Preview
DANIEL AZIZI, ESQ., SBN 268995
1
daniel@downtownlalaw.com
2 LILIUOKALANI MARTIN, ESQ. SBN 292778
lili@downtownlalaw.com
3 DOWNTOWN LA LAW GROUP, LLP
601 North Vermont Avenue
4
Los Angeles, California 90004
5 Tel: (213) 389-3765
Fax: (877) 389 - 2775
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 HARVEY ROGERS
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
10 HARVEY ROGERS, an individual, Case No.
11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
12 v. 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.;
13 MRC GLOBAL (US), INC., a corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
14 GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.;
Defendants.
15 3. FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
16 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE
§12940(k);
17
4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE
18 ACCOMMODATIONS IN VIOLATION OF
GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.;
19
5. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD
20 FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN
VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET
21 SEQ.;
22 6. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
23
DEMAND OVER $25,000
24
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
25
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, HARVEY ROGERS, and for causes of action against the
26
Defendants and each of them, alleges as follows:
27
///
28
///
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 JURISDICTION
2 1. This Court is the proper court, and this action is properly filed in Kern County, because
3 Defendants’ obligations and liability arise therein, because Defendants maintain offices and transact
4 business within Kern County, and because the work that is the subject of this action was performed by
5 Plaintiff in Kern County.
6
7 THE PARTIES
8 2. Plaintiff, HARVEY ROGERS, is and at all times relevant hereto was a resident of the
9 County of Kern, State of California.
10 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant
11 hereto, Defendant MRC GLOBAL (US), INC. (hereinafter referred to as “MRC”) was and is a
12 California corporation doing business at 1140 Elk Hills Road, Taft in the County of Kern, State of
13 California. MRC is likewise referred to as “Employers.”
14 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant
15 hereto, Employers owned and operated a private oil field equipment supply company.
16 5. At all times relevant herein, Employers and DOES 1-20 were Plaintiff’s employers, joint
17 employers and/or special employers within the meaning of Government Code §§12926, subdivision (d),
18 12940, subdivisions (a),(h),(1), (h)(3)(A), and (i),and 12950, and regularly employ five (5) or more
19 persons and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
20 6. At all times relevant herein, Employers and DOES 1-20 were Plaintiff’s employers, joint
21 employers and/or special employers within the meaning of the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
22 Commission Order No. 4-2001, and are each an “employer or other person acting on behalf of an
23 employer” as such term is used in Labor Code section 558, and liable to Plaintiff on that basis.
24 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
25 the Defendants named herein as DOES 1-20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and
26 therefore said Defendants are sued by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this
27 complaint to insert the true names and capacities of said Defendants when the same become known to
28 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that each of the fictitiously
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 named Defendants is responsible for the wrongful acts alleged herein, and is therefore liable to Plaintiff
2 as alleged hereinafter.
3 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant
4 hereto, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, managing agents, supervisors,
5 coconspirators, parent corporation, joint employers, alter egos, successors, and/or joint ventures of the
6 other Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting at least in part
7 within the course and scope of said agency, employment, conspiracy, joint employer, alter ego status,
8 successor status and/or joint venture and with the permission and consent of each of the other
9 Defendants.
10 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that Defendants, and
11 each of them, including those defendants named as DOES 1-20, acted in concert with one another to
12 commit the wrongful acts alleged herein, and aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced one
13 another in the wrongful acts alleged herein, and/or attempted to do so, including pursuant to
14 Government Code §12940(i). Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges,
15 that Defendants, and each of them, including those defendants named as DOES 1-20, and each of them,
16 formed and executed a conspiracy or common plan pursuant to which they would commit the unlawful
17 acts alleged herein, with all such acts alleged herein done as part of and pursuant to said conspiracy,
18 intended to cause and actually causing Plaintiff harm.
19 10. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this complaint to any act or failure to act
20 by a Defendant or co-Defendant, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts
21 and/or failures to act by each Defendant acting individually, jointly and severally.
22 11. Plaintiff has filed complaints of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent
23 discrimination or retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and
24 wrongful termination under Government Code §§12940, et seq., the California Fair Employment and
25 Housing Act (“FEHA”) with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”),
26 and has satisfied Plaintiff’s administrative prerequisites with respect to these and all related filings.
27 ///
28 ///
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 ALTER EGO, AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AND JOINT EMPLOYER
2 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there exists such a
3 unity of interest and ownership between Employers and DOES 1-20 that the individuality and
4 separateness of defendants have ceased to exist.
5 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that despite the formation
6 of purported corporate existence, Employers and DOES 1-20 are, in reality, one and the same,
7 including, but not limited to because:
8 a. Employers are completely dominated and controlled by one another and DOES
9 1-20, who personally committed the frauds and violated the laws as set forth in this complaint, and who
10 have hidden and currently hide behind Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or
11 accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose.
