Preview
1 LOYR, APC
YOUNG W. RYU, ESQ. (SBN 266372)
2 young.ryu@loywr.com
ZACHARIAH E. MOURA, ESQ. (SBN 279508)
3 zach.moura@loywr.com
4 KEE SEOK MAH, ESQ. (SBN 345736)
kee.mah@loywr.com
5 HARLEY M. PHLEGER, ESQ. (SBN 351851)
harley.phleger@loywr.com
6 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2290
Los Angeles, California 90017
7
Telephone: (213) 318-5323
8 Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERONICA VASQUEZ
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
12
13 VERONICA VASQUEZ, an individual, Case No.:
14 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15 v. 1. Retaliation for Reporting Illegal Activities
16 (Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5)
SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; 2. Violation of Labor Code § 6310
17
LINDA BODEN, an individual; and DOES 3. Violation of Labor Code §§ 6400, et seq.
18 1 through 50, inclusive, (Failure to Maintain a Safe Work
Environment)
19 Defendants.
4. Tortious Wrongful Termination in Violation
20 of Public Policy
21 5. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512
(Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay
22 Meal and Period Premiums)
23 6. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512
(Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay
24 Rest Period Premiums)
25 7. Violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 1198
(Failure to Pay Wages Owed)
26 8. Violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203
27 (Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation of
Employment)
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
9. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226 (Failure to
1 Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements)
2
10. Negligent Supervision, Hiring, and
3 Retention (Violation of California Common
Law)
4
11. Violation of Business & Professions Code
5 Sections 17200, et seq. (Unfair Business
Practices)
6
7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiff VERONICA VASQUEZ (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual, complains and alleges
2 as follows:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
5 California Constitution Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original
6 jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statutes under
7 which this action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
8 2. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendant
9 SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC (“SENIOR LIFESTYLE”) does business within the State
10 of California. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant,
11 LINDA BODEN (“BODEN”) is a resident of the State of California.
12 3. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), venue is proper in
13 the County of Kern because Defendant’s obligations and liability arose, at least in part, therein,
14 and because the alleged injuries sustained by PLAINTIFF occurred in the County of Kern.
15 PARTIES
16 4. PLAINTIFF is, and at all times herein relevant, was an individual and a resident of
17 the State of California. Since approximately May 16, 2023, to December 14, 2023, PLAINTIFF
18 was employed by SENIOR LIFESTYLE in the position of “Caregiver.”
19 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges
20 that, at all times herein relevant, BODEN, is an owner, director, officer and/or managing agent of
21 Defendant SENIOR LIFESTYKE.
22 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges
23 that, at all times herein relevant, SENIOR LIFESTYLE is a corporation in the senior care home
24 industry organized under the laws of the State of California, with a principal place of business at
25 12712 Willowdale Dr., Bakersfield CA, 93312, and is registered and licensed to do business in the
26 State of California. SENIOR LIFESTYLE was the “employer” of PLAINTIFF within the meaning
27 of all applicable California state laws and statutes.
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges
2 that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1
3 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers,
4 representatives, servants, employees, successors-in-interest, co-conspirators, and assigns, each of
5 the other, and all times relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope of their authority
6 as such agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees,
7 successors-in-interest, co-conspirators, and assigns, and all acts or omissions alleged herein were
8 duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization, and
9 consent of each defendant designated herein.
10 8. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual, or
11 otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown to PLAINTIFF
12 who sues said defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and
13 upon such information and belief, alleges that each of the defendants designated as DOE is in some
14 manner responsible and liable for the wrongs and damages as alleged below, and in so acting, was
15 functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the codefendants; and in doing such
16 actions mentioned below, was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such
17 agent, servant, partner, and employee with the permission and consent of the codefendants.
18 PLAINTIFF will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and
19 capacities when the same have been ascertained.
20 9. Defendants SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
21 will be hereinafter collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS.”
22 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
23 10. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 6310, 6311 as well as the holding in
24 Sheridian v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal. App.4th 508, PLAINTIFF
25 is not required to exhaust administrative remedies when his or her protected activity regarding
26 employee health and safety is at issue. Nonetheless, PLAINTIFF has sent written notice by
27 certified mail to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The same was sent to
28 DEFENDANT via certified mail.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 ALTER EGO, AGENCY, AND JOINT EMPLOYER
2 11. BODEN owned and/or controlled the businesses operated by SENIOR
3 LIFESTYLE, and furthermore, BODEN exercised control over the labor practices of each and
4 every one of the employees (inclusive of PLAINTIFF) of each and every one of their said interests,
5 and caused the violations at issue in this Complaint.
6 12. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there exists
7 such a unity of interest and ownership between SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50
8 that the individuality and separateness of defendants have ceased to exist.
9 13. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that despite the
10 formation of purported corporate existence, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50
11 are, in reality, one and the same, including, but not limited to because:
12 a. SENIOR LIFESTYLE is or was completely dominated and controlled by BODEN
13 and DOES 1-50, who personally committed the frauds and violated the laws as set
14 forth in this complaint, and who have hidden and currently hide behind SENIOR
15 LIFESTYLE to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some other
16 wrongful or inequitable purpose.
17 b. BODEN and DOES 1-50 derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and
18 through SENIOR LIFESTYLE as the funding source for their own personal
19 expenditures.
20 c. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that BODEN, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and
21 DOES 1-50, while really one and the same, were segregated to appear as though
22 separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, circumventing a statute,
23 or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable purpose.
24 d. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that SENIOR LIFESTYLE does not or did
25 not comply with all requisite corporate formalities to maintain a legal and separate
26 corporate existence.
27 e. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the business
28 affairs of BODEN, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and DOES 1-50 are, and at all times
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 relevant were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be
2 segregated, and the same are in inextricable confusion.
3 f. SENIOR LIFESTYLE is, and at all times relevant hereto was, used by BODEN
4 and DOES 1-50 as a mere shell and conduit for the conduct of certain of
5 DEFENDANTS’ affairs, and is, and was, the alter ego of BODEN and DOES 1-
6 50. The recognition of the separate existence of SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and/or
7 BODEN would not promote justice, in that it would permit Defendants to insulate
8 themselves from liability to PLAINTIFF for violations of the Government Code,
9 Civil Code, Labor Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of
10 BODEN, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and DOES 1-50 should be disregarded in equity
11 and for the ends of justice because such disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and
12 injustice to PLAINTIFF herein.
13 14. Accordingly, SENIOR LIFESTYLE constitutes the alter egos of BODEN and
14 DOES 1-50, and the fiction of their separate corporate existence must be disregarded.
15 15. As a result of the aforementioned facts, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and
16 based thereon alleges that SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50 are PLAINTIFF’S
17 joint employers by virtue of a joint enterprise, and that PLAINTIFF was an employee of
18 SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50. PLAINTIFF performed services for each and
19 every one of Defendants, and to the mutual benefit of all DEFENDANTS, and all
20 DEFENDANTS shared control of PLAINTIFF as an employee, either directly or indirectly, and
21 the manner in which DEFENDANTS’ business was and is conducted.
