Preview
1 ROBERT HAMPTON ROGERS - Bar No. 106206
rrogers@crdattorneys.com
2 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT HAMPTON ROGERS
27534 Dayton Avenue
3 San Pedro California 90732
Telephone: (213) 599-7595
4 Facsimile: (213) 599-7596
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
VIOLET MARIN
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
9
10 VIOLET MARIN, an individual, CASE No.
11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
BASED ON WRONGFUL
12 v. DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION;
FAILURE TO REASONABLY
13 DEVELOPLUS, INC. a Corporation and ACCOMMODATE; FAILURE TO
DOES 1 - 25, Inclusive, ENGAGE ON THE INTERACTIVE
14 PROCESS IN GOOD FAITH;
Defendants. FAILURE TO PREVENT; CFRA
15 RETALIATION
16
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17
18 PLAINTIFF ALLEGES:
19 General Allegations
20 1. Plaintiff VIOLET MARIN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an individual who resides
21 in the State of California and worked for Defendant.
22 2. Defendant DEVELOPLUS, INC is and at all times herein mentioned was
23 conducting business in the County of Riverside, State of California. Said Defendant and
24 DOES 1 - 25, inclusive, do business throughout the State of California including Riverside
25 County where Plaintiff worked at 2 Latitude Way, Corona, California 92879. This is a lawsuit
26 under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et
27 seq. (Hereinafter “FEHA”) because Defendants are employers that regularly employ five or
28 more persons.
COMPLAINT
1 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and a capacity of Defendants sued herein
2 as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
3 names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
4 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously
5 named Defendants is responsible in some manner of the occurrences herein alleged, and that
6 Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by the aforementioned
7 Defendants.
8 4. At the time of Plaintiff’s termination, she was entitled to protections under the
9 FEHA due to mental disabilities (severe anxiety, depression and ADHD) or perceived
10 disability and was entitled to reasonable accommodations from her employer and to be free of
11 discrimination based on her disability or her perceived disability. She was also entitled to be
12 free of retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodations. Her impairments limited one or
13 more of her major life activities and Defendants regarded her as having such impairments.
14 With reasonable accommodations, Plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of
15 her position for Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff was entitled to be protected from
16 discrimination due to her age (she is over 40).
17 5. Plaintiff has timely filed a claim with the California Civil Rights Department
18 (formerly named Department of Fair Employment and Housing) as required by the
19 Government Code and received her right to sue letter. Thus, Plaintiff has exhausted all of her
20 administrative remedies. A true and correct copy of the right to sue letter is attached hereto as
21 Exhibit “A”.
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23 For Discrimination/Retaliation in Violation of FEHA against all Defendants and
24 DOES 1 – 25
25 6. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 5 as though set
26 forth in length therein.
27 7. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, California Government Code sections
28 12926.1, and 12940, et seq., Government Code 12945 et seq. was in full force and effect and
-2-
COMPLAINT
1 was binding on Defendants (Fair Employment and Housing Act referred to as “FEHA”). It
2 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to disability or perceived
3 disability. FEHA was recently amended to clarify that requesting reasonable accommodations
4 is a protected activity and that it is unlawful for “any person” to retaliate against an employee
5 who does so. Further, California State antidiscrimination statutes make it unlawful for an
6 employer to retaliate against an employee who reports or otherwise opposes reasonably
7 perceived discrimination or harassment (Gov.C. § 12940(h)).
8 8. Plaintiff has mental disabilities (severe anxiety, depression and ADHD) that
9 required reasonable accommodations due to her disability. While employed she needed leave
10 time off due to her conditions and also requested accommodations from her employer so that
11 she could fully absorb information and work due to her ADHD.