12 b. Employers and DOES 1-20 derive actual and significant monetary benefits by
13 and through one another’s unlawful conduct, and by using one another as the funding source for their
14 own personal expenditures.
15 c. Employers and DOES 1-20, while really one and the same, were segregated to
16 appear as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, circumventing a statute, or
17 accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable purpose.
18 d. Employers do not comply with all requisite corporate formalities to maintain a
19 legal and separate corporate existence.
20 e. The business affairs of Employers and DOES 1-20 are, and at all times relevant
21 were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be segregated, and the same are in
22 inextricable confusion. Employers are, and at all times relevant hereto were, used by one another and
23 DOES 1-20 as a mere shell and conduit for the conduct of certain of Defendants’ affairs, and are, and
24 were, the alter ego of one another and DOES 1-20. The recognition of the separate existence of
25 Defendants would not promote justice, in that it would permit Defendants to insulate themselves from
26 liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Government Code and other statutory violations. The corporate
27 existence of Employers and DOES 1-20 should be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice
28 because such disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 14. Accordingly, Employers constitute the alter ego of one another and DOES 1-20, and the
2 fiction of their separate corporate existence must be disregarded.
3 15. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
4 thereon alleges that Employers and DOES 1-20 are Plaintiff’s joint employers by virtue of a joint
5 enterprise, and that Plaintiff was an employee of Employers and DOES 1-20. Plaintiff performed
6 services for each and every one of Defendants, and to the mutual benefit of all Defendants, and all
7 Defendants shared control of Plaintiff as an employee, either directly or indirectly, and the manner in
8 which Defendants’ business was and is conducted.
9 16. Alternatively, Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereupon alleges, that as and
10 between DOES 1-20, Employers, or any of them, (1) there is an express or implied agreement of
11 assumption pursuant to which Employers and/or DOES 1-20 agreed to be liable for the debts of the
12 other Defendants, (2) the transaction between Employers and/or DOES 1-20 and the other Defendants
13 amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two corporations, (3) Employers and/or DOES 1-20 are a
14 mere continuation of the other Defendants, or (4) the transfer of assets to Employers and/or DOES 1-20
15 is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for Defendants’ debts. Accordingly, Employers and/or
16 DOES 1-20 are the successors of one or more of the other Defendants and are liable on that basis.
17
18 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19 17. On or about 2015, Employers hired Plaintiff to work as a Warehouse Manager. Plaintiff
20 was a full-time, non-exempt employee, and performed all of Plaintiff’s job duties satisfactorily before
21 Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated on or about November 9, 2021.
22 18. On or about March 18, 2020, Plaintiff required surgery for a disability to his neck. As an
23 accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability, Plaintiff requested medical leave. Plaintiff’s request for
24 medical leave was approved by Employers. At all times Plaintiff kept his employer updated on his
25 medical status, restrictions, and request for accommodations.
26 19. In or about February 2021, Plaintiff’s physician recommended he return to work with
27 restrictions. Plaintiff notified Employers. Employers took no steps to engage in the interactive process
28 to determine whether Plaintiff could be returned to his position and whether his request for work
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 restrictions could be accommodated. However, and despite the foregoing, Plaintiff was terminated on
2 or about November 9, 2021, for allegedly not keeping Employers updated on his request for
3 accommodations for his disability. Respondents refused to return Plaintiff to work or advise him what
4 further information was needed from him so that his request for accommodations for his disability
5 would be considered by Employers.
6 20. Plaintiff’s termination was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s disability or perceived
7 disability, medical condition or perceived medical condition, request for accommodation, and/or
8 engagement in protected activities, without any discussion of disability accommodations or any good
9 faith attempt to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff. Defendants’ discriminatory animus is
10 evidenced by the previously mentioned facts.
11 21. Defendants’ conduct described herein was undertaken, authorized, and/or ratified
12 Defendants’ officers, directors and/or managing agents, and those identified herein as DOES 1 through
13 20, who were authorized and empowered to make decisions that reflect and/or create policy for
14 Defendants. The aforementioned conduct of said managing agents and individuals was therefore
15 undertaken on behalf of Defendants who further had advanced knowledge of the actions and conduct of
16 said individuals whose actions and conduct were ratified, authorized, and approved by managing agents
17 whose precise identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and are therefore identified and designated
18 herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.
19 22. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
20 general and special damages, including severe and profound pain and emotional distress, anxiety,
21 depression, headaches, tension, and other physical ailments, as well as medical expenses, expenses for
22 psychological counseling and treatment, and past and future lost wages and benefits.
23 23. As a result of the above, Plaintiff is entitled to past and future lost wages, bonuses,
24 commissions, benefits and loss or diminution of earning capacity.
25 24. Plaintiff claims general damages for emotional and mental distress and aggravation in a
26 sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
27 25. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by officers, directors and/or
28 managing agents acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, cruel and intentional manner, in conscious
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff requests that punitive
2 damages be levied against Defendants and each of them, in sums in excess of the jurisdictional
3 minimum of this Court.
