Preview
1 Ronald Yoosefian, Esq. (SBN 270215)
Naira Soghbatyan, Esq. (SBN 309599)
2
YOOSEFIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3 135 South Jackson Street, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91205
4 Telephone: (818) 275-1529
5 Facsimile: (818) 275-1747
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
RUBEN CASTILLO
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF KERN
9
10 RUBEN CASTILLO, an individual, Case No.:
11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
12 v. 1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL
BREAKS;
13
KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., a 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST
14 California corporation; ROBERT RUIZ, BREAKS;
an individual, and DOES 1 through 50,
15 inclusive, 3. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES;
16 4. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME;
Defendants.
17 5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS
18 PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
LABOR CODE §226
19
6. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS &
20 PROFESSIONS CODE §17200-17208;
21 7. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
22 HOUSING ACT; MEDICAL
23 8. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
24 HOUSING ACT; NATIONAL
ORIGIN/RACE/COLOR
25
9. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
26 THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING ACT;
27
10. FAILURE TO PREVENT
28 DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT;
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1
11. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE
2 (FEHA);
3 12. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE
INTERACTIVE PROCESS OF
4 ACCOMMODATION;
5 13. HARASSEMENT/HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF
6 THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING ACT
7
14. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
8 VIOLATION OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
9 AND PUBLIC POLICY;
10
11 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
12
13 COMPLAINT
14 COMES NOW Plaintiff, RUBEN CASTILLO, who and by through his attorneys of
15 record, hereby files this Complaint and alleges on the basis of personal knowledge and/or
16 information and belief as follows.
17 SUMMARY
18 This is an action by plaintiff, RUBEN CASTILLO, whose employment with defendant
19 KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., and ROBERT RUIZ, was wrongfully terminated.
20 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for economic, non-economic, compensatory, and
21 punitive damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, pre-judgement interest pursuant to Code
22 of Civil Procedure section 3291, and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to
23 Government Code section 12965(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
24 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
25 1. Plaintiff: At all relevant times Plaintiff, RUBEN CASTILLO (hereinafter referred to as
26 “PLAINTIFF”), was and is a Hispanic male adult natural person, an individual who resides in
27 the State of California, County of Kern.
28 2. Defendants: Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant KERN
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC. was and is a business and/or operated in business in California
2 at Plaintiff’s work at 13020 Rudal Road, Bakersfield, CA 93305. KERN RIVER GOLF
3 COURSE, INC. and/or other Defendants and/or entity(ies) was/were Plaintiff’s employer(s) at all
4 times alleged herein.
5 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ROBERT RUIZ
6 (hereinafter referred to as “DEFENDANT”) was and is a supervisor at KERN RIVER GOLF
7 COURSE, INC. At all relevant times, Defendant, ROBERT RUIZ, was an is an individual who
8 resides in the State of California, County of San Bernadino.
9 4. Doe Defendants: Plaintiff brings this action against all Defendants and DOES 1
10 THROUGH 50 (referred to collectively herein as “Defendants” respectively), for economic,
11 non-economic, compensatory and punitive damages, pursuant to Civil Code §3294; prejudgment
12 interest pursuant Code of Civil Procedure §3291; resulting from Defendants’ intentional
13 infliction of emotional distress and other wrongdoing done to Plaintiff.
14 5. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50,
15 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff, who
16 therefore sues said Defendant by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to
17 add their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.
18 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that each DOE named herein is an
19 employee, agent, partner, employer, predecessor, successor, assign, attorney, associate, joint-
20 venturer, and/or co-conspirator of the named Defendant(s) and at all times herein mentioned was
21 acting within such agency, association, partnership, venture, employment relationship, and/or
22 conspiracy and that any reference to “defendant” or “Defendant” or “Defendants” shall mean
23 “Defendants and each of them.”
24 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that each of such fictitiously named
25 Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that
26 Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such Defendants.
27 8. Relationship of Defendants: All defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or abetted the
28 discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which conduct is prohibited
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 under California Government Code section 12940(i). All defendants were responsible for the
2 events and damages alleged herein, including on the following bases: (a) defendants committed
3 the acts alleged; (B) at all relevant times, one or more of the defendants was the agent or
4 employee, and/or acted under the control or supervision, of one or more of the remaining
5 defendants and, in committing the acts alleged, acted within the course and scope of such agency
6 and employment and/or is or are otherwise liable for plaintiff’s damages; (C) at all relevant
7 times, there existed a united of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the
8 defendants such that any individuality and separateness between or among those defendants has
9 ceased, and defendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercise domination and
10 control over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of defendants
11 does not, at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the fiction of the separate
12 existence of defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud
13 and promote injustice. All actions of all defendants were taken by employees, supervisors,
14 executives, officers, and directors during employment with all defendants, were taken on behalf
15 of all defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, ratified, and approved of by all other
16 defendants.
17 9. Defendants KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., and ROBERT RUIZ both directly
18 and indirectly employed plaintiff RUBEN CASTILLO, as defined in the Fair Employment and
19 Housing Act (“FEHA”) at Government Code section 12926(d).
20 10. In addition, defendants KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., and ROBERT RUIZ
21 compelled, coerced, aided and abetted the discrimination, which is prohibited under California
22 Government Code section 12940(i).
23 11. Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of all other
24 defendants in committing the acts alleged herein.
25 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
26 12. Jurisdiction is proper because PLAINTIFF worked for Defendants in the State of
27 California, and all actions relevant to this Complaint occurred in the State of California.
28 13. Venue is proper because PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Defendants, and/or DOES 1-50, were doing business in the County of Kern, State of California,
2 PLAINTIFF worked in the County of Kern, the relevant actions set forth herein occurred in the
3 County of Kern, and that the County of Kern is where Defendants’ records relevant to the alleged
4 unlawful practices are maintained and administered.