22 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
23 16. From approximately May 16, 2023, to December 14, 2023, PLAINTIFF was
24 employed by DEFENDANTS as an hourly employee in the position of “Caregiver” at two of
25 DEFENDANTS’ care home locations: 11910 Crockett Ct., Bakersfield, CA 93312 and 15318 Lila
26 Rose Ct., Bakersfield, CA 93314.
27 17. PLAINTIFF was a loyal and hardworking employee for DEFENDANTS.
28
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 18. PLAINTIFF was paid $16.00 per hour. PLAINTIFF worked five (5) days a week
2 and her regularly scheduled shifts were from 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
3 19. However, PLAINTIFF was required to come in every day at 1:45 PM and regularly
4 worked ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes each shift after clocking out.
5 20. Throughout her employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF regularly worked
6 over eight (8) hours in a day. Nevertheless, at all material times set forth herein, DEFENDANTS
7 only paid PLAINTIFF for her regular rate and failed to pay all wages owed to PLAINTIFF,
8 including proper overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.
9 21. Additionally, throughout PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS,
10 PLAINTIFF routinely worked for DEFENDANTS without being provided with a timely, off-duty
11 ten-minute paid rest period for every four (4) hours worked for major fraction thereof. Despite the
12 aforementioned, during her employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF was not paid one (1)
13 hour of pay at her regular rate of compensation for each workday where a legally compliant rest
14 period was not provided.
15 22. Also, throughout PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF
16 was not given a proper thirty (30) minute meal break as required by law. Yet, DEFENDANTS
17 never paid PLAINTIFF the one (1) hour of pay at her regular rate of compensation for each
18 workday where a legally compliant meal period was not provided.
19 23. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
20 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF was entitled to receive certain
21 wages for overtime compensation, and that PLAINTIFF was not receiving all the overtime wages
22 she was entitled to.
23 24. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
24 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF was entitled to receive all legally
25 compliant meal and rest periods, or if a legally compliant meal and rest period were not provided,
26 she was entitled to and should have received payment of one additional hour of pay at
27 PLAINTIFF’s regular rate of pay; and that PLAINTIFF did not receive all meal and rest periods
28
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 or payment of one additional hour of pay at PLAINTIFF’s regular rate of pay when a legally
2 compliant meal and rest period was not provided.
3 25. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
4 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that they had a duty to compensate PLAINTIFF
5 pursuant to California law, and that DEFENDANTS had the financial ability to pay such
6 compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so, all in order to increase
7 DEFENDANTS’ profits.
8 26. Furthermore, PLAINTIFF often encountered dirty, unsanitary conditions when she
9 arrived at work, finding that co-workers from the previous shift had neglected to wash dishes, take
10 out the trash, or clean the counters. PLAINTIFF was particularly concerned that the unsanitary
11 conditions would affect the health of residents. Throughout the course of her employment,
12 PLAINTIFF consistently raised issues of cleanliness and sanitation to her supervisors.
13 27. On or about December 4, 2023, PLAINTIFF contacted Owner Linda Boden (“Ms.
14 Boden”) to inform her of the dirty, unsafe conditions at DEFENDANTS’ workplace, including
15 pictures and videos.
16 28. On or about December 5, 2023, Manager Margaret Louise (“Ms. Louise”) called
17 PLAINTIFF on her day off and yelled at PLAINTIFF because Ms. Louise had been reprimanded
18 about failing to clean.
19 29. On or about December 7, 2023, Ms. Louise began to harass PLAINTIFF at work,
20 angry that PLAINTIFF had gone over Ms. Louise’s head to inform Ms. Boden of the unsanitary
21 workplace conditions. That day, Ms. Louise ordered PLAINTIFF to pick up dog excrement and
22 water the back yard, tasks that had never previously been included in PLAINTIFF’s job duties.
23 30. On or about December 8, 2023, PLAINTIFF sought out another manager, Diana
24 Ellis (“Ms. Ellis”), to discuss Ms. Louise’s harassment. Ms. Ellis responded by calling
25 PLAINTIFF a “shithead.”
26 31. Following the interaction with Ms. Ellis, PLAINTIFF felt her face getting numb
27 and had a panic attack.
28
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 32. On or about December 10, 2023, PLAINTIFF visited the emergency room, where
2 a doctor placed her work until December 16. PLAINTIFF provided all relevant information
3 regarding her emergency room visit and doctor’s note to Ms. Boden and other managers via text
4 message.
5 33. On December 14, 2023, Ms. Ellis contacted PLAINTIFF to come pick up her last
6 check and wrongfully terminated PLAINTIFF without a termination letter nor a proffered reason
7 for the termination.
8 34. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
9 DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF for making complaints about the unsafe work
10 environment that threatened the health and safety of all employees.
11 35. As a result of the aforementioned adverse employment action committed against
12 PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF continues to experience pain and suffering.
13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5
15 (Retaliation for Reporting Illegal Activities)
16 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS)
17 36. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates
18 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
19 37. California Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits employers from discharging,
20 constructively discharging, retaliating or in any manner discriminating against any employee for
21 making any oral or written health and/or safety complaint, or complaint regarding working
22 conditions, to a governmental agency, or their employer.
23 38. DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF by terminating PLAINTIFF for
24 reporting the unsanitary and unsafe work environment.
25 39. PLAINTIFF is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of her
26 making complaints regarding health, safety, and/or working conditions to Ms. Boden, PLAINTIFF
27 was discharged from her employment after she made complaints about workplace safety issues.
28
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 40. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has
2 suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, a loss of earnings and other employment
3 benefits, whereby PLAINTIFF is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be
4 proven at trial.
5 41. DEFENDANTS’ actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned
6 state laws. As a direct result, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses
7 related the loss of wages and are entitled to recover costs and expenses and attorney’s fees in
8 seeking to compel DEFENDANT to fully perform their obligation under state law and her
9 respective damage amounts according to proof at time of trial.
10 42. The conduct of DEFENDANTS described herein above was outrageous and was
11 executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s rights,
12 and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring PLAINTIFF.
13 43. DEFENDANTS, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its
14 supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above.
15 By reason thereof, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according
16 to proof at the time of trial. PLAINTIFF further prays the Court to impose a civil penalty on
17 DEFENDANTS not to exceed $10,000 per statute, and entitled to
18 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
19 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 6310
22 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS)
23 44. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates
24 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
25 45. Cal. Labor Code § 6310 prohibits employers from discharging, constructively
26 discharging, retaliating or in any manner discriminating against any employee for making any oral
27 or written health and/or safety complaint, or complaint regarding working conditions, to a
28 governmental agency, or their employer.