4
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6 FOR DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.
7 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
8 26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
9 though set forth in full herein.
10 27. At all times hereto, the FEHA was in full force and effect and was binding upon
11 Defendants and each of them.
12 28. As such term is used under FEHA, “on the bases enumerated in this part” means or
13 refers to discrimination on the bases of one or more of the protected characteristics under FEHA.
14 29. FEHA requires Defendants to refrain from discriminating against an employee on the
15 basis of disability and/or medical condition, real or perceived, and to prevent discrimination and
16 harassment on the basis of disability and/or medical condition, real or perceived, use of medical leave,
17 and engagement in protected activities from occurring.
18 30. Plaintiff was a member of multiple protected classes as a result of Plaintiff’s disability,
19 medical condition and/or the perception that Plaintiff was suffering from a disability and/or medical
20 condition.
21 31. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was performing competently in the position
22 Plaintiff held with Defendants.
23 32. Plaintiff suffered the adverse employment actions of unlawful harassment,
24 discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to investigate, remedy, and/or prevent discrimination,
25 failure to reinstate and/or return to work, and termination, and was harmed thereby.
26 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Plaintiff’s disability and/or medical condition, real
27 and perceived, and/or some combination of these protected characteristics under Government Code
28
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 §12926(j) were motivating reasons and/or factors in the decisions to subject Plaintiff to the
2 aforementioned adverse employment actions.
3 34. Said conduct violates the FEHA, and such violations were a proximate cause in
4 Plaintiff’s damage as stated below.
5 35. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated
6 by reference.
7 36. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers,
8 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or was
9 despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of
10 Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights
11 such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to
12 punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants.
13 37. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of
14 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA.
15
16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
17 FOR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.
18 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
19 38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
20 though set forth in full herein.
21 39. At all times hereto, the FEHA was in full force and effect and was binding upon
22 Defendants and each of them.
23 40. These laws set forth in the preceding paragraph require Defendants to refrain from
24 retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activity.
25 41. Plaintiff engaged in the protected activities of requesting accommodation, requesting
26 medical leave and/or exercising Plaintiff’s right to medical leave, and complaining about and protesting
27 Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing conduct towards Plaintiff based upon Plaintiff’s disability,
28 medical condition, real or perceived, and use of medical leave.
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 42. Plaintiff suffered the adverse employment actions of unlawful harassment,
2 discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to investigate, remedy, and/or prevent discrimination,
3 failure to reinstate and/or return to work, and termination, and was harmed thereby.
4 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Plaintiff’s conduct of requesting accommodation,
5 requesting medical leave and/or exercising Plaintiff’s right to medical leave, complaining about and
6 protesting about Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing conduct, and/or some combination of these
7 factors, were motivating reasons and/or factors in the decisions to subject Plaintiff to the
8 aforementioned adverse employment actions.
9 44. Defendants violated the FEHA by retaliating against Plaintiff and terminating Plaintiff
10 for attempting to exercise Plaintiff’s protected rights, as set forth hereinabove.
11 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the above acts of
12 retaliation committed by Defendants were done with the knowledge, consent, and/or ratification of, or
13 at the direction of, each other Defendant and the other Managers.
14 46. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA and were a
15 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below.
16 47. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated
17 by reference.
18 48. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers,
19 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or
20 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the
21 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
22 rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling
23 Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants.
24 49. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of
25 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
3 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §12940(k)
4 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
5 50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
6 though set forth in full herein.
7 51. At all times hereto, the FEHA, including in particular Government Code §12940(k),
8 was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. This subsection imposes a duty on
9 Defendants to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or
10 retaliation from occurring. As alleged above, Defendants violated this subsection and breached their
11 duty by failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment and
12 retaliation from occurring.
13 52. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA, and were a
14 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below.
15 53. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated
16 by reference.
17 54. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers,
18 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or
19 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the
20 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of
21 Plaintiff’s rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby
22 entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of
23 Defendants.
24 55. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of
25 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
3 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE§§12940 ET SEQ.
4 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
5 56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
6 though set forth in full herein.
7 57. At all times hereto, the FEHA, including in particular Government Code §12940(m),
8 was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. This subsection imposes an ongoing
9 duty on Defendants to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical disability and/or
10 medical condition of an employee.
11 58. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within the meaning of,
12 in particular, Government Code §§12940(a) & 12986(1) et seq. because Plaintiff had a disability, a
13 physical condition that affected Plaintiff’s major life activities, and medical condition of which
14 Defendants had both actual and constructive knowledge.
15 59. At all times herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the duties and functions of
16 the position in which Plaintiff was employed, or could have performed the duties and functions of that
17 position with reasonable accommodations. At no time would the performance of the functions of the
18 employment position, with a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff's disability or medical condition,
19 actual or as itwas perceived by Defendants, have been a danger to Plaintiff's or any other person's
20 health or safety. Accommodation of Plaintiff's disability or disability or medical condition, real or
21 perceived by Defendants, would not have imposed an undue hardship on Defendants. Defendants failed
22 and refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability, failed to engage in the interactive process with
23 Plaintiff and continue to violate this obligation, up to and including the date of Plaintiff’s termination
24 or, if Defendant contends Plaintiff was never terminated, through the present and ongoing.
