Preview
F Superior Court of Califomia F
County of Butte
I I
WEBBER & EGBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C 10/10/2023
Kelsey A. Webber, State Bar No. 303721 L L
Kelsey. Webber@webberlawgroup.com E
Douglas M. Egbert, State Bar No. 265062
Douglas.Egbert@webberlawgroup.com
D
Ryan M. Harrison, Sr., State Bar No. 319712 & 4
Ryan.Harrison@webberlawgroup.com
1610 R Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
Telephone: (916) 588-0683
Attorneys for Plaintiff ALLIX HURTADO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
11 ALLIX HURTADO ) Case No. 23CV02820
12 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
vs. ) DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY
13 ) TRIAL
UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a FRANZ).
14 an Oregon corporation, SHYANNE ROPER, FEHA Sexual Harassment — Hostile
an individual, and MICHAEL HANSON, an Work Environment;
15 individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, FEHA Sex/Gender Discrimination;
FEHA Retaliation;
16 Defendants. Labor Code § 1102.5 Retaliation;
Labor Code § 6310 Retaliation;
17 Failure to Prevent Harassment,
Discrimination, and Retaliation;
18 Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy;
19 Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress;
20 9 Defamation;
21
10. Meal Period Liability;
11. Rest Period Liability;
12. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
22 13. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements;
23 14, Waiting Time Penalties; and
15. Violation of Business and Professions
24 Code § 17200, et seq.
25 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
ALLIX HURTADO submits the instant Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
against UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a FRANZ), SHYANNE ROPER, MICHAEL HANSON
and DOES 1 through 50, as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1 Plaintiff ALLIX HURTADO (“Plaintiff”), under information and belief, was, at all
times relevant to this action, an employee of Defendant UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a
FRANZ)
2 Defendant UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a FRANZ) (“Defendant Franz”), under
information and belief, was, at all times relevant to this action, an Oregon Corporation doing business
10 in Butte County, State of California. Under information and belief, Defendant FRANZ was, at all
11 times relevant to this action, Plaintiff's employer.
12 3 Defendant SHYANNE ROPER (“Defendant Roper”), under information and belief.
13 at all times herein relevant, was a manager and/or supervisor at Defendant FRANZ and a managing
14 agent of Defendant Franz with respect to the matters herein alleged.
15 4. Defendant MICHAEL HANSON (“Defendant Hanson”), under information and
16 belief, at all times herein relevant, was a manager and/or supervisor at Defendant FRANZ and a
17 managing agent of Defendant Franz with respect to the matters herein alleged
18 5 Venue and jurisdiction are proper because the majority of events giving rise to this
19 action took place in Butte County, because Defendants were doing business in Butte County; because
20 Plaintiff entered into employment with Defendant Franz in Butte County, because Plaintiff worked
21 for Defendants in Butte County, because the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional minimum of|
22, this Court, and because, under information and belief, the majority of witnesses reside in Butte
23) County.
24 6 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise
25 of defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said
26 defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names.
27 involvement and capacities when the same have been ascertained. DOES 1 through 50 are residents
28 of the State of California and/or are authorized to do business in the State of California and/or have
SNE S COMPLAINT
(OR DAMAGES
their principal place of business in the State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on
that basis alleges, that each of the defendants named herein as a DOE was, in some manner,
responsible for the injuries and losses suffered by Plaintiff.
7 Atall relevant times, each and every Defendant was an agent and/or employee of each
and every other Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action stated herein, each and
every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment, and was
acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each remaining Defendant. All actions of,
each Defendant as alleged herein were ratified and approved by every other Defendant or their
officers or managing agents.
10 STATEMENT OF FACTS
11 8 Plaintiff began working for Defendant Franz in or about February 2022 as a Route
12 Sales Representative working out of Defendant Franz’s Oroville, California location.
13 9 As a Route Sales Representative, Plaintiff's responsibilities included, but were not
14 limited to, organizing account orders, loading the delivery truck, traveling to Defendant Franz’s
15 clients to stock and rotate product, prepare store displays, and so on.
16 10. Plaintiff reported to Defendant Hanson.
17 1 Plaintiff also reported to Defendant Roper.
18 12. Defendant Hanson and Defendant Roper reported to Whitney Maletic (“Maletic”).
19 Maletic was in charge of Defendant Franz’s Oroville division.
20 135 On or about September 25, 2022, Plaintiff's delivery truck was damaged and she was
21 assigned a much older and smaller bread truck to use while her regular delivery truck was being
22 repaired.
23 14. The older bread truck used a ramp at the back to load and unload the truck.
24 I53 In early winter 2022, Plaintiff was still using the older bread truck. Plaintiff]
25 complained to Defendant Franz that the older truck and its ramp were dangerous in the winter because
26 the ramp could slide in slippery conditions and seriously injure the worker. Indeed, Plaintiff had
27 heard of such horror stories before.
28 16. Defendant Franz failed to respond to Plaintiffs workplace safety complaint.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES
li As feared, during one of Plaintiff's shifts, Plaintiff fell and injured her knee because
of the unsafe condition of the older truck and ramp.
18. At the time of Plaintiff's injury, Plaintiff had been in the older truck for about three
months.
19. Plaintiff saw a doctor for her knee injury and the doctor told Plaintiff she could not
use the ramp.
20. Defendant Franz then fixed Plaintiff's regular truck within three days.
21. Had Defendant Franz addressed Plaintiff's workplace safety complaint by, for
example, fixing Plaintiffs regular truck, Plaintiff's knee injury could have been avoided.
10 22. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Franz, Plaintiff was repeatedly
11 sexually harassed by Defendant Roper.
12 23. The harassment Plaintiff suffered from Defendant Roper included, but was not limited
13 to, Defendant Roper regularly making passes at Plaintiff and kissing and hugging Plaintiff on
14 occasion.
