Preview
YI AU BF wWwN
BN RRR BBR BES
Phillip J. Griego (SBN 76616)
LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP J. GRIEGO
95 South Market Street, Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
Fax 408-865-7936
E: phil@griegolaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff Terri Dikes
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Unlimited Jurisdiction
Terri Dikes, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, and
DOES 1-25
Defendants.
Case Number:
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
NEGLIGENT HIRING,
SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION
OF EMPLOYEE
Jury Trial Demanded
NOW COMES Terri Dikes (“Plaintiff”)
that:
1 At all times herein mentioned, P|
who for her Complaint respectfully alleges
aintiff was a person of the age of majority
residing in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and an employee of the Santa Clara
County Water District (“District.”)
2. At all times herein mentioned, Santa Clara County Water District (“District”),
defendants herein was, and is, a California District, and a PUBLIC AGENCY within the
County of Santa Clara.
3. At all times herein alleged Nancy Rodriguez, (Rodriguez) was, and is, the
Supervising Benefits Program Administrator for
the Santa Clara Valley Water District and an
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE
1Cem YN AH RF WN
BN RRR BB PBS
employee of Defendant District and at all times herein alleged acted within the scope of her
employment with District.
4. At all times herein alleged Bryon C. Hopper, (Hopper) was, and is, the Senior
Assistant District Counsel for the Santa Clara Valley Water District was and an employee of
Defendant District and at all times and at all times herein alleged acted within the scope of his
employment with District.
5. Plaintiff is. unaware of the true names and capacities of the individuals sued
herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and accordingly, sues those individuals by such
fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and identities of
such fictitiously sued defendants when the same have been ascertained.
6. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency
in the California executive branch that manages pension and health benefits for more than 1.6
million California public employees, retirees, and their families. State, local, and district
agencies may become “contracting parties” with CalPERS and they and their employees, (as
“members”) can contribute to the System in order to receive future retirement benefits.
7. At all times herein alleged District was, and is, a “contracting agency” with the
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS.) Plaintiff at all times herein
alleged was, and is, a “member” of CalPERS.
8. California Government Code §20221 et seq. imposes upon every agency
contracting with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) a duty to
every member to furnish accurate information to the CalPERS Board concerning any
member that the Board may require in the administration of this system. California
Government Code §20222.5: “The board may require each contracting agency, to provide
information . . . as deemed necessary by the board to determine eligibility for, and the
correctness of, retirement benefits, reportable compensation, enrollment in, and
reinstatement to this system.” California Government Code §21063: Review of Reported
Compensation. “A member may request a meeting, to be conducted by the member’s
employer, at which the employer shall explain to the member the elements of the member’s
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE,
2oO om NY DH HN FF WN |
ES
BNR RR BBN BS
past or current compensation that have been or will be reported to the board as
compensation earnable.” 2 CCR § 565.1: Submission of Payroll and Contribution
Information: “(a) The employer shall submit payroll and contribution information using the
CalPERS reporting system or in a manner as otherwise prescribed by the Board; (b) Payroll
and contribution information for each pay period shall be submitted on or before 30
calendar days following the last day of the pay period to which it refers. (c) CalPERS shall
notify the employer of payroll and contribution information reporting errors. The employer
shall correct such errors within 60 calendar days of the date of the notice from CalPERS.”
9. These statutes and regulations, considered as a whole, together impose
upon all contracting agencies a duty, owed to Plaintiff and all other CalPERS members, to
hire, train and supervise qualified employees who are knowledgeable in the CalPERS
statutes and regulations and capable of managing an established and competent
administrative process providing accurate information to CalPERS and its members so they
can make intelligent decisions regarding their retirement. District violated this duty as
herein alleged.
10. Plaintiff joined the district on November 1, 2000, as a Construction Inspector,
then became a Resident Inspector, then promoted to Field Operations Administrator,
Vegetation Management and Watersheds. Plaintiff applied for and received a temporary
promotion to the Program Administrator position beginning September 26, 2016, ending
October 27, 2017. The salary for the position represented a 10% increase over her Watersheds
position. The District also increased her contributions and reportable compensation to
CalPERS in an equivalent amount. Plaintiff applied for the position permanently but did not get
it. Plaintiff resumed her position as Watersheds Field Operations Administrator, October 27,
2017 until her eventual retirement December 30, 2018.
