Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 08/27/2021 04:51 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Williams,Deputy Clerk
21STCV31932
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Robert Draper
Michael J. Jaurigue (SBN 208123)
1 S. Sean Shahabi (SBN 204710)
Barbara DuVan-Clarke (SBN 259268)
2 JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
3 Glendale, California 91202
Telephone: 818.630.7280
4 Facsimile: 888.879.1697
service@jlglawyers.com
5 michael@jlglawyers.com
sean@jlglawyers.com
6 barbara@jlglawyers.com
7 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
CHRISTINA MOLINA
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
12
CHRISTINA MOLINA, Case No.:
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
14 PLAINTIFF, RELIEF FOR:
15 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN
vs. VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
16 CODE SECTION 12940(a)
17 SEIU LOCAL 121RN; AND DOES 1 – 100,
2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE
inclusive,
18
ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION
OF THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT CODE
19 DEFENDANTS. SECTION 12940(m)
20 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN AN
INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN
21
VIOLATION OF THE FEHA,
22 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
12940(n)
23
4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
24 THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT CODE
25
SECTION 12940(h)(l), AND (m)
26 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION AND
27 HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
28
12940(k)
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
6. RETALIATION FOR
1 TAKING/REQUESTING CFRA IN
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
2 CODE SECTION 12945.2(l)
3 7. RETALIATION FOR REPORTING
ILLEGAL VIOLATION, LABOR
4 CODE SECTION 1102.5
5 8. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
6
7
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8
PLAINTIFF CHRISTINA MOLINA (“PLAINTIFF”) alleges and complains against
9
DEFENDANT SEIU LOCAL 121RN and DOES 1 – 100; (hereinafter, “DEFENDANTS;”
10
DEFENDANTS) as follows:
11
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12
1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the DEFENDANTS because they
13
are residents of and/or doing business in the State of California in the County of Los Angeles,
14
2. Venue is proper in this Court because the claims arose in the County of Los Angeles
15
where PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANTS.
16
3. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00, exclusive
17
of interest, costs, and fees and PLAINTIFF seeks permanent injunctive relief prohibiting
18
DEFENDANTS’ unfair business practices.
19
4. PLAINTIFF has met all of the jurisdictional requirements for proceeding with
20
PLAINTIFF’S claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) by timely filing an
21
administrative complaint against DEFENDANTS with the Department of Fair Employment and
22
Housing (“DFEH”) on or about March 11, 2021, and receiving a Right-to-Sue Letter dated March
23
11, 2021. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF’S DFEH
24
administrative complaint and Right-to-Sue letter.
25
II. PARTIES
26
5. DEFENDANTS SEIU LOCAL 121RN at all times relevant herein, was and is
27
conducting business in the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles at 1040 Lincoln Ave,
28
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2
1 Pasadena, California 91103.
2 6. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS in the
3 County of Los Angeles at 1040 Lincoln Ave, Pasadena, California 91103.
4 7. The true names and capacities of the DEFENDANTS named herein as DOES 1
5 through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to
6 PLAINTIFF who therefore sues such DEFENDANTS by fictitious names pursuant to California
7 Code of Civil Procedure section 474. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that all of the Doe
8 DEFENDANTS are California residents. PLAINTIFF will amend this Complaint to show such true
9 names and capacities when they have been determined.
10 8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that at all times relevant herein, each of the
11 DEFENDANTS designated, including Does 1 through 100, was the agent, managing agent,
12 principal, owner, partner, joint venturer, representative, manager, servant, employee and/or co-
13 conspirator of each of the other DEFENDANTS, and was at all times mentioned herein acting
14 within the course and scope of said agency and employment, and that all acts or omissions alleged
15 herein were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement,
16 authorization and consent of each DEFENDANTS designated herein.
17 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times
18 each of the DEFENDANTS was the integrated enterprise, joint employer of PLAINTIFF and was
19 engaged with some or all of the other DEFENDANTS in a joint enterprise for profit, and bore such
20 other relationships to some or all of the other DEFENDANTS so as to be liable for the conduct of
21 them. PLAINTIFF performed services for each and every one of DEFENDANTS, and to the
22 mutual benefit of all DEFENDANTS, and all DEFENDANTS shared control of PLAINTIFF as
23 employers, either directly or indirectly, and of the manner in which DEFENDANTS’ business was
24 conducted.
25 10. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that all
26 DEFENDANTS acted pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, that all
27 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known about, authorized, ratified, adopted, approved,
28 controlled, aided and abetted the conduct of all other DEFENDANTS and that all DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3
1 acted pursuant to a conspiracy and agreement to do the things alleged herein.
2 11. PLAINTIFF makes the allegations in this complaint without any admission that, as
3 to any particular allegation, PLAINTIFF bears the burden of pleading, proof, or persuasion, and
4 PLAINTIFF reserves all of PLAINTIFF’S rights to plead in the alternative.
5 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
6 12. PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANTS in or around April 2004 as a
7 membership and database coordinator at DEFENDANTS’ Commerce office. PLAINTIFF
8 continued to work for DEFENDANTS for the next fifteen (15) years, during which time she
9 received several merited pay increases and job promotions. By 2019, PLAINTIFF was a Staff
10 Coordinator earning an annual salary of approximately $91,000.00.
11 13. Sometime in December 2016, Rosanna Mendez (“Mendez”) was promoted to Chief
12 of Staff of SEIU’s Pasadena office.