25 60. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA, and were a
26 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below.
27 61. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated
28 by reference.
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 62. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, and/or by and through their officers,
2 directors, and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or
3 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the
4 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
5 rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling
6 Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants.
7 63. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of
8 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA.
9
10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 FOR FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS
12 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.
13 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
14 64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
15 though set forth in full herein.
16 65. At all times hereto, the FEHA, including in particular Government Code §12940(n), was
17 in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. This subsection imposes an ongoing duty on
18 Defendants to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to determine
19 effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by
20 an employee with a known physical disability or known medical condition and/or becoming aware of
21 the employee’s need for accommodation.
22 66. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within the meaning of,
23 in particular, Government Code §§12940(a) & 12986(1) et seq. because Plaintiff had a physical
24 disability that affected Plaintiff’s major life activities, and medical condition of which Defendants had
25 both actual and constructive knowledge.
26 67. Plaintiff reported the disability to Defendants and requested accommodation, triggering
27 Defendants' obligation to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff, but at all times herein,
28 Defendants failed and refused to do so. Thereafter, despite Defendants continuing obligation to engage
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 in the interactive process with Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s submission of a doctors’ notes identifying
2 Plaintiff’s condition and Plaintiff’s desire to continue working in some capacity, Defendants failed and
3 refused to have any dialogue with Plaintiff whatsoever, on any of these occasions, and Defendants
4 violated, and continued to violate this obligation up to and including the date of Plaintiff’s termination
5 or, if Defendant contends Plaintiff was never terminated, through the present and ongoing.
6 68. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA and were a
7 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below.
8 69. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated
9 by reference.
10 70. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, and/or by and through their officers,
11 directors, and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or
12 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the
13 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
14 rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling
15 Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants.
16 71. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of
17 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA.
18
19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION
21 IN VIOLATION THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
22 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
23 72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
24 though set forth in full herein.
25 73. At all relevant times mentioned in this complaint, the FEHA was in full force and effect
26 and was binding on Defendants. This law requires Defendants to refrain, among other things, from
27 discriminating against any employee on the basis of disability, medical condition, real or perceived, and
28 use of medical leave, and from retaliating against any employee who engages in protected activity.
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 74. At all times mentioned in this complaint, it was a fundamental policy of the State of
2 California that Defendants cannot discriminate and/or retaliate against any employee on the basis of
3 disability, medical condition, real or perceived, use of medical leave and/or engagement in protected
4 activity.
5 75. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s disability and/or medical condition,
6 real or perceived, use of medical leave, engagement in protected activity with respect to these protected
7 classes, and/or some combination thereof, were factors in Defendants’ conduct as alleged hereinabove.
8 76. Such discrimination and retaliation, resulting in the wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s
9 employment on the basis of disability, medical condition, real or perceived, or use of medical leave,
10 Plaintiff’s complaining of harassment and discrimination due to these protected classes, Plaintiff’s
11 engagement in protected activity, and/or some combination of these factors, were a proximate cause in
12 Plaintiff’s damages as stated below.
13 77. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the Government Code and the
14 public policy of the State of California embodied therein as set forth above. Defendants violated these
15 laws by discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff and terminating Plaintiff’s employment in
16 retaliation for exercise of protected rights.
17 78. At all times mentioned in this complaint, it was a fundamental policy of the State of
18 California that Defendants cannot discriminate and/or retaliate against any employee on the basis of use
19 of CFRA leave or in violation of FEHA.
20 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that Plaintiff’s use of
21 CFRA leave and/or Plaintiff’s status as a protected member of the class under FEHA was a proximate
22 cause in Plaintiff’s damages as stated below.
23 80. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated
24 by reference.
25 81. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers,
26 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or was
27 despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of
28 Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to
2 punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants.
3
4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants and each of them, in an amount
6 according to proof but estimated to be no less than $250,000 as follows:
7 1. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including lost wages,
8 earnings, commissions, retirement benefits, and other employee benefits, and all other sums of money,
9 together with interest on these amounts; for other special damages; and for general damages for mental
10 pain and anguish and emotional distress and loss of earning capacity;
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff further seeks judgment against Defendants, and each of them, in an
12 amount according to proof, as follows:
13 2. For injunctive relief barring Defen
Preview
DANIEL AZIZI, ESQ., SBN 268995 1 daniel@downtownlalaw.com 2 LILIUOKALANI MARTIN, ESQ. SBN 292778 lili@downtownlalaw.com 3 DOWNTOWN LA LAW GROUP, LLP 601 North Vermont Avenue 4 Los Angeles, California 90004 5 Tel: (213) 389-3765 Fax: (877) 389 - 2775 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 HARVEY ROGERS 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 10 HARVEY ROGERS, an individual, Case No. 11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 12 v. 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.; 13 MRC GLOBAL (US), INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 14 GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.; Defendants. 15 3. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION 16 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §12940(k); 17 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE 18 ACCOMMODATIONS IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ.; 19 5. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD 20 FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET 21 SEQ.; 22 6. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 23 DEMAND OVER $25,000 24 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] 25 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, HARVEY ROGERS, and for causes of action against the 26 Defendants and each of them, alleges as follows: 27 /// 28 /// 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 JURISDICTION 2 1. This Court is the proper court, and this action is properly filed in Kern County, because 3 Defendants’ obligations and liability arise therein, because Defendants maintain offices and transact 4 business within Kern County, and because the work that is the subject of this action was performed by 5 Plaintiff in Kern County. 6 7 THE PARTIES 8 2. Plaintiff, HARVEY ROGERS, is and at all times relevant hereto was a resident of the 9 County of Kern, State of California. 10 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant 11 hereto, Defendant MRC GLOBAL (US), INC. (hereinafter referred to as “MRC”) was and is a 12 California corporation doing business at 1140 Elk Hills Road, Taft in the County of Kern, State of 13 California. MRC is likewise referred to as “Employers.” 14 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant 15 hereto, Employers owned and operated a private oil field equipment supply company. 16 5. At all times relevant herein, Employers and DOES 1-20 were Plaintiff’s employers, joint 17 employers and/or special employers within the meaning of Government Code §§12926, subdivision (d), 18 12940, subdivisions (a),(h),(1), (h)(3)(A), and (i),and 12950, and regularly employ five (5) or more 19 persons and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 20 6. At all times relevant herein, Employers and DOES 1-20 were Plaintiff’s employers, joint 21 employers and/or special employers within the meaning of the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare 22 Commission Order No. 4-2001, and are each an “employer or other person acting on behalf of an 23 employer” as such term is used in Labor Code section 558, and liable to Plaintiff on that basis. 24 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of 25 the Defendants named herein as DOES 1-20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and 26 therefore said Defendants are sued by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this 27 complaint to insert the true names and capacities of said Defendants when the same become known to 28 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that each of the fictitiously 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 named Defendants is responsible for the wrongful acts alleged herein, and is therefore liable to Plaintiff 2 as alleged hereinafter. 3 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant 4 hereto, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, managing agents, supervisors, 5 coconspirators, parent corporation, joint employers, alter egos, successors, and/or joint ventures of the 6 other Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting at least in part 7 within the course and scope of said agency, employment, conspiracy, joint employer, alter ego status, 8 successor status and/or joint venture and with the permission and consent of each of the other 9 Defendants. 10 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that Defendants, and 11 each of them, including those defendants named as DOES 1-20, acted in concert with one another to 12 commit the wrongful acts alleged herein, and aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced one 13 another in the wrongful acts alleged herein, and/or attempted to do so, including pursuant to 14 Government Code §12940(i). Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, 15 that Defendants, and each of them, including those defendants named as DOES 1-20, and each of them, 16 formed and executed a conspiracy or common plan pursuant to which they would commit the unlawful 17 acts alleged herein, with all such acts alleged herein done as part of and pursuant to said conspiracy, 18 intended to cause and actually causing Plaintiff harm. 19 10. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this complaint to any act or failure to act 20 by a Defendant or co-Defendant, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts 21 and/or failures to act by each Defendant acting individually, jointly and severally. 22 11. Plaintiff has filed complaints of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent 23 discrimination or retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and 24 wrongful termination under Government Code §§12940, et seq., the California Fair Employment and 25 Housing Act (“FEHA”) with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), 26 and has satisfied Plaintiff’s administrative prerequisites with respect to these and all related filings. 27 /// 28 /// 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 ALTER EGO, AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AND JOINT EMPLOYER 2 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there exists such a 3 unity of interest and ownership between Employers and DOES 1-20 that the individuality and 4 separateness of defendants have ceased to exist. 5 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that despite the formation 6 of purported corporate existence, Employers and DOES 1-20 are, in reality, one and the same, 7 including, but not limited to because: 8 a. Employers are completely dominated and controlled by one another and DOES 9 1-20, who personally committed the frauds and violated the laws as set forth in this complaint, and who 10 have hidden and currently hide behind Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or 11 accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose. 12 b. Employers and DOES 1-20 derive actual and significant monetary benefits by 13 and through one another’s unlawful conduct, and by using one another as the funding source for their 14 own personal expenditures. 