Preview
Co Om NAD WH BF BW NY
on A WF BY KH
19
G
SCANNIN'
ECE A FOr gor court
VEN
RON BAMIEH (SBN 159413)
rbamieh@bamiehdesmeth.com JANO 6 WB
DANIELLE DE SMETH (SBN 263309)
ddesmeth@bamiehdesmeth.com
NATALIE N. MUTZ (SBN 273381)
nmutz@bamiehdesmeth.com
BAMIEH & DE SMETH, PLC
692 E. THOMPSON BOULEVARD
VENTURA, CA 93001
T: (805) 643-5555 | F: (805) 643-5558
Attorneys for Plaintiff, P.Z.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF VENTURA
P.Z., an individual, ) Case No.
)
Plaintiff, } COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
v. } 1. Sexual Harassment: Hostile Environment (Govt.
Code §§ 12923, 12940(j))
CITY OF SANTA PAULA; TRAVIS ) - Ouj
WALKER, an individual; and DOES 1-50 ) 2. Sexual Harassment: Quid Pro Quo (Govt. Code §§
inclusive, ) 12923, 12940(j))
) 3. Discrimination (Govt. Code § 12940(a))
Defendant. ) 4. Failure to Prevent Harassment & Discrimination
) (Govt. Code § 12923(k))
) 5. Retaliation (Govt. Code § 12923(h))
Battery
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5)
ON
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, P.Z., and individual, by and through her attomeys, alleges as follows:
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. This action is based upon the failure by Defendant City of Santa Paula (“City”) to
provide a work environment free of sexual harassment, its failure to take action to investigate the
complaints of sexual harassment, and retaliation against Plaintiff after she complained of harassment by
Chief of Police, Defendant Travis Walker (“Walker”).
“le
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESom dD DH F&F BN
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was an individual and employee of City.
Plaintiff's true name is withheld to protect her from unwarranted and unwanted retaliation, publicity,
sensationalism, or attention from the public filing and is not being withheld for any improper purpose.
Her identity should not be made public due to the humiliating, sensitive, and private nature of the sexual
harassment she suffered. Plaintiff's identity was disclosed to Defendants prior to the filing and service of
this Complaint in separate confidential documents that should not be made part of the public file.
3. At all times relevant herein, Defendant City was and is a public entity located in the
County of Ventura, California.
4. Atall times relevant herein, Defendant Walker was and is an individual residing and
doing business in the County of Ventura, California. At all times relevant to this action, Walker was an
employee of City where he held the position of Chief of Police.
5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of
defendants identificd herein as Does | through 50, inclusive, arc unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore
sues said defendants by such fictitious names.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants,
including those designated herein as Does | through 50, is legally responsible in some manner for the
events and happenings referred to and proximately caused injury and damages to Plaintiff as alleged
herein or in the Complaint. Each such Doe defendant was the agent, employee of, or acting under the
direction of all other defendants and in doing the things alleged was acting within the scope and purpose
of said agency and/or employment.
7. Each Defendant sued herein is the principal, agent, partner, employee, officer, director,
subsidiary, affiliate, alter ego, and/or co-conspirators of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing
the acts alleged herein, was acting within the course and scope and with the authority conferred by that
relationship, and with the knowledge, consent, approval, and/or ratification of the remaining Defendants.
8. All the events giving rise to this matter took place in the City of Santa Paula, County of
Ventura.
9. Plaintiff began working in the City’s finance department in 2019. Her performance of her
job duties was always exemplary. She consistently had excellent relationships with her coworkers.
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that City hired Defendant
Walker in February 2021.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that before hiring Walker as
Chief of Police, City knew or had reason to know that Walker had previously and repeatedly been
accused of sexually harassing women in the workplace in his prior employment. Public protests were
held in the Santa Paula community imploring City not to hire Walker because of his history of sexual
harassment. City hired Walker anyway.
12. While serving as Chief of Police for City, Walker harassed Plaintiff, including by forcing
Plaintiff to touch his genitals, delivering unwanted flowers to her desk at the City, filing false complaints
about her, and unlawfully impounding her vehicle, all with the intent to embarrass, annoy, and show
dominance over her. City was or had reason to be aware of Walker’s conduct.
13. In July 2021, Walker asked Plaintiff to make a purchase for a total price above the
$50,000 purchasing threshold requiring City Council approval. Walker insisted the purchase had been
approved but when Plaintiff checked, she found out that it had not been approved. Plaintiff pointed out
that the purchase would violate City policies and procedures, but Walker demanded that Plaintiff follow
his orders. She nevertheless declined. At around the same time, Walker asked Plaintiff to improperly
alter his paychecks, which she declined to do. Plaintiff reported Walkcr’s inappropriate requests to her
supervisor. Soon after this, Plaintiff began to experience retaliation in the form of harassment by Walker
and other representatives of the City.
14. On September 15, 2021 Walker initiated a frivolous internal investigation against
Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's request that an officer wear his facemask in compliance with County
mandate and office protocol. Human Resources informed Plaintiff via memo that she was being
investigated due to ‘‘Tension between the Finance Department and P.D. Department.” The investigation
was closed after the allegations were found unsubstantiated.
15. On or about December 6, 2021, Walker ordered a group of officers employed by City to
unlawfully tow and impound Plaintiff's vehicle without cause and with the intent to harass Plaintiff. Her
vehicle was towed to Fillmore where it was unlawfully impounded. Plaintiff made a claim for
reimbursement to the City, and in the course of investigation, Walker admitted he ordered the towing of
-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPlaintiff's vehicle, falsely claiming that Plaintiff's registration was invalid. Plaintiff provided receipts to
show that payment had been made on October 12, 2021.
16. Plaintiff later discovered that somcone had written on her vehicle in chalk, “Fuck.”
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Walker impounded her
vehicle in retaliation for her refusal to approve his improper purchase requests.
18. On or about December 13, 2021, while on duty and in uniform, Walker approached
Plaintiff at her desk, handed her some paperwork and then grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitals
without Plaintiff's consent.