13 14. In or around May 2018, PLAINTIFF was interviewed by a lawyer named Lisl Soto
14 (“Ms. Soto”) representing SEIU International, to investigate complaints about Mendez and unlawful
15 treatment of employees by Mendez and others towards employees. In the interview, PLAINTIFF
16 complained about how Mendez was abusive in her management of PLAINTIFF and other
17 coworkers. PLAINTIFF informed Ms. Soto that Mendez created a hostile work environment for
18 employees with the intention that they would quit in order for Mendez to replace them with her own
19 friends and family members.
20 15. As a result of PLAINTIFF’S complaint to Ms. Soto about Mendez, DEFENDANTS
21 began retaliating against PLAINTIFF by forcing PLAINTIFF to reschedule her approved and
22 preplanned vacation, Field Director Violeta Aguilar-Wyrick (“Aguilar”) screaming at PLAINTIFF
23 in front of other employees, assigning PLAINTIFF an overwhelming workload, and other
24 retaliatory conduct.
25 16. Sometime around July 2018, PLAINTIFF began treatment with a doctor for work-
26 related stress. PLAINTIFF’S doctor diagnosed PLAINTIFF with chronic stress disorder, major
27 depressive disorder, and somatic symptom disorder and immediately placed PLAINTIFF on
28 medical leave for three weeks.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4
1 17. PLAINTIFF took three weeks of medical leave, as instructed by her doctor.
2 18. PLAINTIFF returned to work in or around August 2018 with medical restrictions,
3 and was placed on modified activity by her doctor The work restrictions further stated that
4 PLAINTIFF should only work between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for the next month.
5 19. Mendez and Aguilar continued to retaliate against and harass PLAINTIFF as soon as
6 PLAINTIFF returned from medical leave. For example, the day PLAINTIFF returned to work,
7 Mendez informed PLAINTIFF that her job description has been changed without giving prior notice
8 to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF requested to have a union representative get involve but Mendez
9 denied it. Mendez and Aguilar also informed PLAINTIFF of a heavy, time-sensitive assignment just
10 before 5:00 p.m., knowing PLAINTIFF’S disability work restrictions prevented PLAINTIFF from
11 working past 5:00 p.m.
12 20. Mendez and Aguilar would also send PLAINTIFF to deliver office supplies to the
13 DEFENDANTS’ Camarillo office, which violated her modified activity restriction. Specifically,
14 PLAINTIFF was required to carry heavy supplies to the second floor of Tarzana’s building with no
15 elevator, which forced PLAINTIFF to exceed her restrictions. PLAINTIFF was required to do these
16 things, despite DEFENDANTS knowing that PLAINTIFF had these work restrictions.
17 21. On or about December 20, 2018, PLAINTIFF went on medical leave again due to
18 PLAINTIFF’S disabilities.
19 22. On April 30, 2019, while still out on medical leave, PLAINTIFF received an email
20 from DEFENDANTS stating that DEFENDANTS could no longer accommodate PLAINTIFF’S
21 medical leave and that PLAINTIFF’S employment was terminated. The termination took place
22 despite a Collective Bargaining Agreement between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS that
23 prevented DEFENDANTS from terminating PLAINTIFF without progressive discipline. The
24 Collective Bargaining Agreement defines progressive discipline as follows: “verbal warning,
25 written warning, final written warning, suspension and termination.” DEFENDANTS skipped the
26 first four steps and went directly to termination without providing PLAINTIFF any notice
27 whatsoever.
28 ///
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
5
1 23. DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF not for any legitimate reason, but because
2 PLAINTIFF participated in an investigation about workplace complaints regarding Mendez,
3 because of PLAINTIFF’S disabilities, because of PLAINTIFF’S work restrictions, and because
4 PLAINTIFF requested and took medical leave, all in violation of the law.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
7 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(a): DISPARATE TREATMENT BASED ON
8 DISABILITY AND/OR PERCEIVED DISABILITY
9 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100)
10 24. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
11 allegation set forth in this Complaint.
12 25. The FEHA, codified in Government Code Section 12900, et seq., makes it unlawful
13 for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of the employee’s physical
14 disability and/or perceived disability.
15 26. Government Code section 12940(a) provides in relevant part:
16
It is an unlawful employment practice. . . (a) [f]or an employer,
17 because of the. . . physical disability, mental disability to discharge
the person from employment. . . or to discriminate against the person
18 in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
19 27. At all times relevant herein DEFENDANTS were employers who employed five (5)
20 or more employees and were therefore bound by FEHA.
21 28. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS.
22 29. DEFENDANTS knew that PLAINTIFF suffered from a physical disability and/or
23 perceived PLAINTIFF as suffering from a physical disability which limits a major life activity
24 and/or treated PLAINTIFF as if PLAINTIFF had a physical disability which limits a major life
25 activity.