11. — Inthe winter of 2016, Plaintiff had a conversation with Rodriguez by phone
about receiving retirement benefits. Rodriguez sent her a pamphlet describing Plaintiff's health
benefit options and informed her about the CalPERS online benefit calculator. On November
15, 2017, Plaintiff requested a meeting with Nancy Rodriguez, (Rodriguez) Supervising
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE
3oO em YN A HP Bw N
Eos
BN RRR BBE BS
Benefits Program Administrator, Santa Clara Valley Water District, to discuss Plaintiff's
reportable compensation and her retirement benefits should Plaintiff decide to retire. CalPERS
Retirement Plan Final Compensation is calculated by using the average monthly rate over the
highest consecutive thirty-six (36) month period. Plaintiff asked Rodriguez if the “highest
consecutive thirty-six (36) month period” would include the higher pay Plaintiff received
during her tenure as Program Administrator. Rodriguez told Plaintiff, “per the MOU,” the
“highest 12 months” from which her benefits would be calculated included the 10% increased
salary attached to her 14 months in the Program Administrator position. Rodriguez advised
Plaintiff to log on to the CalPERS website benefits calculator to obtain an estimate of her
projected retirement benefits based upon the compensation District had reported to CalPERS.
Rodrigues did not tell Plaintiff that District had erroneously reported to CalPERS the higher
compensation she earned while on temporary assignment to the Program Administrator
position as eligible compensation for CalPERS to calculate her retirement benefits. As a matter
of law, such temporary compensation is NOT eligible compensation for purposes of calculating
Plaintiff’s retirement benefits.
12. Plaintiff logged on to CalPERS’ website. Plaintiff used the CalPERS benefits
calculator and obtained a benefits figure that erroneously included the increased compensation
for the Program Administrator position District had erroneously reported to CalPERS for use in
its calculations of Plaintiffs retirement benefits.
13. Plaintiff applied for retirement and received a calculation of her prospective
retirement benefits from CalPERS “based on the compensation reported by your employer.”
The compensation report from District erroneously included the salary for the temporary
position.
14. | On December 30, 2017, Plaintiff retired, surrendered her room in Boulder Creek
California and moved to Nevada to reside with her husband who had taken a job there.
Plaintiff would not have retired but for the negligence of the District in hiring and retaining
unqualified personnel in the Benefits administration who erroneously included the higher
V/s
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE
4_
Co em NA MH RB WN
BN R RR BB
temporary salary of the Program Administrator position as “reportable compensation” used to
calculated Plaintiff's CalPERS benefits.
15. On January 12, 2018 Plaintiff received notice from CalPERS:
We reviewed compensation reported on your behalf by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (District). We identified items of
compensation that are not in compliance with the California Public
Employees' Retirement Law, which may not be reportable to CalPERS
for retirement purposes.
16. This position is directly contradicted by the District’s own calculations
caused by the negligent failure of the District to hire and retain qualified personnel
knowledgeable in how to properly report compensation to CalPERS.
17. On February 16, 2018, Plaintiff and District were each advised that: “We
recently completed a review of compensation reported on behalf of Ms. Terri Dikes by the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (District). We identified compensation which does not
comply with the California Public Employees' Retirement Law.”
18. Specifically, the compensation reported by the District included “special
compensation” of a temporary position that created “an unfunded liability over and above
PERS' actuarial assumptions” in violation of C.C.R. section 571(b)(9). According to
District Counsel, “The salary increase of 10% from your temporary upgrade far exceeded
the overall salary growth of 3.0% CalPERS assumed for the District in its Annual Valuation
Report, and the slightly higher CalPERS assumptions of salary growth for people with ten
or more years of service.”
