Preview
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. (SBN 263809) Electronically Filed
1 Superior Court of California
nazo@koullaw.com
County of San Joaquin
2 Christine Harmandayan, Esq. (SBN 320999) 2022-03-16 15:37:49
christine@koullaw.com Clerk: Irving Jimenez
3
KOUL LAW FIRM
4 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles CA 90010
5
Phone: (213) 761-5484
6 Fax: (818) 561-3938
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 SHAUN MEDINA
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN – STOCKTON BRANCH
10
11
SHAUN MEDINA, ) Case No.: STK-CV-UWT-2019-0010377
12 ) [Assigned to the Honorable George J.
Plaintiff, ) Abdallah, Jr. in Department 10A]
13 )
vs. )
14 ) PLAINTIFF SHAUN MEDINA’S FIRST
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
15 and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, ) DAMAGES FOR:
)
16 Defendants. ) (3) WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF
) EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF
17 ) PUBLIC POLICY;
)
18 ) (12) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
19 )
) (13) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
20 ) § 1102.5;
)
21 ) (14) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
) § 6310 (UNSAFE WORKING
22 ) CONDITIONS);
)
23 ) (15) CONSTRUCTIVE
) DISCHARGE/WRONGFUL
24 ) TERMINATION
)
25 )
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
SUMMARY 1
3
PARTIES 1
4
VENUE 3
5
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 4
6
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 7
7
(Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy (Labor
8 Code § 1102.5; FEHA, Government Code § 12900, et seq.)—Against
Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 7
9
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8
10
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All Defendants and
11 Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 8
12 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9
13 (Violations of Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq.—Against Defendant UPS and
Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 9
14
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10
15
(Workplace Safety Complaints (Violations of Labor Code § 6310)—Against
16 Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 10
17 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11
18 Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 11
19 PRAYER 13
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i-
1 Plaintiff, Shaun Medina, alleges, on the basis of personal knowledge and/or
2 information and belief:
3
4 SUMMARY
5 This is an action by plaintiff, Shaun Medina (“plaintiff” or “Medina”), whose
6 employment with defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) was wrongfully
7 terminated. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for economic, non-economic,
8 and compensatory damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, pre-judgment interest
9 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 3291, and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees
10 pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section
11 1021.5.
12
13 PARTIES
14 1. Plaintiff: Plaintiff Medina is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was,
15 a resident of the County of Alameda, California.
16 2. Defendants: Defendant UPS is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was,
17 authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and
18 authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Alameda. Defendants’ place of
19 business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of
20 Alameda.
21 3. Doe defendants: Defendants Does 1 to 100, inclusive, are sued under fictitious
22 names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
23 and on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is in some
24 manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below, in so acting was
25 functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the co-defendants, and in tak-
26 ing the actions mentioned below was acting within the course and scope of his or her
27 authority as such agent, servant, partner, and employee, with the permission and consent
28 of the co-defendants. The named defendants and Doe defendants are sometimes hereafter
-1-
1 referred to, collectively and/or individually, as “defendants.”
2 4. Relationship of defendants: All defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or
3 abetted the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which
4 conduct is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). All defen-
5 dants were responsible for the events and damages alleged herein, including on the fol-
6 lowing bases: (a) defendants committed the acts alleged; (b) at all relevant times, one
7 or more of the defendants was the agent or employee, and/or acted under the control or
8 supervision, of one or more of the remaining defendants and, in committing the acts
9 alleged, acted within the course and scope of such agency and employment and/or is or
10 are otherwise liable for plaintiff’s damages; (c) at all relevant times, there existed a unity
11 of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the defendants such that any
12 individuality and separateness between or among those defendants has ceased, and de-
13 fendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control
14 over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of defendants
15 does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the fiction of
16 the separate existence of defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and
17 would sanction fraud and promote injustice. All actions of all defendants were taken by
18 employees, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during employment with all
19 defendants, were taken on behalf of all defendants, and were engaged in, authorized,
20 ratified, and approved of by all other defendants.
21 5. Defendant UPS both directly and indirectly employed plaintiff Medina, as
22 defined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) at Government Code
23 section 12926(d).
24 6. In addition, defendant UPS compelled, coerced, aided, and abetted the
25 discrimination, which is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i).
26 7. Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of
27 all other defendants in committing the acts alleged herein.