26 30. PLAINTIFF was able to perform the essential duties of her job with reasonable
27 accommodation for PLAINTIFF’S physical disability and/or perceived disability. Specifically,
28 ///
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
6
1 PLAINTIFF had work restrictions limiting how much PLAINTIFF could carry, hours PLAINTIFF
2 could work for a limited period, and PLAINTIFF requested medical leave.
3 31. DEFENDANTS, acting through their managing agents, terminated PLAINTIFF’S
4 employment in or around April 2019.
5 32. PLAINTIFF’S disability and/or perceived disability was a substantial factor and
6 motivating reason for DEFENDANTS’ decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’S employment.
7 33. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned adverse employment actions
8 by DEFENDANTS against PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain
9 substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at
10 trial.
11 34. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ wrongful termination of
12 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and
13 anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial.
14 35. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious,
15 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights.
16 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized,
17 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to
18 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS.
19 36. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’
20 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim.
21 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such,
22 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
7
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA,
3 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(m):
4 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
5 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100)
6 37. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
7 allegation set forth in this Complaint.
8 38. Government Code section 12940(m) requires an employer to provide a disabled or
9 an employee perceived to be disabled with a reasonable accommodation for his or her disability so
10 as to perform the essential duties of the job.
11 39. DEFENDANTS are employers bound by FEHA.
12 40. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer.
13 41. PLAINTIFF had a physical condition, which limited the major life activity of
14 working and/or required reasonable accommodation for a physical condition which limited a major
15 life activity.
16 42. DEFENDANTS knew that PLAINTIFF required reasonable accommodation(s) for
17 physical disabilities to perform the essential functions of the job.
18 43. PLAINTIFF was able to perform the essential job duties with reasonable
19 accommodation(s) for her physical disability. Specifically, PLAINTIFF had work restrictions
20 limiting how much PLAINTIFF could carry, hours PLAINTIFF could work for a limited period,
21 and PLAINTIFF requested medical leave.
22 44. DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFF with a reasonable accommodation for
23 physical disabilities. Instead, DEFENDANTS, acting through managing agents, terminated
24 PLAINTIFF’S employment in or around April 2019.
25 45. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful
26 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other
27 employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial.
28 ///
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
8
1 46. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful
2 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to
3 PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial.
4 47. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious,
5 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights.
6 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized,
7 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to
8 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS.
9 48. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’
10 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim.
11 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such,
12 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
14 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT
15 CODE SECTION 12940(n): FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS
16 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100)
17 49. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
18 allegation set forth in this Complaint.
19 50. Government Code section 12940(n) requires an employer to engage in an interactive
20 process in a timely and good faith manner to determine an effective reasonable accommodation for
21 an employee’s disabilities.
22 51. DEFENDANTS are employers bound by FEHA.
23 52. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer.
24 53. PLAINTIFF had a physical condition which limited the major life activity of
25 working (including but not limited to lifting and working certain hours) and/or DEFENDANTS
26 treated PLAINTIFF as if PLAINTIFF had a physical condition which limited a major life activity.
27 54. DEFENDANTS knew that PLAINTIFF had suffered from a physical disability
28 and/or treated PLAINTIFF as if PLAINTIFF suffered from a physical disability.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
9
1 55. DEFENDANTS breached their statutory duty under the FEHA to engage timely in a
2 good faith interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’S physical
3 disability. Instead, DEFENDANTS, acting through managing agents, terminated PLAINTIFF’S
4 employment in or around April 2019.
5 56. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful
6 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other
7 employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial.
8 57. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful
9 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to
10 PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial.
11 58. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious,
12 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights.
13 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized,
14 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to
15 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS.
16 59. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’
17 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim.
18 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such,
19 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA,
22 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(h) (l) AND (m)
23 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100)
24 60. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
25 allegation set forth in this Complaint.
26 61. The FEHA, codified in the Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h),
27 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee for opposing any practice forbidden
28 by the FEHA or because the person has made a complaint about conduct perceived to be a violation
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
10
1 of the FEHA. In 2015, the FEHA was amended—specifically in Cal. Gov. Code 12940 (l) and (m)
2 to add that it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for
3 requesting accommodation regardless of whether the request was granted.
4 62. DEFENDANTS were employers covered by the FEHA.
5 63. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer.
6 64. PLAINTIFF took medical leave and presented work restrictions when PLAINTIFF
7 returned from medical leave. DEFENDANTS, acting by and through their managing agents, went
8 out of their way to require PLAINTIFF to engage in work duties specifically because they ran afoul
9 of PLAINTIFF’S work restrictions. When PLAINTIFF had to take further medical leave,
10 DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF’S employment.
11 65. As a result of PLAINTIFF requesting and taking leave, and as a result of
12 PLAINTIFF requesting accommodations at work, DEFENDANTS subjected PLAINTIFF to
13 adverse actions, including but not limited to giving PLAINTIFF work assignments because they
14 knew that said work assignments would be contrary to PLAINTIFF’S work restrictions, and by
15 terminating PLAINTIFF.
16 66. PLAINTIFF’S requests for accommodation, requests for leave, and PLAINTIFF
17 taking leave were motivating reasons for DEFENDANTS’ decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’S
18 employment.
19 67. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by
20 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered and
21 continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount
22 according to proof at the time of trial.