5 14. Subject matter in these actions is properly heard in this Court, as the action incorporates
6 an amount in controversy as set forth in the Complaint, which exceeds $25,000.00.
7 15. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants and/or DOES
8 1-50 are employers subject to suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”),
9 California Government Code Section 12900, in that Defendants are business organization with
10 five (5) or more employees doing business in the State of California, County of Kern.
11 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
12 16. Plaintiff’s Protected Status and Activity:
13 a. Plaintiff is Hispanic/Latino.
14 b. Plaintiff has medical conditions.
15 c. Plaintiff complained of unlawful actions by defendants.
16 17. Plaintiff’s Employment with Defendants: From on or about April 2016 to on or about
17 September 25, 2020, Plaintiff was employed with Defendants as an Assistant Supervisor.
18 18. Plaintiff’s Job Performance: Throughout his employment Plaintiff performed his duties
19 well, was liked by others, was a loyal employee, and Plaintiff was acknowledged for his services.
20 19. Defendants’ Adverse Employment Actions: Plaintiff performed various duties for
21 Defendants including, but not limited to: Scheduling, machine repair and maintenance etc., and
22 other duties as assigned by Management.
23 Harassment, Discrimination, and Oppression at KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC.
24 20. During the course and scope of his employment, Plaintiff sustained illnesses or injuries
25 while performing work for Defendants which Plaintiff was not hired or licensed to perform.
26 Despite his injuries, Plaintiff continued to work as a loyal employee and continued to perform
27 above job expectations.
28 21. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations. However, Defendants refused
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 to accommodate Plaintiff, subjected him to a hostile working environment, and began a
2 campaign to terminate Plaintiff’s employment based on his race, national origin, and medical
3 condition, etc.
4 22. Throughout all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed and carried about his working
5 responsibilities and duties that caused Plaintiff to suffer ailments to his bodily area. Specifically,
6 Plaintiff was required to mix and spray chemicals on the grass without the proper safety gear and
7 equipment. Plaintiff has diabetes and the chemicals caused his blood sugar to rise. To that extent,
8 defendants knew Plaintiff had diabetes and other health conditions, however despite his request
9 for accommodations he was denied safety gear and other related accommodations.
10 23. On his request for reasonable accommodations, Defendants harassed Plaintiff and did not
11 allow him to return to work after an issue with other employees who had discriminated and
12 harassed him. On or around September 25, 2020, Plaintiff was harassed by another employee,
13 Zack, who was creating a hostile work environment for Plaintiff and others. Shortly after,
14 Plaintiff was told not to return to work and his position was replaced by an employee who spoke
15 English fluently. Plaintiff maintains the good faith belief that his wrongful termination is based
16 on Plaintiffs race and national origin.
17 24. Throughout the course and scope of his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff faced
18 harassment, discrimination, and oppression. Defendants knew or should have known of the
19 hostile work environment created by Defendants’ management team was discriminatory,
20 harassment, and oppressive conduct. Among other things, Defendants refused to accommodate
21 Plaintiff, and such actions were done with the wrongful intent to create and or retaliate against
22 Plaintiff; creating a harmful environment for Plaintiff and other employees. Throughout
23 Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants’ management team would harass, discriminate, and
24 oppress Plaintiff based on Plaintiffs race and national origin, medical condition and disability.
25 25. Plaintiff requested an adjustment of his jobs as an accommodation. Plaintiff did not want
26 to request time off, however as a loyal employee he simply requested to be accommodated with
27 adequate safety equipment while handling chemicals. However, after mentioning the pain to his
28 supervisor ROBERT RUIZ, RUIZ told him if he didn’t spray the chemicals he would be
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 terminated.
2 26. These occurrences of where Plaintiff was denied reasonable accommodations for his
3 medical condition was clear discrimination and harassment. This work environment caused
4 Plaintiff to feel oppressed and depressed, he felt the workplace was hostile and unjust.
5 27. Plaintiff was upset and distraught that after years of loyal service to Defendants’ company
6 that they would continue to treat him horribly. Plaintiff could not sleep over Defendants’
7 conduct. Plaintiff was already exhausted and stressed out constantly by management, and despite
8 his complaints and objections, they neglected Plaintiff and ultimately wrongfully terminated his
9 employment.
10 28. Additionally, Plaintiff was subject to a hostile working environment based on his race,
11 national origin and/or ancestry and was discriminated against after his work injuries. Plaintiff
12 was oppressed, harassed, discriminated, and terminated for his reasons relevant to his protect
13 status of being a Latino and a medical condition in need of accommodation.
14 29. Plaintiff was informed by Defendants’ that Defendants had terminated Plaintiff’s
15 employment. As a result, Defendants terminated Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s race, national origin
16 and/or ancestry, medical condition, and requests for reasonable accommodations.
17 30. Thus, as an employee of Defendants, on or about September 25, 2020, Plaintiff was
18 wrongfully terminated, discriminated and retaliated against for but not limited to: suffering
19 harassment, discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, requesting reasonable
20 accommodations, demanding proper meal and rest breaks, demanding accurate overtime
21 compensation, and complaining about Defendants’ unlawful activities.
22 31. Moreover, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s assertions of his suffering, request for
23 accommodations, demands for proper meal and rest breaks, and complaints regarding inaccurate
24 overtime compensation, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
25 32. During all relevant times herein, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours
26 per day and in excess of forty (40) hours per week. For example, Plaintiff was made to answer
27 work calls on his personal phone at all hours of the day. However, Defendants never paid
28 Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 In addition, Defendants never paid Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours worked in
2 excess of forty (40) hours per week.