12 9. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated effective on June 29, 2023. Prior to this she
13 was passed over for promotion in favor of a substantially younger less qualified person. Just
14 10 days before her termination she had requested reasonable accommodations due to her
15 ADHD which was refused. The stated reason for her termination was that she “wasn’t
16 improving in her soft skills fast enough”. Prior to this Plaintiff had years of successful
17 performance pay raises and good performance reviews. Plaintiff is informed, believes and
18 thereon alleges that the stated reason for her termination was pretextual and a substantial
19 motivating reason(s)for her termination was due to her disability (or perceived disability)
20 and/or retaliation due to Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodations and or her age
21 (over 40).
22 10. As a direct and legal consequence of her wrongful termination, Plaintiff has lost
23 earnings, benefits, and other special damages, and will continue to do so in the future in an
24 amount according to proof.
25 11. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendants’ conduct as alleged above,
26 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental
27 pain and suffering, as well as physical manifestations thereof in an amount according to proof.
28
-3-
COMPLAINT
1 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the
2 aforementioned wrongful termination was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s disability or
3 perceived disability and/or in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodations and/or due
4 to her age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants conduct was willful,
5 wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in a willful and
6 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and were done by managerial
7 agents of Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent, and ratification of
8 managerial employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and
9 exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
10 13. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including
11 expert costs) pursuant to Statute.
12
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14 For Failure to Accommodate Disability In Violation of the FEHA Against ALL
15 Defendants and DOES 1 - 20
16 14. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 through 13 as though set
17 forth at length herein.
18 15. Plaintiff had mental disabilities while employed by Defendants which required
19 reasonable accommodations in the learning methods so that she could absorb and apply the
20 information provided due to her ADHD. Plaintiff communicated her condition and need for
21 accommodations to Defendants. Government Code section 12940, subd. (m) states that it is
22 unlawful for the employer “to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical
23 or mental disability of an applicant or employee.”
24 16. Plaintiff’s Supervisor Whitney Moorman denied Plaintiff’s request for
25 reasonable accommodations. Defendant instead discharged Plaintiff on or about June 29,
26 2023 claiming that she wasn’t improving in her soft skills.
27
28
-4-
COMPLAINT
1 17. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the
2 duties and functions of her position, had Defendants reasonably accommodated Plaintiff.
3 Plaintiff was qualified to do her job with reasonable accommodations.
4 18. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated rather than being reasonably
5 accommodated.
6 19. As a direct and legal consequence of these actions, Plaintiff has lost earning
7 benefits, as well as other special damages, and will continue to do so in the future in an
8 amount according to proof.
9 20. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendants’ conduct as alleged above,
10 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental
11 pain and suffering as well as physical injury and physical manifestations thereof in an amount
12 according to proof.
13 21. Attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) are authorized by statute under
14 FEHA. Plaintiff is entitled to such fees and costs in an amount according to proof.
15 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the
16 aforementioned failure to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff was substantially motivated by
17 Plaintiff’s disability or perceived disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing.
18 Defendants conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and
19 were done in willful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and
20 were done by managerial agents of Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent,
21 and ratification of managerial employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of
22 punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24 For Failure to act in Good Faith to Engage in the Interactive Process In Violation of
25 the FEHA Against all Defendants and DOES 1 - 25
26 23. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 through 22 as though set
27 forth at length herein.
28
-5-
COMPLAINT
1 24. According to California Government Code section 12940, subd. (n), it is
2 unlawful for an employer “to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with
3 the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in
4 response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a
5 known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.” Defendants have violated
6 this section by discharging Plaintiff rather than timely, good faith, engaging in the interactive
7 process in good faith an effort to reasonably accommodate her.
8 25. As a direct and legal consequence of these actions, Plaintiff has lost earning
9 benefits, as well as other special damages, and will continue to do so in the future in an
10 amount according to proof.
11 26. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendants’ conduct as alleged above,
12 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental
13 pain and suffering as well as physical injury and physical manifestations thereof in an amount
14 according to proof.
15 27. Attorneys’ fees and costs are authorized by statute under FEHA. Plaintiff is
16 entitled to such fees and costs in an amount according to proof.