23 68. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by
24 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered
25 humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount
26 according to proof at the time of trial.
27 69. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious,
28 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
11
1 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized,
2 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to
3 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS.
4 70. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’
5 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim.
6 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such,
7 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
10 IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(k)
11 (DISABILITY/PERCEIVED DISABILITY)
12 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100)
13 71. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
14 allegation set forth in this Complaint.
15 72. The FEHA, codified in the Government Code section 12940, prohibits an employer
16 or any person from discriminating and/or harassing an employee based on the employee's
17 sex/gender, disabilities and/or perceived disabilities, or race.
18 73. Government Code Section 12940(k) makes it is an unlawful employment practice for
19 an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment
20 from occurring.
21 74. DEFENDANTS failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
22 discrimination from occurring, all in violation of FEHA.
23 75. In violation of FEHA, DEFENDANTS did not take all reasonable steps necessary to
24 prevent the discrimination against PLAINTIFF as described herein.
25 76. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the decision to
26 constructively terminate PLAINTIFF was made and/or ratified by DEFENDANTS’ managing
27 agents, officers and/or directors who were conscious of PLAINTIFF’S right to (1) reasonable
28 accommodations under the FEHA; and (2) be free from discrimination based on disabilities or
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12
1 perceived disabilities, but disregarded those rights and acted with the intent to cause PLAINTIFF
2 injury by terminating PLAINTIFF’S employment. DEFENDANTS’ disregard of PLAINTIFF’S
3 statutory rights is in violation of statute and public policy and would be looked down on and
4 despised by reasonable persons.
5 77. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT’S wrongful termination of
6 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in
7 earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial.
8 78. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT’S wrongful termination of
9 PLAINTIFF’s employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and
10 anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial.
11 79. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious,
12 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights.
13 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized,
14 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to
15 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS.
16 80. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’
17 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim.
18 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such,
19 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 RETALIATION FOR TAKING/REQUESTING CFRA IN VIOLATION OF
22 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12945.2(l)
23 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100)
24 81. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
25 allegation set forth in this Complaint.
26 82. The California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), codified in Government Code Section
27 12945.1, et seq., requires an employer to provide employees with certain rights to leave to attend to
28 serious health conditions for themselves and close family members.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13
1 83. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer.
2 84. DEFENDANTS employed 50 (fifty) or more employees within seventy-five (75)
3 miles of PLAINTIFF’S workplace.
4 85. On all occasions that PLAINTIFF took medical leave, PLAINTIFF had more than
5 twelve (12) months’ service with DEFENDANTS, had worked at least one thousand two hundred
6 fifty (1,250) hours for DEFENDANTS during the previous twelve (12) months, and had taken no
7 more than twelve (12) weeks of family or medical leave in the preceding twelve (12) month period.
8 86. PLAINTIFF was eligible for CFRA leave.
9 87. PLAINTIFF requested to take and/or took family leave for PLAINTIFF’S own
10 serious health condition.
11 88. PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANTS of PLAINTIFF’S need
12 for family leave, including its timing and length.
13 89. DEFENDANTS repeatedly refused PLAINTIFF medical leave which led to
14 PLAINTIFF’S termination in or around April 2019.
15 90. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ wrongful termination of
16 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in
17 earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial.
18 91. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ wrongful termination of
19 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and
20 anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial.
21 92. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious,
22 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights.
23 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized,
24 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to
25 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS.
26 93. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’
27 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim.
28 ///
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14
1 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such,
2 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
3 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 RETALIATION FOR REPORTING ILLEGAL VIOLATION,
5 LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5
6 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100)
7 94. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
8 allegation set forth in this Complaint.
9 95. Labor Code section 1102.5(b) forbids an employer from retaliating against an
10 employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed
11 or may disclose information, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who
12 has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing
13 information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or
14 inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of
15 state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or
16 regulation.
17 96. DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF.
18 97. PLAINTIFF participated in an investigation of DEFENDANTS by SEIU
19 International into Mendez and unlawful acts at DEFENDANTS’ workplace.
20 98. PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that the information that PLAINTIFF
21 disclosed to DEFENDANTS and Mendez constituted violations of the law, such as the California
22 Labor Code.
23 99. Very shortly after PLAINTIFF participated in the aforementioned investigation,
24 DEFENDANTS, acting through their officers, directors, and/or managing agents, began harassing
25 PLAINTIFF and subjecting PLAINTIFF to disparate treatment compared with her coworkers, and
26 further, DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF’S employment in or around April 2019.
27 ///
28 ///
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15
1 100. PLAINTIFF’S participation in an investigation into DEFENDANTS’ practices and
2 PLAINTIFF’S disclosure of what PLAINTIFF reasonably believed to be a violation of state law
3 was a contributing factor in DEFENDANTS’ decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’S employment.
4 101. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by
5 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered and
6 continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount
7 according to proof at the time of trial.
8 102. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by
9 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered
10 humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount
11 according to proof at the time of trial.