19. Plaintiff reported the harassment to City Manager Dan Singer, who responded that he
“had the Chief's back,” and “the Chief would never do anything like” what Plaintiff was reporting. He
told her that the Chief had insisted he was not targeting Plaintiff.
20. When Plaintiff reported to her supervisor that she was struggling at work due to the
harassment, her supervisor gave her more work to do to keep her busy and otherwise ignored her
complaints.
21. On or about December 20, 2021, at a staff meeting, Plaintiff was called out by a fellow
employee who accused Plaintiff's partner of being involved in the public protests opposing the hiring of
Walker. Plaintiff explained that the accusations were untrue.
22. During a follow up meeting on December 31, 2021, Singer announced at a department
meeting that he “100% had the Chief’s back.”
23. The response by Plaintiff's supervisor and City Manager to her complaints, especially in
the face of Walker’s history, created a hostile work environment and caused Plaintiff to feel alienated
and unsupported. It was at this stage she realized that putting up with sexual harassment was an implied
condition of her continued employment with City.
24. In May of 2022, Plaintiff discovered a wilted rose flower bouquet on her desk. The
bouquet was in murky water and contained no note. When Plaintiff attempted to ascertain where it came
from, no one admitted to leaving it. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
Walker left the bouquet on her desk to embarrass her, and he did so in a manner so as not to appear on
the security cameras nearby.
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoem YD DH BP WN =
RY NR YN YN NK KN ND | | = Se ee Ke Ke Be eS
on A WD BF BH =F SBD wD IY DH RF Ww NY & Oo
25. Since filing her first claim for damages on March 23, 2022, Defendants have been
tarnishing her personnel file with pretextual complaints about Plaintiff in an effort to cover their actions.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that these actions are retaliation for her
complaints of workplace sexual harassment.
26. On information and belief, these complaints are being generated by Walker because
Plaintiff refused to submit to his sexual advance and refused to grant his budget and finance requests
which violate City ordinances, rules, and regulations.
27. City knew or had reason to know that Defendant Walker was and is a serial sexual
harasser. He was sued in July 2019 by a former Cathedral City police dispatcher for sexual harassment
and workplace discrimination. Also, on two separate occasions, another City employee—a dispatcher—
was threatened and assaulted by Defendant Walker: once in June 2021 and again in October 2021 when
Defendant Walker forced her to touch his genitals.
28. The Santa Paula community has tried to remove Defendant Walker from his position as
Chief of Police, including through protests and a Change.org petition.
29. On or about July 7, 2022, Plaintiff received a note from her doctor excusing her from
work due to her mental illness stemming from the harassment
30. | Onor about August 5, 2022, Plaintiff was notified by City that she had exhausted her
accrued leave and was being placed in a leave of absence without pay through September 11, 2022,
despite her doctor’s note. On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff's health insurance benefits expired because,
“the employer reported you are no longer on pay status.”
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
31. On or about December 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants with
California’s Civil Rights Department (“CRD”) alleging multiple violations of the Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (““FEHA”) and received an immediate Notice of
Case Closure and Right to Sue from the CRD.
32. On or about March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Government Tort Claim which the City
rejected on July 7, 2022. On or about July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Government Tort Claim,
which was rejected by the City on September 13, 2022.
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL HARASSMENT - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (GOVT. CODE §§ 12923, 12940()))
(Against All Defendants)
33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if
fully set forth herein.
34, At all times herein mentioned, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code
section 12900 et seq. (“FEHA”), was in full force and effect. The FEHA prohibits, among other things,
workplace harassment based on sex and gender.
35. City is an employer within the meaning of FEHA and subject to all its requirements.
Government Code § 12926(d) and Government Code § 12940 prohibiting employers and their agents
from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against employees on the basis of sex, among other things.
Plaintiff was at all material times an employee covered by California Government Code Sections 12923
and 12940, subd. (j) prohibiting harassment by employers.
36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Walker was
one of her supervisors within the meaning of Govt. Code § 12926, subd. (t) who had significant power
to influence the working conditions and terms of Plaintiff's employment. Employers, like the City of
Santa Paula, are strictly liable for harassment carried out by supervisors, like Defendant Walker in the
workplace.
37. As alleged herein, Defendant Walker and others employed by Walker subjected Plaintiff
to sexual harassment during her employment. The harassment was severe or pervasive and affected
Plaintiff's ability to complete her duties. Plaintiff further believes and thereon alleges that City, and each
of the defendants, knew of Walker's sexual harassment of Plaintiff and Walker’s propensity of sexually
harassing other subordinate employees while working for other law enforcement agencies.
38. The sexual harassment by Defendant Walker and others created a work environment that
Plaintiff found to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive. A reasonable person in
Plaintiffs circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile, intimidating,
offensive, oppressive, or abusive.
-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES39. Defendants and each of them, committed, participated in, assisted in, condoned, ratified
and/or encouraged the harassment against Plaintiff in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs right to work
in an environment free from sexual harassment.
40. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without
limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and bencfits,
expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress,
humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally.
41. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has
incurred and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against
Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial.
42. The egregious acts of sexual harassment alleged herein were willful and malicious and in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute
oppression, fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Walker’s conduct, as
described above, was carried out by him in his official capacity as City’s Chief of Police. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of
Walker.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL HARASSMENT - QUID PRO QUO (GOVT. CODE § 12940(j))
(Against All Defendants)
43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each of the foregoing allegations contained as if they
were fully set forth herein.
44, At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq. was
in full force and effect. FEHA prohibits, among other things, sexual harassment in the workplace.
45. City is an employer within the meaning of FEHA and subject to all its requirements.
Government Code § 12926(d) and Government Code § 12940 prohibiting employers and their agents
from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against employees on the basis of sex, among other things.
-7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPlaintiff was at all material times an employee covered by California Government Code Sections 12923
and 12940, subd. (j) prohibiting harassment by employers.