3 33. Plaintiff worked without being provided a meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes per
4 five (5) hours worked and without compensation of one (1) hour of pay for each workday that a
5 meal period was not provided. Plaintiff worked without being authorized or permitted to take a
6 rest period of at least ten (10) minutes per every four (4) hours worked and without compensation
7 of one (1) hour of pay for each workday that a rest period was not provided. Plaintiff worked
8 without receiving an accurate itemized wage statement that reflected regular and overtime hours
9 actually worked and meal and rest period premium payments.
10 34. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action, Defendants have consistently
11 subjected Plaintiff to these conditions.
12 35. On or about September 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint of wrongful termination,
13 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation with the Department of Fair Employment and
14 Housing (“DFEH”), claiming that his termination of employment was due to his medical
15 condition, requests for reasonable accommodations. By a letter dated September 24, 2021,
16 Plaintiff received a “Notice of Case Closure/Right-to-Sue” from DFEH authorizing Plaintiff to
17 file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, within one (1) year from the date of
18 that letter. Attached hereto as “Exhibit A” is a true and correct copy of the Right to Sue Letter
19 received from the DFEH. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted all of his administrative remedies
20 necessary before filing a lawsuit.
21 36. Defendants are business entities regularly employing at least the minimum number of
22 employees upon which certain legal duties and obligations arise under various laws and statutes,
23 including the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
24 37. PLAINTIFF’s Economic Damages: As a consequence of Defendants’ conduct,
25 PLAINTIFF has suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and
26 employment benefits, damage to his career, and wages, overtime, unpaid expenses and penalties
27 as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which those
28 wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial.
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 38. PLAINTIFF’s Non-Economic Damages: As a consequence of Defendants’ conduct,
2 PLAINTIFF has suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation and
3 mental and physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial.
4 39. Punitive Damages: Defendants conduct constitutes oppression, fraud and/or malice
5 under California Civil Code section 3294 and, thus, entitles PLAINTIFF to an award of
6 exemplary/punitive damages.
7 40. Malice: Defendants’ conduct was committed with malice within the meaning of
8 California Civil Code section 3294, including the following: (1) Defendants acted with intent to
9 cause injury to PLAINTIFF and/or acted with reckless disregard towards PLAINTIFF’S injury,
10 including terminated his employment and/or taking other adverse job actions against
11 PLAINTIFF cause of PLAINTIFF’S race, medical condition, and/or his good faith complaints,
12 and/or (2) Defendants’ conduct was despicable and committed with willful and conscious
13 disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights, health, and safety, including PLAINTIFF’S right to be free of
14 discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
15 41. Oppression: In addition, and/or alternatively, Defendants conduct was committed with
16 oppression within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294 including Defendants’
17 actions against PLAINTIFF because of PLAINTIFF’s race, medical condition, and/or his good
18 faith complaints were “despicable” and subjected PLAINTIFF to cruel and unjust hardship, in
19 knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s right to a workplace free of discrimination, harassment,
20 retaliation and wrongful termination.
21 42. Fraud: In addition, and/or alternatively, Defendants conduct, as alleged, was fraudulent
22 within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that defendants asserted
23 false (pretextual) grounds for terminating plaintiff’s employment and/or have adverse job
24 actions, thereby to cause plaintiff hardship and deprive his of legal rights.
25 43. Attorneys’ Fees: PLAINTIFF has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and
26 attorneys’ fees as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
27 44. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: On or about September 24, 2021 and within
28 the time provided by law, PLAINTIFF filed verified charges of discrimination with the
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) pertaining to Defendants …
2 and requesting a Right to Sue Letter. PLAINTIFF obtained his Right to Sue Letter the same day.
3 PLAINTIFF herein with this Complaint serves Defendants with his DFEH Complaint and Right
4 to Sue notices. PLAINTIFF now timely files this action.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS
7 (Against All Defendants)
8 45. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph
9 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
10 46. Plaintiff was not provided meal periods as required by California Labor Code § 226.7,
11 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
12 47. Throughout the statutory period alleged herein, Plaintiff regularly worked for more than
13 five (5) hours during a work period without being allowed to take the mandatory thirty (30)
14 minute meal break for each five (5) hours of work as required by California law, and without
15 being compensated for missing meal periods. See Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. v. Superior
16 Court (2012) 52 Cal. 4th 1004, 1040-41 (“The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its
17 employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable
18 opportunity to taken an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them
19 from doing so… [A] first meal period [is required] no later than the end of an employee’s fifth
20 hour of work, and a second meal period [is required] no later than the end of an employee’s 10th
21 hour of work.”).
22 48. Throughout the time Plaintiff was employed with Defendants, Defendants discouraged,
23 dissuaded, impeded, and failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted meal periods of not less
24 than thirty (30) minutes as required by the Labor Code and failed to provide one (1) hour of
25 premium pay for each day they failed to provide a meal period.
26 49. Defendants required Plaintiff, as a condition of maintaining his employment with
27 Defendants, to regularly work through his meal periods, and was given little to no appropriate
28
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 time to take such breaks. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced wrongful conduct, Plaintiff
2 has suffered, and continues to suffer, significant economic loss and damages.
3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS
5 (Against All Defendants)
6 50. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph
7 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
8 51. Plaintiff was not authorized or permitted to take a full, uninterrupted ten-minute rest
9 period for every four (4) hours worked. Essentially, Plaintiff remained on duty or was called
10 back into duty to work before the end of his ten (10) minute rest breaks. See Brinker, 53 Cal. 4th
11 1004 at 1029 (“Employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shift from three and one-half to six
12 hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.”).
13 As a result, Plaintiff was always on duty, subject to his employer’s control, even when he was on
14 his purported “breaks,” which in any event were often less than ten (10) minutes or not permitted
15 at all.