19. The notice gave the District and the Plaintiff until March 16, 2018, to
appeal this decision. The District told Plaintiff she did not have to file an appeal because
the District had decided to file an appeal for her. CalPERS denied the District’s request for
an extension of their time to appeal. On March 19, 2018 at 4:41 PM—three days after her
time to appeal had expired— Bryon C. Hopper, Senior Assistant District Counsel, notified
M1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE
5oom YA WR WN
BF 6S
7
18
BN R RR BRB
Plaintiff that District would not file an appeal. By then it was too late for Plaintiff to file
her own appeal.
20. The Defendants negligently hired and retained unqualified personnel to
administer the employee benefits department for the District and permitted them to misapply the
CalPERS rules to Plaintiff's detriment and damage. These are ministerial acts.
21. District knew, or should have known, that its benefits administrators were not
properly trained in the calculation or reporting of the highest 12 months of compensation when
it came to temporary positions and attendant salary increases that created unfounded liabilities
for CalPERS.
22. As a direct result of the District’s conduct described herein, Plaintiff has suffered
and will continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, emotional distress, and economic damage
according to proof.
23. At all times, Rodriguez and her staff and Hopper were under the direction,
supervision and control of the District and were otherwise their agents.
24, By establishing and staffing, and/or operating a Benefits Administration
Department and inviting Plaintiff to rely upon its knowledge of the CalPERS rules and regulations
and the correct implementation of those rules and regulations in making her retirement decisions,
District entered into an express and/or implied duty to know and implement CalPERS rules and
regulations correctly so that plaintiff could make informed and intelligent decisions about her
retirement. In addition, District employees had a duty to send CalPERS only “reportable
compensation” within the meaning of state statutes and regulations.
25. Defendants further assumed this duty by holding Rodriguez and her staff out to
District employees, including Plaintiff, as a competent and trustworthy supervisor, advisor,
employee, and counselor.
26. District negligently retained and supervised Rodriguez and her staff when the
District knew or should have known that Rodriguez and her staff were not competent to hold
the positions they occupied.
dT
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE
6oO ew YD KH AH FF Ww NY
BN RRR BBE BES
27. Upon information and belief, while Defendant Rodriguez and her staff were
employees and/or agents and holding themselves out as knowledgeable about CalPERS
rules and regulations, created a relationship of trust and confidence between the District and
Plaintiff, and a special relationship between Plaintiff and the District whereby plaintiff
depended upon the District to hire competent and knowledgeable staff to correctly administer
the Benefits program of CalPERS. District became aware that Rodriguez and her staff were
unfit to serve as benefits advisors and unfit to properly implement the rules and reglations of
CalPERS concerning the “highest 12 months” of compensation. Despite this information,
District negligently retained Rodriguez and her staff and permitted them to mis-manage the
administration of and dissemination of CalPERS rules and regulations
28. It was foreseeable to the District that if Rodriguez and her staff erroneously
reported to CalPERS the highest 12 months of compensation and employees relied on that
reporting they could suffer damage.
29. Despite this knowledge, District failed to exercise reasonable care to train and
supervise Rodriguez and her staff.
30. As a direct result of District’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries
alleged herein. Such harm was a foreseeable consequence of District’s negligence.
31. On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff presented her claim for damages caused by District’s
wrongful act to the District. Plaintiff discovered District’s wrongful act on March 19, 2018, when
plaintiff discovered the District had allowed the time to appeal the Board’s decision to expire with
no appeal. District had 45 days to accept or reject Plaintiff's claim. The District never responded
to Plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the claim is deemed rejected and the public entity waives any
defense based on untimeliness. (Gov. Code §§ 913; 911.3(b).) When a public agency does not
accept or reject a claim within 45 days of presentation, the statute of limitations for filing a civil
action on the claim is extended to two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action—in this
case—March 19, 2020, (Gov. Code § 945.6(a)(1).
32. Any applicable statute of limitations was tolled between February 16, 2018, and
March 19, 2018, while plaintiff pursued administrative remedies within the District.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE,
7BN R RP BRB
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below:
1. Such damages as the Court should deem reasonable and proper; including but not
limited to:
a. back pay and front pay;
b. Value of lost retirement benefits;
c. Pre-judgment interest;
d. Post-judgment interest;
e. Costs of suit;
2. Such other legal and equitable relief as the Court shall deem necessary and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues triable to a jury.