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 46. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that employers, as
2 defined in Cal. Labor Code § 6304, are prohibited from taking any actions described in Cal. Labor
3 Code § 6310 against any employees, including former employees, which PLAINTIFF is informed
4 and believes, and thereon alleges, are included in the definition of Cal. Labor Code § 6304.1.
5 47. DEFENDANTS discharged PLAINTIFF’S employment after PLAINTIFF made
6 oral and/or written complaints regarding health, safety and/or working conditions to
7 DEFENDANTS, her employer, by and through their agents and employees.
8 48. Specifically, PLAINTIFF reported to Ms. Borden the unsanitary conditions and
9 unsafe work environment. Despite these complaints DEFENDANTS refused to resolve the
10 situation and terminated PLAINTIFF.
11 49. PLAINTIFF is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of her
12 making complaints regarding health, safety and/or working conditions to DEFENDANTS, her
13 employers, PLAINTIFF was discharged from her employment and/or otherwise retaliated against
14 by DEFENDANTS including a failure to rehire Plaintiff after he had made complaints about
15 workplace safety issues.
16 50. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has
17 suffered and will continue to experience pain and suffering.
18 51. PLAINTIFF has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and
19 other employment benefits, whereby PLAINTIFF is entitled to general compensatory damages in
20 amounts to be proven at trial.
21 52. DEFENDANTS’s actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned
22 state laws. As a direct result, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses
23 related the loss of wages and are entitled to recover costs and expenses and attorney’s fees in
24 seeking to compel DEFENDANTS to fully perform their obligation under state law and her
25 respective damage amounts according to proof at time of trial.
26 53. The conduct of DEFENDANTS described herein above was outrageous and was
27 executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S
28 rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring PLAINTIFF.
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 54. DEFENDANTS, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its
2 supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above.
3 By reason thereof, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according
4 to proof at the time of trial.
5 55. DEFENDANTS committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and
6 willfully, with the wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring PLAINTIFF, from improper
7 motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. PLAINTIFF is
8 thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages in
9 amounts according to proof at time of trial, in addition to any other remedies and damages
10 allowable by law.
11 56. As a proximate result of the actions and conduct described in the paragraphs above,
12 which constitute violations of Cal. Labor Code Section 6310, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in
13 an amount according to proof at the time of trial, and seeks penalties and attorney fees against
14 Defendant pursuant to Cal. Labor Code Sections 2699 and 2699.3.
15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
16 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 6400, et seq
17 (Failure to Maintain a Safe Work Environment)
18 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS)
19 57. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates
20 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
21 58. DEFENDANTS owed PLAINTIFF a duty to maintain safe working conditions per
22 Labor Code § 6400 et seq. DEFENDANTS had knowledge of the unsafe and unsanitary working
23 conditions.
24 59. DEFENDANTS breached that duty by ignoring and not fixing the unsafe working
25 conditions.
26 60. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’s negligent maintenance of the
27 workplace, a violation of Labor Code §§ 6400, 6401, and 6401.7, PLAINTIFF has suffered
28 substantial losses in past, present and future losses in income and earnings, incidental expenses,
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and has suffered and continues to experience pain and suffering all to damages in an amount
2 according to proof.
3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 TORTIOUS WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
5 (By PLAINTIFF Against DEFENDANTS)
6 61. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates
7 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
8 62. PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS at all relevant times herein.
9 63. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
10 DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF’s employment on the grounds that violate public policies
11 of the State of California and the United States of America, including, but not limited to, the public
12 policies against terminating an employee for reporting or attempting to report to appropriate
13 authorities of unsafe working conditions.
14 64. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of
15 DEFENDANTS, as alleged above, PLAINTIFF suffered and continues to suffer lost income,
16 benefits, and earning capacity, as well as other economic loss, the precise amount of which will be
17 proven at trial.
18 65. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result the foregoing conduct of
19 DEFENDANTS as alleged above, PLAINTIFF endured and continues to endure pain and
20 suffering, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.
21 66. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS was a substantial factor in causing the
22 aforementioned harm.
23 67. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS, individually, or by and through its agents
24 and employees, and each of them, was intended by said DEFENDANTS and/or their officers,
25 directors, or managing agents, and each of them, to cause injury to PLAINTIFF or was despicable
26 conduct carried on by DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, or managing agents, and
27 each of them, with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights, such as to constitute
28 malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil Code section 3294. DEFENDANTS and/or
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 their officers, directors, or managing agents, and each of them, were fully aware of their obligation
2 to not retaliate against PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS were aware and conscious of PLAINTIFF's
3 rights and yet, they chose to ignore and disregard them. In light of the outrageous and malicious
4 conduct of DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, or managing agents, and each of them,
5 PLAINTIFF seeks an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an
6 example of DEFENDANTS.
7 68. As a result of the foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS, as alleged above,
8 PLAINTIFF incurred and continues to incur attorneys’ fees and costs. PLAINTIFF is entitled to,
9 and demands, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Code of Civil
10 Procedure section 1021.5.
11 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512
14 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay Meal Period Premiums)
15 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS)
16 69. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the
17 same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
18 70. At all relevant times, the IWC Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7
19 and 512, subdivision (a) were applicable to PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS.
20 71. At all relevant times, California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that no
21 employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period mandated by an applicable
22 order of the IWC.
23 72. The applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 512,
24 subdivision (a) provide that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work
25 for a work period of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal
26 period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the
27 employee is no more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both
28 the employer and employee. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that if an employer
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 fails to provide an employee with a legally compliant meal period, the employer must pay the
2 employee (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that
3 the meal period is not provided.
4 73. During the relevant time period. DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed
5 to provide PLAINTIFF with a legally compliant 30 minute meal break and further failed to
6 compensate her the required meal period premium of one hour at her regular rate of pay.
7 74. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS violated applicable IWC Wage Order
8 and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a).
9 75. During the relevant time period. DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed
10 to pay PLAINTIFF the full meal period premium due pursuant to California Labor Code section
11 226.7.
12 76. Because DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed to provide timely, off-
13 duty meal periods as required by law, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover one hour of pay at
14 PLAINTIFF’s regular rate of pay for each workday where a meal period was not provided.
15 Moreover, PLAINTIFF is also entitled to recover, and demands, attorneys’ fees and any penalties
16 or fines permitted by law.
17 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512
20 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay Rest Period Premiums)
21 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS)
22 77. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates
23 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
24 78. At all relevant times, the IWC Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and
25 512, subdivision (a) were applicable to PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS.
26 79. At all relevant times, California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that no
27 employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated by an applicable
28 order of the IWC.
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 80. At all relevant times, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that “[e]very
2 employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable
3 shall be in the middle of each work period,” and that “[t]he authorized rest period time shall be
4 based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours
5 or major fraction thereof.” The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that the “rest period
6 time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.”