16 52. Plaintiff was not paid the required premium pay for days in which he worked at least
17 three (3) and one-half hours and was not authorized or permitted to take a full, uninterrupted ten-
18 minute rest break for every four (4) hours of work or major fraction thereof. Such practices
19 occurred throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, including the time in which he told
20 Defendants of his medical conditions and physical injuries.
21 53. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and
22 continues to suffer, significant economic loss and damages.
23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES
25 (Against All Defendants)
26 54. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph
27 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
28
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 55. Labor Code §204 establishes the fundamental right of all employees in the State of
2 California to be paid wages in a timely fashion for their work.
3 56. “[A]n employer is not entitled to a setoff of debts owing it by an employee against any
4 wages due that employee.” (Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.)
5 57. Defendants are required to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, meaning the time during
6 which an employee is subject to the control of an employer. Accordingly, Plaintiff was under the
7 direct control of Defendants’ regulations and management throughout his work day.
8 58. Defendants’ practice of failing to pay Plaintiff for his labor is unlawful and creates an
9 entitlement, pursuant to Labor Code §218, to recovery of the unpaid balance of the full amount
10 of the straight time compensation owing.
11 59. Plaintiff was damaged by not receiving compensation which Plaintiff should have
12 received, but did not. Plaintiff is entitled to receive his compensation, together with pre-judgment
13 interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
16 (Against All Defendants)
17 60. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph
18 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
19 61. Throughout the statutory period alleged herein, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
20 eight (8) hours per day and in excess of forty (40) hours per week. However, Defendants never
21 paid Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per
22 day. In addition, Defendants never paid Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours
23 worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
24 62. Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per
25 week without overtime compensation.
26 63. Labor Code § 510 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001 requires that
27 all workers be compensated for all hours worked, including overtime premium pay for overtime
28 hours worked (Labor Code Section 510; 8 Cal. Code of Regulations. Section 11040, subdivision
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 3(A).) Workers must be paid regular wages for hours worked and overtime premium pay in the
2 amount of one (1) and one-half times each employee’s regular rate of pay for any work in excess
3 of eight (8) hours in one working day (Id.).
4 64. Workers must also be paid double-time premium pay in the amount of double each
5 employee’s regular rate of pay, for any work in excess of 12 hours in one day and any work in
6 excess of eight (8) hours on any seventh day of a workweek (Id.).
7 65. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff with the correct and accurate compensation
8 that is owed. Plaintiff was required to be on call at all hours of the day, however, was not
9 accorded appropriate overtime compensation by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff would be
10 required to work past his normal working hours, however, would not be compensated for this
11 time. By failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff, Defendants have violated and
12 continues to violate Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1194 and Wage Order 4-2001, 17-2001.
13 66. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has been
14 deprived of overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, and is entitled to
15 recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, under Labor Code §
16 1194.
17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS
19 (Against All Defendants)
20 67. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph
21 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
22 68. California Labor Code § 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees with an
23 accurate itemized statement in writing showing, among other things: (1) all applicable hourly
24 rates in effect during each respective pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked
25 by each respective individual; (2) total hours worked by each respective individual; (3) gross
26 wages earned; (4) net wages earned; (5) all deductions; (6) inclusive dates of the period for
27 which the employee is paid; (7) the name of the employee and an employee identification or
28 social security number; and (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer.
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 69. As a pattern and practice, in violation of Labor Code § 226(a), Defendants did not furnish
2 Plaintiff with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all information required by the
3 Labor Code. Further, Plaintiff was not furnished accurate, itemized wage statements that clearly
4 and specifically identified premiums paid for missed meal and rest periods. Among other harms,
5 Plaintiff has suffered for Defendants’ inadequate wage statements because Plaintiff was not able
6 to learn that he was entitled to meal or rest period premiums.
7 70. California Labor Code sections 226, 1174, 1174.5, and Wage Order No. 7(a), mandates
8 an employer to keep accurate records, including the number of hours worked, rate of pay for
9 each hour, and total wages owed. It is an offense for an employer to fail to keep track of the
10 hours their employees work (Labor Code 215).
11 71. To the extent that Defendants made any payments for meal or rest period premiums,
12 these sums were not identified as such on Plaintiff’s itemized wage statements. The failure to
13 include meal and rest period premiums as such on wage statements constitutes inaccurate record
14 keeping and confuses Plaintiff, who would have learned about his right to meal and rest period
15 premiums if those premiums were identified as such on his wage statements.
16 72. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) on
17 each and every wage statement provided to Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced
18 wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, significant economic loss and
19 damages.
20 73. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively
21 with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to
22 malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, entitling Plaintiff to recover punitive
23 damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§17200-17208
26 (Against All Defendants)
27 74. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph
28 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1 75. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-et seq. prohibit acts of unfair
2 competition, which includes any “unlawful and unfair business practices.” It is the policy of this
3 State to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or permitted
4 to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect those employers who comply
5 with the law from losing competitive advantage to other employers who fail to comply with
6 labor standards and requirements.
7 76. Through the conduct alleged herein, Defendants acted contrary to these public policies
8 and engaged in unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions
9 Code §§17200, et seq. depriving Plaintiff his rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to
10 employees under California law.