17 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the failure to
18 engage in the interactive process by Defendant was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s
19 disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants conduct was willful,
20 wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in willful and
21 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and were done by managerial
22 agents of Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent, and ratification of
23 managerial employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and
24 exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
25
26
27
28
-6-
COMPLAINT
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 For Failure To Prevent Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation
3 (Gov. Code section 12940(k)) against all Defendants and DOES 1 - 25
4 29. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 as though set
5 forth at length herein.
6 30. Under FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice to fail to take all reasonable
7 steps to prevent employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Cal. Gov. Code §
8 12940(k) and (h). Under the FEHA, it is unlawful for an employer “to fail to take all
9 reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” (§
10 12940, subd. (k).) This provision applies to retaliation claims as well. (Taylor v. City of Los
11 Angeles Dept. of Water & Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1239-1240[ overruled on other
12 grounds in Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162-1163]).
13 31. Defendants failed to make an adequate response into Plaintiff’s request for
14 reasonable accommodations and retaliated instead and thereby established a policy, custom,
15 practice, or usage within, which condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, ratified,
16 approved of, and/or acquiesced in harassment/discrimination and/or retaliation in the
17 workplace.
18 32. Defendants did not have an adequate discrimination and retaliation policy and
19 did not provide adequate training to its employees and managers.
20 33. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that failure to provide
21 adequate training, education, and information as to its personnel policies and practices
22 regarding discrimination/retaliation would result in retaliation against employees, including
23 but not limited to, Plaintiff.
24 34. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodations Defendants
25 took no steps to prevent such retaliation from occurring resulting in the wrongful termination
26 of Plaintiff.
27 35. Defendants refused and failed to discipline, demote or discharge managers and
28 other employees who it knew to have committed or alleged to have committed illegal
-7-
COMPLAINT
1 employment discrimination and/or retaliation. These acts and/or failures to act constitute
2 further breaches of the Defendants’ statutory obligation to prevent discrimination.
3 36. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of its statutory obligation to prevent
4 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, Plaintiff suffered harassment, discrimination, and
5 retaliation in the workplace as described above.
6 37. Upon information and belief, the acts and/or omissions to act complained of
7 were approved, adopted, condoned or taken by one or more managing agents of Defendants
8 who had the authority to make corporate policy and/or to direct a substantial portion of the
9 Defendants’ business.
10 38. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered loss of wages and
11 benefits and other special damages, humiliation, mental and physical pain and suffering, and
12 emotional distress all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be determined by proof.
13 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the
14 aforementioned wrongful termination by Defendants was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s
15 physical disability or perceived disability or due to his request for reasonable accommodations
16 in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants conduct was willful, wanton,
17 malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in willful and conscious
18 disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and were done by managerial agents of
19 Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent, and ratification of managerial
20 employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and exemplary damages
21 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
22 40. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the
23 Government Code.
24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Retaliation for Exercising Rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
26 against All Defendants and DOES 1 - 25
27 41. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 through 40 as though set
28 forth at length herein.
-8-
COMPLAINT
1 42. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, California Government Code sections
2 12926.1, and 12940, et seq., Government Code 12945 et seq. was in full force and effect and
3 was binding on Defendant. Defendant was required to refrain from violations of public
4 policy, including subjecting Plaintiffs and each of them to adverse employment actions by
5 interfering with their rights to protected leave time. Govt. Code § 12945.2 prohibits an
6 employer from interfering with or retaliating against and employee who is qualified to take a
7 CFRA leave. Plaintiff was required to take time off in 2022 and 2023 for qualifying leaves
8 under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) due to a serious medical condition of self or
9 an immediate family member.
10 43. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff suffered adverse
11 employment actions as a result of having to take time off for a serious medical condition. In
12 fact she was terminated with 90 days of her most recent CFRA leave for pretextual reasons.
13 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that a substantial
14 motivating reason for her termination was retaliation for having taken CFRA leaves.