12 103. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious,
13 fraudulent, or oppres
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 08/27/2021 04:51 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Williams,Deputy Clerk 21STCV31932 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Robert Draper Michael J. Jaurigue (SBN 208123) 1 S. Sean Shahabi (SBN 204710) Barbara DuVan-Clarke (SBN 259268) 2 JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 3 Glendale, California 91202 Telephone: 818.630.7280 4 Facsimile: 888.879.1697 service@jlglawyers.com 5 michael@jlglawyers.com sean@jlglawyers.com 6 barbara@jlglawyers.com 7 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF CHRISTINA MOLINA 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 CHRISTINA MOLINA, Case No.: 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 14 PLAINTIFF, RELIEF FOR: 15 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN vs. VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT 16 CODE SECTION 12940(a) 17 SEIU LOCAL 121RN; AND DOES 1 – 100, 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE inclusive, 18 ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT CODE 19 DEFENDANTS. SECTION 12940(m) 20 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN 21 VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, 22 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(n) 23 4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 24 THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT CODE 25 SECTION 12940(h)(l), AND (m) 26 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND 27 HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 28 12940(k) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 6. RETALIATION FOR 1 TAKING/REQUESTING CFRA IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT 2 CODE SECTION 12945.2(l) 3 7. RETALIATION FOR REPORTING ILLEGAL VIOLATION, LABOR 4 CODE SECTION 1102.5 5 8. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 6 7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 8 PLAINTIFF CHRISTINA MOLINA (“PLAINTIFF”) alleges and complains against 9 DEFENDANT SEIU LOCAL 121RN and DOES 1 – 100; (hereinafter, “DEFENDANTS;” 10 DEFENDANTS) as follows: 11 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12 1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the DEFENDANTS because they 13 are residents of and/or doing business in the State of California in the County of Los Angeles, 14 2. Venue is proper in this Court because the claims arose in the County of Los Angeles 15 where PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANTS. 16 3. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00, exclusive 17 of interest, costs, and fees and PLAINTIFF seeks permanent injunctive relief prohibiting 18 DEFENDANTS’ unfair business practices. 19 4. PLAINTIFF has met all of the jurisdictional requirements for proceeding with 20 PLAINTIFF’S claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) by timely filing an 21 administrative complaint against DEFENDANTS with the Department of Fair Employment and 22 Housing (“DFEH”) on or about March 11, 2021, and receiving a Right-to-Sue Letter dated March 23 11, 2021. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF’S DFEH 24 administrative complaint and Right-to-Sue letter. 25 II. PARTIES 26 5. DEFENDANTS SEIU LOCAL 121RN at all times relevant herein, was and is 27 conducting business in the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles at 1040 Lincoln Ave, 28 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2 1 Pasadena, California 91103. 2 6. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS in the 3 County of Los Angeles at 1040 Lincoln Ave, Pasadena, California 91103. 4 7. The true names and capacities of the DEFENDANTS named herein as DOES 1 5 through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to 6 PLAINTIFF who therefore sues such DEFENDANTS by fictitious names pursuant to California 7 Code of Civil Procedure section 474. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that all of the Doe 8 DEFENDANTS are California residents. PLAINTIFF will amend this Complaint to show such true 9 names and capacities when they have been determined. 10 8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that at all times relevant herein, each of the 11 DEFENDANTS designated, including Does 1 through 100, was the agent, managing agent, 12 principal, owner, partner, joint venturer, representative, manager, servant, employee and/or co- 13 conspirator of each of the other DEFENDANTS, and was at all times mentioned herein acting 14 within the course and scope of said agency and employment, and that all acts or omissions alleged 15 herein were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, 16 authorization and consent of each DEFENDANTS designated herein. 17 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times 18 each of the DEFENDANTS was the integrated enterprise, joint employer of PLAINTIFF and was 19 engaged with some or all of the other DEFENDANTS in a joint enterprise for profit, and bore such 20 other relationships to some or all of the other DEFENDANTS so as to be liable for the conduct of 21 them. PLAINTIFF performed services for each and every one of DEFENDANTS, and to the 22 mutual benefit of all DEFENDANTS, and all DEFENDANTS shared control of PLAINTIFF as 23 employers, either directly or indirectly, and of the manner in which DEFENDANTS’ business was 24 conducted. 25 10. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that all 26 DEFENDANTS acted pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, that all 27 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known about, authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, 28 controlled, aided and abetted the conduct of all other DEFENDANTS and that all DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3 1 acted pursuant to a conspiracy and agreement to do the things alleged herein. 2 11. PLAINTIFF makes the allegations in this complaint without any admission that, as 3 to any particular allegation, PLAINTIFF bears the burden of pleading, proof, or persuasion, and 4 PLAINTIFF reserves all of PLAINTIFF’S rights to plead in the alternative. 5 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 6 12. PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANTS in or around April 2004 as a 7 membership and database coordinator at DEFENDANTS’ Commerce office. PLAINTIFF 8 continued to work for DEFENDANTS for the next fifteen (15) years, during which time she 9 received several merited pay increases and job promotions. By 2019, PLAINTIFF was a Staff 10 Coordinator earning an annual salary of approximately $91,000.00. 11 13. Sometime in December 2016, Rosanna Mendez (“Mendez”) was promoted to Chief 12 of Staff of SEIU’s Pasadena office. 13 14. In or around May 2018, PLAINTIFF was interviewed by a lawyer named Lisl Soto 14 (“Ms. Soto”) representing SEIU International, to investigate complaints about Mendez and unlawful 15 treatment of employees by Mendez and others towards employees. In the interview, PLAINTIFF 16 complained about how Mendez was abusive in her management of PLAINTIFF and other 17 coworkers. PLAINTIFF informed Ms. Soto that Mendez created a hostile work environment for 18 employees with the intention that they would quit in order for Mendez to replace them with her own 19 friends and family members. 20 15. As a result of PLAINTIFF’S complaint to Ms. Soto about Mendez, DEFENDANTS 21 began retaliating against PLAINTIFF by forcing PLAINTIFF to reschedule her approved and 22 preplanned vacation, Field Director Violeta Aguilar-Wyrick (“Aguilar”) screaming at PLAINTIFF 23 in front of other employees, assigning PLAINTIFF an overwhelming workload, and other 24 retaliatory conduct. 25 16. Sometime around July 2018, PLAINTIFF began treatment with a doctor for work- 26 related stress. PLAINTIFF’S doctor diagnosed PLAINTIFF with chronic stress disorder, major 27 depressive disorder, and somatic symptom disorder and immediately placed PLAINTIFF on 28 medical leave for three weeks. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4 1 17. PLAINTIFF took three weeks of medical leave, as instructed by her doctor. 2 18. PLAINTIFF returned to work in or around August 2018 with medical restrictions, 3 and was placed on modified activity by her doctor The work restrictions further stated that 4 PLAINTIFF should only work between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for the next month. 5 19. Mendez and Aguilar continued to retaliate against and harass PLAINTIFF as soon as 6 PLAINTIFF returned from medical leave. For example, the day PLAINTIFF returned to work, 7 Mendez informed PLAINTIFF that her job description has been changed without giving prior notice 8 to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF requested to have a union representative get involve but Mendez 9 denied it. Mendez and Aguilar also informed PLAINTIFF of a heavy, time-sensitive assignment just 10 before 5:00 p.m., knowing PLAINTIFF’S disability work restrictions prevented PLAINTIFF from 11 working past 5:00 p.m. 12 20. Mendez and Aguilar would also send PLAINTIFF to deliver office supplies to the 13 DEFENDANTS’ Camarillo office, which violated her modified activity restriction. Specifically, 14 PLAINTIFF was required to carry heavy supplies to the second floor of Tarzana’s building with no 15 elevator, which forced PLAINTIFF to exceed her restrictions. PLAINTIFF was required to do these 16 things, despite DEFENDANTS knowing that PLAINTIFF had these work restrictions. 17 21. On or about December 20, 2018, PLAINTIFF went on medical leave again due to 18 PLAINTIFF’S disabilities. 19 22. On April 30, 2019, while still out on medical leave, PLAINTIFF received an email 20 from DEFENDANTS stating that DEFENDANTS could no longer accommodate PLAINTIFF’S 21 medical leave and that PLAINTIFF’S employment was terminated. The termination took place 22 despite a Collective Bargaining Agreement between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS that 23 prevented DEFENDANTS from terminating PLAINTIFF without progressive discipline. The 24 Collective Bargaining Agreement defines progressive discipline as follows: “verbal warning, 25 written warning, final written warning, suspension and termination.” DEFENDANTS skipped the 26 first four steps and went directly to termination without providing PLAINTIFF any notice 27 whatsoever. 28 /// PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5 1 23. DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF not for any legitimate reason, but because 2 PLAINTIFF participated in an investigation about workplace complaints regarding Mendez, 3 because of PLAINTIFF’S disabilities, because of PLAINTIFF’S work restrictions, and because 4 PLAINTIFF requested and took medical leave, all in violation of the law. 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 6 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 7 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(a): DISPARATE TREATMENT BASED ON 8 DISABILITY AND/OR PERCEIVED DISABILITY 9 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100) 10 24. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every 11 allegation set forth in this Complaint. 12 25. The FEHA, codified in Government Code Section 12900, et seq., makes it unlawful 13 for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of the employee’s physical 14 disability and/or perceived disability. 15 26. Government Code section 12940(a) provides in relevant part: 16 It is an unlawful employment practice. . . (a) [f]or an employer, 17 because of the. . . physical disability, mental disability to discharge the person from employment. . . or to discriminate against the person 18 in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 19 27. At all times relevant herein DEFENDANTS were employers who employed five (5) 20 or more employees and were therefore bound by FEHA. 21 28. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS. 22 29. DEFENDANTS knew that PLAINTIFF suffered from a physical disability and/or 23 perceived PLAINTIFF as suffering from a physical disability which limits a major life activity 24 and/or treated PLAINTIFF as if PLAINTIFF had a physical disability which limits a major life 25 activity. 26 30. PLAINTIFF was able to perform the essential duties of her job with reasonable 27 accommodation for PLAINTIFF’S physical disability and/or perceived disability. Specifically, 28 /// PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 6 1 PLAINTIFF had work restrictions limiting how much PLAINTIFF could carry, hours PLAINTIFF 2 could work for a limited period, and PLAINTIFF requested medical leave. 3 31. DEFENDANTS, acting through their managing agents, terminated PLAINTIFF’S 4 employment in or around April 2019. 5 32. PLAINTIFF’S disability and/or perceived disability was a substantial factor and 6 motivating reason for DEFENDANTS’ decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’S employment. 7 33. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned adverse employment actions 8 by DEFENDANTS against PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain 9 substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at 10 trial. 11 34. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ wrongful termination of 12 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and 13 anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial. 14 35. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, 15 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights. 16 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, 17 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 18 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS. 19 36. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’ 20 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim. 21 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such, 22 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, 3 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(m): 4 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 5 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100) 6 37. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every 7 allegation set forth in this Complaint. 8 38. Government Code section 12940(m) requires an employer to provide a disabled or 9 an employee perceived to be disabled with a reasonable accommodation for his or her disability so 10 as to perform the essential duties of the job. 11 39. DEFENDANTS are employers bound by FEHA. 12 40. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer. 13 41. PLAINTIFF had a physical condition, which limited the major life activity of 14 working and/or required reasonable accommodation for a physical condition which limited a major 15 life activity. 