15 c. Employers and DOES 1-20, while really one and the same, were segregated to 16 appear as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, circumventing a statute, or 17 accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable purpose. 18 d. Employers do not comply with all requisite corporate formalities to maintain a 19 legal and separate corporate existence. 20 e. The business affairs of Employers and DOES 1-20 are, and at all times relevant 21 were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be segregated, and the same are in 22 inextricable confusion. Employers are, and at all times relevant hereto were, used by one another and 23 DOES 1-20 as a mere shell and conduit for the conduct of certain of Defendants’ affairs, and are, and 24 were, the alter ego of one another and DOES 1-20. The recognition of the separate existence of 25 Defendants would not promote justice, in that it would permit Defendants to insulate themselves from 26 liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Government Code and other statutory violations. The corporate 27 existence of Employers and DOES 1-20 should be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice 28 because such disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein. 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 14. Accordingly, Employers constitute the alter ego of one another and DOES 1-20, and the 2 fiction of their separate corporate existence must be disregarded. 3 15. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based 4 thereon alleges that Employers and DOES 1-20 are Plaintiff’s joint employers by virtue of a joint 5 enterprise, and that Plaintiff was an employee of Employers and DOES 1-20. Plaintiff performed 6 services for each and every one of Defendants, and to the mutual benefit of all Defendants, and all 7 Defendants shared control of Plaintiff as an employee, either directly or indirectly, and the manner in 8 which Defendants’ business was and is conducted. 9 16. Alternatively, Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereupon alleges, that as and 10 between DOES 1-20, Employers, or any of them, (1) there is an express or implied agreement of 11 assumption pursuant to which Employers and/or DOES 1-20 agreed to be liable for the debts of the 12 other Defendants, (2) the transaction between Employers and/or DOES 1-20 and the other Defendants 13 amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two corporations, (3) Employers and/or DOES 1-20 are a 14 mere continuation of the other Defendants, or (4) the transfer of assets to Employers and/or DOES 1-20 15 is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for Defendants’ debts. Accordingly, Employers and/or 16 DOES 1-20 are the successors of one or more of the other Defendants and are liable on that basis. 17 18 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 19 17. On or about 2015, Employers hired Plaintiff to work as a Warehouse Manager. Plaintiff 20 was a full-time, non-exempt employee, and performed all of Plaintiff’s job duties satisfactorily before 21 Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated on or about November 9, 2021. 22 18. On or about March 18, 2020, Plaintiff required surgery for a disability to his neck. As an 23 accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability, Plaintiff requested medical leave. Plaintiff’s request for 24 medical leave was approved by Employers. At all times Plaintiff kept his employer updated on his 25 medical status, restrictions, and request for accommodations. 26 19. In or about February 2021, Plaintiff’s physician recommended he return to work with 27 restrictions. Plaintiff notified Employers. Employers took no steps to engage in the interactive process 28 to determine whether Plaintiff could be returned to his position and whether his request for work 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 restrictions could be accommodated. However, and despite the foregoing, Plaintiff was terminated on 2 or about November 9, 2021, for allegedly not keeping Employers updated on his request for 3 accommodations for his disability. Respondents refused to return Plaintiff to work or advise him what 4 further information was needed from him so that his request for accommodations for his disability 5 would be considered by Employers. 6 20. Plaintiff’s termination was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s disability or perceived 7 disability, medical condition or perceived medical condition, request for accommodation, and/or 8 engagement in protected activities, without any discussion of disability accommodations or any good 9 faith attempt to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff. Defendants’ discriminatory animus is 10 evidenced by the previously mentioned facts. 11 21. Defendants’ conduct described herein was undertaken, authorized, and/or ratified 12 Defendants’ officers, directors and/or managing agents, and those identified herein as DOES 1 through 13 20, who were authorized and empowered to make decisions that reflect and/or create policy for 14 Defendants. The aforementioned conduct of said managing agents and individuals was therefore 15 undertaken on behalf of Defendants who further had advanced knowledge of the actions and conduct of 16 said individuals whose actions and conduct were ratified, authorized, and approved by managing agents 17 whose precise identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and are therefore identified and designated 18 herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. 19 22. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer 20 general and special damages, including severe and profound pain and emotional distress, anxiety, 21 depression, headaches, tension, and other physical ailments, as well as medical expenses, expenses for 22 psychological counseling and treatment, and past and future lost wages and benefits. 23 23. As a result of the above, Plaintiff is entitled to past and future lost wages, bonuses, 24 commissions, benefits and loss or diminution of earning capacity. 25 24. Plaintiff claims general damages for emotional and mental distress and aggravation in a 26 sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 27 25. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by officers, directors and/or 28 managing agents acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, cruel and intentional manner, in conscious 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff requests that punitive 2 damages be levied against Defendants and each of them, in sums in excess of the jurisdictional 3 minimum of this Court. 4 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 6 FOR DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ. 7 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 8 26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as 9 though set forth in full herein. 10 27. At all times hereto, the FEHA was in full force and effect and was binding upon 11 Defendants and each of them. 12 28. As such term is used under FEHA, “on the bases enumerated in this part” means or 13 refers to discrimination on the bases of one or more of the protected characteristics under FEHA. 14 29. FEHA requires Defendants to refrain from discriminating against an employee on the 15 basis of disability and/or medical condition, real or perceived, and to prevent discrimination and 16 harassment on the basis of disability and/or medical condition, real or perceived, use of medical leave, 17 and engagement in protected activities from occurring. 18 30. Plaintiff was a member of multiple protected classes as a result of Plaintiff’s disability, 19 medical condition and/or the perception that Plaintiff was suffering from a disability and/or medical 20 condition. 21 31. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was performing competently in the position 22 Plaintiff held with Defendants. 23 32. Plaintiff suffered the adverse employment actions of unlawful harassment, 24 discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to investigate, remedy, and/or prevent discrimination, 25 failure to reinstate and/or return to work, and termination, and was harmed thereby. 26 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Plaintiff’s disability and/or medical condition, real 27 and perceived, and/or some combination of these protected characteristics under Government Code 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 §12926(j) were motivating reasons and/or factors in the decisions to subject Plaintiff to the 2 aforementioned adverse employment actions. 3 34. Said conduct violates the FEHA, and such violations were a proximate cause in 4 Plaintiff’s damage as stated below. 5 35. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated 6 by reference. 7 36. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers, 8 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or was 9 despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of 10 Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights 11 such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to 12 punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants. 13 37. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of 14 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA. 15 16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 17 FOR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ. 18 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 19 38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as 20 though set forth in full herein. 21 39. At all times hereto, the FEHA was in full force and effect and was binding upon 22 Defendants and each of them. 23 40. These laws set forth in the preceding paragraph require Defendants to refrain from 24 retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activity. 25 41. Plaintiff engaged in the protected activities of requesting accommodation, requesting 26 medical leave and/or exercising Plaintiff’s right to medical leave, and complaining about and protesting 27 Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing conduct towards Plaintiff based upon Plaintiff’s disability, 28 medical condition, real or perceived, and use of medical leave. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 42. Plaintiff suffered the adverse employment actions of unlawful harassment, 2 discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to investigate, remedy, and/or prevent discrimination, 3 failure to reinstate and/or return to work, and termination, and was harmed thereby. 4 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Plaintiff’s conduct of requesting accommodation, 5 requesting medical leave and/or exercising Plaintiff’s right to medical leave, complaining about and 6 protesting about Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing conduct, and/or some combination of these 7 factors, were motivating reasons and/or factors in the decisions to subject Plaintiff to the 8 aforementioned adverse employment actions. 9 44. Defendants violated the FEHA by retaliating against Plaintiff and terminating Plaintiff 10 for attempting to exercise Plaintiff’s protected rights, as set forth hereinabove. 11 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the above acts of 12 retaliation committed by Defendants were done with the knowledge, consent, and/or ratification of, or 13 at the direction of, each other Defendant and the other Managers. 14 46. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA and were a 15 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below. 16 47. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated 17 by reference. 18 48. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers, 19 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or 20 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the 21 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 22 rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling 23 Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants. 24 49. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of 25 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION 3 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §12940(k) 4 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 5 50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as 6 though set forth in full herein. 7 51. At all times hereto, the FEHA, including in particular Government Code §12940(k), 8 was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. This subsection imposes a duty on 9 Defendants to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or 10 retaliation from occurring. As alleged above, Defendants violated this subsection and breached their 11 duty by failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment and 12 retaliation from occurring. 13 52. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA, and were a 14 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below. 15 53. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated 16 by reference. 17 54. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers, 18 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or 19 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the 20 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of 21 Plaintiff’s rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby 22 entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of 23 Defendants. 24 55. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of 25 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 3 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE§§12940 ET SEQ. 4 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 5 56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as 6 though set forth in full herein. 7 57. At all times hereto, the FEHA, including in particular Government Code §12940(m), 8 was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. This subsection imposes an ongoing 9 duty on Defendants to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical disability and/or 10 medical condition of an employee. 11 58. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within the meaning of, 12 in particular, Government Code §§12940(a) & 12986(1) et seq. because Plaintiff had a disability, a 13 physical condition that affected Plaintiff’s major life activities, and medical condition of which 14 Defendants had both actual and constructive knowledge. 15 59. At all times herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the duties and functions of 16 the position in which Plaintiff was employed, or could have performed the duties and functions of that 17 position with reasonable accommodations. At no time would the performance of the functions of the 18 employment position, with a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff's disability or medical condition, 19 actual or as itwas perceived by Defendants, have been a danger to Plaintiff's or any other person's 20 health or safety. Accommodation of Plaintiff's disability or disability or medical condition, real or 21 perceived by Defendants, would not have imposed an undue hardship on Defendants. Defendants failed 22 and refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability, failed to engage in the interactive process with 23 Plaintiff and continue to violate this obligation, up to and including the date of Plaintiff’s termination 24 or, if Defendant contends Plaintiff was never terminated, through the present and ongoing. 