15 45. As a direct and legal consequence of these actions, Plaintiff has lost earning and
16 benefits and will continue to do so in the future in an amount according to proof as well as
17 other special damages.
18 46. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendant’s conduct as alleged above,
19 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental
20 pain and suffering as well as physical manifestations thereof in an amount according to proof.
21 47. In doing the things herein alleged, the conduct of Defendant was despicable and
22 this Defendant acted towards Plaintiff with malice, oppression, fraud, and with a willful and
23 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
24 that Managing Agents of the Defendant ratified, authorized and condone the Defendant’s
25 decision to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this
26 employee has broad discretionary powers and exercise substantial discretionary authority in
27 the corporation. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages
28 pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294 and Gov‘t. Code § 12940.
-9-
COMPLAINT
1 48. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the
2 Government Code.
3
4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants and each of them, as
5 follows:
6 1. For damages in amount of according to proof with interest at the rate of 10% per
7 annum;
8 2. For lost future earnings and benefits and other damages according to proof;
9 3. For damages for pain and suffering in an amount according to proof;
10 4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as authorized by statute;
11 5. For punitive damages in an amount according to proof; and
12 6. For such further relief the court deems just and proper, including injunctive and
13 declaratory relief, reinstatement if appropriate and file purging.
14
15 DATED: August 9, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT HAMPTON ROGERS
16
17
18 By:
19 Robert Hampton Rogers
Attorneys for Plaintiff
20 VIOLET MARIN
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT A
S T A T E O F C A LIF O R N IA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov
August 8, 2023
VIOLET MARIN
4125 E. GRAND AVENUE
POMONA, CA 91766
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
CRD Matter Number: 202308-21566008
Right to Sue: MARIN / DEVELOPLUS, INC.
Dear VIOLET MARIN:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) has been closed effective August 8, 2023 because an immediate
Right to Sue notice was requested.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days
of receipt of this CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged
discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/23)
EXHIBIT A, PAGE11
Preview
1 ROBERT HAMPTON ROGERS - Bar No. 106206 rrogers@crdattorneys.com 2 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT HAMPTON ROGERS 27534 Dayton Avenue 3 San Pedro California 90732 Telephone: (213) 599-7595 4 Facsimile: (213) 599-7596 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, VIOLET MARIN 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 9 10 VIOLET MARIN, an individual, CASE No. 11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BASED ON WRONGFUL 12 v. DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION; FAILURE TO REASONABLY 13 DEVELOPLUS, INC. a Corporation and ACCOMMODATE; FAILURE TO DOES 1 - 25, Inclusive, ENGAGE ON THE INTERACTIVE 14 PROCESS IN GOOD FAITH; Defendants. FAILURE TO PREVENT; CFRA 15 RETALIATION 16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 17 18 PLAINTIFF ALLEGES: 19 General Allegations 20 1. Plaintiff VIOLET MARIN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an individual who resides 21 in the State of California and worked for Defendant. 22 2. Defendant DEVELOPLUS, INC is and at all times herein mentioned was 23 conducting business in the County of Riverside, State of California. Said Defendant and 24 DOES 1 - 25, inclusive, do business throughout the State of California including Riverside 25 County where Plaintiff worked at 2 Latitude Way, Corona, California 92879. This is a lawsuit 26 under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et 27 seq. (Hereinafter “FEHA”) because Defendants are employers that regularly employ five or 28 more persons. COMPLAINT 1 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and a capacity of Defendants sued herein 2 as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious 3 names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when 4 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously 5 named Defendants is responsible in some manner of the occurrences herein alleged, and that 6 Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by the aforementioned 7 Defendants. 8 4. At the time of Plaintiff’s termination, she was entitled to protections under the 9 FEHA due to mental disabilities (severe anxiety, depression and ADHD) or perceived 10 disability and was entitled to reasonable accommodations from her employer and to be free of 11 discrimination based on her disability or her perceived disability. She was also entitled to be 12 free of retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodations. Her impairments limited one or 13 more of her major life activities and Defendants regarded her as having such impairments. 14 With reasonable accommodations, Plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of 15 her position for Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff was entitled to be protected from 16 discrimination due to her age (she is over 40). 