15 24. Defendant Roper also referred to Plaintiff as “Lover” and “sweetheart.”
16 25. Plaintiff did agree to go out with Defendant Roper on a couple occasions, but was
17 incredibly uncomfortable being asked out by her supervisor.
18 26. Defendant Roper would also text Plaintiff sexual pictures of herself, including nudes,
19 and asked Plaintiff to send her pictures. Plaintiff would sometimes reciprocate, but never sent any
20 nudes. In response to one picture, Defendant Roper said, “Omg girl I’m like really fuck yes please,”
21 and “Your sexy [a]s fuck.” Again, Plaintiff was uncomfortable with the direction things were going
22 because Defendant Roper was one of Plaintiff's supervisors at Defendant Franz and Plaintiff did not
23 want to jeopardize her job.
24 27. Because Plaintiff was uncomfortable with the relationship that Defendant Roper was
25 pursuing and did not want to jeopardize her job, Plaintiff removed Defendant Roper from Plaintiff's
26 social media accounts. Defendant Roper thereafter confronted Plaintiff about being removed from
27 social media, and Plaintiff explained she had done so “because you’re my boss” and Plaintiff wanted
28 to keep things platonic.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES
28. Thereafter, Defendant Roper began a campaign of retaliation against Plaintiff. For
example, Defendant Roper became cold and distant, engaged in passive aggressive behavior, and
committed various micro-aggressions. Defendant Roper’s actions were designed to let Plaintiff|
know that Plaintiff's work-life would be a terrible and hostile environment for rebuffing Defendant
Roper’s advances.
29. On information and belief, Defendant Roper also began bad mouthing Plaintiff to
Defendant Hanson, thereby poisoning Defendant Hanson’s opinion of Plaintiff and damaging
Plaintiff's reputation in the workplace. As a result, Hanson contributed to the harassment and
retaliation by yelling at Plaintiff and otherwise singling her out and holding her to a different standard
10 than others in her position.
11 30. Sometime during the first few months of 2023, Plaintiff complained to Maletic about
12 Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson. Plaintiff did not expressly share the motivation for the
13 mistreatment (the sexual harassment and retaliation) out of fear of further retaliation, but did explain
14 that she was being singled out, yelled at, and mistreated.
15 ol. Defendant Franz failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's complaint to discover the
16 true reasons for Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson’s actions. The only thing that happened
17 was Maletic told Defendant Hanson, “You just need to be better.”
18 32. Thereafter, the mistreatment by Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson continued.
19 335 On or about March 10, 2023, Plaintiff again complained to Defendant Franz. This
20 time, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant Franz’s human resources department (specifically, to
21 Aurora Grundmeyer and Jennifer Reasoner) and expressly stated that she was being discriminated
22 and retaliated against:
23 I’m Allix Hurtado a RSR out of Oroville depot I have included my
union representative on the email as well. I'm again notifying you
24
that on a regular basis I'm treated differently by my immediate
25 supervisors. Which is continued discrimination in many forms.
This is a constant issue that needs to be addressed. I have addressed
26 it with my supervisors and retaliation is a serious problem. I enjoy
my job and I'm good at my job. I'm writing to find a solution which
27 Ineed your help to do. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. I
can be reached by email, phone, and mail... .
28
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
R DAMAGES,
34, Once again, Defendant Franz failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's complaint or
remedy the situation. Thus, Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson were free to continue harassing
and retaliating against Plaintiff.
35. In June 2023, Plaintiff was wrongfully suspended for two days. Defendant Hanson’s
pretextual reason for suspending Plaintiff was that Plaintiff had hit the top of her delivery truck on a
gate that was not fully opened. Plaintiff had had a spotter, but the spotter missed that the gate was
not fully open. Plaintiff was disciplined, but the spotter was not. This was yet another example of}
Plaintiff being singled out and mistreated.
36. On or about June 30, 2023, Plaintiff returned from her suspension. Plaintiff attempted
10 to ask Defendant Roper about a particular client, but Defendant Roper refused to provide Plaintiff|
11 with the information needed. This led to an argument between Plaintiff and Defendant Roper during
12 which Defendant Roper spoke in a threatening and condescending manner towards Plaintiff.
13 3%. After the argument with Defendant Roper, Plaintiff texted Maletic and the union to
14 complain about Defendant Roper. Specifically, the text stated:
15 Good afternoon Whit [Maletic] I just wanted to let you know
that Cheyanne address me very unprofessional today and I do
16
not deserve to be talked to so rudely especially from a
17 supervisor so I hope that you have a conversation with her. I
did let Mike know about it.
18
Mike also said he’s have a talk with her which I appreciate but
19 she is constantly being rude to me because I ask her very basic
questions that apply to my route I shouldn’t have to feel like
20
I’m walking on eggshells around any supervisor.
21
22 38. Maletic did not respond to Plaintiffs text.
23 39. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Defendant Roper, Defendant Hanson, and
24 Maletic were conspiring to frame Plaintiff and create a pretextual terminable offense. To that end,
25 Defendant Roper “complained” about Plaintiff and falsely claimed that Plaintiff had threatened her.
26 Management and human resources promptly “investigated” Defendant Roper’s complaint, while
27 ignoring Plaintiff's complaint, and concluded that Plaintiff was in the wrong even though statements
28 obtained from various witnesses demonstrated blatant contradictions about who was present, who
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
(OR DAMAGES
said what to whom, and whether Defendant Hanson was in his office or not at the time. In other
words, Defendant Franz conducted a sham investigation.