25 60. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA, and were a 26 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below. 27 61. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated 28 by reference. 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 62. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, and/or by and through their officers, 2 directors, and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or 3 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the 4 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 5 rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling 6 Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants. 7 63. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of 8 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA. 9 10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 FOR FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS 12 IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ. 13 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 14 64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as 15 though set forth in full herein. 16 65. At all times hereto, the FEHA, including in particular Government Code §12940(n), was 17 in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. This subsection imposes an ongoing duty on 18 Defendants to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to determine 19 effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by 20 an employee with a known physical disability or known medical condition and/or becoming aware of 21 the employee’s need for accommodation. 22 66. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within the meaning of, 23 in particular, Government Code §§12940(a) & 12986(1) et seq. because Plaintiff had a physical 24 disability that affected Plaintiff’s major life activities, and medical condition of which Defendants had 25 both actual and constructive knowledge. 26 67. Plaintiff reported the disability to Defendants and requested accommodation, triggering 27 Defendants' obligation to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff, but at all times herein, 28 Defendants failed and refused to do so. Thereafter, despite Defendants continuing obligation to engage 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 in the interactive process with Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s submission of a doctors’ notes identifying 2 Plaintiff’s condition and Plaintiff’s desire to continue working in some capacity, Defendants failed and 3 refused to have any dialogue with Plaintiff whatsoever, on any of these occasions, and Defendants 4 violated, and continued to violate this obligation up to and including the date of Plaintiff’s termination 5 or, if Defendant contends Plaintiff was never terminated, through the present and ongoing. 6 68. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the FEHA and were a 7 proximate cause in Plaintiff’s damage as stated below. 8 69. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated 9 by reference. 10 70. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, and/or by and through their officers, 11 directors, and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or 12 was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the 13 rights of Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 14 rights such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling 15 Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants. 16 71. Pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Plaintiff requests a reasonable award of 17 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert fees pursuant to the FEHA. 18 19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION 21 IN VIOLATION THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 22 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 23 72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as 24 though set forth in full herein. 25 73. At all relevant times mentioned in this complaint, the FEHA was in full force and effect 26 and was binding on Defendants. This law requires Defendants to refrain, among other things, from 27 discriminating against any employee on the basis of disability, medical condition, real or perceived, and 28 use of medical leave, and from retaliating against any employee who engages in protected activity. 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 74. At all times mentioned in this complaint, it was a fundamental policy of the State of 2 California that Defendants cannot discriminate and/or retaliate against any employee on the basis of 3 disability, medical condition, real or perceived, use of medical leave and/or engagement in protected 4 activity. 5 75. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s disability and/or medical condition, 6 real or perceived, use of medical leave, engagement in protected activity with respect to these protected 7 classes, and/or some combination thereof, were factors in Defendants’ conduct as alleged hereinabove. 8 76. Such discrimination and retaliation, resulting in the wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s 9 employment on the basis of disability, medical condition, real or perceived, or use of medical leave, 10 Plaintiff’s complaining of harassment and discrimination due to these protected classes, Plaintiff’s 11 engagement in protected activity, and/or some combination of these factors, were a proximate cause in 12 Plaintiff’s damages as stated below. 13 77. The above said acts of Defendants constitute violations of the Government Code and the 14 public policy of the State of California embodied therein as set forth above. Defendants violated these 15 laws by discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff and terminating Plaintiff’s employment in 16 retaliation for exercise of protected rights. 17 78. At all times mentioned in this complaint, it was a fundamental policy of the State of 18 California that Defendants cannot discriminate and/or retaliate against any employee on the basis of use 19 of CFRA leave or in violation of FEHA. 20 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that Plaintiff’s use of 21 CFRA leave and/or Plaintiff’s status as a protected member of the class under FEHA was a proximate 22 cause in Plaintiff’s damages as stated below. 23 80. The damage allegations of Paragraphs 22 through 25, inclusive, are herein incorporated 24 by reference. 25 81. The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their officers, 26 directors and/or managing agents, was intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiff or was 27 despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of 28 Plaintiff or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to 2 punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants. 3 4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants and each of them, in an amount 6 according to proof but estimated to be no less than $250,000 as follows: 7 1. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including lost wages, 8 earnings, commissions, retirement benefits, and other employee benefits, and all other sums of money, 9 together with interest on these amounts; for other special damages; and for general damages for mental 10 pain and anguish and emotional distress and loss of earning capacity; 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff further seeks judgment against Defendants, and each of them, in an 12 amount according to proof, as follows: 13 2. For injunctive relief barring Defen