Dated: April7Q 2019
Phillip J. Griego
Attorney for Plaint
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE
8
Preview
YI AU BF wWwN BN RRR BBR BES Phillip J. Griego (SBN 76616) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP J. GRIEGO 95 South Market Street, Suite 500 San Jose, CA 95113 Tel. 408-293-6341 Fax 408-865-7936 E: phil@griegolaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Terri Dikes IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA . COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Unlimited Jurisdiction Terri Dikes, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, and DOES 1-25 Defendants. Case Number: PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE Jury Trial Demanded NOW COMES Terri Dikes (“Plaintiff”) that: 1 At all times herein mentioned, P| who for her Complaint respectfully alleges aintiff was a person of the age of majority residing in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and an employee of the Santa Clara County Water District (“District.”) 2. At all times herein mentioned, Santa Clara County Water District (“District”), defendants herein was, and is, a California District, and a PUBLIC AGENCY within the County of Santa Clara. 3. At all times herein alleged Nancy Rodriguez, (Rodriguez) was, and is, the Supervising Benefits Program Administrator for the Santa Clara Valley Water District and an PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE 1Cem YN AH RF WN BN RRR BB PBS employee of Defendant District and at all times herein alleged acted within the scope of her employment with District. 4. At all times herein alleged Bryon C. Hopper, (Hopper) was, and is, the Senior Assistant District Counsel for the Santa Clara Valley Water District was and an employee of Defendant District and at all times and at all times herein alleged acted within the scope of his employment with District. 5. Plaintiff is. unaware of the true names and capacities of the individuals sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and accordingly, sues those individuals by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and identities of such fictitiously sued defendants when the same have been ascertained. 6. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that manages pension and health benefits for more than 1.6 million California public employees, retirees, and their families. State, local, and district agencies may become “contracting parties” with CalPERS and they and their employees, (as “members”) can contribute to the System in order to receive future retirement benefits. 7. At all times herein alleged District was, and is, a “contracting agency” with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS.) Plaintiff at all times herein alleged was, and is, a “member” of CalPERS. 8. California Government Code §20221 et seq. imposes upon every agency contracting with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) a duty to every member to furnish accurate information to the CalPERS Board concerning any member that the Board may require in the administration of this system. California Government Code §20222.5: “The board may require each contracting agency, to provide information . . . as deemed necessary by the board to determine eligibility for, and the correctness of, retirement benefits, reportable compensation, enrollment in, and reinstatement to this system.” California Government Code §21063: Review of Reported Compensation. “A member may request a meeting, to be conducted by the member’s employer, at which the employer shall explain to the member the elements of the member’s PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE, 2oO om NY DH HN FF WN | ES BNR RR BBN BS past or current compensation that have been or will be reported to the board as compensation earnable.” 2 CCR § 565.1: Submission of Payroll and Contribution Information: “(a) The employer shall submit payroll and contribution information using the CalPERS reporting system or in a manner as otherwise prescribed by the Board; (b) Payroll and contribution information for each pay period shall be submitted on or before 30 calendar days following the last day of the pay period to which it refers. (c) CalPERS shall notify the employer of payroll and contribution information reporting errors. The employer shall correct such errors within 60 calendar days of the date of the notice from CalPERS.” 9. These statutes and regulations, considered as a whole, together impose upon all contracting agencies a duty, owed to Plaintiff and all other CalPERS members, to hire, train and supervise qualified employees who are knowledgeable in the CalPERS statutes and regulations and capable of managing an established and competent administrative process providing accurate information to CalPERS and its members so they can make intelligent decisions regarding their retirement. District violated this duty as herein alleged. 