11 77. Additionally, and throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Defendants have
12 committed unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts and practices as defined and in
13 violation of Business & Professions Code §§17200 by failing to pay overtime wages, to provide
14 meal and rest breaks, to pay wages due at the time of separation, to furnish timely and accurate
15 wage statements, to remit gratuities, and to reimburse business expenses in violation of
16 California law.
17 78. By engaging in these business practices, which are unfair business practices within the
18 meaning of Business & Professions Code §§17200 et. seq., Defendants have reaped unfair
19 benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff. Defendants must disgorge these ill-gotten
20 gains and restore to Plaintiff the wrongfully withheld wages pursuant to section 17203 of the
21 California Business and Professions Code.
22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 MEDICAL CONDITION/DISIABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
24
Preview
1 Ronald Yoosefian, Esq. (SBN 270215) Naira Soghbatyan, Esq. (SBN 309599) 2 YOOSEFIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3 135 South Jackson Street, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91205 4 Telephone: (818) 275-1529 5 Facsimile: (818) 275-1747 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, RUBEN CASTILLO 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF KERN 9 10 RUBEN CASTILLO, an individual, Case No.: 11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 12 v. 1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS; 13 KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., a 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST 14 California corporation; ROBERT RUIZ, BREAKS; an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, 15 inclusive, 3. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES; 16 4. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME; Defendants. 17 5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS 18 PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §226 19 6. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & 20 PROFESSIONS CODE §17200-17208; 21 7. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND 22 HOUSING ACT; MEDICAL 23 8. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND 24 HOUSING ACT; NATIONAL ORIGIN/RACE/COLOR 25 9. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 26 THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT; 27 10. FAILURE TO PREVENT 28 DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT; 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 11. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE 2 (FEHA); 3 12. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS OF 4 ACCOMMODATION; 5 13. HARASSEMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF 6 THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 7 14. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN 8 VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 9 AND PUBLIC POLICY; 10 11 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 12 13 COMPLAINT 14 COMES NOW Plaintiff, RUBEN CASTILLO, who and by through his attorneys of 15 record, hereby files this Complaint and alleges on the basis of personal knowledge and/or 16 information and belief as follows. 17 SUMMARY 18 This is an action by plaintiff, RUBEN CASTILLO, whose employment with defendant 19 KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., and ROBERT RUIZ, was wrongfully terminated. 20 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for economic, non-economic, compensatory, and 21 punitive damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, pre-judgement interest pursuant to Code 22 of Civil Procedure section 3291, and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 23 Government Code section 12965(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 24 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES 25 1. Plaintiff: At all relevant times Plaintiff, RUBEN CASTILLO (hereinafter referred to as 26 “PLAINTIFF”), was and is a Hispanic male adult natural person, an individual who resides in 27 the State of California, County of Kern. 28 2. Defendants: Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant KERN 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC. was and is a business and/or operated in business in California 2 at Plaintiff’s work at 13020 Rudal Road, Bakersfield, CA 93305. KERN RIVER GOLF 3 COURSE, INC. and/or other Defendants and/or entity(ies) was/were Plaintiff’s employer(s) at all 4 times alleged herein. 5 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ROBERT RUIZ 6 (hereinafter referred to as “DEFENDANT”) was and is a supervisor at KERN RIVER GOLF 7 COURSE, INC. At all relevant times, Defendant, ROBERT RUIZ, was an is an individual who 8 resides in the State of California, County of San Bernadino. 9 4. Doe Defendants: Plaintiff brings this action against all Defendants and DOES 1 10 THROUGH 50 (referred to collectively herein as “Defendants” respectively), for economic, 11 non-economic, compensatory and punitive damages, pursuant to Civil Code §3294; prejudgment 12 interest pursuant Code of Civil Procedure §3291; resulting from Defendants’ intentional 13 infliction of emotional distress and other wrongdoing done to Plaintiff. 14 5. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50, 15 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff, who 16 therefore sues said Defendant by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to 17 add their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 18 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that each DOE named herein is an 19 employee, agent, partner, employer, predecessor, successor, assign, attorney, associate, joint- 20 venturer, and/or co-conspirator of the named Defendant(s) and at all times herein mentioned was 21 acting within such agency, association, partnership, venture, employment relationship, and/or 22 conspiracy and that any reference to “defendant” or “Defendant” or “Defendants” shall mean 23 “Defendants and each of them.” 24 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that each of such fictitiously named 25 Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that 26 Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such Defendants. 27 8. Relationship of Defendants: All defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or abetted the 28 discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which conduct is prohibited 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 under California Government Code section 12940(i). All defendants were responsible for the 2 events and damages alleged herein, including on the following bases: (a) defendants committed 3 the acts alleged; (B) at all relevant times, one or more of the defendants was the agent or 4 employee, and/or acted under the control or supervision, of one or more of the remaining 5 defendants and, in committing the acts alleged, acted within the course and scope of such agency 6 and employment and/or is or are otherwise liable for plaintiff’s damages; (C) at all relevant 7 times, there existed a united of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the 8 defendants such that any individuality and separateness between or among those defendants has 9 ceased, and defendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercise domination and 10 control over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of defendants 11 does not, at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the fiction of the separate 12 existence of defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud 13 and promote injustice. All actions of all defendants were taken by employees, supervisors, 14 executives, officers, and directors during employment with all defendants, were taken on behalf 15 of all defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, ratified, and approved of by all other 16 defendants. 17 9. Defendants KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., and ROBERT RUIZ both directly 18 and indirectly employed plaintiff RUBEN CASTILLO, as defined in the Fair Employment and 19 Housing Act (“FEHA”) at Government Code section 12926(d). 