17 5. Plaintiff has timely filed a claim with the California Civil Rights Department 18 (formerly named Department of Fair Employment and Housing) as required by the 19 Government Code and received her right to sue letter. Thus, Plaintiff has exhausted all of her 20 administrative remedies. A true and correct copy of the right to sue letter is attached hereto as 21 Exhibit “A”. 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23 For Discrimination/Retaliation in Violation of FEHA against all Defendants and 24 DOES 1 – 25 25 6. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 5 as though set 26 forth in length therein. 27 7. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, California Government Code sections 28 12926.1, and 12940, et seq., Government Code 12945 et seq. was in full force and effect and -2- COMPLAINT 1 was binding on Defendants (Fair Employment and Housing Act referred to as “FEHA”). It 2 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to disability or perceived 3 disability. FEHA was recently amended to clarify that requesting reasonable accommodations 4 is a protected activity and that it is unlawful for “any person” to retaliate against an employee 5 who does so. Further, California State antidiscrimination statutes make it unlawful for an 6 employer to retaliate against an employee who reports or otherwise opposes reasonably 7 perceived discrimination or harassment (Gov.C. § 12940(h)). 8 8. Plaintiff has mental disabilities (severe anxiety, depression and ADHD) that 9 required reasonable accommodations due to her disability. While employed she needed leave 10 time off due to her conditions and also requested accommodations from her employer so that 11 she could fully absorb information and work due to her ADHD. 12 9. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated effective on June 29, 2023. Prior to this she 13 was passed over for promotion in favor of a substantially younger less qualified person. Just 14 10 days before her termination she had requested reasonable accommodations due to her 15 ADHD which was refused. The stated reason for her termination was that she “wasn’t 16 improving in her soft skills fast enough”. Prior to this Plaintiff had years of successful 17 performance pay raises and good performance reviews. Plaintiff is informed, believes and 18 thereon alleges that the stated reason for her termination was pretextual and a substantial 19 motivating reason(s)for her termination was due to her disability (or perceived disability) 20 and/or retaliation due to Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodations and or her age 21 (over 40). 22 10. As a direct and legal consequence of her wrongful termination, Plaintiff has lost 23 earnings, benefits, and other special damages, and will continue to do so in the future in an 24 amount according to proof. 25 11. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, 26 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental 27 pain and suffering, as well as physical manifestations thereof in an amount according to proof. 28 -3- COMPLAINT 1 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the 2 aforementioned wrongful termination was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s disability or 3 perceived disability and/or in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodations and/or due 4 to her age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants conduct was willful, 5 wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in a willful and 6 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and were done by managerial 7 agents of Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent, and ratification of 8 managerial employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and 9 exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 10 13. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including 11 expert costs) pursuant to Statute. 12 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 For Failure to Accommodate Disability In Violation of the FEHA Against ALL 15 Defendants and DOES 1 - 20 16 14. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 through 13 as though set 17 forth at length herein. 18 15. Plaintiff had mental disabilities while employed by Defendants which required 19 reasonable accommodations in the learning methods so that she could absorb and apply the 20 information provided due to her ADHD. Plaintiff communicated her condition and need for 21 accommodations to Defendants. Government Code section 12940, subd. (m) states that it is 22 unlawful for the employer “to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical 23 or mental disability of an applicant or employee.” 24 16. Plaintiff’s Supervisor Whitney Moorman denied Plaintiff’s request for 25 reasonable accommodations. Defendant instead discharged Plaintiff on or about June 29, 26 2023 claiming that she wasn’t improving in her soft skills. 27 28 -4- COMPLAINT 1 17. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the 2 duties and functions of her position, had Defendants reasonably accommodated Plaintiff. 3 Plaintiff was qualified to do her job with reasonable accommodations. 4 18. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated rather than being reasonably 5 accommodated. 6 19. As a direct and legal consequence of these actions, Plaintiff has lost earning 7 benefits, as well as other special damages, and will continue to do so in the future in an 8 amount according to proof. 9 20. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, 10 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental 11 pain and suffering as well as physical injury and physical manifestations thereof in an amount 12 according to proof. 