46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Walker was
one of her supervisors within the meaning of Govt. Code § 12926, subd. (t) who had significant power
to influence the working conditions and terms of Plaintiff's employment. Employers, like the City of
Santa Paula, are strictly liable for harassment carried out by supervisors, like Defendant Walker in the
workplace.
47. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted sexual harassment and sex discrimination by Walker
in the course of their employment with the City. Plaintiff reported Walker’s sexual assaults and
harassment to supervisors, agents and/or representatives of City. Defendants, and each of them, failed to
exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassment perpetrated on Plaintiff.
48. Instead, Defendants condoned and ratified the harassing conduct by failing to appropriate
action in response to Plaintiff's complaint regarding Walker’s conduct.
49. Because City hired Walker at a time when he was under investigation for sexual assault
in the course of his prior employment, and because Plaintiff's complaints of Walker's sexual harassment
were not acknowledged by the City and were instead denied, Plaintiff reasonably believed her continued
employment was expressly or impliedly conditioned upon acceptance of sexual harassment and
acquiescence to sexual advances, bullying and mistreatment by Walker and others.
50. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of
them, engaged in a pattern and practice of condoning sexually harassing conduct toward women and had
a practice of normalizing such conduct by male employees.
51. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without
limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits,
expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress,
humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally
condition.
-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES52. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has
incurred and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against
Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial.
53. The egregious acts of sexual harassment alleged herein were willful and malicious and in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute
oppression. fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Walker's conduct, as
described above, was carried out by him in his official capacity as City’s Chief of Police. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of
Walker.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION (GOVT. CODE § 12940(a))
(Against CITY and Does ! through 50)
54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as
if fully set forth herein.
55. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq. was
in full force and effect. FEHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, among other
things.
56. City is an employer within the meaning of the FEHA and subject to its requirements.
Government Code § 12926(d) and Government Code § 12940 prohibit employers and their agents from
discriminating or harassing employees based on sex and retaliating against employees for reporting
unlawful sex discrimination or harassment. Plaintiff was at all material times an employee covered by
California Government Code Section 12940(a) prohibiting discrimination by employers on the basis of
sex, gender, gender expression, and marital status.
57. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that City discriminated
against her on the basis of her sex. The discrimination included Walker's egregious sexual harassment
and targeting of Plaintiff for hostility including unwanted touching and theft of her vehicle, among other
things. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Walker treated her differently
than her male counterparts by sexually harassing her and committing various acts of sexual battery.
-9-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESBw N
58. This pattern of conduct, allowing discrimination and pervasive sexual harassment in the
workplace, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions, and/or privileges of Plaintiff's
employment, and was reasonably likely to impair Plaintiff's job performance and/or prospects for
advancement and promotion.
59. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without
limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits,
expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress,
humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally.
60. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred
and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against
Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT (GOVT. CODE § 12940(k))
(Against Defendants City and Does | through 50)
61. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as
if they were fully set forth herein.
62. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq. was
in full force and effect. FEHA requires that employers prevent discrimination in the workplace.
63. City is an employer subject to the requirements of the FEHA.
64. — City had a duty under Govt. Code § 12940(k) to supervise its employees, agents, and/or
representatives acting on its behalf and for its benefit as part of its duty to prevent discrimination and
harassment.
65. City failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent sex discrimination and sexual
harassment against Plaintiff from occurring, and to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to
remedy the harassment, in violation of California Government Code Section 12940, Subsection (k), by
permitting and engaging in the conduct alleged herein. City failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent
and promptly correct the discriminatory behaviors perpetrated on Plaintiff.
-10-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES66. Asa result of City’s failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, Plaintiff was
discriminated against and harassed based on her sex.
67. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that any claims of misconduct or complaints about
her performance as City’s basis for disciplinary actions against Plaintiff are pretextual and are meant to
disguise the discriminatory reasons for her treatment.
68. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without
limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits,
expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress,
humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally.
Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing each of Plaintiff's injuries and harms.
69. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred
and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against
Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION (GOVT. CODE § 12940 ET SEQ.)
(Against City and Does | through 50)
70. ‘Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as
if they were fully set forth herein.
71. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, embodied in Government Code section 12940.
was in full force and effect. This Acts prohibit employers from .
72. City is an employer within the meaning of Government Code § 12926(d) and
Government Code § 12940 prohibiting employers and their agents from discriminating or harassing an
employee based on sex and retaliating against an employee for reporting unlawful discrimination or
harassment. Plaintiff was at all material times and employee covered by FEHA.
73. City retaliated against Plaintiff because she opposed sexual discrimination and sexual
harassment perpetrated by the City and Walker as alleged more fully herein.
-ll-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESB BW oN
74. Plaintiffreported Walker’s sexual harassment to her direct supervisor at the City and
participated in an investigation regarding the harassment. Plaintiff also filed Government Tort Claims
regarding the sexual harassment and sex discrimination suffered in the workplace. After and as a result
of Plaintiff's reports of harassment and discrimination to City, City retaliated against Plaintiff by
allowing Walker to litter her personnel file with frivolous complaints, and by pursuing investigations of
Plaintiff as though to detract from her credibility.
75. Plaintiff's reports of harassment and discrimination were substantial motivating reasons
for Defendant CITY’s retaliatory acts.
76. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without
limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits,
expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress,
humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally.
Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing each of Plaintiff's injuries and harms.
77. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred
and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against
Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL BATTERY
(Against all Defendants)
78. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as
though fully realleged in this paragraph.
79. Walker touched Plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend Plaintiff, and in fact did make
such offensive sexual contact by grabbing Plaintiff's hand and placing it on his genitals.
80. Plaintiff did not consent to Walker’s offensive touching.
81. | Walker's sexual battery of Plaintiff was foreseeable given his history, and City knew or
should have known Walker was a predatory risk to female employees such as Plaintiff.