28
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 VENUE
2 8. The actions at issue in this case occurred in the State of California, in the County
3 of Alameda. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, this case can
4 alternatively, at Plaintiff’s choice, be filed:
[I]n any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged
5 to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant
to the practice are maintained . . . or in the county in which the
6 aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the
public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice, but if the
7 defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be
brought within the county of the defendant’s residence or principal
8 office . . .
9
(California Government Code § 12965(b).)
10
9. Here, the plaintiff worked primarily in California in the County of Alameda. The
11
location where plaintiff worked was located in Alameda County, California at 11800
12
Harlan Rd., Lathrop California 95330. The majority of the unlawful actions on the part
13
of the defendants occurred in the County of Alameda.
14
10. “[I]n the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is
15
that the county in which the title of the actions shows that the case is brought is, prima
16
facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action.” (Mission Imports,
17
Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.) The FEHA venue statute – section
18
12965(b) – thus affords a wide choice of venue to persons who bring actions under
19
FEHA. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 486.) “[T]he special provisions
20
of the FEHA venue statute control in cases involving FEHA claims joined with non-
21
FEHA claims arising from the same facts.” (Id. at 487.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
2 11. Plaintiff’s hiring: In or around September 2016, Plaintiff Shaun Medina
3 (“Medina” or “Plaintiff”) was hired as a sorter, then was a loader/unloader at UPS, which
4 often required to engage in repetitive motions for hours, i.e., unloading voluminous and
5 heavy packages without any assistance.
6 12. Plaintiff’s job performance: Medina enjoyed his work and did not have a history
7 of negative performance reviews.
8 13. Plaintiff’s protected status and activity:
9 a. Plaintiff is a Hispanic male.
10 b. Plaintiff is 46 years old.
11 c. Plaintiff suffers from disabilities, including bipolar disorder, anxiety, stress,
12 depression, a shoulder injury, of which he informed defendants and for which he sought
13 reasonable accommodation.
14 14. Defendants’ adverse employment actions and behavior:
15 a. When Medina was hired, he disclosed on his job application to UPS that he
16 was bipolar. Generally, bipolar disorder causes episodes of mood swings ranging from
17 depressive lows to manic highs. It is a stigmatized mental illness.
18 b. Around November 2016, wielding work was being conducted inside the UPS
19 facility which was releasing fumes making Medina ill, Medina was not allowed to wear a
20 safety mask when he asked a supervisor. In addition, Medina informed human resources
21 and requested time off since he began feeling ill.
22 c. Around January 2017, Medina injured his shoulder while unloading for hours
23 packages weighing over 80 pounds from a UPS truck. At times Medina dealt with
24 packages weighing close to 100 pounds without anyone’s help. Medina reported the injury
25 to supervisor Luis (last name unknown) (“Luis”) and Chauncy (last name unknown)
26 (“Chauncy”). Rather than engage in a discussion as to how to accommodate his injury,
27 Luis ordered Medina to clock out and sent Medina home.
28 d. Sometime after, Medina reported to Luis that he needed assistance with his
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 duties because he was still injured. In response, Luis responded angrily, “I have a lot of
2 work to do too, but I still do it. And you know what happens if you don’t do your work.”
3 Medina understood Luis’s comment as a threat, and a refusal to provide an
4 accommodation. Medina was humiliated and ashamed on hearing his supervisor insinuate
5 that Medina was being a burden on UPS.
6 e. Around early January 2017, Medina went to safety supervisor Dorothy (last
7 name unknown) (“Dorothy”) to file an incident report. Dorothy did not want to document
8 Medina’s injury, so she passed him off to supervisor Vivian Joshua (“Vivian”). Vivian
9 then refused to fill out an incident report for Medina by stating dismissively that he could
10 merely “drink tea” to get better and return to work since it was costly on UPS to do
11 anything else for him.
12 f. On or about January 9, 2017, once again Vivian was adamant about not filling
13 out an injury report for Medina thus preventing him from obtaining medical treatment.
14 Finally, after communicating again the severity of his pain and discomfort, Vivian agreed
15 to submit the request.
16 g. Soon after, Medina visited the UPS doctor, but he was not given any work
17 restrictions. The UPS doctor unfairly accused Medina of feigning his symptoms and
18 refused to treat him.
19 h. Around January 11, 2017, Medina was forced to return to work and reported
20 to Luis that his pain was ongoing and increasing. Once again, Luis avoided engaging in a
21 discussion to help alleviate his pain. In a dismissive tone, Luis stated, “go home and rest,”
22 without any clear information on how long he should remain at home or any information
23 as to his rights to any forms of medical leave.
24 i. Late January 2017, after a few weeks without any correspondence from UPS,
25 Medina decided to contact Vivian about his symptoms and constant pain. Medina
26 requested to visit a doctor again to asses him. When Medina attempted to schedule an
27 appointment to visit the doctor, he was unable to because Defendants had not authorized
28 the visit. Unable to see a doctor and distressed about work, Medina returned home.
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 j. On or about February 7, 2017, Luis called Medina to come back to work.
2 Medina returned to perform his regular duties without any modifications to ensure his
3 injuries were not further aggravated.
4 k. About more than a month later, Medina was authorized to been seen by the
5 company doctor. The doctor provided restrictions of no lifting over twenty (20) pounds
6 and no lifting overhead. Upon getting the note, Medina provided the note to Defendant.
7 Defendant in return got upset when she learned about Medina’s restrictions and demanded
8 to know how much longer he would remain injured.
9 l. In or around March 2017, Medina was overwhelmed with the large number
10 of boxes to sort and observed that employees were missing causing additional work on
11 him despite UPS’ knowledge about his work restrictions. As a result, Medina’s
12 restrictions were violated since he was expected to perform. Medina complained to
13 supervisor Denise (last name unknown) (“Denise”) about the excessive work violating the
14 work restrictions. Denise ignored his comments and refused to relieve Medina from any
15 work. Not knowing what to do, Medina went back to work and finished his shift.
16 15. Defendants’ termination of plaintiff’s employment: Around March 2017, UPS
17 mailed Medina a letter stating to return to work within 72 hours or be terminated.
18 Medina could not go back to the same hostile environment and chose not to put his health
19 at risk any longer.
20 16. Economic damages: As a consequence of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has
21 suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and employment
22 benefits, damage to his career, and lost wages, overtime, unpaid expenses, and penalties,
23 as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which
24 those wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial.
25 17. Non-economic damages: As a consequence of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has
26 suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation, and mental
27 and physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial.
28 18. []
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 19. Attorneys’ fees: Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and
2 attorneys’ fees.
3 20. Exhaustion of administrative remedies: Prior to filing this action, plaintiff ex-
4 hausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely administrative complaint with the
5 Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and receiving a DFEH right-
6 to-sue letter.
7
8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9 (Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of
10 Public Policy (Labor Code § 1102.5; FEHA, Government
11 Code § 12900, et seq.)—Against Defendant UPS and Does 1
12 to 100, Inclusive)
13 40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth
14 in full.
15 41. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment in violation of various funda-
16 mental public policies underlying both state and federal laws. Specifically, plaintiff’s
17 employment was terminated in part because of his protected status (i.e., age, disability,
18 medical leave, race, national origin, ancestry, and/or good faith complaints), and because
19 he reported and complained about unsafe working conditions. These actions were in
20 violation of FEHA, the California Constitution, and California Labor Code sections,
21 98.6, 6310, 6311, and 1102.5.
22 42. As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff’s em-
23 ployment in violation of fundamental public policies, plaintiff has suffered and continues
24 to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all
25 to his damage in a sum according to proof.
26 43. As a result of defendants’ wrongful termination of his employment, plaintiff has
27 suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof.
28 44. []
-7-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 45. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees.
2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, et seq., plaintiff is entitled
3 to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount according to proof.
4
5 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All
7 Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
8 101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth
9 in full.
10 102. Defendants’ discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory actions against plaintiff, as
11 well as their other illegal actions and requests for plaintiff to engage in illegal activity,
12 constituted severe and outrageous misconduct and caused plaintiff extreme emotional
13 distress.
14 103. Defendants were aware that treating plaintiff in the manner alleged above,
15 including depriving plaintiff of his livelihood, would devastate plaintiff and cause him
16 extreme hardship.
17 104. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff
18 has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has sustained
19 and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits as
20 a result of being emotionally distressed.
21 105. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff
22 has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and
23 physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof.
24 106. []
25
26
27
28
-8-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Violations of Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq.—Against
3 Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
4 107. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth
5 in full.
6 108. At all relevant times, Labor Code section 1102.5 was in effect and was binding
7 on defendants. This statute prohibits defendants from retaliating against any employee,
8 including plaintiff, for raising complaints of illegality. This statute prohibits defendants
9 from retaliating against any employee, including plaintiff, for raising complaints of
10 illegality. Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) states that “[a]n employer, or any
11 person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for
12 disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or
13 may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with
14 authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate,
15 discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or
16 testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the
17 employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of
18 state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal
19 rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the
20 employee’s job duties.” Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (c) states that an
21 “employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity
22 that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance
23 with a state or federal rule or regulation.”
24 109. Plaintiff raised numerous complaints of illegality to persons with authority over
25 him while he worked for defendants, and defendants retaliated against him by
26 discriminating against him, harassing him, and taking adverse employment actions,
27 including employment termination, against him. Defendants’ activities violated statutes
28 including Labor Code section 98.6, 232.5, 1102.5, 6310, 6311, 6400, 6401, 6402, 6403,
-9-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 6404, and Government Code section 12940 subdivisions (a), (h), (j), (k), (m), and (n).
2 110. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional violations
3 of Labor Code section 1102.5, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation,
4 emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum
5 according to proof.
6 111. As a result of defendants’ adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plaintiff
7 has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof.
8 112. []
9
10 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Workplace Safety Complaints (Violations of Labor Code
12 § 6310)—Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100,
13 Inclusive)
14 113. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 112 are re-alleged and incorpo-
15 rated herein by reference.
16 114. At all relevant times, Labor Code section 6310 was in effect and was binding on
17 defendants. This statute requires defendants to refrain from retaliating against employ-
18 ees for complaining about unsafe working conditions.
19 115. Defendants retaliated against plaintiff for his complaints of unsafe working
20 conditions by refusing to provide training or protection for plaintiff, thereby violating
21 Labor Code section 6310.
22 116. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional violations
23 of Labor Code section 6310, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation,
24 emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum
25 according to proof.
26 117. As a result of defendants’ adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plaintiff
27 has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof.
28 118. []
-10-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE/WRONGFUL TERMINATION
2 In Violation of Public Policy
3 Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
4 119. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains and re-alleges all
5 the allegations contained in this Complaint and incorporates them by reference into this
6 cause of action as though fully set forth herein, excepting those allegations which are
7 inconsistent with this cause of action. Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually
8 against Defendants.
9 120. “[W]hen an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental
10 principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and
11 recover damages traditionally available in such actions.” (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield
12 Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 [164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330].)
13 121. Plaintiff believes and hereon alleges that Defendant forced him to resign from his
14 position for reasons that violate public policy.
15 122. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.
16 123. Plaintiff was subjected to working conditions that violated public policy, in that
17 Defendant refused and/or failed to provide reasonable accommodations for the
18 devastating injury to his shoulder that he suffered at work, making the conditions of
19 employment so intolerable, physically and emotionally painful that Plaintiff was
20 justified to quit reporting to work.
21 124. Following Plaintiff’s injury, he was given doctor-ordered restrictions prohibiting
22 him from lifting anything over 20 pounds or doing overhead work. Despite the
23 documented restrictions, Plaintiff was required to do tasks that violated them. Plaintiff
24 complained to his supervisors that he was being required to work in violation of his
25 doctor-ordered restrictions, and each time Plaintiff complained, he was forced to work
26 in violation of the doctor-ordered restrictions because his job was threatened if he did
27 not.
28 125. Plaintiff’s doctor-ordered restrictions to his workload were repeatedly ignored by
-11-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Defendant and each time he reminded his supervisor that his assignment violated his
2 doctor-ordered restrictions, he was threatened with losing his job.
3 126. Defendant intentionally created or knowingly permitted these working conditions
4 that violated public policy.
5 127. This became an intolerable work environment and Plaintiff had no choice but to
6 stop reporting to work and was thereby constructively discharged.
7 128. Plaintiff’s working conditions were so intolerable and unusually and repeatedly
8 offensive that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have no reasonable
9 alternative except to resign.
10 129. Plaintiff stopped reporting to work on or around March 8, 2017 because of the
11 aforementioned intolerable working conditions.
12 130. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general and special
13 damages, in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
14 humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his
15 damage in a sum according to proof.
16 131. Plaintiff’s intolerable working conditions were a substantial factor in causing
17 Plaintiff’s harm and damages.
18 132. Said constructive discharge was wrongful and justifies the imposition of damages
19 since it was against public policy. Defendant intentionally discriminated against
20 Plaintiff on account of the age and disability and retaliated against him on the basis of
21 Plaintiff’s aforementioned complaints.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided.
2
3 PRAYER
4 WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Shaun Medina, prays for judgment against defendants as
5 follows:
6 1. For general and special damages according to proof;
7 2. []
8 3. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded;
9 4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees;
10 5. For declaratory relief;
11 6. For costs of suit incurred;
12 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
13
14
15
16 ADDITIONALLY, plaintiff, Shaun Medina, demands trial of this matter by jury.
17 The amount demanded exceeds $25,000.00 (Government Code § 72055).
18
Dated: March 16, 2022 KOUL LAW FIRM.
19
20
By:
21
By: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
22 Christine Harmandayan, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
23
Attorney for Plaintiff,
24
25
26
27
28
-13-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2019-0010377
Medina v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al.
I, JACKELINE HERNANDEZ declare that I am a resident of or employed in the County of Los Angeles,
California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the entitled case. The name and address of my
residence or business is KOUL LAW FIRM, 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 1710, Los Angeles, California
90010.
On March 16, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as:
PLAINTIFF SHAUN MEDINA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set
forth below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for
such in our offices, following ordinary business practices.
by overnight delivery. I deposited a true copy of the same enclosed in a sealed envelope,
with delivery fees provided for, in an overnight delivery service pick up box or office
designated for overnight delivery, and addressed as set forth below.
X by transmitting via electronic mail the document(s) listed above to the
electronic mailing address set forth below on this date.
by causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at
the address(es) set forth below.
on the parties listed below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for collection and
mailing in the United States Postal Service following ordinary business practices at Los Angeles,
California addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I am readily familiar with the ordinary practice of the business of collecting, processing and
depositing correspondence in the United States Postal Service and that the correspondence will be
deposited the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on this March 16, 2022, in Los Angeles, California.
JACKELINE HERNANDEZ
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2019-0010377
Medina v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al.
LISA LIN GARCIA, ESQ.
(llgarcia@littler.com)
NICHOLAS MCKINNEY, ESQ.
(nmcKinney@littler.com)
D. CHAD ANDERSTON, ESQ.
(CAnderton@littler.com)
JEFF PILCHARD
(jpilchard@littler.com)
MARCIA NEY
(mney@littler.com)
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415.433.1940
Fax No.: 415.399.8490
Attorneys for Defendants UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
Preview
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. (SBN 263809) Electronically Filed 1 Superior Court of California nazo@koullaw.com County of San Joaquin 2 Christine Harmandayan, Esq. (SBN 320999) 2022-03-16 15:37:49 christine@koullaw.com Clerk: Irving Jimenez 3 KOUL LAW FIRM 4 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles CA 90010 5 Phone: (213) 761-5484 6 Fax: (818) 561-3938 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 SHAUN MEDINA 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN – STOCKTON BRANCH 10 11 SHAUN MEDINA, ) Case No.: STK-CV-UWT-2019-0010377 12 ) [Assigned to the Honorable George J. Plaintiff, ) Abdallah, Jr. in Department 10A] 13 ) vs. ) 14 ) PLAINTIFF SHAUN MEDINA’S FIRST UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 15 and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, ) DAMAGES FOR: ) 16 Defendants. ) (3) WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF ) EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF 17 ) PUBLIC POLICY; ) 18 ) (12) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 19 ) ) (13) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 20 ) § 1102.5; ) 21 ) (14) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE ) § 6310 (UNSAFE WORKING 22 ) CONDITIONS); ) 23 ) (15) CONSTRUCTIVE ) DISCHARGE/WRONGFUL 24 ) TERMINATION ) 25 ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page SUMMARY 1 3 PARTIES 1 4 VENUE 3 5 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 4 6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 7 7 (Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy (Labor 8 Code § 1102.5; FEHA, Government Code § 12900, et seq.)—Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 7 9 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 10 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All Defendants and 11 Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 8 12 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 13 (Violations of Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq.—Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 9 14 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10 15 (Workplace Safety Complaints (Violations of Labor Code § 6310)—Against 16 Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 10 17 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 18 Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 11 19 PRAYER 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -i- 1 Plaintiff, Shaun Medina, alleges, on the basis of personal knowledge and/or 2 information and belief: 3 4 SUMMARY 5 This is an action by plaintiff, Shaun Medina (“plaintiff” or “Medina”), whose 6 employment with defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) was wrongfully 7 terminated. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for economic, non-economic, 8 and compensatory damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, pre-judgment interest 9 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 3291, and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees 10 pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 11 1021.5. 12 13 PARTIES 14 1. Plaintiff: Plaintiff Medina is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, 15 a resident of the County of Alameda, California. 16 2. Defendants: Defendant UPS is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, 17 authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and 18 authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Alameda. Defendants’ place of 19 business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of 20 Alameda. 21 3. Doe defendants: Defendants Does 1 to 100, inclusive, are sued under fictitious 22 names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, 23 and on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is in some 24 manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below, in so acting was 25 functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the co-defendants, and in tak- 26 ing the actions mentioned below was acting within the course and scope of his or her 27 authority as such agent, servant, partner, and employee, with the permission and consent 28 of the co-defendants. The named defendants and Doe defendants are sometimes hereafter -1- 1 referred to, collectively and/or individually, as “defendants.” 2 4. Relationship of defendants: All defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or 3 abetted the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which 4 conduct is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). All defen- 5 dants were responsible for the events and damages alleged herein, including on the fol- 6 lowing bases: (a) defendants committed the acts alleged; (b) at all relevant times, one 7 or more of the defendants was the agent or employee, and/or acted under the control or 8 supervision, of one or more of the remaining defendants and, in committing the acts 9 alleged, acted within the course and scope of such agency and employment and/or is or 10 are otherwise liable for plaintiff’s damages; (c) at all relevant times, there existed a unity 11 of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the defendants such that any 12 individuality and separateness between or among those defendants has ceased, and de- 13 fendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control 14 over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of defendants 15 does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the fiction of 16 the separate existence of defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and 17 would sanction fraud and promote injustice. All actions of all defendants were taken by 18 employees, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during employment with all 19 defendants, were taken on behalf of all defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, 20 ratified, and approved of by all other defendants. 21 5. Defendant UPS both directly and indirectly employed plaintiff Medina, as 22 defined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) at Government Code 23 section 12926(d). 24 6. In addition, defendant UPS compelled, coerced, aided, and abetted the 25 discrimination, which is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). 26 7. Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of 27 all other defendants in committing the acts alleged herein. 28 -2- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 VENUE 2 8. The actions at issue in this case occurred in the State of California, in the County 3 of Alameda. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, this case can 4 alternatively, at Plaintiff’s choice, be filed: [I]n any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged 5 to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained . . . or in the county in which the 6 aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice, but if the 7 defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant’s residence or principal 8 office . . . 9 (California Government Code § 12965(b).) 10 9. Here, the plaintiff worked primarily in California in the County of Alameda. The 11 location where plaintiff worked was located in Alameda County, California at 11800 12 Harlan Rd., Lathrop California 95330. The majority of the unlawful actions on the part 13 of the defendants occurred in the County of Alameda. 14 10. “[I]n the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is 15 that the county in which the title of the actions shows that the case is brought is, prima 16 facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action.” (Mission Imports, 17 Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.) The FEHA venue statute – section 18 12965(b) – thus affords a wide choice of venue to persons who bring actions under 19 FEHA. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 486.) “[T]he special provisions 20 of the FEHA venue statute control in cases involving FEHA claims joined with non- 21 FEHA claims arising from the same facts.” (Id. at 487.) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 2 11. Plaintiff’s hiring: In or around September 2016, Plaintiff Shaun Medina 3 (“Medina” or “Plaintiff”) was hired as a sorter, then was a loader/unloader at UPS, which 4 often required to engage in repetitive motions for hours, i.e., unloading voluminous and 5 heavy packages without any assistance. 6 12. Plaintiff’s job performance: Medina enjoyed his work and did not have a history 7 of negative performance reviews. 8 13. Plaintiff’s protected status and activity: 9 a. Plaintiff is a Hispanic male. 10 b. Plaintiff is 46 years old. 11 c. Plaintiff suffers from disabilities, including bipolar disorder, anxiety, stress, 12 depression, a shoulder injury, of which he informed defendants and for which he sought 13 reasonable accommodation. 14 14. Defendants’ adverse employment actions and behavior: 15 a. When Medina was hired, he disclosed on his job application to UPS that he 16 was bipolar. Generally, bipolar disorder causes episodes of mood swings ranging from 17 depressive lows to manic highs. It is a stigmatized mental illness. 18 b. Around November 2016, wielding work was being conducted inside the UPS 19 facility which was releasing fumes making Medina ill, Medina was not allowed to wear a 20 safety mask when he asked a supervisor. In addition, Medina informed human resources 21 and requested time off since he began feeling ill. 22 c. Around January 2017, Medina injured his shoulder while unloading for hours 23 packages weighing over 80 pounds from a UPS truck. At times Medina dealt with 24 packages weighing close to 100 pounds without anyone’s help. Medina reported the injury 25 to supervisor Luis (last name unknown) (“Luis”) and Chauncy (last name unknown) 26 (“Chauncy”). Rather than engage in a discussion as to how to accommodate his injury, 27 Luis ordered Medina to clock out and sent Medina home. 28 d. Sometime after, Medina reported to Luis that he needed assistance with his -4- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 duties because he was still injured. In response, Luis responded angrily, “I have a lot of 2 work to do too, but I still do it. And you know what happens if you don’t do your work.” 3 Medina understood Luis’s comment as a threat, and a refusal to provide an 4 accommodation. Medina was humiliated and ashamed on hearing his supervisor insinuate 5 that Medina was being a burden on UPS. 6 e. Around early January 2017, Medina went to safety supervisor Dorothy (last 7 name unknown) (“Dorothy”) to file an incident report. Dorothy did not want to document 8 Medina’s injury, so she passed him off to supervisor Vivian Joshua (“Vivian”). Vivian 9 then refused to fill out an incident report for Medina by stating dismissively that he could 10 merely “drink tea” to get better and return to work since it was costly on UPS to do 11 anything else for him. 12 f. On or about January 9, 2017, once again Vivian was adamant about not filling 13 out an injury report for Medina thus preventing him from obtaining medical treatment. 14 Finally, after communicating again the severity of his pain and discomfort, Vivian agreed 15 to submit the request. 16 g. Soon after, Medina visited the UPS doctor, but he was not given any work 17 restrictions. The UPS doctor unfairly accused Medina of feigning his symptoms and 18 refused to treat him. 19 h. Around January 11, 2017, Medina was forced to return to work and reported 20 to Luis that his pain was ongoing and increasing. Once again, Luis avoided engaging in a 21 discussion to help alleviate his pain. In a dismissive tone, Luis stated, “go home and rest,” 22 without any clear information on how long he should remain at home or any information 23 as to his rights to any forms of medical leave. 24 i. Late January 2017, after a few weeks without any correspondence from UPS, 25 Medina decided to contact Vivian about his symptoms and constant pain. Medina 26 requested to visit a doctor again to asses him. When Medina attempted to schedule an 27 appointment to visit the doctor, he was unable to because Defendants had not authorized 28 the visit. Unable to see a doctor and distressed about work, Medina returned home. -5- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 j. On or about February 7, 2017, Luis called Medina to come back to work. 2 Medina returned to perform his regular duties without any modifications to ensure his 3 injuries were not further aggravated. 4 k. About more than a month later, Medina was authorized to been seen by the 5 company doctor. The doctor provided restrictions of no lifting over twenty (20) pounds 6 and no lifting overhead. Upon getting the note, Medina provided the note to Defendant. 7 Defendant in return got upset when she learned about Medina’s restrictions and demanded 8 to know how much longer he would remain injured. 9 l. In or around March 2017, Medina was overwhelmed with the large number 10 of boxes to sort and observed that employees were missing causing additional work on 11 him despite UPS’ knowledge about his work restrictions. As a result, Medina’s 12 restrictions were violated since he was expected to perform. Medina complained to 13 supervisor Denise (last name unknown) (“Denise”) about the excessive work violating the 14 work restrictions. Denise ignored his comments and refused to relieve Medina from any 15 work. Not knowing what to do, Medina went back to work and finished his shift. 16 15. Defendants’ termination of plaintiff’s employment: Around March 2017, UPS 17 mailed Medina a letter stating to return to work within 72 hours or be terminated. 18 Medina could not go back to the same hostile environment and chose not to put his health 19 at risk any longer. 20 16. Economic damages: As a consequence of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has 21 suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and employment 22 benefits, damage to his career, and lost wages, overtime, unpaid expenses, and penalties, 23 as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which 24 those wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial. 25 17. Non-economic damages: As a consequence of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has 26 suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation, and mental 27 and physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial. 28 18. [] -6- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 19. Attorneys’ fees: Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and 2 attorneys’ fees. 3 20. Exhaustion of administrative remedies: Prior to filing this action, plaintiff ex- 4 hausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely administrative complaint with the 5 Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and receiving a DFEH right- 6 to-sue letter. 