10. Plaintiff joined the district on November 1, 2000, as a Construction Inspector, then became a Resident Inspector, then promoted to Field Operations Administrator, Vegetation Management and Watersheds. Plaintiff applied for and received a temporary promotion to the Program Administrator position beginning September 26, 2016, ending October 27, 2017. The salary for the position represented a 10% increase over her Watersheds position. The District also increased her contributions and reportable compensation to CalPERS in an equivalent amount. Plaintiff applied for the position permanently but did not get it. Plaintiff resumed her position as Watersheds Field Operations Administrator, October 27, 2017 until her eventual retirement December 30, 2018. 11. — Inthe winter of 2016, Plaintiff had a conversation with Rodriguez by phone about receiving retirement benefits. Rodriguez sent her a pamphlet describing Plaintiff's health benefit options and informed her about the CalPERS online benefit calculator. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff requested a meeting with Nancy Rodriguez, (Rodriguez) Supervising PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE 3oO em YN A HP Bw N Eos BN RRR BBE BS Benefits Program Administrator, Santa Clara Valley Water District, to discuss Plaintiff's reportable compensation and her retirement benefits should Plaintiff decide to retire. CalPERS Retirement Plan Final Compensation is calculated by using the average monthly rate over the highest consecutive thirty-six (36) month period. Plaintiff asked Rodriguez if the “highest consecutive thirty-six (36) month period” would include the higher pay Plaintiff received during her tenure as Program Administrator. Rodriguez told Plaintiff, “per the MOU,” the “highest 12 months” from which her benefits would be calculated included the 10% increased salary attached to her 14 months in the Program Administrator position. Rodriguez advised Plaintiff to log on to the CalPERS website benefits calculator to obtain an estimate of her projected retirement benefits based upon the compensation District had reported to CalPERS. Rodrigues did not tell Plaintiff that District had erroneously reported to CalPERS the higher compensation she earned while on temporary assignment to the Program Administrator position as eligible compensation for CalPERS to calculate her retirement benefits. As a matter of law, such temporary compensation is NOT eligible compensation for purposes of calculating Plaintiff’s retirement benefits. 12. Plaintiff logged on to CalPERS’ website. Plaintiff used the CalPERS benefits calculator and obtained a benefits figure that erroneously included the increased compensation for the Program Administrator position District had erroneously reported to CalPERS for use in its calculations of Plaintiffs retirement benefits. 13. Plaintiff applied for retirement and received a calculation of her prospective retirement benefits from CalPERS “based on the compensation reported by your employer.” The compensation report from District erroneously included the salary for the temporary position. 14. | On December 30, 2017, Plaintiff retired, surrendered her room in Boulder Creek California and moved to Nevada to reside with her husband who had taken a job there. Plaintiff would not have retired but for the negligence of the District in hiring and retaining unqualified personnel in the Benefits administration who erroneously included the higher V/s PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE 4_ Co em NA MH RB WN BN R RR BB temporary salary of the Program Administrator position as “reportable compensation” used to calculated Plaintiff's CalPERS benefits. 15. On January 12, 2018 Plaintiff received notice from CalPERS: We reviewed compensation reported on your behalf by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District). We identified items of compensation that are not in compliance with the California Public Employees' Retirement Law, which may not be reportable to CalPERS for retirement purposes. 16. This position is directly contradicted by the District’s own calculations caused by the negligent failure of the District to hire and retain qualified personnel knowledgeable in how to properly report compensation to CalPERS. 17. On February 16, 2018, Plaintiff and District were each advised that: “We recently completed a review of compensation reported on behalf of Ms. Terri Dikes by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District). We identified compensation which does not comply with the California Public Employees' Retirement Law.” 18. Specifically, the compensation reported by the District included “special compensation” of a temporary position that created “an unfunded liability over and above PERS' actuarial assumptions” in violation of C.C.R. section 571(b)(9). According to District Counsel, “The salary increase of 10% from your temporary upgrade far exceeded the overall salary growth of 3.0% CalPERS assumed for the District in its Annual Valuation Report, and the slightly higher CalPERS assumptions of salary growth for people with ten or more years of service.” 19. The notice gave the District and the Plaintiff until March 16, 2018, to appeal this decision. The District told Plaintiff she did not have to file an appeal because the District had decided to file an appeal for her. CalPERS denied the District’s request for an extension of their time to appeal. On March 19, 2018 at 4:41 PM—three days after her time to appeal had expired— Bryon C. Hopper, Senior Assistant District Counsel, notified M1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE 5oom YA WR WN BF 6S 7 18 BN R RR BRB Plaintiff that District would not file an appeal. By then it was too late for Plaintiff to file her own appeal. 20. The Defendants negligently hired and retained unqualified personnel to administer the employee benefits department for the District and permitted them to misapply the CalPERS rules to Plaintiff's detriment and damage. These are ministerial acts. 21. District knew, or should have known, that its benefits administrators were not properly trained in the calculation or reporting of the highest 12 months of compensation when it came to temporary positions and attendant salary increases that created unfounded liabilities for CalPERS. 22. As a direct result of the District’s conduct described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, emotional distress, and economic damage according to proof. 23. At all times, Rodriguez and her staff and Hopper were under the direction, supervision and control of the District and were otherwise their agents. 24, By establishing and staffing, and/or operating a Benefits Administration Department and inviting Plaintiff to rely upon its knowledge of the CalPERS rules and regulations and the correct implementation of those rules and regulations in making her retirement decisions, District entered into an express and/or implied duty to know and implement CalPERS rules and regulations correctly so that plaintiff could make informed and intelligent decisions about her retirement. In addition, District employees had a duty to send CalPERS only “reportable compensation” within the meaning of state statutes and regulations. 25. Defendants further assumed this duty by holding Rodriguez and her staff out to District employees, including Plaintiff, as a competent and trustworthy supervisor, advisor, employee, and counselor. 26. District negligently retained and supervised Rodriguez and her staff when the District knew or should have known that Rodriguez and her staff were not competent to hold the positions they occupied. dT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE 6oO ew YD KH AH FF Ww NY BN RRR BBE BES 27. Upon information and belief, while Defendant Rodriguez and her staff were employees and/or agents and holding themselves out as knowledgeable about CalPERS rules and regulations, created a relationship of trust and confidence between the District and Plaintiff, and a special relationship between Plaintiff and the District whereby plaintiff depended upon the District to hire competent and knowledgeable staff to correctly administer the Benefits program of CalPERS. District became aware that Rodriguez and her staff were unfit to serve as benefits advisors and unfit to properly implement the rules and reglations of CalPERS concerning the “highest 12 months” of compensation. Despite this information, District negligently retained Rodriguez and her staff and permitted them to mis-manage the administration of and dissemination of CalPERS rules and regulations 28. It was foreseeable to the District that if Rodriguez and her staff erroneously reported to CalPERS the highest 12 months of compensation and employees relied on that reporting they could suffer damage. 29. Despite this knowledge, District failed to exercise reasonable care to train and supervise Rodriguez and her staff. 30. As a direct result of District’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries alleged herein. Such harm was a foreseeable consequence of District’s negligence. 31. On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff presented her claim for damages caused by District’s wrongful act to the District. Plaintiff discovered District’s wrongful act on March 19, 2018, when plaintiff discovered the District had allowed the time to appeal the Board’s decision to expire with no appeal. District had 45 days to accept or reject Plaintiff's claim. The District never responded to Plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the claim is deemed rejected and the public entity waives any defense based on untimeliness. (Gov. Code §§ 913; 911.3(b).) When a public agency does not accept or reject a claim within 45 days of presentation, the statute of limitations for filing a civil action on the claim is extended to two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action—in this case—March 19, 2020, (Gov. Code § 945.6(a)(1). 32. Any applicable statute of limitations was tolled between February 16, 2018, and March 19, 2018, while plaintiff pursued administrative remedies within the District. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE, 7BN R RP BRB PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below: 1. Such damages as the Court should deem reasonable and proper; including but not limited to: a. back pay and front pay; b. Value of lost retirement benefits; c. Pre-judgment interest; d. Post-judgment interest; e. Costs of suit; 2. Such other legal and equitable relief as the Court shall deem necessary and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues triable to a jury. Dated: April7Q 2019 Phillip J. Griego Attorney for Plaint PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE 8