-12-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES82. A “public entity employer ‘is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed
within the scope of the employment’” and may be deemed within the scope of employment when a
“causal nexus to the employee’s work” exists. (MP. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121,
129.) This vicarious liability is authorized under California Government Code § 815.2.
83. On information and belief, Walker’s sexual misconduct was motivated in substantial part
by Plaintiff's refusal to comply with his improper purchasing requests, thus there is a causal nexus
between Walker's conduct and Plaintiff's work. Walker’s unwanted sexual contact with Plaintiff
occurred at the workplace while he was in uniform and while she was at her desk.
84. Plaintiff was harmed and offended by Walker’s conduct and has suffered damage in an
amount to be proven at trial. The conduct of Walker, for which the City is vicariously liable, was a
substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm.
85. Walker’s battery of Plaintiff was willful and malicious and was carried out in conscious
disregard of Plaintiffs rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute
oppression, fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Walker.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFI.ICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against All Defendants)
86. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as
though fully realleged in this paragraph.
87. | Walker intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress upon Plaintiff by
engaging in a sexually offensive contact as alleged above.
88. Walker's conduct was intentional or in reckless disregard of the harms Plaintiff suffered.
89. Walker’s conduct was outrageous as it constitutes unlawful conduct sexual harassment by
a superior in the workforce.
90. Walker acted with the knowledge that he could manipulate and damage Plaintiff's well-
being and interests due to the abuse of special position he had in relation to Plaintiff.
-13-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES91. A “public entity employer ‘is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed
a9
within the scope of the employment’” and may be deemed within the scope of employment when a
“causal nexus to the employee’s work” exists. (M.P. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121,
129.) This vicarious liability is authorized under California Government Code § 815.2.
92. On information and belief, Walker’s misconduct was motivated in substantial part by
Plaintiff's refusal to comply with his purchasing requests which violated City procedure and policy, thus
there is a causal nexus between Walker’s conduct and Plaintiff's work.
93. Asa direct and proximate result of Walker’s wrongful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff
has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include,
without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits,
expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress,
humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally.
94. Walker’s conduct, for which the City is vicariously liable, was a substantial factor in
causing Plaintiffs harm.
95. City ignored Plaintiff's complaints of workplace retaliation, harassment, and
discrimination for an unreasonable time period, ratified the unlawful and improper conduct of its
employees by, among other things, failing to place Walker on administrative leave even after multiple
sexual harassment complaints against him had been made, and failed to take timely action. On
information and belief, such inaction was to protect City’s image and to protect Walker instead of
protecting Plaintiff's safety and employment. In doing so, City’s conduct exceeded all bounds of
conduct usually tolerated in a civilized community. City acted with reckless disregard that Plaintiff
would suffer emotional distress because of its conduct.
96. Plaintiff did, in fact, suffer severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of
City’s conduct.
97. City’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
98. Walker’s intentional and wrongful acts were willful and malicious and were carried out in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute
-14-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESan ws
oppression, fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Walker.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1102.5
(Against City and Does | through 50)
99. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as
though fully realleged in this paragraph.
100. Section 1106 of the Labor Code defines an employee as, “any individual employed by the
state or any subdivision thereof, any county, city, city and county, including any charter city or county,
and any school district, community college district, municipal or public corporation, political
subdivision, or the University of California.” Thus, Plaintiff is an employee for purposes of the Labor
Code.
101. As alleged herein, at various times in 2021, Walker asked Plaintiff to approve
inappropriate spending requests and to improperly alter his paycheck. Plaintiff recognized that the
requests were improper and declined the requests. She then reported the improper requests to her direct
supervisor at the City.
102. Soon after Plaintiff reported Walker’s misconduct to her supervisor, Plaintiff began
experiencing harassment by Walker and others in the City.
103. On information and belief, Plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting Walker’s abuse of
power and attempts to violate local law and internal policies and procedures.
104. The retaliation experienced by Plaintiff included, without limitation, Walker having
Plaintiff's vehicle unlawfully towed and impounded, his act of sexual battery against her, vandalization
of her vehicle, and unwarranted complaints about her work product and office demeanor in an effort to
direct negative attention toward her, impact her morale, and prevent her from advancing in her job.
Eventually, due to the hostility thus created, Plaintiff was constructively discharged.
105. When Plaintiff reported Walker’s sexual battery to her supervisor and later filed her
Government Tort Claims, she experienced additional retaliation in the form of more unwarranted
complaints and false accusations directed at her.
~ 2S
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES106. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that her disclosure of Walker’s misconduct to
her supervisor and her filing of her Government Tort Claims were contributing factors which triggered
the adverse employment actions against her.
107. Under this section of the Labor Code, Plaintiff is only required to prove that her
whistleblowing activity was a “contributing factor” to an adverse employment action with a
preponderance of evidence. (Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.Sth 703, 718.)
108. Further, because Plaintiff is employed by a public agency and reported the misconduct to
such a public agency who would be able to investigate and handle the violations, she had no reason to
believe she needed to report to higher authorities, elsewhere. (Gardenhire v. Housing Authority (2000)
85 Cal.App.4th 236, 242.) Further, when Plaintiff filed her Government Tort Claim, the effect was that
higher authorities were on notice of the conduct she was reporting and, as a result, City retaliated against
her with the aforementioned conduct.
109. Asadirect and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of City, Plaintiff has suffered
and continues to sustain losses in earning and other employment benefits and other pecuniary loss in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful
conduct of City, Plaintiff has suffered general damages including emotional distress in an amount to be
proven at trial. Defendant CITY’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm.