13 21. Attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) are authorized by statute under 14 FEHA. Plaintiff is entitled to such fees and costs in an amount according to proof. 15 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the 16 aforementioned failure to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff was substantially motivated by 17 Plaintiff’s disability or perceived disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing. 18 Defendants conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and 19 were done in willful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and 20 were done by managerial agents of Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent, 21 and ratification of managerial employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of 22 punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 24 For Failure to act in Good Faith to Engage in the Interactive Process In Violation of 25 the FEHA Against all Defendants and DOES 1 - 25 26 23. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 through 22 as though set 27 forth at length herein. 28 -5- COMPLAINT 1 24. According to California Government Code section 12940, subd. (n), it is 2 unlawful for an employer “to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with 3 the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in 4 response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a 5 known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.” Defendants have violated 6 this section by discharging Plaintiff rather than timely, good faith, engaging in the interactive 7 process in good faith an effort to reasonably accommodate her. 8 25. As a direct and legal consequence of these actions, Plaintiff has lost earning 9 benefits, as well as other special damages, and will continue to do so in the future in an 10 amount according to proof. 11 26. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, 12 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental 13 pain and suffering as well as physical injury and physical manifestations thereof in an amount 14 according to proof. 15 27. Attorneys’ fees and costs are authorized by statute under FEHA. Plaintiff is 16 entitled to such fees and costs in an amount according to proof. 17 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the failure to 18 engage in the interactive process by Defendant was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s 19 disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants conduct was willful, 20 wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in willful and 21 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and were done by managerial 22 agents of Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent, and ratification of 23 managerial employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and 24 exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 25 26 27 28 -6- COMPLAINT 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 For Failure To Prevent Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation 3 (Gov. Code section 12940(k)) against all Defendants and DOES 1 - 25 4 29. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 as though set 5 forth at length herein. 6 30. Under FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice to fail to take all reasonable 7 steps to prevent employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Cal. Gov. Code § 8 12940(k) and (h). Under the FEHA, it is unlawful for an employer “to fail to take all 9 reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” (§ 10 12940, subd. (k).) This provision applies to retaliation claims as well. (Taylor v. City of Los 11 Angeles Dept. of Water & Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1239-1240[ overruled on other 12 grounds in Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162-1163]). 13 31. Defendants failed to make an adequate response into Plaintiff’s request for 14 reasonable accommodations and retaliated instead and thereby established a policy, custom, 15 practice, or usage within, which condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, ratified, 16 approved of, and/or acquiesced in harassment/discrimination and/or retaliation in the 17 workplace. 18 32. Defendants did not have an adequate discrimination and retaliation policy and 19 did not provide adequate training to its employees and managers. 20 33. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that failure to provide 21 adequate training, education, and information as to its personnel policies and practices 22 regarding discrimination/retaliation would result in retaliation against employees, including 23 but not limited to, Plaintiff. 24 34. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodations Defendants 25 took no steps to prevent such retaliation from occurring resulting in the wrongful termination 26 of Plaintiff. 27 35. Defendants refused and failed to discipline, demote or discharge managers and 28 other employees who it knew to have committed or alleged to have committed illegal -7- COMPLAINT 1 employment discrimination and/or retaliation. These acts and/or failures to act constitute 2 further breaches of the Defendants’ statutory obligation to prevent discrimination. 3 36. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of its statutory obligation to prevent 4 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, Plaintiff suffered harassment, discrimination, and 5 retaliation in the workplace as described above. 6 37. Upon information and belief, the acts and/or omissions to act complained of 7 were approved, adopted, condoned or taken by one or more managing agents of Defendants 8 who had the authority to make corporate policy and/or to direct a substantial portion of the 9 Defendants’ business. 10 38. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered loss of wages and 11 benefits and other special damages, humiliation, mental and physical pain and suffering, and 12 emotional distress all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be determined by proof. 13 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the 14 aforementioned wrongful termination by Defendants was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s 15 physical disability or perceived disability or due to his request for reasonable accommodations 16 in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants conduct was willful, wanton, 17 malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in willful and conscious 18 disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, and were done by managerial agents of 19 Defendants, and/or with the express knowledge, consent, and ratification of managerial 20 employees of Defendants, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and exemplary damages 21 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 22 40. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the 23 Government Code. 24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Retaliation for Exercising Rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) 26 against All Defendants and DOES 1 - 25 27 41. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 through 40 as though set 28 forth at length herein. -8- COMPLAINT 1 42. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, California Government Code sections 2 12926.1, and 12940, et seq., Government Code 12945 et seq. was in full force and effect and 3 was binding on Defendant. Defendant was required to refrain from violations of public 4 policy, including subjecting Plaintiffs and each of them to adverse employment actions by 5 interfering with their rights to protected leave time. Govt. Code § 12945.2 prohibits an 6 employer from interfering with or retaliating against and employee who is qualified to take a 7 CFRA leave. Plaintiff was required to take time off in 2022 and 2023 for qualifying leaves 8 under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) due to a serious medical condition of self or 9 an immediate family member. 10 43. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff suffered adverse 11 employment actions as a result of having to take time off for a serious medical condition. In 12 fact she was terminated with 90 days of her most recent CFRA leave for pretextual reasons. 13 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that a substantial 14 motivating reason for her termination was retaliation for having taken CFRA leaves. 15 45. As a direct and legal consequence of these actions, Plaintiff has lost earning and 16 benefits and will continue to do so in the future in an amount according to proof as well as 17 other special damages. 18 46. As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendant’s conduct as alleged above, 19 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and mental 20 pain and suffering as well as physical manifestations thereof in an amount according to proof. 21 47. In doing the things herein alleged, the conduct of Defendant was despicable and 22 this Defendant acted towards Plaintiff with malice, oppression, fraud, and with a willful and 23 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges 24 that Managing Agents of the Defendant ratified, authorized and condone the Defendant’s 25 decision to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this 26 employee has broad discretionary powers and exercise substantial discretionary authority in 27 the corporation. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages 28 pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294 and Gov‘t. Code § 12940. -9- COMPLAINT 1 48. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the 2 Government Code. 3 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants and each of them, as 5 follows: 6 1. For damages in amount of according to proof with interest at the rate of 10% per 7 annum; 8 2. For lost future earnings and benefits and other damages according to proof; 9 3. For damages for pain and suffering in an amount according to proof; 10 4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as authorized by statute; 11 5. For punitive damages in an amount according to proof; and 12 6. For such further relief the court deems just and proper, including injunctive and 13 declaratory relief, reinstatement if appropriate and file purging. 14 15 DATED: August 9, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT HAMPTON ROGERS 16 17 18 By: 19 Robert Hampton Rogers Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 VIOLET MARIN 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10- COMPLAINT EXHIBIT A S T A T E O F C A LIF O R N IA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR Civil Rights Department 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov August 8, 2023 VIOLET MARIN 4125 E. GRAND AVENUE POMONA, CA 91766 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue CRD Matter Number: 202308-21566008 Right to Sue: MARIN / DEVELOPLUS, INC. Dear VIOLET MARIN: This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights Department (CRD) has been closed effective August 8, 2023 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Civil Rights Department CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/23) EXHIBIT A, PAGE11