20 10. In addition, defendants KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC., and ROBERT RUIZ 21 compelled, coerced, aided and abetted the discrimination, which is prohibited under California 22 Government Code section 12940(i). 23 11. Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of all other 24 defendants in committing the acts alleged herein. 25 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 26 12. Jurisdiction is proper because PLAINTIFF worked for Defendants in the State of 27 California, and all actions relevant to this Complaint occurred in the State of California. 28 13. Venue is proper because PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Defendants, and/or DOES 1-50, were doing business in the County of Kern, State of California, 2 PLAINTIFF worked in the County of Kern, the relevant actions set forth herein occurred in the 3 County of Kern, and that the County of Kern is where Defendants’ records relevant to the alleged 4 unlawful practices are maintained and administered. 5 14. Subject matter in these actions is properly heard in this Court, as the action incorporates 6 an amount in controversy as set forth in the Complaint, which exceeds $25,000.00. 7 15. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants and/or DOES 8 1-50 are employers subject to suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), 9 California Government Code Section 12900, in that Defendants are business organization with 10 five (5) or more employees doing business in the State of California, County of Kern. 11 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 12 16. Plaintiff’s Protected Status and Activity: 13 a. Plaintiff is Hispanic/Latino. 14 b. Plaintiff has medical conditions. 15 c. Plaintiff complained of unlawful actions by defendants. 16 17. Plaintiff’s Employment with Defendants: From on or about April 2016 to on or about 17 September 25, 2020, Plaintiff was employed with Defendants as an Assistant Supervisor. 18 18. Plaintiff’s Job Performance: Throughout his employment Plaintiff performed his duties 19 well, was liked by others, was a loyal employee, and Plaintiff was acknowledged for his services. 20 19. Defendants’ Adverse Employment Actions: Plaintiff performed various duties for 21 Defendants including, but not limited to: Scheduling, machine repair and maintenance etc., and 22 other duties as assigned by Management. 23 Harassment, Discrimination, and Oppression at KERN RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC. 24 20. During the course and scope of his employment, Plaintiff sustained illnesses or injuries 25 while performing work for Defendants which Plaintiff was not hired or licensed to perform. 26 Despite his injuries, Plaintiff continued to work as a loyal employee and continued to perform 27 above job expectations. 28 21. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations. However, Defendants refused 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 to accommodate Plaintiff, subjected him to a hostile working environment, and began a 2 campaign to terminate Plaintiff’s employment based on his race, national origin, and medical 3 condition, etc. 4 22. Throughout all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed and carried about his working 5 responsibilities and duties that caused Plaintiff to suffer ailments to his bodily area. Specifically, 6 Plaintiff was required to mix and spray chemicals on the grass without the proper safety gear and 7 equipment. Plaintiff has diabetes and the chemicals caused his blood sugar to rise. To that extent, 8 defendants knew Plaintiff had diabetes and other health conditions, however despite his request 9 for accommodations he was denied safety gear and other related accommodations. 10 23. On his request for reasonable accommodations, Defendants harassed Plaintiff and did not 11 allow him to return to work after an issue with other employees who had discriminated and 12 harassed him. On or around September 25, 2020, Plaintiff was harassed by another employee, 13 Zack, who was creating a hostile work environment for Plaintiff and others. Shortly after, 14 Plaintiff was told not to return to work and his position was replaced by an employee who spoke 15 English fluently. Plaintiff maintains the good faith belief that his wrongful termination is based 16 on Plaintiffs race and national origin. 17 24. Throughout the course and scope of his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff faced 18 harassment, discrimination, and oppression. Defendants knew or should have known of the 19 hostile work environment created by Defendants’ management team was discriminatory, 20 harassment, and oppressive conduct. Among other things, Defendants refused to accommodate 21 Plaintiff, and such actions were done with the wrongful intent to create and or retaliate against 22 Plaintiff; creating a harmful environment for Plaintiff and other employees. Throughout 23 Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants’ management team would harass, discriminate, and 24 oppress Plaintiff based on Plaintiffs race and national origin, medical condition and disability. 25 25. Plaintiff requested an adjustment of his jobs as an accommodation. Plaintiff did not want 26 to request time off, however as a loyal employee he simply requested to be accommodated with 27 adequate safety equipment while handling chemicals. However, after mentioning the pain to his 28 supervisor ROBERT RUIZ, RUIZ told him if he didn’t spray the chemicals he would be 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 terminated. 2 26. These occurrences of where Plaintiff was denied reasonable accommodations for his 3 medical condition was clear discrimination and harassment. This work environment caused 4 Plaintiff to feel oppressed and depressed, he felt the workplace was hostile and unjust. 5 27. Plaintiff was upset and distraught that after years of loyal service to Defendants’ company 6 that they would continue to treat him horribly. Plaintiff could not sleep over Defendants’ 7 conduct. Plaintiff was already exhausted and stressed out constantly by management, and despite 8 his complaints and objections, they neglected Plaintiff and ultimately wrongfully terminated his 9 employment. 10 28. Additionally, Plaintiff was subject to a hostile working environment based on his race, 11 national origin and/or ancestry and was discriminated against after his work injuries. Plaintiff 12 was oppressed, harassed, discriminated, and terminated for his reasons relevant to his protect 13 status of being a Latino and a medical condition in need of accommodation. 14 29. Plaintiff was informed by Defendants’ that Defendants had terminated Plaintiff’s 15 employment. As a result, Defendants terminated Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s race, national origin 16 and/or ancestry, medical condition, and requests for reasonable accommodations. 17 30. Thus, as an employee of Defendants, on or about September 25, 2020, Plaintiff was 18 wrongfully terminated, discriminated and retaliated against for but not limited to: suffering 19 harassment, discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, requesting reasonable 20 accommodations, demanding proper meal and rest breaks, demanding accurate overtime 21 compensation, and complaining about Defendants’ unlawful activities. 22 31. Moreover, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s assertions of his suffering, request for 23 accommodations, demands for proper meal and rest breaks, and complaints regarding inaccurate 24 overtime compensation, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment. 25 32. During all relevant times herein, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours 26 per day and in excess of forty (40) hours per week. For example, Plaintiff was made to answer 27 work calls on his personal phone at all hours of the day. However, Defendants never paid 28 Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day. 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 In addition, Defendants never paid Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours worked in 2 excess of forty (40) hours per week. 3 33. Plaintiff worked without being provided a meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes per 4 five (5) hours worked and without compensation of one (1) hour of pay for each workday that a 5 meal period was not provided. Plaintiff worked without being authorized or permitted to take a 6 rest period of at least ten (10) minutes per every four (4) hours worked and without compensation 7 of one (1) hour of pay for each workday that a rest period was not provided. Plaintiff worked 8 without receiving an accurate itemized wage statement that reflected regular and overtime hours 9 actually worked and meal and rest period premium payments. 