110. Plaintiff is entitled to her attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 1002.5(j).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff P.Z. prays for a judgment against Defendants as follows:
As to the First, Second, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action Only:
1. For punitive damages only as against Defendant Travis Walker;
As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action
2. For statutory attorneys’ fees (Govt. Code § 12965(b));
As to the Eighth Cause of Action:
3. For statutory attorneys’ fees (Labor Code § 1102.5);
4. For statutory penalties;
Ml
-16-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESOn All Causes of Action:
5.
ee ND
For general damages against all Defendants, according to proof;
For special damages against all Defendants, according to proof;
For costs of suit;
For prejudgment interest;
For other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: January 6, 2023 BAMIEH & DE SMETH, PLC
at 7
D
anielle De Smeth
Natalie N. Mutz
Attorneys for Plaintiff, P.Z.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff P.Z. hereby respectfully demand a jury trial on all causes of action for which a jury is
available under the law.
Dated: January 6, 2023 BAMIEH & DE SMETH, PLC
Ron Bathic
Danielle De Smeth
Natalie N. Mutz
Attorneys for Plaintiff, P.Z.
-17-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
Co Om NAD WH BF BW NY on A WF BY KH 19 G SCANNIN' ECE A FOr gor court VEN RON BAMIEH (SBN 159413) rbamieh@bamiehdesmeth.com JANO 6 WB DANIELLE DE SMETH (SBN 263309) ddesmeth@bamiehdesmeth.com NATALIE N. MUTZ (SBN 273381) nmutz@bamiehdesmeth.com BAMIEH & DE SMETH, PLC 692 E. THOMPSON BOULEVARD VENTURA, CA 93001 T: (805) 643-5555 | F: (805) 643-5558 Attorneys for Plaintiff, P.Z. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA P.Z., an individual, ) Case No. ) Plaintiff, } COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES v. } 1. Sexual Harassment: Hostile Environment (Govt. Code §§ 12923, 12940(j)) CITY OF SANTA PAULA; TRAVIS ) - Ouj WALKER, an individual; and DOES 1-50 ) 2. Sexual Harassment: Quid Pro Quo (Govt. Code §§ inclusive, ) 12923, 12940(j)) ) 3. Discrimination (Govt. Code § 12940(a)) Defendant. ) 4. Failure to Prevent Harassment & Discrimination ) (Govt. Code § 12923(k)) ) 5. Retaliation (Govt. Code § 12923(h)) Battery Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5) ON DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, P.Z., and individual, by and through her attomeys, alleges as follows: ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. This action is based upon the failure by Defendant City of Santa Paula (“City”) to provide a work environment free of sexual harassment, its failure to take action to investigate the complaints of sexual harassment, and retaliation against Plaintiff after she complained of harassment by Chief of Police, Defendant Travis Walker (“Walker”). “le COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESom dD DH F&F BN 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was an individual and employee of City. Plaintiff's true name is withheld to protect her from unwarranted and unwanted retaliation, publicity, sensationalism, or attention from the public filing and is not being withheld for any improper purpose. Her identity should not be made public due to the humiliating, sensitive, and private nature of the sexual harassment she suffered. Plaintiff's identity was disclosed to Defendants prior to the filing and service of this Complaint in separate confidential documents that should not be made part of the public file. 3. At all times relevant herein, Defendant City was and is a public entity located in the County of Ventura, California. 4. Atall times relevant herein, Defendant Walker was and is an individual residing and doing business in the County of Ventura, California. At all times relevant to this action, Walker was an employee of City where he held the position of Chief of Police. 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants identificd herein as Does | through 50, inclusive, arc unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants, including those designated herein as Does | through 50, is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to and proximately caused injury and damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein or in the Complaint. Each such Doe defendant was the agent, employee of, or acting under the direction of all other defendants and in doing the things alleged was acting within the scope and purpose of said agency and/or employment. 7. Each Defendant sued herein is the principal, agent, partner, employee, officer, director, subsidiary, affiliate, alter ego, and/or co-conspirators of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the acts alleged herein, was acting within the course and scope and with the authority conferred by that relationship, and with the knowledge, consent, approval, and/or ratification of the remaining Defendants. 8. All the events giving rise to this matter took place in the City of Santa Paula, County of Ventura. 9. Plaintiff began working in the City’s finance department in 2019. Her performance of her job duties was always exemplary. She consistently had excellent relationships with her coworkers. -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that City hired Defendant Walker in February 2021. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that before hiring Walker as Chief of Police, City knew or had reason to know that Walker had previously and repeatedly been accused of sexually harassing women in the workplace in his prior employment. Public protests were held in the Santa Paula community imploring City not to hire Walker because of his history of sexual harassment. City hired Walker anyway. 12. While serving as Chief of Police for City, Walker harassed Plaintiff, including by forcing Plaintiff to touch his genitals, delivering unwanted flowers to her desk at the City, filing false complaints about her, and unlawfully impounding her vehicle, all with the intent to embarrass, annoy, and show dominance over her. City was or had reason to be aware of Walker’s conduct. 13. In July 2021, Walker asked Plaintiff to make a purchase for a total price above the $50,000 purchasing threshold requiring City Council approval. Walker insisted the purchase had been approved but when Plaintiff checked, she found out that it had not been approved. Plaintiff pointed out that the purchase would violate City policies and procedures, but Walker demanded that Plaintiff follow his orders. She nevertheless declined. At around the same time, Walker asked Plaintiff to improperly alter his paychecks, which she declined to do. Plaintiff reported Walkcr’s inappropriate requests to her supervisor. Soon after this, Plaintiff began to experience retaliation in the form of harassment by Walker and other representatives of the City. 14. On September 15, 2021 Walker initiated a frivolous internal investigation against Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's request that an officer wear his facemask in compliance with County mandate and office protocol. Human Resources informed Plaintiff via memo that she was being investigated due to ‘‘Tension between the Finance Department and P.D. Department.” The investigation was closed after the allegations were found unsubstantiated. 15. On or about December 6, 2021, Walker ordered a group of officers employed by City to unlawfully tow and impound Plaintiff's vehicle without cause and with the intent to harass Plaintiff. Her vehicle was towed to Fillmore where it was unlawfully impounded. Plaintiff made a claim for reimbursement to the City, and in the course of investigation, Walker admitted he ordered the towing of -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPlaintiff's vehicle, falsely claiming that Plaintiff's registration was invalid. Plaintiff provided receipts to show that payment had been made on October 12, 2021. 16. Plaintiff later discovered that somcone had written on her vehicle in chalk, “Fuck.” 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Walker impounded her vehicle in retaliation for her refusal to approve his improper purchase requests. 18. On or about December 13, 2021, while on duty and in uniform, Walker approached Plaintiff at her desk, handed her some paperwork and then grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitals without Plaintiff's consent. 19. Plaintiff reported the harassment to City Manager Dan Singer, who responded that he “had the Chief's back,” and “the Chief would never do anything like” what Plaintiff was reporting. He told her that the Chief had insisted he was not targeting Plaintiff. 20. When Plaintiff reported to her supervisor that she was struggling at work due to the harassment, her supervisor gave her more work to do to keep her busy and otherwise ignored her complaints. 21. On or about December 20, 2021, at a staff meeting, Plaintiff was called out by a fellow employee who accused Plaintiff's partner of being involved in the public protests opposing the hiring of Walker. Plaintiff explained that the accusations were untrue. 22. During a follow up meeting on December 31, 2021, Singer announced at a department meeting that he “100% had the Chief’s back.” 23. The response by Plaintiff's supervisor and City Manager to her complaints, especially in the face of Walker’s history, created a hostile work environment and caused Plaintiff to feel alienated and unsupported. It was at this stage she realized that putting up with sexual harassment was an implied condition of her continued employment with City. 24. In May of 2022, Plaintiff discovered a wilted rose flower bouquet on her desk. The bouquet was in murky water and contained no note. When Plaintiff attempted to ascertain where it came from, no one admitted to leaving it. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Walker left the bouquet on her desk to embarrass her, and he did so in a manner so as not to appear on the security cameras nearby. -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoem YD DH BP WN = RY NR YN YN NK KN ND | | = Se ee Ke Ke Be eS on A WD BF BH =F SBD wD IY DH RF Ww NY & Oo 25. Since filing her first claim for damages on March 23, 2022, Defendants have been tarnishing her personnel file with pretextual complaints about Plaintiff in an effort to cover their actions. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that these actions are retaliation for her complaints of workplace sexual harassment. 26. On information and belief, these complaints are being generated by Walker because Plaintiff refused to submit to his sexual advance and refused to grant his budget and finance requests which violate City ordinances, rules, and regulations. 27. City knew or had reason to know that Defendant Walker was and is a serial sexual harasser. He was sued in July 2019 by a former Cathedral City police dispatcher for sexual harassment and workplace discrimination. Also, on two separate occasions, another City employee—a dispatcher— was threatened and assaulted by Defendant Walker: once in June 2021 and again in October 2021 when Defendant Walker forced her to touch his genitals. 28. The Santa Paula community has tried to remove Defendant Walker from his position as Chief of Police, including through protests and a Change.org petition. 29. On or about July 7, 2022, Plaintiff received a note from her doctor excusing her from work due to her mental illness stemming from the harassment 30. | Onor about August 5, 2022, Plaintiff was notified by City that she had exhausted her accrued leave and was being placed in a leave of absence without pay through September 11, 2022, despite her doctor’s note. On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff's health insurance benefits expired because, “the employer reported you are no longer on pay status.” EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 31. On or about December 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants with California’s Civil Rights Department (“CRD”) alleging multiple violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (““FEHA”) and received an immediate Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue from the CRD. 32. On or about March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Government Tort Claim which the City rejected on July 7, 2022. On or about July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Government Tort Claim, which was rejected by the City on September 13, 2022. -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (GOVT. CODE §§ 12923, 12940())) (Against All Defendants) 33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 34, At all times herein mentioned, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (“FEHA”), was in full force and effect. The FEHA prohibits, among other things, workplace harassment based on sex and gender. 35. City is an employer within the meaning of FEHA and subject to all its requirements. Government Code § 12926(d) and Government Code § 12940 prohibiting employers and their agents from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against employees on the basis of sex, among other things. Plaintiff was at all material times an employee covered by California Government Code Sections 12923 and 12940, subd. (j) prohibiting harassment by employers. 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Walker was one of her supervisors within the meaning of Govt. Code § 12926, subd. (t) who had significant power to influence the working conditions and terms of Plaintiff's employment. Employers, like the City of Santa Paula, are strictly liable for harassment carried out by supervisors, like Defendant Walker in the workplace. 37. As alleged herein, Defendant Walker and others employed by Walker subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment during her employment. The harassment was severe or pervasive and affected Plaintiff's ability to complete her duties. Plaintiff further believes and thereon alleges that City, and each of the defendants, knew of Walker's sexual harassment of Plaintiff and Walker’s propensity of sexually harassing other subordinate employees while working for other law enforcement agencies. 38. The sexual harassment by Defendant Walker and others created a work environment that Plaintiff found to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive. A reasonable person in Plaintiffs circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive. -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES39. Defendants and each of them, committed, participated in, assisted in, condoned, ratified and/or encouraged the harassment against Plaintiff in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment. 40. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and bencfits, expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress, humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally. 41. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial. 42. The egregious acts of sexual harassment alleged herein were willful and malicious and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute oppression, fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Walker’s conduct, as described above, was carried out by him in his official capacity as City’s Chief of Police. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Walker. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT - QUID PRO QUO (GOVT. CODE § 12940(j)) (Against All Defendants) 43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each of the foregoing allegations contained as if they were fully set forth herein. 44, At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq. was in full force and effect. FEHA prohibits, among other things, sexual harassment in the workplace. 45. City is an employer within the meaning of FEHA and subject to all its requirements. Government Code § 12926(d) and Government Code § 12940 prohibiting employers and their agents from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against employees on the basis of sex, among other things. -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPlaintiff was at all material times an employee covered by California Government Code Sections 12923 and 12940, subd. (j) prohibiting harassment by employers. 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Walker was one of her supervisors within the meaning of Govt. Code § 12926, subd. (t) who had significant power to influence the working conditions and terms of Plaintiff's employment. Employers, like the City of Santa Paula, are strictly liable for harassment carried out by supervisors, like Defendant Walker in the workplace. 47. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted sexual harassment and sex discrimination by Walker in the course of their employment with the City. Plaintiff reported Walker’s sexual assaults and harassment to supervisors, agents and/or representatives of City. Defendants, and each of them, failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassment perpetrated on Plaintiff. 48. Instead, Defendants condoned and ratified the harassing conduct by failing to appropriate action in response to Plaintiff's complaint regarding Walker’s conduct. 49. Because City hired Walker at a time when he was under investigation for sexual assault in the course of his prior employment, and because Plaintiff's complaints of Walker's sexual harassment were not acknowledged by the City and were instead denied, Plaintiff reasonably believed her continued employment was expressly or impliedly conditioned upon acceptance of sexual harassment and acquiescence to sexual advances, bullying and mistreatment by Walker and others. 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, engaged in a pattern and practice of condoning sexually harassing conduct toward women and had a practice of normalizing such conduct by male employees. 51. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits, expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress, humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally condition. -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES52. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial. 53. The egregious acts of sexual harassment alleged herein were willful and malicious and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute oppression. fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Walker's conduct, as described above, was carried out by him in his official capacity as City’s Chief of Police. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Walker. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION (GOVT. CODE § 12940(a)) (Against CITY and Does ! through 50) 54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 55. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq. was in full force and effect. FEHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, among other things. 56. City is an employer within the meaning of the FEHA and subject to its requirements. Government Code § 12926(d) and Government Code § 12940 prohibit employers and their agents from discriminating or harassing employees based on sex and retaliating against employees for reporting unlawful sex discrimination or harassment. Plaintiff was at all material times an employee covered by California Government Code Section 12940(a) prohibiting discrimination by employers on the basis of sex, gender, gender expression, and marital status. 57. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that City discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. The discrimination included Walker's egregious sexual harassment and targeting of Plaintiff for hostility including unwanted touching and theft of her vehicle, among other things. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Walker treated her differently than her male counterparts by sexually harassing her and committing various acts of sexual battery. -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESBw N 58. This pattern of conduct, allowing discrimination and pervasive sexual harassment in the workplace, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions, and/or privileges of Plaintiff's employment, and was reasonably likely to impair Plaintiff's job performance and/or prospects for advancement and promotion. 59. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits, expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress, humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally. 60. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT (GOVT. CODE § 12940(k)) (Against Defendants City and Does | through 50) 61. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as if they were fully set forth herein. 62. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq. was in full force and effect. FEHA requires that employers prevent discrimination in the workplace. 63. City is an employer subject to the requirements of the FEHA. 64. — City had a duty under Govt. Code § 12940(k) to supervise its employees, agents, and/or representatives acting on its behalf and for its benefit as part of its duty to prevent discrimination and harassment. 65. City failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent sex discrimination and sexual harassment against Plaintiff from occurring, and to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to remedy the harassment, in violation of California Government Code Section 12940, Subsection (k), by permitting and engaging in the conduct alleged herein. City failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the discriminatory behaviors perpetrated on Plaintiff. -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES66. Asa result of City’s failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, Plaintiff was discriminated against and harassed based on her sex. 67. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that any claims of misconduct or complaints about her performance as City’s basis for disciplinary actions against Plaintiff are pretextual and are meant to disguise the discriminatory reasons for her treatment. 68. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits, expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress, humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing each of Plaintiff's injuries and harms. 69. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION (GOVT. CODE § 12940 ET SEQ.) (Against City and Does | through 50) 70. ‘Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as if they were fully set forth herein. 71. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, embodied in Government Code section 12940. was in full force and effect. This Acts prohibit employers from . 72. City is an employer within the meaning of Government Code § 12926(d) and Government Code § 12940 prohibiting employers and their agents from discriminating or harassing an employee based on sex and retaliating against an employee for reporting unlawful discrimination or harassment. Plaintiff was at all material times and employee covered by FEHA. 73. City retaliated against Plaintiff because she opposed sexual discrimination and sexual harassment perpetrated by the City and Walker as alleged more fully herein. -ll- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESB BW oN 74. Plaintiffreported Walker’s sexual harassment to her direct supervisor at the City and participated in an investigation regarding the harassment. Plaintiff also filed Government Tort Claims regarding the sexual harassment and sex discrimination suffered in the workplace. After and as a result of Plaintiff's reports of harassment and discrimination to City, City retaliated against Plaintiff by allowing Walker to litter her personnel file with frivolous complaints, and by pursuing investigations of Plaintiff as though to detract from her credibility. 75. Plaintiff's reports of harassment and discrimination were substantial motivating reasons for Defendant CITY’s retaliatory acts. 76. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits, expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress, humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing each of Plaintiff's injuries and harms. 77. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the FEHA. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting her FEHA claims against Defendants. The precise amount of costs and fees is presently unknown but will be proven at trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL BATTERY (Against all Defendants) 78. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully realleged in this paragraph. 79. Walker touched Plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend Plaintiff, and in fact did make such offensive sexual contact by grabbing Plaintiff's hand and placing it on his genitals. 80. Plaintiff did not consent to Walker’s offensive touching. 81. | Walker's sexual battery of Plaintiff was foreseeable given his history, and City knew or should have known Walker was a predatory risk to female employees such as Plaintiff. -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES82. A “public entity employer ‘is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of the employment’” and may be deemed within the scope of employment when a “causal nexus to the employee’s work” exists. (MP. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121, 129.) This vicarious liability is authorized under California Government Code § 815.2. 83. On information and belief, Walker’s sexual misconduct was motivated in substantial part by Plaintiff's refusal to comply with his improper purchasing requests, thus there is a causal nexus between Walker's conduct and Plaintiff's work. Walker’s unwanted sexual contact with Plaintiff occurred at the workplace while he was in uniform and while she was at her desk. 84. Plaintiff was harmed and offended by Walker’s conduct and has suffered damage in an amount to be proven at trial. The conduct of Walker, for which the City is vicariously liable, was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 85. Walker’s battery of Plaintiff was willful and malicious and was carried out in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute oppression, fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Walker. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFI.ICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against All Defendants) 86. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully realleged in this paragraph. 87. | Walker intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress upon Plaintiff by engaging in a sexually offensive contact as alleged above. 88. Walker's conduct was intentional or in reckless disregard of the harms Plaintiff suffered. 89. Walker’s conduct was outrageous as it constitutes unlawful conduct sexual harassment by a superior in the workforce. 90. Walker acted with the knowledge that he could manipulate and damage Plaintiff's well- being and interests due to the abuse of special position he had in relation to Plaintiff. -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES91. A “public entity employer ‘is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed a9 within the scope of the employment’” and may be deemed within the scope of employment when a “causal nexus to the employee’s work” exists. (M.P. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121, 129.) This vicarious liability is authorized under California Government Code § 815.2. 92. On information and belief, Walker’s misconduct was motivated in substantial part by Plaintiff's refusal to comply with his purchasing requests which violated City procedure and policy, thus there is a causal nexus between Walker’s conduct and Plaintiff's work. 93. Asa direct and proximate result of Walker’s wrongful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which include, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of employment opportunities and benefits, expenses related to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, as well as emotional distress, humiliation and mental pain, anguish and anxiety which have damaged her physically and emotionally. 94. Walker’s conduct, for which the City is vicariously liable, was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 95. City ignored Plaintiff's complaints of workplace retaliation, harassment, and discrimination for an unreasonable time period, ratified the unlawful and improper conduct of its employees by, among other things, failing to place Walker on administrative leave even after multiple sexual harassment complaints against him had been made, and failed to take timely action. On information and belief, such inaction was to protect City’s image and to protect Walker instead of protecting Plaintiff's safety and employment. In doing so, City’s conduct exceeded all bounds of conduct usually tolerated in a civilized community. City acted with reckless disregard that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress because of its conduct. 96. Plaintiff did, in fact, suffer severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of City’s conduct. 97. City’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress. 98. Walker’s intentional and wrongful acts were willful and malicious and were carried out in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESan ws oppression, fraud and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Walker. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1102.5 (Against City and Does | through 50) 99. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully realleged in this paragraph. 100. Section 1106 of the Labor Code defines an employee as, “any individual employed by the state or any subdivision thereof, any county, city, city and county, including any charter city or county, and any school district, community college district, municipal or public corporation, political subdivision, or the University of California.” Thus, Plaintiff is an employee for purposes of the Labor Code. 101. As alleged herein, at various times in 2021, Walker asked Plaintiff to approve inappropriate spending requests and to improperly alter his paycheck. Plaintiff recognized that the requests were improper and declined the requests. She then reported the improper requests to her direct supervisor at the City. 102. Soon after Plaintiff reported Walker’s misconduct to her supervisor, Plaintiff began experiencing harassment by Walker and others in the City. 103. On information and belief, Plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting Walker’s abuse of power and attempts to violate local law and internal policies and procedures. 104. The retaliation experienced by Plaintiff included, without limitation, Walker having Plaintiff's vehicle unlawfully towed and impounded, his act of sexual battery against her, vandalization of her vehicle, and unwarranted complaints about her work product and office demeanor in an effort to direct negative attention toward her, impact her morale, and prevent her from advancing in her job. Eventually, due to the hostility thus created, Plaintiff was constructively discharged. 105. When Plaintiff reported Walker’s sexual battery to her supervisor and later filed her Government Tort Claims, she experienced additional retaliation in the form of more unwarranted complaints and false accusations directed at her. ~ 2S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES106. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that her disclosure of Walker’s misconduct to her supervisor and her filing of her Government Tort Claims were contributing factors which triggered the adverse employment actions against her. 107. Under this section of the Labor Code, Plaintiff is only required to prove that her whistleblowing activity was a “contributing factor” to an adverse employment action with a preponderance of evidence. (Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.Sth 703, 718.) 108. Further, because Plaintiff is employed by a public agency and reported the misconduct to such a public agency who would be able to investigate and handle the violations, she had no reason to believe she needed to report to higher authorities, elsewhere. (Gardenhire v. Housing Authority (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 236, 242.) Further, when Plaintiff filed her Government Tort Claim, the effect was that higher authorities were on notice of the conduct she was reporting and, as a result, City retaliated against her with the aforementioned conduct. 109. Asadirect and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of City, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to sustain losses in earning and other employment benefits and other pecuniary loss in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of City, Plaintiff has suffered general damages including emotional distress in an amount to be proven at trial. Defendant CITY’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 110. Plaintiff is entitled to her attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 1002.5(j). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff P.Z. prays for a judgment against Defendants as follows: As to the First, Second, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action Only: 1. For punitive damages only as against Defendant Travis Walker; As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action 2. For statutory attorneys’ fees (Govt. Code § 12965(b)); As to the Eighth Cause of Action: 3. For statutory attorneys’ fees (Labor Code § 1102.5); 4. For statutory penalties; Ml -16- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESOn All Causes of Action: 5. ee ND For general damages against all Defendants, according to proof; For special damages against all Defendants, according to proof; For costs of suit; For prejudgment interest; For other relief the Court deems just and proper. Dated: January 6, 2023 BAMIEH & DE SMETH, PLC at 7 D anielle De Smeth Natalie N. Mutz Attorneys for Plaintiff, P.Z. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff P.Z. hereby respectfully demand a jury trial on all causes of action for which a jury is available under the law. Dated: January 6, 2023 BAMIEH & DE SMETH, PLC Ron Bathic Danielle De Smeth Natalie N. Mutz Attorneys for Plaintiff, P.Z. -17- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES