Preview
1 GREGORY P. WONG (SBN: 204502)
JOHN F. LITWIN (SBN: 301611)
2 BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
6047 Bristol Parkway, Second Floor
3 Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (323) 450-2777
4 Email: John@barklawfirm.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Santiago Martinez
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
9
10 SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, an Individual, CASE NO.:
11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:
12 vs. 1) Disability Discrimination;
13 I E SCREEN PRINTING, an unknown 2) Failure to Provide Reasonable
business entity dba INLAND EMPIRE Accommodation for Disability;
14 SCREEN PRINTING; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, 3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive
15 Process; and
Defendants.
16 4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy.
17
18
UNLIMITED CIVIL
19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff SANTIAGO MARTINEZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “MARTINEZ”) alleges and states
2 as follows:
3 PARTIES
4 1. Plaintiff SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, at all times relevant herein, was, and is, an
5 individual residing in the City of Corona, County of Riverside, State of California.
6 2. Defendant I E SCREEN PRINTING, an unknown business entity dba INLAND
7 EMPIRE SCREEN PRINTING (hereafter referred to as Defendant) is a business entity, form
8 unknown, doing business in Riverside, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon
9 alleges, that Defendant regularly employed five or more persons at all relevant times to this
10 action.
11 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
12 corporate, associate or otherwise, of the Defendant sued herein under fictitious names Does 1
13 through 100, inclusive, and for that reason sues said Defendant, and each of them, by such
14 fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the Defendant
15 Does 1 through 100, inclusive, is and was in some manner responsible for, participated in, or
16 contributed to the matters and things of which Plaintiff complains herein, and in some fashion,
17 has legal responsibility therefore. When Plaintiff ascertains the names and capacities of the
18 fictitiously named Defendant Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Plaintiff will seek leave to amend
19 this Complaint to set forth such facts.
20 4. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and there upon alleges that Defendant is, and at all
21 times relevant herein was, the agent of his, her, or its co-Defendant, and in committing the acts
22 alleged herein, was acting within the scope of his, her, or its authority as such agent, and with the
23 knowledge, permission, and consent of his, her, or its co-Defendant.
24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and the matters alleged herein pursuant
26 to the grant of original jurisdiction set forth in Article VI, Section 10 of the California
27 Constitution. The statutes under which this action are brought do not specify any other basis for
28 jurisdiction.
2
COMPLAINT
1 6. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because, upon information and belief,
2 each Defendant is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contracts in California, or
3 otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of
4 jurisdiction over it by this Court consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial
5 justice.
6 7. Venue is proper in this Court, because, upon information and belief, one or more
7 of the named Defendant resides, transacts business or has offices in this county and the acts or
8 omissions alleged herein took place in this county.
9 8. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
10 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
11 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant are
12 engaged in the operation of a clothing and fabric screen printing business located at 7209
13 Arlington Unit D, Riverside, California 92503.
14 10. Throughout the relevant time-period, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a steam
15 printing machine operator. Plaintiff was a dedicated, extremely devoted, and hard-working
16 employee. His job primarily consisted of operating the printing machinery to print shirts and other
17 articles of clothing.
18 11. In or about October of 2021, Plaintiff injured his left shoulder, left elbow, and neck
19 in the course of his duties and developed a hand disability, which required regular therapy
20 appointments.
21 12. Plaintiff reported the work-related injuries to Defendant’s owner “Chris.” Neither
22 Chris, and requested the accommodation of being permitted periodic absences to attend therapy
23 sessions, as well as temporary restrictions of no repetitive use of the left arm and no heavy lifting.
24 13. On or about November 5, 2021, Defendant called Plaintiff and told Plaintiff he was
25 terminated due to the absences caused by his physical therapy appointments. Plaintiff told
26 Defendant he was willing to move his appointments to Friday to minimize work interruption, but
27 Defendant responded that the decision to terminate Plaintiff had already been made.
28
3
COMPLAINT
1 14. Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination with the DFEH and he was issued a
2 right to sue letter on January 10, 2021.
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Disability Discrimination – Against all Defendants)
5 15. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully
6 set forth herein.
7 16. California Government Code section 12940(a) prohibits discrimination on the
8 basis of physical disability and/or medical condition. This prohibition encompasses a proscription
9 against an employer discharging an employee because of a disability. (Gov. Code sections
10 12940(a)).
11 17. Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a
12 steam printing machine operator. Plaintiff suffered from a physical disability.
13 18. Defendants were at all relevant times aware of Plaintiff’s disability, as Plaintiff
14 kept in communication with his supervisor named “Chris” regarding the physical therapy sessions
15 prescribed by Plaintiff’s doctor and physical therapist.
16 19. Plaintiff faced discrimination and defendants failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s
17 disability and instead terminated his employment.
18 20. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment on or about November 5, 2021.
19 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that disability was a substantial motivating
20 factor for his termination.
21 21. As a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
22 continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, has incurred
23 attorneys’ fees and medical bills, all to his damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this
24 court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as
25 damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or any other
26 provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest.
27 22. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
28 continues to suffer substantial anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry,
4
COMPLAINT
1 sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and
2 out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of
3 this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial.
4 23. Defendant, in performing the acts alleged above, acted with a conscious disregard
5 of Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff; such as to constitute
6 oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code § 3294 thereby entitling Plaintiff to
7 exemplary or punitive damages.
8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
9 (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation For Disability – Against all Defendants)
10 24. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully
11 set forth herein.
12 25. The Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12940, et seq.
13 (the “FEHA”) makes it unlawful for a covered employer to “fail to make reasonable
14 accommodation for the known … physical [or] mental … disability of an … employee” unless the
15 accommodation would cause undue hardship. Government Code section 12940 (m).
16 26. Plaintiff was a disabled person covered by the FEHA, because, as alleged above,
17 he suffered from a physical disability that limited his ability to participate in the major life
18 activities of breathing, walking and working.
19 27. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s disability and instead,
20 terminated Plaintiff’s employment on or about November 5, 2021.
21 28. As a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
22 continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, has incurred
23 attorneys’ fees and medical bills, all to his damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this
24 court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as
25 damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or any other
26 provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest.
27 29. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
28 continues to suffer substantial anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry,
5
COMPLAINT
1 sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and
2 out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of
3 this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial.
4 30. Defendant, in performing the acts alleged above, acted with a conscious disregard
5 of Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff; such as to constitute
6 oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code § 3294 thereby entitling Plaintiff to
7 exemplary or punitive damages.
8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9 (Failure to Engage in Interactive Process – Against all Defendants)
10 31. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully
11 set forth herein.
12 32. At all times mentioned herein, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
13 (Gov. Cod Sec. 12940, et seq.) was in full force and effect, and required Defendant to engage in a
14 good-faith interactive process with Plaintiff to determine whether or not a reasonable
15 accommodation of Plaintiff’s disabilities was possible.
16 33. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was a disabled person covered by
17 the FEHA, because, as alleged above, he suffered from a physical disability that limited his ability
18 to participate in major life activities of working, walking, and mobility. Defendant was aware that
19 Plaintiff suffered from a disability because Plaintiff informed Defendant and requested
20 accommodation for his physical therapy appointments (and possibly a subsequent recuperation
21 day?). At all times Plaintiff was willing to participate in a good-faith interactive process to
22 determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made.
23 34. Defendant refused to engage in the interactive process, and instead summarily
24 denied all of Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation and terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
25 35. Plaintiff did not cause the breakdown of the interactive process. Rather, the
26 breakdown in the interactive process was caused by Defendant.
27 36. As a result of Defendant's failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process,
28 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment
6
COMPLAINT
1 benefits, has incurred attorneys’ fees and medical bills, all to his damage in excess of the
2 minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff
3 claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287
4 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest.
5 37. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
6 continues to suffer substantial anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry,
7 sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and
8 out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of
9 this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial.
10 38. Defendant, in performing the acts alleged above, acted with a conscious disregard
11 of Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff; such as to constitute
12 oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code § 3294 thereby entitling Plaintiff to
13 exemplary or punitive damages.
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy – Against all Defendants)
16 39. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully
17 set forth herein.
18 40. At all times mentioned herein, the FEHA (Gov. Cod Sec. 12940, et seq.) was in
19 full force and effect, and delineated fundamental, substantial, and well-established policies that
20 benefit the public at large rather than private interests and were binding upon Defendant at the
21 time of Plaintiff’s termination.
22 41. On or about November 5, 2021, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment
23 because Defendant refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability.
24 42. Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff was wrongful and violated the public policy of
25 the State of California, as expressed in the FEHA.
26 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that as a direct and
27 proximate result of the acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer economic
28 detriment and monetary damages, including, but not limited to, loss of wages and benefits in an
7
COMPLAINT
1 amount to be determined at trial.
2 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that as a further direct
3 and proximate result of the acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
4 substantial embarrassment, extreme and severe humiliation, mental anguish, emotional and
5 physical distress, pain and suffering, and has been generally damaged in an amount to be
6 determined at trial.
7 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant
8 willfully engaged in the conduct alleged herein with malice, fraud, and oppression, without
9 excuse or justification, and with the specific intent to injure Plaintiff for an improper and evil
10 motive which constitutes a malicious and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. By reason
11 thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant
12 sufficient to punish and deter Defendant from engaging in such conduct in the future in an amount
13 to be determined at trial.
14 PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, and DOES 1 through 100,
16 inclusive, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:
17 ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Disability Discrimination)
19 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount
20 to be determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000;
21 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
22 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at
23 trial; and
24 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
25 ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
26 (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation)
27 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount
28 to be determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000;
8
COMPLAINT
1 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
2 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at
3 trial; and
4 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
5 ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process)
7 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount
8 to be determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000;
9 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
10 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at
11 trial; and
12 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
13 ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (Wrongful Termination)
15 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount to be
16 determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000;
17 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
18 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
19 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and
20 5. For attorneys’ fees.
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
9
COMPLAINT
1 AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:
2 1. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, expert costs, and expenses
3 pursuant to statutory and common law; and
4 2. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, fair, and proper.
5 DATED: January 26, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,
6 BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
7 /s/ John F. Litwin
_____________________________
8 Gregory P. Wong
John F. Litwin
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff SANTIAGO MARTINEZ
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT
Preview
1 GREGORY P. WONG (SBN: 204502) JOHN F. LITWIN (SBN: 301611) 2 BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC 6047 Bristol Parkway, Second Floor 3 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (323) 450-2777 4 Email: John@barklawfirm.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Santiago Martinez 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 9 10 SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, an Individual, CASE NO.: 11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 12 vs. 1) Disability Discrimination; 13 I E SCREEN PRINTING, an unknown 2) Failure to Provide Reasonable business entity dba INLAND EMPIRE Accommodation for Disability; 14 SCREEN PRINTING; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, 3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive 15 Process; and Defendants. 16 4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. 17 18 UNLIMITED CIVIL 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff SANTIAGO MARTINEZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “MARTINEZ”) alleges and states 2 as follows: 3 PARTIES 4 1. Plaintiff SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, at all times relevant herein, was, and is, an 5 individual residing in the City of Corona, County of Riverside, State of California. 6 2. Defendant I E SCREEN PRINTING, an unknown business entity dba INLAND 7 EMPIRE SCREEN PRINTING (hereafter referred to as Defendant) is a business entity, form 8 unknown, doing business in Riverside, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon 9 alleges, that Defendant regularly employed five or more persons at all relevant times to this 10 action. 11 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, 12 corporate, associate or otherwise, of the Defendant sued herein under fictitious names Does 1 13 through 100, inclusive, and for that reason sues said Defendant, and each of them, by such 14 fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the Defendant 15 Does 1 through 100, inclusive, is and was in some manner responsible for, participated in, or 16 contributed to the matters and things of which Plaintiff complains herein, and in some fashion, 17 has legal responsibility therefore. When Plaintiff ascertains the names and capacities of the 18 fictitiously named Defendant Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Plaintiff will seek leave to amend 19 this Complaint to set forth such facts. 20 4. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and there upon alleges that Defendant is, and at all 21 times relevant herein was, the agent of his, her, or its co-Defendant, and in committing the acts 22 alleged herein, was acting within the scope of his, her, or its authority as such agent, and with the 23 knowledge, permission, and consent of his, her, or its co-Defendant. 24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and the matters alleged herein pursuant 26 to the grant of original jurisdiction set forth in Article VI, Section 10 of the California 27 Constitution. The statutes under which this action are brought do not specify any other basis for 28 jurisdiction. 2 COMPLAINT 1 6. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because, upon information and belief, 2 each Defendant is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contracts in California, or 3 otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of 4 jurisdiction over it by this Court consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial 5 justice. 6 7. Venue is proper in this Court, because, upon information and belief, one or more 7 of the named Defendant resides, transacts business or has offices in this county and the acts or 8 omissions alleged herein took place in this county. 9 8. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. 10 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 11 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant are 12 engaged in the operation of a clothing and fabric screen printing business located at 7209 13 Arlington Unit D, Riverside, California 92503. 14 10. Throughout the relevant time-period, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a steam 15 printing machine operator. Plaintiff was a dedicated, extremely devoted, and hard-working 16 employee. His job primarily consisted of operating the printing machinery to print shirts and other 17 articles of clothing. 18 11. In or about October of 2021, Plaintiff injured his left shoulder, left elbow, and neck 19 in the course of his duties and developed a hand disability, which required regular therapy 20 appointments. 21 12. Plaintiff reported the work-related injuries to Defendant’s owner “Chris.” Neither 22 Chris, and requested the accommodation of being permitted periodic absences to attend therapy 23 sessions, as well as temporary restrictions of no repetitive use of the left arm and no heavy lifting. 24 13. On or about November 5, 2021, Defendant called Plaintiff and told Plaintiff he was 25 terminated due to the absences caused by his physical therapy appointments. Plaintiff told 26 Defendant he was willing to move his appointments to Friday to minimize work interruption, but 27 Defendant responded that the decision to terminate Plaintiff had already been made. 28 3 COMPLAINT 1 14. Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination with the DFEH and he was issued a 2 right to sue letter on January 10, 2021. 3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Disability Discrimination – Against all Defendants) 5 15. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully 6 set forth herein. 7 16. California Government Code section 12940(a) prohibits discrimination on the 8 basis of physical disability and/or medical condition. This prohibition encompasses a proscription 9 against an employer discharging an employee because of a disability. (Gov. Code sections 10 12940(a)). 11 17. Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a 12 steam printing machine operator. Plaintiff suffered from a physical disability. 13 18. Defendants were at all relevant times aware of Plaintiff’s disability, as Plaintiff 14 kept in communication with his supervisor named “Chris” regarding the physical therapy sessions 15 prescribed by Plaintiff’s doctor and physical therapist. 16 19. Plaintiff faced discrimination and defendants failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s 17 disability and instead terminated his employment. 18 20. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment on or about November 5, 2021. 19 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that disability was a substantial motivating 20 factor for his termination. 21 21. As a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and 22 continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, has incurred 23 attorneys’ fees and medical bills, all to his damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this 24 court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as 25 damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or any other 26 provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 27 22. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and 28 continues to suffer substantial anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry, 4 COMPLAINT 1 sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and 2 out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of 3 this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. 4 23. Defendant, in performing the acts alleged above, acted with a conscious disregard 5 of Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff; such as to constitute 6 oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code § 3294 thereby entitling Plaintiff to 7 exemplary or punitive damages. 8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation For Disability – Against all Defendants) 10 24. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully 11 set forth herein. 12 25. The Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12940, et seq. 13 (the “FEHA”) makes it unlawful for a covered employer to “fail to make reasonable 14 accommodation for the known … physical [or] mental … disability of an … employee” unless the 15 accommodation would cause undue hardship. Government Code section 12940 (m). 16 26. Plaintiff was a disabled person covered by the FEHA, because, as alleged above, 17 he suffered from a physical disability that limited his ability to participate in the major life 18 activities of breathing, walking and working. 19 27. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s disability and instead, 20 terminated Plaintiff’s employment on or about November 5, 2021. 21 28. As a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and 22 continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, has incurred 23 attorneys’ fees and medical bills, all to his damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this 24 court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as 25 damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or any other 26 provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 27 29. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and 28 continues to suffer substantial anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry, 5 COMPLAINT 1 sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and 2 out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of 3 this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. 4 30. Defendant, in performing the acts alleged above, acted with a conscious disregard 5 of Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff; such as to constitute 6 oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code § 3294 thereby entitling Plaintiff to 7 exemplary or punitive damages. 8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (Failure to Engage in Interactive Process – Against all Defendants) 10 31. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully 11 set forth herein. 12 32. At all times mentioned herein, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act 13 (Gov. Cod Sec. 12940, et seq.) was in full force and effect, and required Defendant to engage in a 14 good-faith interactive process with Plaintiff to determine whether or not a reasonable 15 accommodation of Plaintiff’s disabilities was possible. 16 33. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was a disabled person covered by 17 the FEHA, because, as alleged above, he suffered from a physical disability that limited his ability 18 to participate in major life activities of working, walking, and mobility. Defendant was aware that 19 Plaintiff suffered from a disability because Plaintiff informed Defendant and requested 20 accommodation for his physical therapy appointments (and possibly a subsequent recuperation 21 day?). At all times Plaintiff was willing to participate in a good-faith interactive process to 22 determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made. 23 34. Defendant refused to engage in the interactive process, and instead summarily 24 denied all of Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation and terminated Plaintiff’s employment. 25 35. Plaintiff did not cause the breakdown of the interactive process. Rather, the 26 breakdown in the interactive process was caused by Defendant. 27 36. As a result of Defendant's failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process, 28 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment 6 COMPLAINT 1 benefits, has incurred attorneys’ fees and medical bills, all to his damage in excess of the 2 minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff 3 claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 4 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 5 37. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and 6 continues to suffer substantial anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry, 7 sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and 8 out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of 9 this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. 10 38. Defendant, in performing the acts alleged above, acted with a conscious disregard 11 of Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff; such as to constitute 12 oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code § 3294 thereby entitling Plaintiff to 13 exemplary or punitive damages. 14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy – Against all Defendants) 16 39. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by the above paragraphs as though fully 17 set forth herein. 18 40. At all times mentioned herein, the FEHA (Gov. Cod Sec. 12940, et seq.) was in 19 full force and effect, and delineated fundamental, substantial, and well-established policies that 20 benefit the public at large rather than private interests and were binding upon Defendant at the 21 time of Plaintiff’s termination. 22 41. On or about November 5, 2021, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment 23 because Defendant refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability. 24 42. Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff was wrongful and violated the public policy of 25 the State of California, as expressed in the FEHA. 26 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that as a direct and 27 proximate result of the acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer economic 28 detriment and monetary damages, including, but not limited to, loss of wages and benefits in an 7 COMPLAINT 1 amount to be determined at trial. 2 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that as a further direct 3 and proximate result of the acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer 4 substantial embarrassment, extreme and severe humiliation, mental anguish, emotional and 5 physical distress, pain and suffering, and has been generally damaged in an amount to be 6 determined at trial. 7 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant 8 willfully engaged in the conduct alleged herein with malice, fraud, and oppression, without 9 excuse or justification, and with the specific intent to injure Plaintiff for an improper and evil 10 motive which constitutes a malicious and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. By reason 11 thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant 12 sufficient to punish and deter Defendant from engaging in such conduct in the future in an amount 13 to be determined at trial. 14 PRAYER FOR DAMAGES 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, and DOES 1 through 100, 16 inclusive, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows: 17 ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Disability Discrimination) 19 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount 20 to be determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000; 21 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 22 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at 23 trial; and 24 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 25 ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 26 (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation) 27 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount 28 to be determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000; 8 COMPLAINT 1 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 2 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at 3 trial; and 4 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 5 ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process) 7 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount 8 to be determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000; 9 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 10 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at 11 trial; and 12 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 13 ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (Wrongful Termination) 15 1. For lost wages and benefits and other monetary relief in an amount to be 16 determined at trial, but in an amount exceeding $250,000; 17 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 18 3. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 19 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and 20 5. For attorneys’ fees. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 9 COMPLAINT 1 AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 2 1. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, expert costs, and expenses 3 pursuant to statutory and common law; and 4 2. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, fair, and proper. 5 DATED: January 26, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 6 BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC 7 /s/ John F. Litwin _____________________________ 8 Gregory P. Wong John F. Litwin 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff SANTIAGO MARTINEZ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 COMPLAINT