7 81. During the relevant time period, DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully
8 required PLAINTIFF to routinely work four (4) or more hours without authorizing or permitting
9 a ten (10) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked, or a major fraction thereof.
10 However, DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF the full rest period premium for work
11 performed during rest periods.
12 82. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS violated applicable IWC Wage Order
13 and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a).
14 83. During the relevant time period. DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed
15 to pay PLAINTIFF the full rest period premiums due pursuant to California Labor Code section
16 226.7.
17 84. Because DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed to provide timely rest
18 periods as required by law, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover one hour of pay at PLAINTIFF’s
19 regular rate of pay for each workday where a rest period was not provided. Moreover, PLAINTIFF
20 is also entitled to recover, and demands, attorneys’ fees and any penalties or fines permitted by
21 law.
22 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
23 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 510, 1198
25 (Failure to Pay Wages Owed)
26 (By PLAINTIFF Against DEFENDANTS)
27 85. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates
28 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 86. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS were aware of, and under a duty to comply
2 with, the provisions of the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, California Labor
3 Code sections 200, 510, 1194, 1197, and 1198.
4 87. California Labor Code section 200, subdivision (a) defines “wages” as “all
5 amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed, or
6 ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation.”
7 88. California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide
8 that it is unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-
9 one-half or two times that person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked
10 by the person on a daily or weekly basis.
11 89. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that
12 DEFENDANTS were required to pay PLAINTIFF at the rate of time-and-one-half times his
13 regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty
14 (40) hours in a workweek.
15 90. California Labor Code section 510 codifies the right to overtime compensation at
16 one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a
17 day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work,
18 and at twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in
19 excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work.
20 91. Throughout PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF
21 regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours per workday and/or forty (40) hours per
22 workweek. Hence, PLAINTIFF was entitled to receive wages for overtime compensation.
23 92. Nevertheless, at all material times set forth herein, DEFENDANTS intentionally
24 and willfully failed to pay overtime wages owed to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay
25 overtime wages, as required by California laws, violated Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 and
26 the applicable IWC Wage Order, and was therefore unlawful.
27 93. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, as set forth
28 herein, PLAINTIFF sustained damages, and demands recovery of unpaid wages, including unpaid
15
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 overtime wages, as well as interest thereon. PLAINTIFF is also entitled to recover, and demands,
2 attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages
3 unlawfully unpaid pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194.2, and any penalties or fines
4 permitted by law.
5 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
6 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT
8 (Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203)
9 (By PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
10 94. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and
11 incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
12 95. At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code sections 201 and 202
13 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of
14 discharge are due and payable immediately, and if an employee quits his or her employment, his
15 or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, unless
16 the employee has given seventy-two (72) hours notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case
17 the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting.
18 96. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to
19 pay wages owed, in accordance with sections 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall
20 continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action is
21 commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (30) days.
22 97. California Labor Code section 2926 provides that “[a]n employee who is not
23 employed for a specified term and who is dismissed by his employer is entitled to compensation
24 for services rendered up to the time of such dismissal.”
25 98. California Labor Code section 2927 provides that “[a]n employee who is not
26 employed for a specified term and who quits the service of his employer is entitled to compensation
27 for services rendered up to the time of such quitting.”
28 99. At all material times set forth herein, DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF
16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 all wages owed, including rest period premiums, within any time permissible under California
2 Labor Code sections 201 and 202.
3 100. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to
4 pay wages owed, in accordance with sections 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall
5 continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action is
6 commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (30) days.
7 101. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ willful conduct in failing to
8 pay PLAINTIFF for all wages owed (including premium wages for rest period violations) in a
9 timely manner, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover “waiting time” penalties of up to 30 days’ wages
10 pursuant to California Labor Code section 203.
11 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
12
13
14 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS
16 (Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226(a))
17 (By PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
18 102. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and
19 incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein
20 103. At all material times set forth herein, California Labor Code section 226(a)
21 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees an accurate itemized
22 statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3)
23 the number of piece piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid
24 on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the
25 employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates
26 of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four
27 digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social
28 security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all
17
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding. The deductions made
2 from payments of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing
3 the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept
4 on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location
5 within the State of California.
6 104. Section 2 of the relevant IWC Wage Order provides that every employer shall,
7 semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each employee, either as a
8 detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately, an
9 itemized statement in writing showing: (1) all deductions; (2) the inclusive dates of the period for
10 which the employee is paid; (3) the name of the employee or the employee’s social security
11 number; and (4) the name of the employer, provided all deductions made on written orders of the
12 employee may be aggregated and shown as one item. All required records shall be in the English
13 language and in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing month, day and year, and
14 shall be kept by the employer for at least three (3) years at the place of employment or at a central
15 location within the State of California.
16 105. During the relevant time period, DEFENDANTS knowingly and willfully failed
17 to provide PLAINTIFF with wage statements that complied with the requirements of California
18 Labor Code section 226(a) or the requirements of the relevant IWC Wage Order.
19 106. More specifically, PLAINTIFF has been injured by DEFENDANTS’ intentional
20 and willful violation of California Labor Code section 226(a) and the relevant IWC Wage Order
21 because PLAINTIFF was denied both her legal right to receive, and her protected interest in
22 receiving, accurate and itemized wage statements under California law.
23 107. PLAINTFF is entitled to recover from DEFENDANTS the greater of their actual
24 damages caused by DEFENDANTS’ failure to comply with California Labor Code section 226(a),
25 or an aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars ($4,000.00).
26 108. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ violation of California Labor Code section 226(a)
27 and the relevant IWC Wage Order, PLAINTIFF suffered injury and damage to his statutorily-
28 protected rights.
18
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 109. PLAINTFF is also entitled to injunctive relief, any and all other penalties and
2 fines, as well as an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor
3 Code section 226, subdivision (h).
4 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
5 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING, AND RETENTION
7 (Violation of California Common Law)
8 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS)
9 110. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the
10 same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
11 111. As alleged herein, DEFENDANTS and/or its managerial
12 employees/agents/employees knew or reasonable should have known, that employees of
13 DEFENDANTS were engaging in the conduct set forth above.
14 112. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that its managerial
15 employees/agents/employees had a previous history of engaging in unlawful conduct that could
16 cause injury to PLAINTIFF and others.
17 113. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS and/or its agents/employees knew or
18 reasonably should have known that the conduct and omissions set forth above violated
19 PLAINTIFF’S rights under federal and state law.
20 114. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS and/or its agents/employees knew or
21 reasonably should have known that the conduct set forth above would and did proximately result
22 in pain and suffering to PLAINTIFF.
23 115. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS and/or its agents/employees knew or
24 reasonably should have known that unless they intervened to protect PLAINTIFF, and to
25 adequately supervise, prohibit, contro
Preview
1 LOYR, APC YOUNG W. RYU, ESQ. (SBN 266372) 2 young.ryu@loywr.com ZACHARIAH E. MOURA, ESQ. (SBN 279508) 3 zach.moura@loywr.com 4 KEE SEOK MAH, ESQ. (SBN 345736) kee.mah@loywr.com 5 HARLEY M. PHLEGER, ESQ. (SBN 351851) harley.phleger@loywr.com 6 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2290 Los Angeles, California 90017 7 Telephone: (213) 318-5323 8 Facsimile: (800) 576-1170 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERONICA VASQUEZ 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 12 13 VERONICA VASQUEZ, an individual, Case No.: 14 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 15 v. 1. Retaliation for Reporting Illegal Activities 16 (Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5) SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; 2. Violation of Labor Code § 6310 17 LINDA BODEN, an individual; and DOES 3. Violation of Labor Code §§ 6400, et seq. 18 1 through 50, inclusive, (Failure to Maintain a Safe Work Environment) 19 Defendants. 4. Tortious Wrongful Termination in Violation 20 of Public Policy 21 5. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay 22 Meal and Period Premiums) 23 6. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay 24 Rest Period Premiums) 25 7. Violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 1198 (Failure to Pay Wages Owed) 26 8. Violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203 27 (Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation of Employment) 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226 (Failure to 1 Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements) 2 10. Negligent Supervision, Hiring, and 3 Retention (Violation of California Common Law) 4 11. Violation of Business & Professions Code 5 Sections 17200, et seq. (Unfair Business Practices) 6 7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff VERONICA VASQUEZ (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual, complains and alleges 2 as follows: 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 1. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 California Constitution Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original 6 jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statutes under 7 which this action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 8 2. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendant 9 SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC (“SENIOR LIFESTYLE”) does business within the State 10 of California. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant, 11 LINDA BODEN (“BODEN”) is a resident of the State of California. 12 3. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), venue is proper in 13 the County of Kern because Defendant’s obligations and liability arose, at least in part, therein, 14 and because the alleged injuries sustained by PLAINTIFF occurred in the County of Kern. 15 PARTIES 16 4. PLAINTIFF is, and at all times herein relevant, was an individual and a resident of 17 the State of California. Since approximately May 16, 2023, to December 14, 2023, PLAINTIFF 18 was employed by SENIOR LIFESTYLE in the position of “Caregiver.” 19 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges 20 that, at all times herein relevant, BODEN, is an owner, director, officer and/or managing agent of 21 Defendant SENIOR LIFESTYKE. 22 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges 23 that, at all times herein relevant, SENIOR LIFESTYLE is a corporation in the senior care home 24 industry organized under the laws of the State of California, with a principal place of business at 25 12712 Willowdale Dr., Bakersfield CA, 93312, and is registered and licensed to do business in the 26 State of California. SENIOR LIFESTYLE was the “employer” of PLAINTIFF within the meaning 27 of all applicable California state laws and statutes. 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges 2 that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1 3 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, 4 representatives, servants, employees, successors-in-interest, co-conspirators, and assigns, each of 5 the other, and all times relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope of their authority 6 as such agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, 7 successors-in-interest, co-conspirators, and assigns, and all acts or omissions alleged herein were 8 duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization, and 9 consent of each defendant designated herein. 10 8. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual, or 11 otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown to PLAINTIFF 12 who sues said defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and 13 upon such information and belief, alleges that each of the defendants designated as DOE is in some 14 manner responsible and liable for the wrongs and damages as alleged below, and in so acting, was 15 functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the codefendants; and in doing such 16 actions mentioned below, was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such 17 agent, servant, partner, and employee with the permission and consent of the codefendants. 18 PLAINTIFF will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and 19 capacities when the same have been ascertained. 20 9. Defendants SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 21 will be hereinafter collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS.” 22 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 23 10. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 6310, 6311 as well as the holding in 24 Sheridian v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal. App.4th 508, PLAINTIFF 25 is not required to exhaust administrative remedies when his or her protected activity regarding 26 employee health and safety is at issue. Nonetheless, PLAINTIFF has sent written notice by 27 certified mail to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The same was sent to 28 DEFENDANT via certified mail. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 ALTER EGO, AGENCY, AND JOINT EMPLOYER 2 11. BODEN owned and/or controlled the businesses operated by SENIOR 3 LIFESTYLE, and furthermore, BODEN exercised control over the labor practices of each and 4 every one of the employees (inclusive of PLAINTIFF) of each and every one of their said interests, 5 and caused the violations at issue in this Complaint. 6 12. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there exists 7 such a unity of interest and ownership between SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50 8 that the individuality and separateness of defendants have ceased to exist. 9 13. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that despite the 10 formation of purported corporate existence, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50 11 are, in reality, one and the same, including, but not limited to because: 12 a. SENIOR LIFESTYLE is or was completely dominated and controlled by BODEN 13 and DOES 1-50, who personally committed the frauds and violated the laws as set 14 forth in this complaint, and who have hidden and currently hide behind SENIOR 15 LIFESTYLE to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some other 16 wrongful or inequitable purpose. 17 b. BODEN and DOES 1-50 derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and 18 through SENIOR LIFESTYLE as the funding source for their own personal 19 expenditures. 20 c. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that BODEN, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and 21 DOES 1-50, while really one and the same, were segregated to appear as though 22 separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, circumventing a statute, 23 or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable purpose. 24 d. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that SENIOR LIFESTYLE does not or did 25 not comply with all requisite corporate formalities to maintain a legal and separate 26 corporate existence. 27 e. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the business 28 affairs of BODEN, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and DOES 1-50 are, and at all times 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 relevant were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be 2 segregated, and the same are in inextricable confusion. 3 f. SENIOR LIFESTYLE is, and at all times relevant hereto was, used by BODEN 4 and DOES 1-50 as a mere shell and conduit for the conduct of certain of 5 DEFENDANTS’ affairs, and is, and was, the alter ego of BODEN and DOES 1- 6 50. The recognition of the separate existence of SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and/or 7 BODEN would not promote justice, in that it would permit Defendants to insulate 8 themselves from liability to PLAINTIFF for violations of the Government Code, 9 Civil Code, Labor Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of 10 BODEN, SENIOR LIFESTYLE, and DOES 1-50 should be disregarded in equity 11 and for the ends of justice because such disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and 12 injustice to PLAINTIFF herein. 13 14. Accordingly, SENIOR LIFESTYLE constitutes the alter egos of BODEN and 14 DOES 1-50, and the fiction of their separate corporate existence must be disregarded. 15 15. As a result of the aforementioned facts, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and 16 based thereon alleges that SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50 are PLAINTIFF’S 17 joint employers by virtue of a joint enterprise, and that PLAINTIFF was an employee of 18 SENIOR LIFESTYLE, BODEN, and DOES 1-50. PLAINTIFF performed services for each and 19 every one of Defendants, and to the mutual benefit of all DEFENDANTS, and all 20 DEFENDANTS shared control of PLAINTIFF as an employee, either directly or indirectly, and 21 the manner in which DEFENDANTS’ business was and is conducted. 22 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 23 16. From approximately May 16, 2023, to December 14, 2023, PLAINTIFF was 24 employed by DEFENDANTS as an hourly employee in the position of “Caregiver” at two of 25 DEFENDANTS’ care home locations: 11910 Crockett Ct., Bakersfield, CA 93312 and 15318 Lila 26 Rose Ct., Bakersfield, CA 93314. 27 17. PLAINTIFF was a loyal and hardworking employee for DEFENDANTS. 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 18. PLAINTIFF was paid $16.00 per hour. PLAINTIFF worked five (5) days a week 2 and her regularly scheduled shifts were from 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM. 3 19. However, PLAINTIFF was required to come in every day at 1:45 PM and regularly 4 worked ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes each shift after clocking out. 5 20. Throughout her employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF regularly worked 6 over eight (8) hours in a day. Nevertheless, at all material times set forth herein, DEFENDANTS 7 only paid PLAINTIFF for her regular rate and failed to pay all wages owed to PLAINTIFF, 8 including proper overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. 9 21. Additionally, throughout PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS, 10 PLAINTIFF routinely worked for DEFENDANTS without being provided with a timely, off-duty 11 ten-minute paid rest period for every four (4) hours worked for major fraction thereof. Despite the 12 aforementioned, during her employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF was not paid one (1) 13 hour of pay at her regular rate of compensation for each workday where a legally compliant rest 14 period was not provided. 15 22. Also, throughout PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF 16 was not given a proper thirty (30) minute meal break as required by law. Yet, DEFENDANTS 17 never paid PLAINTIFF the one (1) hour of pay at her regular rate of compensation for each 18 workday where a legally compliant meal period was not provided. 19 23. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that 20 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF was entitled to receive certain 21 wages for overtime compensation, and that PLAINTIFF was not receiving all the overtime wages 22 she was entitled to. 23 24. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that 24 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF was entitled to receive all legally 25 compliant meal and rest periods, or if a legally compliant meal and rest period were not provided, 26 she was entitled to and should have received payment of one additional hour of pay at 27 PLAINTIFF’s regular rate of pay; and that PLAINTIFF did not receive all meal and rest periods 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 or payment of one additional hour of pay at PLAINTIFF’s regular rate of pay when a legally 2 compliant meal and rest period was not provided. 3 25. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that 4 DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that they had a duty to compensate PLAINTIFF 5 pursuant to California law, and that DEFENDANTS had the financial ability to pay such 6 compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so, all in order to increase 7 DEFENDANTS’ profits. 8 26. Furthermore, PLAINTIFF often encountered dirty, unsanitary conditions when she 9 arrived at work, finding that co-workers from the previous shift had neglected to wash dishes, take 10 out the trash, or clean the counters. PLAINTIFF was particularly concerned that the unsanitary 11 conditions would affect the health of residents. Throughout the course of her employment, 12 PLAINTIFF consistently raised issues of cleanliness and sanitation to her supervisors. 13 27. On or about December 4, 2023, PLAINTIFF contacted Owner Linda Boden (“Ms. 14 Boden”) to inform her of the dirty, unsafe conditions at DEFENDANTS’ workplace, including 15 pictures and videos. 16 28. On or about December 5, 2023, Manager Margaret Louise (“Ms. Louise”) called 17 PLAINTIFF on her day off and yelled at PLAINTIFF because Ms. Louise had been reprimanded 18 about failing to clean. 19 29. On or about December 7, 2023, Ms. Louise began to harass PLAINTIFF at work, 20 angry that PLAINTIFF had gone over Ms. Louise’s head to inform Ms. Boden of the unsanitary 21 workplace conditions. That day, Ms. Louise ordered PLAINTIFF to pick up dog excrement and 22 water the back yard, tasks that had never previously been included in PLAINTIFF’s job duties. 23 30. On or about December 8, 2023, PLAINTIFF sought out another manager, Diana 24 Ellis (“Ms. Ellis”), to discuss Ms. Louise’s harassment. Ms. Ellis responded by calling 25 PLAINTIFF a “shithead.” 26 31. Following the interaction with Ms. Ellis, PLAINTIFF felt her face getting numb 27 and had a panic attack. 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 32. On or about December 10, 2023, PLAINTIFF visited the emergency room, where 2 a doctor placed her work until December 16. PLAINTIFF provided all relevant information 3 regarding her emergency room visit and doctor’s note to Ms. Boden and other managers via text 4 message. 5 33. On December 14, 2023, Ms. Ellis contacted PLAINTIFF to come pick up her last 6 check and wrongfully terminated PLAINTIFF without a termination letter nor a proffered reason 7 for the termination. 8 34. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 9 DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF for making complaints about the unsafe work 10 environment that threatened the health and safety of all employees. 11 35. As a result of the aforementioned adverse employment action committed against 12 PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF continues to experience pain and suffering. 13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 14 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5 15 (Retaliation for Reporting Illegal Activities) 16 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS) 17 36. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates 18 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 19 37. California Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits employers from discharging, 20 constructively discharging, retaliating or in any manner discriminating against any employee for 21 making any oral or written health and/or safety complaint, or complaint regarding working 22 conditions, to a governmental agency, or their employer. 23 38. DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF by terminating PLAINTIFF for 24 reporting the unsanitary and unsafe work environment. 25 39. PLAINTIFF is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of her 26 making complaints regarding health, safety, and/or working conditions to Ms. Boden, PLAINTIFF 27 was discharged from her employment after she made complaints about workplace safety issues. 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 40. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has 2 suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, a loss of earnings and other employment 3 benefits, whereby PLAINTIFF is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be 4 proven at trial. 5 41. DEFENDANTS’ actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned 6 state laws. As a direct result, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses 7 related the loss of wages and are entitled to recover costs and expenses and attorney’s fees in 8 seeking to compel DEFENDANT to fully perform their obligation under state law and her 9 respective damage amounts according to proof at time of trial. 10 42. The conduct of DEFENDANTS described herein above was outrageous and was 11 executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s rights, 12 and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring PLAINTIFF. 13 43. DEFENDANTS, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its 14 supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above. 15 By reason thereof, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according 16 to proof at the time of trial. PLAINTIFF further prays the Court to impose a civil penalty on 17 DEFENDANTS not to exceed $10,000 per statute, and entitled to 18 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 19 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 21 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 6310 22 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS) 23 44. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates 24 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 25 45. Cal. Labor Code § 6310 prohibits employers from discharging, constructively 26 discharging, retaliating or in any manner discriminating against any employee for making any oral 27 or written health and/or safety complaint, or complaint regarding working conditions, to a 28 governmental agency, or their employer. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 46. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that employers, as 2 defined in Cal. Labor Code § 6304, are prohibited from taking any actions described in Cal. Labor 3 Code § 6310 against any employees, including former employees, which PLAINTIFF is informed 4 and believes, and thereon alleges, are included in the definition of Cal. Labor Code § 6304.1. 5 47. DEFENDANTS discharged PLAINTIFF’S employment after PLAINTIFF made 6 oral and/or written complaints regarding health, safety and/or working conditions to 7 DEFENDANTS, her employer, by and through their agents and employees. 8 48. Specifically, PLAINTIFF reported to Ms. Borden the unsanitary conditions and 9 unsafe work environment. Despite these complaints DEFENDANTS refused to resolve the 10 situation and terminated PLAINTIFF. 11 49. PLAINTIFF is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of her 12 making complaints regarding health, safety and/or working conditions to DEFENDANTS, her 13 employers, PLAINTIFF was discharged from her employment and/or otherwise retaliated against 14 by DEFENDANTS including a failure to rehire Plaintiff after he had made complaints about 15 workplace safety issues. 16 50. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has 17 suffered and will continue to experience pain and suffering. 18 51. PLAINTIFF has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and 19 other employment benefits, whereby PLAINTIFF is entitled to general compensatory damages in 20 amounts to be proven at trial. 