16 42. DEFENDANTS knew that PLAINTIFF required reasonable accommodation(s) for 17 physical disabilities to perform the essential functions of the job. 18 43. PLAINTIFF was able to perform the essential job duties with reasonable 19 accommodation(s) for her physical disability. Specifically, PLAINTIFF had work restrictions 20 limiting how much PLAINTIFF could carry, hours PLAINTIFF could work for a limited period, 21 and PLAINTIFF requested medical leave. 22 44. DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFF with a reasonable accommodation for 23 physical disabilities. Instead, DEFENDANTS, acting through managing agents, terminated 24 PLAINTIFF’S employment in or around April 2019. 25 45. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful 26 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other 27 employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial. 28 /// PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 8 1 46. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful 2 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to 3 PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial. 4 47. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, 5 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights. 6 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, 7 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 8 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS. 9 48. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’ 10 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim. 11 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such, 12 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 14 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT 15 CODE SECTION 12940(n): FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS 16 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100) 17 49. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every 18 allegation set forth in this Complaint. 19 50. Government Code section 12940(n) requires an employer to engage in an interactive 20 process in a timely and good faith manner to determine an effective reasonable accommodation for 21 an employee’s disabilities. 22 51. DEFENDANTS are employers bound by FEHA. 23 52. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer. 24 53. PLAINTIFF had a physical condition which limited the major life activity of 25 working (including but not limited to lifting and working certain hours) and/or DEFENDANTS 26 treated PLAINTIFF as if PLAINTIFF had a physical condition which limited a major life activity. 27 54. DEFENDANTS knew that PLAINTIFF had suffered from a physical disability 28 and/or treated PLAINTIFF as if PLAINTIFF suffered from a physical disability. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9 1 55. DEFENDANTS breached their statutory duty under the FEHA to engage timely in a 2 good faith interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’S physical 3 disability. Instead, DEFENDANTS, acting through managing agents, terminated PLAINTIFF’S 4 employment in or around April 2019. 5 56. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful 6 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other 7 employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial. 8 57. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned wrongful 9 conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to 10 PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial. 11 58. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, 12 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights. 13 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, 14 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 15 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS. 16 59. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’ 17 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim. 18 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such, 19 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, 22 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(h) (l) AND (m) 23 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100) 24 60. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every 25 allegation set forth in this Complaint. 26 61. The FEHA, codified in the Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h), 27 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee for opposing any practice forbidden 28 by the FEHA or because the person has made a complaint about conduct perceived to be a violation PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 1 of the FEHA. In 2015, the FEHA was amended—specifically in Cal. Gov. Code 12940 (l) and (m) 2 to add that it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for 3 requesting accommodation regardless of whether the request was granted. 4 62. DEFENDANTS were employers covered by the FEHA. 5 63. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer. 6 64. PLAINTIFF took medical leave and presented work restrictions when PLAINTIFF 7 returned from medical leave. DEFENDANTS, acting by and through their managing agents, went 8 out of their way to require PLAINTIFF to engage in work duties specifically because they ran afoul 9 of PLAINTIFF’S work restrictions. When PLAINTIFF had to take further medical leave, 10 DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF’S employment. 11 65. As a result of PLAINTIFF requesting and taking leave, and as a result of 12 PLAINTIFF requesting accommodations at work, DEFENDANTS subjected PLAINTIFF to 13 adverse actions, including but not limited to giving PLAINTIFF work assignments because they 14 knew that said work assignments would be contrary to PLAINTIFF’S work restrictions, and by 15 terminating PLAINTIFF. 16 66. PLAINTIFF’S requests for accommodation, requests for leave, and PLAINTIFF 17 taking leave were motivating reasons for DEFENDANTS’ decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’S 18 employment. 19 67. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by 20 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered and 21 continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount 22 according to proof at the time of trial. 23 68. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by 24 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered 25 humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount 26 according to proof at the time of trial. 27 69. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, 28 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 11 1 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, 2 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 3 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS. 4 70. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’ 5 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim. 6 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such, 7 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION 10 IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(k) 11 (DISABILITY/PERCEIVED DISABILITY) 12 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100) 13 71. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every 14 allegation set forth in this Complaint. 15 72. The FEHA, codified in the Government Code section 12940, prohibits an employer 16 or any person from discriminating and/or harassing an employee based on the employee's 17 sex/gender, disabilities and/or perceived disabilities, or race. 18 73. Government Code Section 12940(k) makes it is an unlawful employment practice for 19 an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment 20 from occurring. 