40. On or about July 6, 2023, Aurora Grundmeyer, a human resources representative of
Defendant Franz, telephoned and questioned Plaintiff about the June 30, 2023 incident. Plaintiff]
asked if she was being disciplined and requested a union rep, but Aurora Grundmeyer told Plaintiff|
that she was just gathering statements and there was no disciplined involved.
41. Despite human resources’ representation, Maletic then telephoned Plaintiff and
suspended her from Friday through Tuesday.
42. When Plaintiff returned to work on Tuesday, she was wrongfully terminated by
10 Defendant Franz. Plaintiff's union representative (Adrian Inguanzo) was present and asked for
11 documentation supporting the termination, but he was refused. Plaintiff also shared with those in the
12 meeting that the termination was in retaliation for her complaints about Defendant Roper and
13 Defendant Hanson and for Plaintiff rebuffing Defendant Roper’s sexual advances. Despite this
14 information, Defendant Franz refused to put the termination on hold or investigate the allegations.
15 43. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Franz, she was often unable to take
16 her meal or rest periods despite working shifts as long as 13 to 16 hours. This was, in part, because
17 of the constant pressure to quickly get from one location to another.
18 44. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Franz, she was not paid for all time
19 worked. For example, Plaintiff was specifically instructed to make bank deposits after her shift rather
20 than during her work time. Additionally, Defendant Franz would wrongfully dock her pay if any
21 food items Plaintiff distributed went unsold and became stale.
22 45. After Plaintiff's wrongful termination, Defendant Hanson made one or more
23 statements to Defendant Franz workers about Plaintiff, and the recipients of Defendant Hanson’s
24 statements understood them to be about Plaintiff. Defendant Hanson’s statements accused Plaintiff}
25 of committing crimes such as “slashing tires” and Defendant Hanson warned these workers to “watch
26 out” for Plaintiff, These statements were false, Defendant Hanson knew the statements were false
27 and/or had serious doubts about the truth of the statements. Defendant Hanson’s statements tended
28 to injure Plaintiff in her occupation and reputation among her past and current co-workers.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
IR DAMAGES
46. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff has filed a complaint with the California
Civil Rights Department, in full compliance with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
and has received a “right-to-sue” letter.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FEHA Sexual Harassment — Hostile Work Environment
(Against Defendant FRANZ and Defendant ROPER)
47. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
reference.
48. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of,
10 Defendant Franz.
11 49. Defendant Franz and Defendant Roper, and each of them, have breached their
12 statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under Defendants’ representations, policies and
13 procedures, and under California law, including Government Code section 12940(j). At all times,
14 Government Code section 12940(j) was in full force and effect and binding upon Defendants. This
15 section provides that no employer or an employee of an entity subject to the law, shall harass an
16 employee because of an employee’s “sex.” See also California Government Code §12923(b) (“A
17 single incident of harassment conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of
18 a hostile work environment if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's
19 work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment”); see also
20 CACI Jury Instruction 2524.
21 50. Here, Plaintiff was harassed by Defendant ROPER because of Plaintiff's sex.
22 51, Defendant Franz is strictly liable for Defendant Roper’s misconduct and/or Defendant
23 Franz knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take any action to prevent and/or
24 remedy the harassment.
25, 52. The harassment was severe and/or pervasive and altered Plaintiff's work environment
26 to that of a hostile work environment. As set forth above, Plaintiff has alleged far more than a single
27 incident of sexual harassment. Plaintiff considered, and other reasonable women would have
28
ES COMPLAINT
IR DAMAGES,
considered, the work environment at Defendant Franz to be hostile, intimidating, offensive,
depressive, and/or abusive.
53. As a result of Defendants’ conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully
ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but
not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses
and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial.
54. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced as a result of Defendants’ breach to retain a law
firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable
10 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof.
11 55. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained and
12 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe
13 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the
14 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
15 56. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them,
16 acted fraudulently, maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard,
17 and/or with callous disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff,
18 and to the direct benefit to Defendants, knowing that Defendants’ conduct was substantially certain
19 to vex, annoy and injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil
20 Code § 3294. Thus, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendants in an amount
21 sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendants.
22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FEHA Sex/Gender Discrimination
23 (Against Defendant FRANZ)
24 57. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
25 reference.
26 58. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of|
27 Defendant Franz.
28
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
IR DAMAGES
359. Defendant breached its statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under
Defendant’s representations, policies and procedures, and under California law, including
Government Code section 12940(a). At all times relevant, Government Code § 12940(a) was in full
force and effect and binding upon Defendant. This section provides that no employer or person shall
discriminate against an employee on the basis of “sex” or “gender.”
60. Here, Plaintiff was discriminated against because of Plaintiff's sex and/or gender. For
example, Plaintiff was terminated as a result of her sex and/or gender when Defendant Franz acted
on Defendant Roper’s complaint about Plaintiff, which complaint was substantially motivated by
Plaintiff rebuffing Defendant Roper’s sexual advances.
10 61. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code sections, Plaintiff has
11 suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully
12 ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but
13 not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses
14 and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial.
15 62. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced, as a result of Defendant’s breach, to retain a law
16 firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable
17 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof.
18 63. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained and
19 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe
20 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the
21 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
22 64. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently,
23 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous
24 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct
25 benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and
26 injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Thus,
27 Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish or
28 to make an example of Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
10 FOR DAMAGES
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FEHA Retaliation
(Against Defendant FRANZ)
65. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
reference.
66. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of
Defendant Franz.
67. Defendant has breached its statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under
Defendant’s representations, policies and procedures, and under California law, including section
12940(h) of the California Government Code. At all times, Government Code section 12940(h) was
10 in full force and effect and binding upon Defendant. This section provides that no employer shall
11 retaliate against an employee “because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this
12 part” or requested accommodation. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h).