21 52. DEFENDANTS’s actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned 22 state laws. As a direct result, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses 23 related the loss of wages and are entitled to recover costs and expenses and attorney’s fees in 24 seeking to compel DEFENDANTS to fully perform their obligation under state law and her 25 respective damage amounts according to proof at time of trial. 26 53. The conduct of DEFENDANTS described herein above was outrageous and was 27 executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’S 28 rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring PLAINTIFF. 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 54. DEFENDANTS, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its 2 supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above. 3 By reason thereof, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according 4 to proof at the time of trial. 5 55. DEFENDANTS committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and 6 willfully, with the wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring PLAINTIFF, from improper 7 motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. PLAINTIFF is 8 thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages in 9 amounts according to proof at time of trial, in addition to any other remedies and damages 10 allowable by law. 11 56. As a proximate result of the actions and conduct described in the paragraphs above, 12 which constitute violations of Cal. Labor Code Section 6310, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in 13 an amount according to proof at the time of trial, and seeks penalties and attorney fees against 14 Defendant pursuant to Cal. Labor Code Sections 2699 and 2699.3. 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 16 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 6400, et seq 17 (Failure to Maintain a Safe Work Environment) 18 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS) 19 57. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates 20 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 21 58. DEFENDANTS owed PLAINTIFF a duty to maintain safe working conditions per 22 Labor Code § 6400 et seq. DEFENDANTS had knowledge of the unsafe and unsanitary working 23 conditions. 24 59. DEFENDANTS breached that duty by ignoring and not fixing the unsafe working 25 conditions. 26 60. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’s negligent maintenance of the 27 workplace, a violation of Labor Code §§ 6400, 6401, and 6401.7, PLAINTIFF has suffered 28 substantial losses in past, present and future losses in income and earnings, incidental expenses, 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and has suffered and continues to experience pain and suffering all to damages in an amount 2 according to proof. 3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 TORTIOUS WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 5 (By PLAINTIFF Against DEFENDANTS) 6 61. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates 7 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 8 62. PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS at all relevant times herein. 9 63. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 10 DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF’s employment on the grounds that violate public policies 11 of the State of California and the United States of America, including, but not limited to, the public 12 policies against terminating an employee for reporting or attempting to report to appropriate 13 authorities of unsafe working conditions. 14 64. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of 15 DEFENDANTS, as alleged above, PLAINTIFF suffered and continues to suffer lost income, 16 benefits, and earning capacity, as well as other economic loss, the precise amount of which will be 17 proven at trial. 18 65. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result the foregoing conduct of 19 DEFENDANTS as alleged above, PLAINTIFF endured and continues to endure pain and 20 suffering, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial. 21 66. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS was a substantial factor in causing the 22 aforementioned harm. 23 67. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS, individually, or by and through its agents 24 and employees, and each of them, was intended by said DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, 25 directors, or managing agents, and each of them, to cause injury to PLAINTIFF or was despicable 26 conduct carried on by DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, or managing agents, and 27 each of them, with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights, such as to constitute 28 malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil Code section 3294. DEFENDANTS and/or 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 their officers, directors, or managing agents, and each of them, were fully aware of their obligation 2 to not retaliate against PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS were aware and conscious of PLAINTIFF's 3 rights and yet, they chose to ignore and disregard them. In light of the outrageous and malicious 4 conduct of DEFENDANTS and/or their officers, directors, or managing agents, and each of them, 5 PLAINTIFF seeks an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an 6 example of DEFENDANTS. 7 68. As a result of the foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS, as alleged above, 8 PLAINTIFF incurred and continues to incur attorneys’ fees and costs. PLAINTIFF is entitled to, 9 and demands, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Code of Civil 10 Procedure section 1021.5. 11 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below. 12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512 14 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay Meal Period Premiums) 15 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS) 16 69. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the 17 same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 18 70. At all relevant times, the IWC Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7 19 and 512, subdivision (a) were applicable to PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS. 20 71. At all relevant times, California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that no 21 employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period mandated by an applicable 22 order of the IWC. 23 72. The applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 512, 24 subdivision (a) provide that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work 25 for a work period of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal 26 period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the 27 employee is no more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both 28 the employer and employee. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that if an employer 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 fails to provide an employee with a legally compliant meal period, the employer must pay the 2 employee (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that 3 the meal period is not provided. 4 73. During the relevant time period. DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed 5 to provide PLAINTIFF with a legally compliant 30 minute meal break and further failed to 6 compensate her the required meal period premium of one hour at her regular rate of pay. 7 74. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS violated applicable IWC Wage Order 8 and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a). 9 75. During the relevant time period. DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed 10 to pay PLAINTIFF the full meal period premium due pursuant to California Labor Code section 11 226.7. 12 76. Because DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed to provide timely, off- 13 duty meal periods as required by law, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover one hour of pay at 14 PLAINTIFF’s regular rate of pay for each workday where a meal period was not provided. 15 Moreover, PLAINTIFF is also entitled to recover, and demands, attorneys’ fees and any penalties 16 or fines permitted by law. 17 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below. 18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512 20 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay Rest Period Premiums) 21 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS) 22 77. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates 23 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 24 78. At all relevant times, the IWC Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 25 512, subdivision (a) were applicable to PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS. 26 79. At all relevant times, California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that no 27 employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated by an applicable 28 order of the IWC. 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 80. At all relevant times, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that “[e]very 2 employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable 3 shall be in the middle of each work period,” and that “[t]he authorized rest period time shall be 4 based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours 5 or major fraction thereof.” The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that the “rest period 6 time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.” 7 81. During the relevant time period, DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully 8 required PLAINTIFF to routinely work four (4) or more hours without authorizing or permitting 9 a ten (10) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked, or a major fraction thereof. 10 However, DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF the full rest period premium for work 11 performed during rest periods. 12 82. The foregoing conduct of DEFENDANTS violated applicable IWC Wage Order 13 and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a). 14 83. During the relevant time period. DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed 15 to pay PLAINTIFF the full rest period premiums due pursuant to California Labor Code section 16 226.7. 