21 74. DEFENDANTS failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent 22 discrimination from occurring, all in violation of FEHA. 23 75. In violation of FEHA, DEFENDANTS did not take all reasonable steps necessary to 24 prevent the discrimination against PLAINTIFF as described herein. 25 76. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the decision to 26 constructively terminate PLAINTIFF was made and/or ratified by DEFENDANTS’ managing 27 agents, officers and/or directors who were conscious of PLAINTIFF’S right to (1) reasonable 28 accommodations under the FEHA; and (2) be free from discrimination based on disabilities or PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12 1 perceived disabilities, but disregarded those rights and acted with the intent to cause PLAINTIFF 2 injury by terminating PLAINTIFF’S employment. DEFENDANTS’ disregard of PLAINTIFF’S 3 statutory rights is in violation of statute and public policy and would be looked down on and 4 despised by reasonable persons. 5 77. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT’S wrongful termination of 6 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in 7 earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial. 8 78. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT’S wrongful termination of 9 PLAINTIFF’s employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and 10 anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial. 11 79. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, 12 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights. 13 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, 14 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 15 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS. 16 80. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’ 17 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim. 18 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such, 19 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 RETALIATION FOR TAKING/REQUESTING CFRA IN VIOLATION OF 22 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12945.2(l) 23 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100) 24 81. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every 25 allegation set forth in this Complaint. 26 82. The California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), codified in Government Code Section 27 12945.1, et seq., requires an employer to provide employees with certain rights to leave to attend to 28 serious health conditions for themselves and close family members. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 1 83. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer. 2 84. DEFENDANTS employed 50 (fifty) or more employees within seventy-five (75) 3 miles of PLAINTIFF’S workplace. 4 85. On all occasions that PLAINTIFF took medical leave, PLAINTIFF had more than 5 twelve (12) months’ service with DEFENDANTS, had worked at least one thousand two hundred 6 fifty (1,250) hours for DEFENDANTS during the previous twelve (12) months, and had taken no 7 more than twelve (12) weeks of family or medical leave in the preceding twelve (12) month period. 8 86. PLAINTIFF was eligible for CFRA leave. 9 87. PLAINTIFF requested to take and/or took family leave for PLAINTIFF’S own 10 serious health condition. 11 88. PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANTS of PLAINTIFF’S need 12 for family leave, including its timing and length. 13 89. DEFENDANTS repeatedly refused PLAINTIFF medical leave which led to 14 PLAINTIFF’S termination in or around April 2019. 15 90. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ wrongful termination of 16 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in 17 earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at trial. 18 91. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ wrongful termination of 19 PLAINTIFF’S employment, PLAINTIFF has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and 20 anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount according to proof at trial. 21 92. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, 22 fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S rights. 23 DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, 24 condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to 25 punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS. 26 93. Government Code section 12965(b) permits the court to award reasonable attorneys’ 27 fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a plaintiff that successfully pursues a FEHA claim. 28 /// PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 14 1 PLAINTIFF has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees in the pursuit of this action. As such, 2 PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 3 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 RETALIATION FOR REPORTING ILLEGAL VIOLATION, 5 LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5 6 (By Plaintiff As Against Defendants and Does 1 – 100) 7 94. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every 8 allegation set forth in this Complaint. 9 95. Labor Code section 1102.5(b) forbids an employer from retaliating against an 10 employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed 11 or may disclose information, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who 12 has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing 13 information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or 14 inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of 15 state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or 16 regulation. 17 96. DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF. 18 97. PLAINTIFF participated in an investigation of DEFENDANTS by SEIU 19 International into Mendez and unlawful acts at DEFENDANTS’ workplace. 20 98. PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that the information that PLAINTIFF 21 disclosed to DEFENDANTS and Mendez constituted violations of the law, such as the California 22 Labor Code. 23 99. Very shortly after PLAINTIFF participated in the aforementioned investigation, 24 DEFENDANTS, acting through their officers, directors, and/or managing agents, began harassing 25 PLAINTIFF and subjecting PLAINTIFF to disparate treatment compared with her coworkers, and 26 further, DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF’S employment in or around April 2019. 27 /// 28 /// PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 15 1 100. PLAINTIFF’S participation in an investigation into DEFENDANTS’ practices and 2 PLAINTIFF’S disclosure of what PLAINTIFF reasonably believed to be a violation of state law 3 was a contributing factor in DEFENDANTS’ decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’S employment. 4 101. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by 5 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered and 6 continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount 7 according to proof at the time of trial. 8 102. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned adverse employment actions by 9 DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, and managing agents, PLAINTIFF has suffered 10 humiliation, emotional distress, and pain and anguish, all to PLAINTIFF’S damage in an amount 11 according to proof at the time of trial. 12 103. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, 13 fraudulent, or oppres