13 68. Here, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she made multiple complaints
14 about sex-based harassment, retaliation, discrimination, and workplace safety.
15 69. Thereafter, Defendant Franz retaliated against Plaintiff and terminated her
16 employment
17 70. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code sections, Plaintiff has
18 suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully
19 ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but
20 not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses
21 and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial.
22 TL. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced, as a result of Defendant’s breach, to retain a law
23 firm to enforce Plaintiffs rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable
24 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof.
25 T2. Asa direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained and
26 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiffs severe
27 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the
28 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
11 FOR DAMAGES
73. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently,
maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous
disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct
benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and
injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Thus,
Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish or
to make an example of Defendant.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Labor Code § 1102.5 Retaliation
10 (Against Defendant FRANZ)
11 74, The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
12 reference.
13 75. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of|
14 Defendant Franz.
15 76. California Labor Code section 1102.5(a), in pertinent part, provides:
16
[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall
17 not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy
preventing an employee from disclosing information to a
18 government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority
19 over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to
investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or
20 from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body
conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has
21 reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation
of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a
22 local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether
23 disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.
77. California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) provides:
24
[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall
25 not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or
because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may
26 disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency,
to a person with authority over the employee or another employee
27 who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the
violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or
28 testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation,
hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
12 IR DAMAGES
that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute,
or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule
or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is
part of the employee’s job duties.
78. California Labor Code section 1102.5 subsections (c)&(d) provides
(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer,
shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in
an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute,
or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule
or regulation.
(d) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer,
shall not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or
her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former
employment.
10 79. Here, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity, including when she made complaints of|
11 workplace safety concerning the old bread truck and defective ramp.
12 80. Thereafter, Plaintiff was retaliated against and terminated.
13 81. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code sections, Plaintiff has
14 suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully
15 ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but
16 not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses
17 and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial.
18 82. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced, as a result of Defendant’s breach, to retain a law
19 firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable
20 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof.
21 83. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained and
22 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiffs severe
23 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the
24 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
25; 84. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently,
26 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous
27 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct
28 benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
13 R DAMAGES
injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Thus,
Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish or
to make an example of Defendant.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Labor Code § 6310 Retaliation
(Against Defendant FRANZ)
85. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
reference.
86. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of
10 Defendant Franz.
11 87. Labor Code section 6310 holds, “(a) No person shall discharge or in any manner
12 discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made
13 any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory
14 responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her
15 employer, or his or her representative.” “The public policy behind Labor Code Section 6310 is not
16 merely to aid the reporting of actual safety violations . . . it is also to prevent retaliation against those
17 who in good faith report working conditions they believe to be unsafe.” Freund y. Nycomed)
18 Amersham, 347 F.3d 752, 759 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying Calif. law). Labor Code section 6310
19 retaliation includes preemptive retaliation against employees whom an employer fears will file
20 workplace safety complaints. Lujan v. Minagar, 124 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1046, (2004).
21 88. Here, as described above, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity.
22 89. Thereafter, Plaintiff was retaliated against.
23 90. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff suffered
24 and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully ascertained but is
25 within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but not limited to lost
26 wages, salary, benefits and certain other incidental and consequential expenses and damages in an
27 amount to be shown at the time of trial.
28
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
14 FOR DAMAGES,
91. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced as a result of Defendant's conduct to retain a law
firm to enforce Plaintiffs rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof.
92. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained and
continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe
emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the
jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
93. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, and each of them,
acted fraudulently, maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard,
10 and/or with callous disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff,
ll and to the direct benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendants’ conduct was substantially certain to
12 vex, annoy and injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code
13 §3294, in an amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant.
14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation
15 (Against Defendant FRANZ)
16 94. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
17 reference.
18 95. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of|
19 Defendant Franz.
20 96. Defendant has breached its statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under
21 Defendant’s representations, policies and procedures, and under California law, including section
22 12940(k) of the California Government Code. At all times, Government Code section 12940(k) was
23 in full force and effect and binding upon Defendant. This section provides that it is unlawful for an
24 employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and/or
25, harassment from occurring.
26 97. Here, Defendant failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
27 discrimination, retaliation, and/or harassment from occurring.
28
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
15 IR DAMAGES
98. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully
ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but
not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses
and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial.
99. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced as a result of Defendant’s conduct to retain a
law firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof.
100. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained and
10 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe
11 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the
12 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
13 101. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently,
14 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous
15 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct
16 benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and
17 injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294, in an
18 amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant.
19 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
20 (Against Defendant FRANZ)
21 102. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
22 reference.
23 103. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of
24 Defendant Franz.
25 104. An employer’s traditional broad authority to discharge an at-will employee may be
26 limited by statute or by considerations of public policy. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 27 Cal.3d
27 167, 172 (1980). A Tameny claim lies where an employee is fired for reporting reasonably-based
28
PLAINTIFES COMPLAINT
16 IR DAMAGES
suspicions of illegal activity. California Health and Safety Code sections 11350-11352 HS make it a
crime to possess, sell, or transport controlled substances including cocaine.
105. As set forth above, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and was a member of a
protected class (sex/gender).
106. Thereafter, Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff.
107. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff suffered
and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully ascertained but is
within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but not limited to lost
wages, salary, benefits and certain other incidental and consequential expenses and damages in an
10 amount to be shown at the time of trial.
11 108. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained and
12 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe
13 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the
14 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
LS 109. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently,
16 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous
17 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct
18 benefit to Defendant knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and
19 injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294, in an
20 amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant.
21 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
22 (Against All Defendants)
23 110. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
24 reference.