17 84. Because DEFENDANTS intentionally and willfully failed to provide timely rest 18 periods as required by law, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover one hour of pay at PLAINTIFF’s 19 regular rate of pay for each workday where a rest period was not provided. Moreover, PLAINTIFF 20 is also entitled to recover, and demands, attorneys’ fees and any penalties or fines permitted by 21 law. 22 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below. 23 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 510, 1198 25 (Failure to Pay Wages Owed) 26 (By PLAINTIFF Against DEFENDANTS) 27 85. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates 28 the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 86. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS were aware of, and under a duty to comply 2 with, the provisions of the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, California Labor 3 Code sections 200, 510, 1194, 1197, and 1198. 4 87. California Labor Code section 200, subdivision (a) defines “wages” as “all 5 amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed, or 6 ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation.” 7 88. California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide 8 that it is unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and- 9 one-half or two times that person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked 10 by the person on a daily or weekly basis. 11 89. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that 12 DEFENDANTS were required to pay PLAINTIFF at the rate of time-and-one-half times his 13 regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty 14 (40) hours in a workweek. 15 90. California Labor Code section 510 codifies the right to overtime compensation at 16 one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a 17 day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work, 18 and at twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in 19 excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work. 20 91. Throughout PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF 21 regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours per workday and/or forty (40) hours per 22 workweek. Hence, PLAINTIFF was entitled to receive wages for overtime compensation. 23 92. Nevertheless, at all material times set forth herein, DEFENDANTS intentionally 24 and willfully failed to pay overtime wages owed to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay 25 overtime wages, as required by California laws, violated Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 and 26 the applicable IWC Wage Order, and was therefore unlawful. 27 93. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, as set forth 28 herein, PLAINTIFF sustained damages, and demands recovery of unpaid wages, including unpaid 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 overtime wages, as well as interest thereon. PLAINTIFF is also entitled to recover, and demands, 2 attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages 3 unlawfully unpaid pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194.2, and any penalties or fines 4 permitted by law. 5 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below. 6 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT 8 (Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203) 9 (By PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 10 94. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and 11 incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 12 95. At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 13 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of 14 discharge are due and payable immediately, and if an employee quits his or her employment, his 15 or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, unless 16 the employee has given seventy-two (72) hours notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case 17 the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. 18 96. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to 19 pay wages owed, in accordance with sections 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall 20 continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action is 21 commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (30) days. 22 97. California Labor Code section 2926 provides that “[a]n employee who is not 23 employed for a specified term and who is dismissed by his employer is entitled to compensation 24 for services rendered up to the time of such dismissal.” 25 98. California Labor Code section 2927 provides that “[a]n employee who is not 26 employed for a specified term and who quits the service of his employer is entitled to compensation 27 for services rendered up to the time of such quitting.” 28 99. At all material times set forth herein, DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 all wages owed, including rest period premiums, within any time permissible under California 2 Labor Code sections 201 and 202. 3 100. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to 4 pay wages owed, in accordance with sections 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall 5 continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action is 6 commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (30) days. 7 101. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ willful conduct in failing to 8 pay PLAINTIFF for all wages owed (including premium wages for rest period violations) in a 9 timely manner, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover “waiting time” penalties of up to 30 days’ wages 10 pursuant to California Labor Code section 203. 11 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below. 12 13 14 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS 16 (Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226(a)) 17 (By PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 18 102. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above, and 19 incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein 20 103. At all material times set forth herein, California Labor Code section 226(a) 21 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees an accurate itemized 22 statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) 23 the number of piece piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid 24 on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the 25 employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates 26 of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four 27 digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social 28 security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding. The deductions made 2 from payments of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing 3 the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept 4 on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location 5 within the State of California. 6 104. Section 2 of the relevant IWC Wage Order provides that every employer shall, 7 semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each employee, either as a 8 detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately, an 9 itemized statement in writing showing: (1) all deductions; (2) the inclusive dates of the period for 10 which the employee is paid; (3) the name of the employee or the employee’s social security 11 number; and (4) the name of the employer, provided all deductions made on written orders of the 12 employee may be aggregated and shown as one item. All required records shall be in the English 13 language and in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing month, day and year, and 14 shall be kept by the employer for at least three (3) years at the place of employment or at a central 15 location within the State of California. 16 105. During the relevant time period, DEFENDANTS knowingly and willfully failed 17 to provide PLAINTIFF with wage statements that complied with the requirements of California 18 Labor Code section 226(a) or the requirements of the relevant IWC Wage Order. 19 106. More specifically, PLAINTIFF has been injured by DEFENDANTS’ intentional 20 and willful violation of California Labor Code section 226(a) and the relevant IWC Wage Order 21 because PLAINTIFF was denied both her legal right to receive, and her protected interest in 22 receiving, accurate and itemized wage statements under California law. 23 107. PLAINTFF is entitled to recover from DEFENDANTS the greater of their actual 24 damages caused by DEFENDANTS’ failure to comply with California Labor Code section 226(a), 25 or an aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars ($4,000.00). 26 108. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ violation of California Labor Code section 226(a) 27 and the relevant IWC Wage Order, PLAINTIFF suffered injury and damage to his statutorily- 28 protected rights. 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 109. PLAINTFF is also entitled to injunctive relief, any and all other penalties and 2 fines, as well as an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor 3 Code section 226, subdivision (h). 4 Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below. 5 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING, AND RETENTION 7 (Violation of California Common Law) 8 (By PLAINTIFF Against all DEFENDANTS) 9 110. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the 10 same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 11 111. As alleged herein, DEFENDANTS and/or its managerial 12 employees/agents/employees knew or reasonable should have known, that employees of 13 DEFENDANTS were engaging in the conduct set forth above. 14 112. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that its managerial 15 employees/agents/employees had a previous history of engaging in unlawful conduct that could 16 cause injury to PLAINTIFF and others. 17 113. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS and/or its agents/employees knew or 18 reasonably should have known that the conduct and omissions set forth above violated 19 PLAINTIFF’S rights under federal and state law. 20 114. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS and/or its agents/employees knew or 21 reasonably should have known that the conduct set forth above would and did proximately result 22 in pain and suffering to PLAINTIFF. 23 115. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS and/or its agents/employees knew or 24 reasonably should have known that unless they intervened to protect PLAINTIFF, and to 25 adequately supervise, prohibit, contro