementioned unwelcome sexual conduct and sexual harassment, resulted in a hostile 25 work environment and unlawful employment practices pursuant to California Government 26 Code section 12940, et seq. Such violations were a substantial factor in causing damages 27 and injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below. 28 30. The aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, -?- COMP LAIN I FOR DAMAGES 1 constituted unlawful employment practices. Such violations were a substantial factor in 2 causing damages and injuries to Plaintiff, as set forth below. 3 31. As a legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff 4 has suffered and will continue to suffer physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, 5 distress, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification , 6 injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, 7 mental, and emotional reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic 8 damages, in a sum to be ascertained according to proof. 9 32. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, 1O Plaintiff suffered other incidental and consequential damages, in an amount according to 11 proof. 12 33 . As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, 13 Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs in an amount according to proof pursuant to 14 California Government Code section 12965. 15 34. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, 16 Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3287 17 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 18 19 PRAYER 20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants, and each of them, for: 21 1. Physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, 22 fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, 23 humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional 24 reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages, in a sum to be 25 ascertained according to proof; 26 2. Health care, services, supplies, medicines, health care appliances, 27 modalities, and other related expenses in a sum to be ascertained according to proof; 28 3. Other actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages in a sum to be -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 ascertained according to proof; 2 4. Attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Government Code 3 section 12965, C. C.P. 1021.5, and other authorities; 4 5. Costs of suit herein incurred; 5 6. Pre-judgment interest; 6 7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 7 FFlc sbF GREGORY W. SMITH 8 Dated: January 29, 2020 7 9 By: / / 10 ORYW. SMITH DIANA WANG WELLS 11 LEILA K. AL FAIZ 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff TINA RIOS 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- COMP[AINT FOR DAMAGES EXHIBIT "1" STATE Of CALIFORNIA I BLtsinoss Cpnsumer SSMoos nnd HOYS'M Aaencv GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email : contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov February 1, 2019 Tina Rios 9100 Wilshire Blvd Suite 345E Beverly Hills, California 90212 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 201902-05001701 Right to Sue: Rios / City of Los Angeles Dear Tina Rios, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective February 1, 2019 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b ),a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing