arrow left
arrow right
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALBERT QUEVEDO VS WALMART INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/10/2021 01:49 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Perez,Deputy Clerk 21STCV17464 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Yolanda Orozco 1 JAY S. ROTHMAN (SBN 49739) 2 O. DAVID NATANZI (SBN 199983) JAY S. ROTHMAN & ASSOCIATES 3 21900 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 210 Woodland Hills, California 91367 4 Telephone: (818) 986-7870 Facsimile: (818) 990-3019 5 lawyers@jayrothmanlaw.com dnatanzi@jayrothmanlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 ALBERT QUEVEDO 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 ALBERT QUEVEDO, an individual, Case No. 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 vs. 1. Wrongful Termination in Violation of 14 WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; and Public Policy (Government Code §12940, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, et seq.); 15 2. Discrimination Based Upon Disability (Government Code §12940, et seq.); 16 Defendants. 3. Failure to Accommodate Disability (Government Code §12940(k) and (m)); 17 4. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Government Code §12926.1(e)); 18 5. Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy 6. Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to 19 Prevent Discrimination (Government Code §12940, et seq.); and 20 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 21 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] 22 23 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 24 1. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant WALMART INC. (“WALMART” or 25 “Defendant”), a Delaware corporation, was authorized to do business in California and was engaged, 26 as a matter of commercial actuality, in purposeful economic activity, within the County of Los 27 Angeles, State of California, and had a store location at 27931 Kelly Johnson Parkway, Santa Clarita, 28 California 91355. 1 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 2. Plaintiff ALBERT QUEVEDO (“Plaintiff”) is informed and believes, and thereon 2 alleges, that that at all times herein mentioned, DOES 1 through 30 and each of them, were 3 corporations engaged, as a matter of commercial actuality, in purposeful economic activity, within the 4 County of Los Angeles, State of California. 5 3. At all times herein mentioned DOES 31 through 50 were residents of the State of 6 California and were managers, officers, supervisors, managing agents and/or employees of 7 WALMART, having the actual or apparent authority to participate in or recommend decisions 8 affecting the Plaintiff’s job benefits and employment status. At all times herein mentioned, DOES 31 9 through 50 were acting in the course and scope of their employment at WALMART’s place of 10 employment. 11 4. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of 12 defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff and therefore Plaintiff sues these 13 defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and 14 capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of 15 these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, 16 and that Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. 17 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned 18 herein, each of the Defendants, including the fictitiously named defendants, was the agent and 19 employee of each of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting 20 within the scope and course of such agency. 21 6. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an individual who resided in Kern County, 22 State of California, and was and is a citizen of the State of California. 23 STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 7. Plaintiff ALBERT QUEVEDO (“Plaintiff”) began working for WALMART INC. 25 (“WALMART” or “Defendant”) on or about April 9, 1998. He was last employed as a cashier at the 26 store location on Kelly Johnson Parkway in Santa Clarita (hereinafter “Store 5162”). 27 8. During his employment, Plaintiff was a valuable employee. 28 9. Plaintiff Albert Quevedo is diabetic and hearing impaired. 2 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 10. In 2016, Plaintiff developed an infection in his right foot. Despite pain and discomfort, 2 Plaintiff continued working until he was placed on medical leave in July 2017 due to a proximal second 3 metatarsal fracture. 4 11. In October 2018, Plaintiff was released to return to work but WALMART told him no 5 positions were available that could meet his limitations and he could not return to work unless he was 6 100% healed. 7 12. As a result of WALMERT’s refusal to allow him to return to work, Plaintiff filed a 8 lawsuit in March 2019 which settled in September 2019. Prior to resolution of that lawsuit, Defendant 9 allowed Plaintiff to return to work in July 2019 as a cashier. 10 13. The cashier position met Plaintiff’s medical restrictions and he continued to perform 11 his duties. 12 14. Plaintiff worked continuously until he started having issues with his left foot in July 13 2020. Plaintiff developed an ulcer in his left foot which subsequently got infected. Plaintiff continued 14 to work for brief period of time until he could no longer withstand the pain. 15 15. On or about August 11, 2020, Plaintiff went on medical leave with an expected return 16 date of January 31, 2021. Plaintiff provided his request for leave to WALMART as well as Sedgwick 17 Claims Management who facilitates WALMART’S leave of absence program. 18 16. While on leave, the infection progressively got worse and on or about December 10, 19 2020, Plaintiff underwent a partial extraction of the fifth metatarsal on his left foot. Plaintiff continued 20 to seek treatment with his podiatrist on a weekly basis. 21 17. Plaintiff saw his treating physician on or about January 19, 2021 at which time his 22 physician extended his leave through April 30, 2021. 23 18. On January 27, 2021 and January 28, 2021, Plaintiff went on the Sedgwick leave of 24 absence portal to provide WALMART (via Sedgwick) with notice of his request for additional leave 25 thru April 30, 2021. Plaintiff assumed Sedgwick received notice of his request for additional leave 26 and remained on medical leave while he recovered and received additional treatment. 27 19. On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff saw his treating physician who advised him to remain on 28 leave for an additional four weeks through May 31, 2021. 3 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 20. During the morning of May 4, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Sedgwick to confirm his 2 continued leave status and to advise Defendant that his physician had continued his leave through May 3 31, 2021 with an expected return date of June 1, 2021. 4 21. During that call, the Sedgwick representative acknowledged Plaintiff’s contacts on 5 January 27, 2021 and January 28, 2021. However, Plaintiff was told due to an error by Sedgwick, his 6 request for additional leave through April 30, 2021 had not been processed nor approved. 7 22. Later that same day, Plaintiff received a certified letter from Defendant notifying him 8 of his termination effective April 29, 2021 due to alleged violation of Defendant’s attendance policy. 9 23. Before he was terminated, Defendant did not contact Plaintiff regarding available 10 positions or when and if he could return to work despite his desire to resume working once he was 11 cleared by his treating physician. 12 24. Defendant has not engaged in the interactive process. 13 25. After 23 years of employment, Plaintiff has experienced and continues to experience 14 extreme emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ outrageous and unlawful treatment of him. 15 26. Plaintiff filed a claim with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 16 (“DFEH”), pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b) and the California Fair 17 Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Plaintiff filed such claim in a timely fashion and received 18 a “right-to-sue” letter. Attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is a true and correct 19 copy of the claim against DEFENDANT and the “right-to-sue” letter received. 20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 21 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 22 (Government Code §12940, et seq.) 23 (Against Defendant WALMART and DOES 1-50) 24 27. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by 25 reference except where to do so would be inconsistent with pleading a cause of action for Wrongful 26 Termination in Violation of Public Policy. 27 28. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were employers as that term is defined in 28 California Government Code section 12926, et seq., and as such, were barred from discriminating in 4 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 employment decisions. 2 29. Plaintiff alleges that the terms and conditions of his employment and his termination 3 was in violation of the public policy of the State of California which specifically prohibits WALMART 4 from discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his disability. Plaintiff was disabled as that term 5 is defined by the Government Code and a protected person. Defendants did discriminate against 6 Plaintiff on the basis of his disability. 7 30. Defendants violated that public policy by discriminating against and terminating 8 Plaintiff on the basis of his disability. 9 31. The above acts of Defendants constituted a wrongful termination of Plaintiff and was 10 in violation of public policy as described above. Such termination was a substantial factor in causing 11 damage and injury to Plaintiff as set forth below. 12 32. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has foreseeably 13 suffered and continues to suffer substantial loss of earnings and employment benefits in an amount 14 according to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with 15 prejudgment interest pursuant to Government Code section 12940, et seq., and/or any other provision 16 of law providing for prejudgment interest. 17 33. Plaintiff further has incurred additional expenses in his efforts to regain employment, 18 all to his damage in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 19 34. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of 20 Defendants, Plaintiff will suffer additional loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity in the future, and 21 other incidental and consequential damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 22 35. Plaintiff incurred expenses herein for necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees in order 23 to enforce his rights and to obtain benefits due him, all to his further damage in an amount according 24 to proof. 25 36. As a proximate result of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff suffered and 26 continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and severe shock 27 to his nervous system, and thereby sustained serious injuries to his physical and mental health, strength 28 and activity, causing her extreme physical and emotional pain, all to his general damage in such 5 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 amount as may be proven. Said amount is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of 2 California. 3 37. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out in a deliberate, cold, callous 4 and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff requests the assessment of 5 punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of 6 Defendants. 7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 8 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 9 (Government Code §12940, et seq.) 10 (Against Defendant WALMART and DOES 1-50) 11 38. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by 12 reference except where to do so would be inconsistent with pleading a cause of action for Disability 13 Discrimination. 14 39. At all times mentioned herein, Gov. Code section 12940 et seq. were in full force and 15 effect and were binding on WALMART and Does 1-50, and each of them. These sections require 16 Defendants, and each of them, to refrain from discriminating against employees in terms, conditions 17 or privileges of employment on the basis his disability. 18 40. Plaintiff suffered from a disability and, as such, is a member of a class protected from 19 disability discrimination under California law. 20 41. Plaintiff has been subjected to adverse employment actions by Defendants, and each of 21 them, because of his disabling condition. Said acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as 22 have been more fully set forth above, were on the basis of Plaintiff’s disability or on account of the 23 fact that Plaintiff was regarded as disabled, or on account of the fact that Plaintiff had a record of 24 disability. Further, any “100% healed” or “fully healed” policy, or policy limiting length of 25 accommodations or policy mandating termination on account of Plaintiff’s disabling condition has a 26 disparate impact on disabled employees, such as the Plaintiff, and thus, constitutes continuing 27 violation of Gov. Code section 12940 et seq. 28 6 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 42. The unlawful employment practices on the part of WALMART and DOES 1-50, and 2 each of them, were a substantial factor in causing damages and injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below. 3 43. As a result of the aforesaid acts of these defendants, Plaintiff has foreseeably suffered 4 and continues to suffer substantial loss of earnings and employment benefits in an amount according 5 to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment 6 interest pursuant to Gov. Code section 12945, et seq., and/or any other provision of law providing for 7 prejudgment interest, including Civ. Code sections 3287 and/or 3288. 8 44. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of 9 defendants, Plaintiff will suffer additional loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity in the future, and 10 other incidental and consequential damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 11 45. Plaintiff incurred expenses herein for necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees in order 12 to enforce his rights and to obtain benefits due him, all to his further damage in an amount according 13 to proof. 14 46. As a further result of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues 15 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and severe shock to his 16 nervous system, and thereby sustained serious injuries to his physical and mental health, strength and 17 activity, causing him extreme physical and emotional pain, all to his general damage in such amount 18 as may be proven. Said amount is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of 19 California. 20 47. As a result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has 21 incurred medical expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 22 and Plaintiff will be required to incur additional future medical expenses all to his further damage in 23 an amount to be proven at trial. 24 48. The acts of Defendants, and each of them, as hereinabove alleged, were carried out by 25 supervisors, managers, officers, and/or directors of WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them, 26 and were directed and/or ratified by Defendants, and each of them, with a conscious disregard for 27 Plaintiff’s rights, such as to constitute oppression, fraud, or malice under Civ. Code section 3294, 28 7 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of 2 Defendants. 3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE 5 (Government Code §12940 (m)) 6 (Against Defendant WALMART and DOES 1-50) 7 49. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by 8 reference except where to do so would be inconsistent with pleading a cause of action for Failure to 9 Accommodate. 10 50. At all times mentioned herein, Gov. Code section 12926.1 and 12940(m) were in full 11 force and effect and were binding on WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them. These 12 subsections impose a continuing, and mandatory duty upon employers to make reasonable 13 accommodations for the known disabilities of an employee, so as to allow a disabled employee to 14 continue working. An employer also has an affirmative duty to inform disabled individuals of other 15 job opportunities, and ascertain whether the employee is interested in, or qualified for said positions. 16 51. WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them, independently violated these 17 subsections by failing to provide reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff. 18 52. The unlawful employment practices on the part of Defendants, were a substantial factor 19 in causing damages and injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below. 20 53. As a result of the aforesaid acts of defendant, Plaintiff has foreseeably suffered and 21 continues to suffer substantial loss of earnings and employment benefits in an amount according to 22 proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment 23 interest pursuant to Government Code section 12945, et seq., and/or any other provision of law 24 providing for prejudgment interest, including Civ. Code sections 3287 and/or 3288. 25 54. As a further result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of defendants, Plaintiff will 26 suffer additional loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity in the future, and other incidental and 27 consequential damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 28 55. Plaintiff incurred expenses herein for necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees in order 8 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 to enforce his rights and to obtain benefits due him, all to his further damage in an amount according 2 to proof. 3 56. As a result of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to 4 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and severe shock to his nervous 5 system, and thereby sustained serious injuries to his physical and mental health, strength and activity, 6 causing him extreme physical and emotional pain, all to his general damage in such amount as may 7 be proven. Said amount is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California. 8 57. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of 9 Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are unknown 10 to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff will be required to incur additional future medical expenses all to 11 his further damage in an amount to be proven at trial. 12 58. The acts of defendants, and each of them, as hereinabove alleged, were carried out by 13 supervisors, managers, officers, and/or directors of WALMART and DOES 1-50, and were directed 14 and/or ratified by each of Defendants, with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, such as to 15 constitute oppression, fraud, or malice under Civ. Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive 16 damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants. 17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS 19 (Government Code §§12926.1(e) and 12940(n)) 20 (Against Defendant WALMART and DOES 1-50) 21 59. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by 22 reference except where to do so would be inconsistent with pleading a cause of action for Failure to 23 Engage in the Interactive Process. 24 60. At all times mentioned herein, Gov. Code sections 12940(n) and 12926.1(e) were in 25 full force and effect and binding on WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them. These 26 subsections require an employer to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the 27 employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations, for an employee with a known physical 28 or mental disability or known medical condition. 9 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 61. WALMART and DOES 1-50 independently violated these subsections by failing to 2 engage in the interactive process in order to determine, initiate, and establish reasonable 3 accommodations for the Plaintiff. 4 62. The unlawful employment practices on the part of Defendants, and each of Defendants, 5 were a substantial factor in causing damages and injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below. 6 63. As a result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has foreseeably suffered and 7 continues to suffer substantial loss of earnings and employment benefits in an amount according to 8 proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest 9 pursuant to Government Code section 12945, et seq., and/or any other provision of law providing for 10 prejudgment interest, including Civ. Code sections 3287 and/or 3288. 11 64. As a further result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff will 12 suffer additional loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity in the future, and other incidental and 13 consequential damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 14 65. Plaintiff incurred expenses herein for necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees in order 15 to enforce his rights and to obtain benefits due him, all to bis further damage in an amount according 16 to proof. 17 66. As a result of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to 18 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and severe shock to his nervous 19 system, and thereby sustained serious injuries to her physical and mental health, strength and activity, 20 causing him extreme physical and emotional pain, all to hi general damage in such amount as may be 21 proven. Said amount is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California. 22 67. As a result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has 23 incurred medical expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 24 and Plaintiff will be required to incur additional future medical expenses all to his further damage in 25 an amount to be proven at trial. 26 68. The acts of Defendants, and each of them, as hereinabove alleged, were carried out by 27 supervisors, managers, officers, and/or directors of WALMART and DOES 1-50, and were directed 28 and/or ratified by each of Defendants, with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, such as to 10 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 constitute oppression, fraud, or malice under Civ. Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive 2 damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants. 3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 RETALIATION 5 (Government Code §12940 (h)) 6 (Against Defendant WALMART and DOES 1-50) 7 69. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by 8 reference except where to do so would be inconsistent with pleading a cause of action for Retaliation. 9 70. At all times herein mentioned, Gov. Code section 12940(h) was in full force and effect 10 and was binding on WALMART and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them. This section requires 11 Defendants to refrain from retaliating against an employee for having engaged in an activity that is 12 protected under the FEHA. 13 71. Plaintiff alleges that the aforesaid acts and conduct of said Defendants toward Plaintiff 14 constituted significant, adverse employment actions, which were in retaliation for, and were motivated 15 by, Plaintiff’s having engaged in the protected activity of exercising and asserting FEHA protected 16 rights as a “disabled” individual, including requesting accommodation and previously filing a lawsuit 17 against WALMART for discrimination. 18 72. The aforesaid actions and conduct of WALMART and DOES 1 through 50, and each 19 of them, thereby constituted Retaliation toward Plaintiff and were in violation of California Gov. Code 20 section 12940(h). Said acts and conduct of WALMART and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, 21 constituted adverse employment actions and were motivated by Plaintiff’s having his right under 22 FEHA as a disabled person. 23 73. The unlawful employment practices on the part of WALMART and DOES 1 through 24 50, and each of them, were a substantial factor in causing damages and injuries to Plaintiff as set forth 25 below. 26 74. As a result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has foreseeably suffered and 27 continues to suffer substantial loss of earnings and employment benefits in an amount according to 28 proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest 11 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 pursuant to Gov. Code section 12945, et seq., and/or any other provision of law providing for 2 prejudgment interest, including Civ. Code sections 3287 and/or 3288. 3 75. As a further result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff will 4 suffer additional loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity in the future, and other incidental and 5 consequential damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 6 76. Plaintiff incurred expenses herein for necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees in order 7 to enforce his rights and to obtain benefits due him, all to his further damage in an amount according 8 to proof. 9 77. As a result of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to 10 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and severe shock to his nervous 11 system, and thereby sustained serious injuries to him physical and mental health, strength and activity, 12 causing him extreme physical and emotional pain, all to his general damage in such amount as may 13 be proven. Said amount is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California. 14 78. As a result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of defendants, Plaintiff has 15 incurred medical expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 16 and Plaintiff will be required to incur additional future medical expenses all to his further damage in 17 an amount to be proven at trial. 18 79. The acts of Defendants, and each of them, as hereinabove alleged, were carried out by 19 supervisors, managers, officers, and/or directors of WALMART and DOES 1 through 50, and each of 20 them, and were directed and/or ratified by WALMART and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, 21 with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, such as to constitute oppression, fraud, or malice under 22 Civ. Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and 23 set an example of Defendants. 24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 FAILURE TO TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION 26 (Government Code §§ 12940(j) and (k)) 27 (Against Defendant WALMART and DOES 1-50) 28 80. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by 12 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 reference except where to do so would be inconsistent with pleading a cause of action for Failure to 2 Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination. 3 81. At all times mentioned herein, Gov. Code sections 12940(j) and (k) were in full force 4 and effect and binding on WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them. This subsection requires 5 Defendants to take the necessary steps to provide a work environment free from discrimination. 6 82. As alleged herein, Defendants knew or should have known of the discrimination and 7 failed to take appropriate corrective action. 8 83. WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them, violated this subsection by failing to 9 take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring against Plaintiff. 10 84. The unlawful employment practices on the part WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each 11 of them, were a substantial factor in causing damages and injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below. 12 85. As a result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has foreseeably suffered and 13 continues to suffer substantial loss of earnings and employment benefits in an amount according to 14 proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest 15 pursuant to Gov. Code section 12945, et seq. and/or any other provision of law providing for 16 prejudgment interest, including Civ. Code sections 3287 and/or 3288. 17 86 As a further result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of 18 them, Plaintiff will suffer additional loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity in the future, and other 19 incidental and consequential damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 20 87. Plaintiff incurred expenses herein for necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees in order 21 to enforce her rights and to obtain benefits due her, all to her further damage in an amount according 22 to proof. 23 88. As a result of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to 24 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and severe shock to his nervous 25 system, and thereby sustained serious injuries to his physical and mental health, strength and activity, 26 causing him extreme physical and emotional pain, all to his general damage in such amount as may 27 be proven. Said amount is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California. 28 13 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 89. As a result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of defendants, Plaintiff has 2 incurred medical expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 3 and Plaintiff will be required to incur additional future medical expenses all to his further damage in 4 an amount to be proven at trial. 5 90. The acts of Defendants, and each of them, as hereinabove alleged, were carried out by 6 supervisors, managers, officers, and/or directors of WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them, 7 and were directed and/or ratified by WALMART and DOES 1-50, and each of them, with a conscious 8 disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, such as to constitute oppression, fraud, or malice under Civ. Code 9 section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an 10 example of Defendants. 11 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 12 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 13 (Against Defendant WALMART and DOES 1-50) 14 91. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by 15 reference except where to do so would be inconsistent with pleading a cause of action for Intentional 16 Infliction of Emotional Distress. 17 92. The acts described in this complaint, specifically in the Statement of Facts, constitute 18 outrageous conduct by WALMART. The ratification of said acts by WALMART and DOES 1-50, 19 and each of them, is also outrageous. When Defendants did the acts described in this complaint, they 20 did such acts deliberately and intentionally to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress. Defendants’ 21 conduct in confirming and ratifying that conduct was done with knowledge that Plaintiff's distress 22 would thereby increase, and was done with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing 23 Plaintiff emotional distress. 24 93. Such conduct by Defendants, and each of them, exceeds all normal risks of the 25 employment relationship. 26 94. The above acts of Defendants and each of them caused Plaintiff severe emotional 27 distress, anxiety, sleeplessness, and were outrageous and beyond the scope of his employment. As a 28 14 PLAINTIFF ALEBERT QUEVEDO’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES 1 direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, 2 Plaintiff has suffered damages and injuries set forth below. 3 95. As a result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has become mentally upset, 4 distressed and aggravated. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental distress and aggravation 5 in an amount of which will be proven at time of trial. 6 96. As a proximate result of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff suffered and 7 continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and severe shock 8 to his nervous system, and thereby sustained serious injuries to his physical and mental health, strength 9 and activity, causing his extreme physical and emotional pain, all to his general damage in such amount 10 as may be proven. Said amount is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of 11 California. 12 97. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of