10 34. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action, Defendants have consistently 11 subjected Plaintiff to these conditions. 12 35. On or about September 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint of wrongful termination, 13 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation with the Department of Fair Employment and 14 Housing (“DFEH”), claiming that his termination of employment was due to his medical 15 condition, requests for reasonable accommodations. By a letter dated September 24, 2021, 16 Plaintiff received a “Notice of Case Closure/Right-to-Sue” from DFEH authorizing Plaintiff to 17 file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, within one (1) year from the date of 18 that letter. Attached hereto as “Exhibit A” is a true and correct copy of the Right to Sue Letter 19 received from the DFEH. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted all of his administrative remedies 20 necessary before filing a lawsuit. 21 36. Defendants are business entities regularly employing at least the minimum number of 22 employees upon which certain legal duties and obligations arise under various laws and statutes, 23 including the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). 24 37. PLAINTIFF’s Economic Damages: As a consequence of Defendants’ conduct, 25 PLAINTIFF has suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and 26 employment benefits, damage to his career, and wages, overtime, unpaid expenses and penalties 27 as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which those 28 wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 38. PLAINTIFF’s Non-Economic Damages: As a consequence of Defendants’ conduct, 2 PLAINTIFF has suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation and 3 mental and physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial. 4 39. Punitive Damages: Defendants conduct constitutes oppression, fraud and/or malice 5 under California Civil Code section 3294 and, thus, entitles PLAINTIFF to an award of 6 exemplary/punitive damages. 7 40. Malice: Defendants’ conduct was committed with malice within the meaning of 8 California Civil Code section 3294, including the following: (1) Defendants acted with intent to 9 cause injury to PLAINTIFF and/or acted with reckless disregard towards PLAINTIFF’S injury, 10 including terminated his employment and/or taking other adverse job actions against 11 PLAINTIFF cause of PLAINTIFF’S race, medical condition, and/or his good faith complaints, 12 and/or (2) Defendants’ conduct was despicable and committed with willful and conscious 13 disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights, health, and safety, including PLAINTIFF’S right to be free of 14 discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. 15 41. Oppression: In addition, and/or alternatively, Defendants conduct was committed with 16 oppression within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294 including Defendants’ 17 actions against PLAINTIFF because of PLAINTIFF’s race, medical condition, and/or his good 18 faith complaints were “despicable” and subjected PLAINTIFF to cruel and unjust hardship, in 19 knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s right to a workplace free of discrimination, harassment, 20 retaliation and wrongful termination. 21 42. Fraud: In addition, and/or alternatively, Defendants conduct, as alleged, was fraudulent 22 within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that defendants asserted 23 false (pretextual) grounds for terminating plaintiff’s employment and/or have adverse job 24 actions, thereby to cause plaintiff hardship and deprive his of legal rights. 25 43. Attorneys’ Fees: PLAINTIFF has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and 26 attorneys’ fees as a result of Defendants’ conduct. 27 44. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: On or about September 24, 2021 and within 28 the time provided by law, PLAINTIFF filed verified charges of discrimination with the 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) pertaining to Defendants … 2 and requesting a Right to Sue Letter. PLAINTIFF obtained his Right to Sue Letter the same day. 3 PLAINTIFF herein with this Complaint serves Defendants with his DFEH Complaint and Right 4 to Sue notices. PLAINTIFF now timely files this action. 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 6 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS 7 (Against All Defendants) 8 45. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph 9 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 10 46. Plaintiff was not provided meal periods as required by California Labor Code § 226.7, 11 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. 12 47. Throughout the statutory period alleged herein, Plaintiff regularly worked for more than 13 five (5) hours during a work period without being allowed to take the mandatory thirty (30) 14 minute meal break for each five (5) hours of work as required by California law, and without 15 being compensated for missing meal periods. See Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. v. Superior 16 Court (2012) 52 Cal. 4th 1004, 1040-41 (“The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its 17 employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable 18 opportunity to taken an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them 19 from doing so… [A] first meal period [is required] no later than the end of an employee’s fifth 20 hour of work, and a second meal period [is required] no later than the end of an employee’s 10th 21 hour of work.”). 22 48. Throughout the time Plaintiff was employed with Defendants, Defendants discouraged, 23 dissuaded, impeded, and failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted meal periods of not less 24 than thirty (30) minutes as required by the Labor Code and failed to provide one (1) hour of 25 premium pay for each day they failed to provide a meal period. 26 49. Defendants required Plaintiff, as a condition of maintaining his employment with 27 Defendants, to regularly work through his meal periods, and was given little to no appropriate 28 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 time to take such breaks. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced wrongful conduct, Plaintiff 2 has suffered, and continues to suffer, significant economic loss and damages. 3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 4 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS 5 (Against All Defendants) 6 50. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph 7 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 8 51. Plaintiff was not authorized or permitted to take a full, uninterrupted ten-minute rest 9 period for every four (4) hours worked. Essentially, Plaintiff remained on duty or was called 10 back into duty to work before the end of his ten (10) minute rest breaks. See Brinker, 53 Cal. 4th 11 1004 at 1029 (“Employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shift from three and one-half to six 12 hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.”). 13 As a result, Plaintiff was always on duty, subject to his employer’s control, even when he was on 14 his purported “breaks,” which in any event were often less than ten (10) minutes or not permitted 15 at all. 16 52. Plaintiff was not paid the required premium pay for days in which he worked at least 17 three (3) and one-half hours and was not authorized or permitted to take a full, uninterrupted ten- 18 minute rest break for every four (4) hours of work or major fraction thereof. Such practices 19 occurred throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, including the time in which he told 20 Defendants of his medical conditions and physical injuries. 21 53. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and 22 continues to suffer, significant economic loss and damages. 23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 24 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES 25 (Against All Defendants) 26 54. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph 27 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 28 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 55. Labor Code §204 establishes the fundamental right of all employees in the State of 2 California to be paid wages in a timely fashion for their work. 3 56. “[A]n employer is not entitled to a setoff of debts owing it by an employee against any 4 wages due that employee.” (Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) 5 57. Defendants are required to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, meaning the time during 6 which an employee is subject to the control of an employer. Accordingly, Plaintiff was under the 7 direct control of Defendants’ regulations and management throughout his work day. 8 58. Defendants’ practice of failing to pay Plaintiff for his labor is unlawful and creates an 9 entitlement, pursuant to Labor Code §218, to recovery of the unpaid balance of the full amount 10 of the straight time compensation owing. 11 59. Plaintiff was damaged by not receiving compensation which Plaintiff should have 12 received, but did not. Plaintiff is entitled to receive his compensation, together with pre-judgment 13 interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit. 14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME 16 (Against All Defendants) 17 60. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph 18 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 19 61. Throughout the statutory period alleged herein, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 20 eight (8) hours per day and in excess of forty (40) hours per week. However, Defendants never 21 paid Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per 22 day. In addition, Defendants never paid Plaintiff any overtime compensation for any hours 23 worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. 24 62. Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per 25 week without overtime compensation. 26 63. Labor Code § 510 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001 requires that 27 all workers be compensated for all hours worked, including overtime premium pay for overtime 28 hours worked (Labor Code Section 510; 8 Cal. Code of Regulations. Section 11040, subdivision 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 3(A).) Workers must be paid regular wages for hours worked and overtime premium pay in the 2 amount of one (1) and one-half times each employee’s regular rate of pay for any work in excess 3 of eight (8) hours in one working day (Id.). 4 64. Workers must also be paid double-time premium pay in the amount of double each 5 employee’s regular rate of pay, for any work in excess of 12 hours in one day and any work in 6 excess of eight (8) hours on any seventh day of a workweek (Id.). 7 65. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff with the correct and accurate compensation 8 that is owed. Plaintiff was required to be on call at all hours of the day, however, was not 9 accorded appropriate overtime compensation by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff would be 10 required to work past his normal working hours, however, would not be compensated for this 11 time. By failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff, Defendants have violated and 12 continues to violate Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1194 and Wage Order 4-2001, 17-2001. 13 66. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has been 14 deprived of overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, and is entitled to 15 recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, under Labor Code § 16 1194. 17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS 19 (Against All Defendants) 20 67. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph 21 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 22 68. California Labor Code § 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees with an 23 accurate itemized statement in writing showing, among other things: (1) all applicable hourly 24 rates in effect during each respective pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked 25 by each respective individual; (2) total hours worked by each respective individual; (3) gross 26 wages earned; (4) net wages earned; (5) all deductions; (6) inclusive dates of the period for 27 which the employee is paid; (7) the name of the employee and an employee identification or 28 social security number; and (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 69. As a pattern and practice, in violation of Labor Code § 226(a), Defendants did not furnish 2 Plaintiff with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all information required by the 3 Labor Code. Further, Plaintiff was not furnished accurate, itemized wage statements that clearly 4 and specifically identified premiums paid for missed meal and rest periods. Among other harms, 5 Plaintiff has suffered for Defendants’ inadequate wage statements because Plaintiff was not able 6 to learn that he was entitled to meal or rest period premiums. 7 70. California Labor Code sections 226, 1174, 1174.5, and Wage Order No. 7(a), mandates 8 an employer to keep accurate records, including the number of hours worked, rate of pay for 9 each hour, and total wages owed. It is an offense for an employer to fail to keep track of the 10 hours their employees work (Labor Code 215). 11 71. To the extent that Defendants made any payments for meal or rest period premiums, 12 these sums were not identified as such on Plaintiff’s itemized wage statements. The failure to 13 include meal and rest period premiums as such on wage statements constitutes inaccurate record 14 keeping and confuses Plaintiff, who would have learned about his right to meal and rest period 15 premiums if those premiums were identified as such on his wage statements. 16 72. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) on 17 each and every wage statement provided to Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants’ above-referenced 18 wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, significant economic loss and 19 damages. 20 73. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively 21 with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to 22 malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, entitling Plaintiff to recover punitive 23 damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§17200-17208 26 (Against All Defendants) 27 74. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph 28 in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 1 75. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-et seq. prohibit acts of unfair 2 competition, which includes any “unlawful and unfair business practices.” It is the policy of this 3 State to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or permitted 4 to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect those employers who comply 5 with the law from losing competitive advantage to other employers who fail to comply with 6 labor standards and requirements. 7 76. Through the conduct alleged herein, Defendants acted contrary to these public policies 8 and engaged in unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions 9 Code §§17200, et seq. depriving Plaintiff his rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to 10 employees under California law. 11 77. Additionally, and throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Defendants have 12 committed unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts and practices as defined and in 13 violation of Business & Professions Code §§17200 by failing to pay overtime wages, to provide 14 meal and rest breaks, to pay wages due at the time of separation, to furnish timely and accurate 15 wage statements, to remit gratuities, and to reimburse business expenses in violation of 16 California law. 17 78. By engaging in these business practices, which are unfair business practices within the 18 meaning of Business & Professions Code §§17200 et. seq., Defendants have reaped unfair 19 benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff. Defendants must disgorge these ill-gotten 20 gains and restore to Plaintiff the wrongfully withheld wages pursuant to section 17203 of the 21 California Business and Professions Code. 22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 MEDICAL CONDITION/DISIABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 24