25 111. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of
26 Defendant Franz.
27 112. A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is
28 “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
17 FOR DAMAGES
disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's sufferin
Preview
F Superior Court of Califomia F County of Butte I I WEBBER & EGBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C 10/10/2023 Kelsey A. Webber, State Bar No. 303721 L L Kelsey. Webber@webberlawgroup.com E Douglas M. Egbert, State Bar No. 265062 Douglas.Egbert@webberlawgroup.com D Ryan M. Harrison, Sr., State Bar No. 319712 & 4 Ryan.Harrison@webberlawgroup.com 1610 R Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 588-0683 Attorneys for Plaintiff ALLIX HURTADO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 11 ALLIX HURTADO ) Case No. 23CV02820 12 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR vs. ) DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY 13 ) TRIAL UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a FRANZ). 14 an Oregon corporation, SHYANNE ROPER, FEHA Sexual Harassment — Hostile an individual, and MICHAEL HANSON, an Work Environment; 15 individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, FEHA Sex/Gender Discrimination; FEHA Retaliation; 16 Defendants. Labor Code § 1102.5 Retaliation; Labor Code § 6310 Retaliation; 17 Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation; 18 Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 19 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 20 9 Defamation; 21 10. Meal Period Liability; 11. Rest Period Liability; 12. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; 22 13. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; 23 14, Waiting Time Penalties; and 15. Violation of Business and Professions 24 Code § 17200, et seq. 25 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ALLIX HURTADO submits the instant Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial against UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a FRANZ), SHYANNE ROPER, MICHAEL HANSON and DOES 1 through 50, as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1 Plaintiff ALLIX HURTADO (“Plaintiff”), under information and belief, was, at all times relevant to this action, an employee of Defendant UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a FRANZ) 2 Defendant UNITED STATES BAKERY (d/b/a FRANZ) (“Defendant Franz”), under information and belief, was, at all times relevant to this action, an Oregon Corporation doing business 10 in Butte County, State of California. Under information and belief, Defendant FRANZ was, at all 11 times relevant to this action, Plaintiff's employer. 12 3 Defendant SHYANNE ROPER (“Defendant Roper”), under information and belief. 13 at all times herein relevant, was a manager and/or supervisor at Defendant FRANZ and a managing 14 agent of Defendant Franz with respect to the matters herein alleged. 15 4. Defendant MICHAEL HANSON (“Defendant Hanson”), under information and 16 belief, at all times herein relevant, was a manager and/or supervisor at Defendant FRANZ and a 17 managing agent of Defendant Franz with respect to the matters herein alleged 18 5 Venue and jurisdiction are proper because the majority of events giving rise to this 19 action took place in Butte County, because Defendants were doing business in Butte County; because 20 Plaintiff entered into employment with Defendant Franz in Butte County, because Plaintiff worked 21 for Defendants in Butte County, because the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional minimum of| 22, this Court, and because, under information and belief, the majority of witnesses reside in Butte 23) County. 24 6 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise 25 of defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said 26 defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names. 27 involvement and capacities when the same have been ascertained. DOES 1 through 50 are residents 28 of the State of California and/or are authorized to do business in the State of California and/or have SNE S COMPLAINT (OR DAMAGES their principal place of business in the State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants named herein as a DOE was, in some manner, responsible for the injuries and losses suffered by Plaintiff. 7 Atall relevant times, each and every Defendant was an agent and/or employee of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action stated herein, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment, and was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each remaining Defendant. All actions of, each Defendant as alleged herein were ratified and approved by every other Defendant or their officers or managing agents. 10 STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 8 Plaintiff began working for Defendant Franz in or about February 2022 as a Route 12 Sales Representative working out of Defendant Franz’s Oroville, California location. 13 9 As a Route Sales Representative, Plaintiff's responsibilities included, but were not 14 limited to, organizing account orders, loading the delivery truck, traveling to Defendant Franz’s 15 clients to stock and rotate product, prepare store displays, and so on. 16 10. Plaintiff reported to Defendant Hanson. 17 1 Plaintiff also reported to Defendant Roper. 18 12. Defendant Hanson and Defendant Roper reported to Whitney Maletic (“Maletic”). 19 Maletic was in charge of Defendant Franz’s Oroville division. 20 135 On or about September 25, 2022, Plaintiff's delivery truck was damaged and she was 21 assigned a much older and smaller bread truck to use while her regular delivery truck was being 22 repaired. 23 14. The older bread truck used a ramp at the back to load and unload the truck. 24 I53 In early winter 2022, Plaintiff was still using the older bread truck. Plaintiff] 25 complained to Defendant Franz that the older truck and its ramp were dangerous in the winter because 26 the ramp could slide in slippery conditions and seriously injure the worker. Indeed, Plaintiff had 27 heard of such horror stories before. 28 16. Defendant Franz failed to respond to Plaintiffs workplace safety complaint. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES li As feared, during one of Plaintiff's shifts, Plaintiff fell and injured her knee because of the unsafe condition of the older truck and ramp. 18. At the time of Plaintiff's injury, Plaintiff had been in the older truck for about three months. 19. Plaintiff saw a doctor for her knee injury and the doctor told Plaintiff she could not use the ramp. 20. Defendant Franz then fixed Plaintiff's regular truck within three days. 21. Had Defendant Franz addressed Plaintiff's workplace safety complaint by, for example, fixing Plaintiffs regular truck, Plaintiff's knee injury could have been avoided. 10 22. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Franz, Plaintiff was repeatedly 11 sexually harassed by Defendant Roper. 12 23. The harassment Plaintiff suffered from Defendant Roper included, but was not limited 13 to, Defendant Roper regularly making passes at Plaintiff and kissing and hugging Plaintiff on 14 occasion. 15 24. Defendant Roper also referred to Plaintiff as “Lover” and “sweetheart.” 16 25. Plaintiff did agree to go out with Defendant Roper on a couple occasions, but was 17 incredibly uncomfortable being asked out by her supervisor. 18 26. Defendant Roper would also text Plaintiff sexual pictures of herself, including nudes, 19 and asked Plaintiff to send her pictures. Plaintiff would sometimes reciprocate, but never sent any 20 nudes. In response to one picture, Defendant Roper said, “Omg girl I’m like really fuck yes please,” 21 and “Your sexy [a]s fuck.” Again, Plaintiff was uncomfortable with the direction things were going 22 because Defendant Roper was one of Plaintiff's supervisors at Defendant Franz and Plaintiff did not 23 want to jeopardize her job. 24 27. Because Plaintiff was uncomfortable with the relationship that Defendant Roper was 25 pursuing and did not want to jeopardize her job, Plaintiff removed Defendant Roper from Plaintiff's 26 social media accounts. Defendant Roper thereafter confronted Plaintiff about being removed from 27 social media, and Plaintiff explained she had done so “because you’re my boss” and Plaintiff wanted 28 to keep things platonic. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 28. Thereafter, Defendant Roper began a campaign of retaliation against Plaintiff. For example, Defendant Roper became cold and distant, engaged in passive aggressive behavior, and committed various micro-aggressions. Defendant Roper’s actions were designed to let Plaintiff| know that Plaintiff's work-life would be a terrible and hostile environment for rebuffing Defendant Roper’s advances. 29. On information and belief, Defendant Roper also began bad mouthing Plaintiff to Defendant Hanson, thereby poisoning Defendant Hanson’s opinion of Plaintiff and damaging Plaintiff's reputation in the workplace. As a result, Hanson contributed to the harassment and retaliation by yelling at Plaintiff and otherwise singling her out and holding her to a different standard 10 than others in her position. 11 30. Sometime during the first few months of 2023, Plaintiff complained to Maletic about 12 Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson. Plaintiff did not expressly share the motivation for the 13 mistreatment (the sexual harassment and retaliation) out of fear of further retaliation, but did explain 14 that she was being singled out, yelled at, and mistreated. 15 ol. Defendant Franz failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's complaint to discover the 16 true reasons for Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson’s actions. The only thing that happened 17 was Maletic told Defendant Hanson, “You just need to be better.” 18 32. Thereafter, the mistreatment by Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson continued. 19 335 On or about March 10, 2023, Plaintiff again complained to Defendant Franz. This 20 time, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant Franz’s human resources department (specifically, to 21 Aurora Grundmeyer and Jennifer Reasoner) and expressly stated that she was being discriminated 22 and retaliated against: 23 I’m Allix Hurtado a RSR out of Oroville depot I have included my union representative on the email as well. I'm again notifying you 24 that on a regular basis I'm treated differently by my immediate 25 supervisors. Which is continued discrimination in many forms. This is a constant issue that needs to be addressed. I have addressed 26 it with my supervisors and retaliation is a serious problem. I enjoy my job and I'm good at my job. I'm writing to find a solution which 27 Ineed your help to do. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. I can be reached by email, phone, and mail... . 28 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT R DAMAGES, 34, Once again, Defendant Franz failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's complaint or remedy the situation. Thus, Defendant Roper and Defendant Hanson were free to continue harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff. 35. In June 2023, Plaintiff was wrongfully suspended for two days. Defendant Hanson’s pretextual reason for suspending Plaintiff was that Plaintiff had hit the top of her delivery truck on a gate that was not fully opened. Plaintiff had had a spotter, but the spotter missed that the gate was not fully open. Plaintiff was disciplined, but the spotter was not. This was yet another example of} Plaintiff being singled out and mistreated. 36. On or about June 30, 2023, Plaintiff returned from her suspension. Plaintiff attempted 10 to ask Defendant Roper about a particular client, but Defendant Roper refused to provide Plaintiff| 11 with the information needed. This led to an argument between Plaintiff and Defendant Roper during 12 which Defendant Roper spoke in a threatening and condescending manner towards Plaintiff. 13 3%. After the argument with Defendant Roper, Plaintiff texted Maletic and the union to 14 complain about Defendant Roper. Specifically, the text stated: 15 Good afternoon Whit [Maletic] I just wanted to let you know that Cheyanne address me very unprofessional today and I do 16 not deserve to be talked to so rudely especially from a 17 supervisor so I hope that you have a conversation with her. I did let Mike know about it. 18 Mike also said he’s have a talk with her which I appreciate but 19 she is constantly being rude to me because I ask her very basic questions that apply to my route I shouldn’t have to feel like 20 I’m walking on eggshells around any supervisor. 21 22 38. Maletic did not respond to Plaintiffs text. 23 39. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Defendant Roper, Defendant Hanson, and 24 Maletic were conspiring to frame Plaintiff and create a pretextual terminable offense. To that end, 25 Defendant Roper “complained” about Plaintiff and falsely claimed that Plaintiff had threatened her. 26 Management and human resources promptly “investigated” Defendant Roper’s complaint, while 27 ignoring Plaintiff's complaint, and concluded that Plaintiff was in the wrong even though statements 28 obtained from various witnesses demonstrated blatant contradictions about who was present, who PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (OR DAMAGES said what to whom, and whether Defendant Hanson was in his office or not at the time. In other words, Defendant Franz conducted a sham investigation. 40. On or about July 6, 2023, Aurora Grundmeyer, a human resources representative of Defendant Franz, telephoned and questioned Plaintiff about the June 30, 2023 incident. Plaintiff] asked if she was being disciplined and requested a union rep, but Aurora Grundmeyer told Plaintiff| that she was just gathering statements and there was no disciplined involved. 41. Despite human resources’ representation, Maletic then telephoned Plaintiff and suspended her from Friday through Tuesday. 42. When Plaintiff returned to work on Tuesday, she was wrongfully terminated by 10 Defendant Franz. Plaintiff's union representative (Adrian Inguanzo) was present and asked for 11 documentation supporting the termination, but he was refused. Plaintiff also shared with those in the 12 meeting that the termination was in retaliation for her complaints about Defendant Roper and 13 Defendant Hanson and for Plaintiff rebuffing Defendant Roper’s sexual advances. Despite this 14 information, Defendant Franz refused to put the termination on hold or investigate the allegations. 15 43. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Franz, she was often unable to take 16 her meal or rest periods despite working shifts as long as 13 to 16 hours. This was, in part, because 17 of the constant pressure to quickly get from one location to another. 18 44. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Franz, she was not paid for all time 19 worked. For example, Plaintiff was specifically instructed to make bank deposits after her shift rather 20 than during her work time. Additionally, Defendant Franz would wrongfully dock her pay if any 21 food items Plaintiff distributed went unsold and became stale. 22 45. After Plaintiff's wrongful termination, Defendant Hanson made one or more 23 statements to Defendant Franz workers about Plaintiff, and the recipients of Defendant Hanson’s 24 statements understood them to be about Plaintiff. Defendant Hanson’s statements accused Plaintiff} 25 of committing crimes such as “slashing tires” and Defendant Hanson warned these workers to “watch 26 out” for Plaintiff, These statements were false, Defendant Hanson knew the statements were false 27 and/or had serious doubts about the truth of the statements. Defendant Hanson’s statements tended 28 to injure Plaintiff in her occupation and reputation among her past and current co-workers. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IR DAMAGES 46. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff has filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, in full compliance with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and has received a “right-to-sue” letter. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FEHA Sexual Harassment — Hostile Work Environment (Against Defendant FRANZ and Defendant ROPER) 47. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference. 48. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of, 10 Defendant Franz. 11 49. Defendant Franz and Defendant Roper, and each of them, have breached their 12 statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under Defendants’ representations, policies and 13 procedures, and under California law, including Government Code section 12940(j). At all times, 14 Government Code section 12940(j) was in full force and effect and binding upon Defendants. This 15 section provides that no employer or an employee of an entity subject to the law, shall harass an 16 employee because of an employee’s “sex.” See also California Government Code §12923(b) (“A 17 single incident of harassment conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of 18 a hostile work environment if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's 19 work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment”); see also 20 CACI Jury Instruction 2524. 21 50. Here, Plaintiff was harassed by Defendant ROPER because of Plaintiff's sex. 22 51, Defendant Franz is strictly liable for Defendant Roper’s misconduct and/or Defendant 23 Franz knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take any action to prevent and/or 24 remedy the harassment. 25, 52. The harassment was severe and/or pervasive and altered Plaintiff's work environment 26 to that of a hostile work environment. As set forth above, Plaintiff has alleged far more than a single 27 incident of sexual harassment. Plaintiff considered, and other reasonable women would have 28 ES COMPLAINT IR DAMAGES, considered, the work environment at Defendant Franz to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, depressive, and/or abusive. 53. As a result of Defendants’ conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial. 54. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced as a result of Defendants’ breach to retain a law firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable 10 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof. 11 55. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained and 12 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe 13 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the 14 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. 15 56. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, 16 acted fraudulently, maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, 17 and/or with callous disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, 18 and to the direct benefit to Defendants, knowing that Defendants’ conduct was substantially certain 19 to vex, annoy and injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil 20 Code § 3294. Thus, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendants in an amount 21 sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendants. 22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FEHA Sex/Gender Discrimination 23 (Against Defendant FRANZ) 24 57. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by 25 reference. 26 58. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of| 27 Defendant Franz. 28 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IR DAMAGES 359. Defendant breached its statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under Defendant’s representations, policies and procedures, and under California law, including Government Code section 12940(a). At all times relevant, Government Code § 12940(a) was in full force and effect and binding upon Defendant. This section provides that no employer or person shall discriminate against an employee on the basis of “sex” or “gender.” 60. Here, Plaintiff was discriminated against because of Plaintiff's sex and/or gender. For example, Plaintiff was terminated as a result of her sex and/or gender when Defendant Franz acted on Defendant Roper’s complaint about Plaintiff, which complaint was substantially motivated by Plaintiff rebuffing Defendant Roper’s sexual advances. 10 61. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code sections, Plaintiff has 11 suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully 12 ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but 13 not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses 14 and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial. 15 62. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced, as a result of Defendant’s breach, to retain a law 16 firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable 17 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof. 18 63. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained and 19 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe 20 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the 21 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. 22 64. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently, 23 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous 24 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct 25 benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and 26 injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Thus, 27 Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish or 28 to make an example of Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 10 FOR DAMAGES THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FEHA Retaliation (Against Defendant FRANZ) 65. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference. 66. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Franz. 67. Defendant has breached its statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under Defendant’s representations, policies and procedures, and under California law, including section 12940(h) of the California Government Code. At all times, Government Code section 12940(h) was 10 in full force and effect and binding upon Defendant. This section provides that no employer shall 11 retaliate against an employee “because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this 12 part” or requested accommodation. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h). 13 68. Here, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she made multiple complaints 14 about sex-based harassment, retaliation, discrimination, and workplace safety. 15 69. Thereafter, Defendant Franz retaliated against Plaintiff and terminated her 16 employment 17 70. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code sections, Plaintiff has 18 suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully 19 ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but 20 not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses 21 and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial. 22 TL. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced, as a result of Defendant’s breach, to retain a law 23 firm to enforce Plaintiffs rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable 24 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof. 25 T2. Asa direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained and 26 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiffs severe 27 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the 28 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 11 FOR DAMAGES 73. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently, maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Thus, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Labor Code § 1102.5 Retaliation 10 (Against Defendant FRANZ) 11 74, The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by 12 reference. 13 75. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of| 14 Defendant Franz. 15 76. California Labor Code section 1102.5(a), in pertinent part, provides: 16 [a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall 17 not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a 18 government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority 19 over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or 20 from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has 21 reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a 22 local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether 23 disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties. 77. California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) provides: 24 [a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall 25 not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may 26 disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee 27 who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or 28 testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 12 IR DAMAGES that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties. 78. California Labor Code section 1102.5 subsections (c)&(d) provides (c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. (d) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment. 10 79. Here, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity, including when she made complaints of| 11 workplace safety concerning the old bread truck and defective ramp. 12 80. Thereafter, Plaintiff was retaliated against and terminated. 13 81. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code sections, Plaintiff has 14 suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully 15 ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but 16 not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses 17 and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial. 18 82. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced, as a result of Defendant’s breach, to retain a law 19 firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable 20 attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof. 21 83. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained and 22 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiffs severe 23 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the 24 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. 25; 84. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently, 26 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous 27 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct 28 benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 13 R DAMAGES injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Thus, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Labor Code § 6310 Retaliation (Against Defendant FRANZ) 85. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference. 86. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of 10 Defendant Franz. 11 87. Labor Code section 6310 holds, “(a) No person shall discharge or in any manner 12 discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made 13 any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory 14 responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her 15 employer, or his or her representative.” “The public policy behind Labor Code Section 6310 is not 16 merely to aid the reporting of actual safety violations . . . it is also to prevent retaliation against those 17 who in good faith report working conditions they believe to be unsafe.” Freund y. Nycomed) 18 Amersham, 347 F.3d 752, 759 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying Calif. law). Labor Code section 6310 19 retaliation includes preemptive retaliation against employees whom an employer fears will file 20 workplace safety complaints. Lujan v. Minagar, 124 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1046, (2004). 21 88. Here, as described above, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity. 22 89. Thereafter, Plaintiff was retaliated against. 23 90. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff suffered 24 and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully ascertained but is 25 within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but not limited to lost 26 wages, salary, benefits and certain other incidental and consequential expenses and damages in an 27 amount to be shown at the time of trial. 28 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 14 FOR DAMAGES, 91. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced as a result of Defendant's conduct to retain a law firm to enforce Plaintiffs rights, and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof. 92. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained and continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. 93. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, and each of them, acted fraudulently, maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, 10 and/or with callous disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, ll and to the direct benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendants’ conduct was substantially certain to 12 vex, annoy and injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code 13 §3294, in an amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant. 14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation 15 (Against Defendant FRANZ) 16 94. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by 17 reference. 18 95. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of| 19 Defendant Franz. 20 96. Defendant has breached its statutory and self-imposed duties owed to Plaintiff under 21 Defendant’s representations, policies and procedures, and under California law, including section 22 12940(k) of the California Government Code. At all times, Government Code section 12940(k) was 23 in full force and effect and binding upon Defendant. This section provides that it is unlawful for an 24 employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and/or 25, harassment from occurring. 26 97. Here, Defendant failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent 27 discrimination, retaliation, and/or harassment from occurring. 28 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 15 IR DAMAGES 98. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits, and certain other incidental and consequential expenses and damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial. 99. In addition, Plaintiff has been forced as a result of Defendant’s conduct to retain a law firm to enforce Plaintiff's rights and has incurred and will continue to incur costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in connection herewith, recovery of which Plaintiff is entitled to according to proof. 100. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained and 10 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe 11 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the 12 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. 13 101. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently, 14 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous 15 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct 16 benefit to Defendant, knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and 17 injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294, in an 18 amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant. 19 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 20 (Against Defendant FRANZ) 21 102. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by 22 reference. 23 103. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of 24 Defendant Franz. 25 104. An employer’s traditional broad authority to discharge an at-will employee may be 26 limited by statute or by considerations of public policy. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 27 Cal.3d 27 167, 172 (1980). A Tameny claim lies where an employee is fired for reporting reasonably-based 28 PLAINTIFES COMPLAINT 16 IR DAMAGES suspicions of illegal activity. California Health and Safety Code sections 11350-11352 HS make it a crime to possess, sell, or transport controlled substances including cocaine. 105. As set forth above, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and was a member of a protected class (sex/gender). 106. Thereafter, Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff. 107. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and breach of the code section, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages, the exact amount of which has not been fully ascertained but is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, salary, benefits and certain other incidental and consequential expenses and damages in an 10 amount to be shown at the time of trial. 11 108. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained and 12 continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks general damages for Plaintiff's severe 13 emotional distress and other consequential damages in an amount not less than an amount within the 14 jurisdiction of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. LS 109. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant acted fraudulently, 16 maliciously and oppressively with a conscious, reckless and willful disregard, and/or with callous 17 disregard of the probable detrimental and economic consequences to Plaintiff, and to the direct 18 benefit to Defendant knowing that Defendant’s conduct was substantially certain to vex, annoy and 19 injure Plaintiff and entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294, in an 20 amount sufficient to punish or to make an example of Defendant. 21 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 22 (Against All Defendants) 23 110. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by 24 reference. 25 111. At all relevant times, under information and belief, Plaintiff was an employee of 26 Defendant Franz. 27 112. A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is 28 “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 17 FOR DAMAGES disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's sufferin