7 8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of 10 Public Policy (Labor Code § 1102.5; FEHA, Government 11 Code § 12900, et seq.)—Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 12 to 100, Inclusive) 13 40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth 14 in full. 15 41. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment in violation of various funda- 16 mental public policies underlying both state and federal laws. Specifically, plaintiff’s 17 employment was terminated in part because of his protected status (i.e., age, disability, 18 medical leave, race, national origin, ancestry, and/or good faith complaints), and because 19 he reported and complained about unsafe working conditions. These actions were in 20 violation of FEHA, the California Constitution, and California Labor Code sections, 21 98.6, 6310, 6311, and 1102.5. 22 42. As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff’s em- 23 ployment in violation of fundamental public policies, plaintiff has suffered and continues 24 to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all 25 to his damage in a sum according to proof. 26 43. As a result of defendants’ wrongful termination of his employment, plaintiff has 27 suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof. 28 44. [] -7- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 45. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. 2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, et seq., plaintiff is entitled 3 to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount according to proof. 4 5 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All 7 Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 8 101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth 9 in full. 10 102. Defendants’ discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory actions against plaintiff, as 11 well as their other illegal actions and requests for plaintiff to engage in illegal activity, 12 constituted severe and outrageous misconduct and caused plaintiff extreme emotional 13 distress. 14 103. Defendants were aware that treating plaintiff in the manner alleged above, 15 including depriving plaintiff of his livelihood, would devastate plaintiff and cause him 16 extreme hardship. 17 104. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff 18 has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has sustained 19 and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits as 20 a result of being emotionally distressed. 21 105. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff 22 has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and 23 physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 24 106. [] 25 26 27 28 -8- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Violations of Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq.—Against 3 Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 4 107. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth 5 in full. 6 108. At all relevant times, Labor Code section 1102.5 was in effect and was binding 7 on defendants. This statute prohibits defendants from retaliating against any employee, 8 including plaintiff, for raising complaints of illegality. This statute prohibits defendants 9 from retaliating against any employee, including plaintiff, for raising complaints of 10 illegality. Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) states that “[a]n employer, or any 11 person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for 12 disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or 13 may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with 14 authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, 15 discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or 16 testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the 17 employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of 18 state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal 19 rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the 20 employee’s job duties.” Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (c) states that an 21 “employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity 22 that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance 23 with a state or federal rule or regulation.” 24 109. Plaintiff raised numerous complaints of illegality to persons with authority over 25 him while he worked for defendants, and defendants retaliated against him by 26 discriminating against him, harassing him, and taking adverse employment actions, 27 including employment termination, against him. Defendants’ activities violated statutes 28 including Labor Code section 98.6, 232.5, 1102.5, 6310, 6311, 6400, 6401, 6402, 6403, -9- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 6404, and Government Code section 12940 subdivisions (a), (h), (j), (k), (m), and (n). 2 110. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional violations 3 of Labor Code section 1102.5, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, 4 emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum 5 according to proof. 6 111. As a result of defendants’ adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plaintiff 7 has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof. 8 112. [] 9 10 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Workplace Safety Complaints (Violations of Labor Code 12 § 6310)—Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, 13 Inclusive) 14 113. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 112 are re-alleged and incorpo- 15 rated herein by reference. 16 114. At all relevant times, Labor Code section 6310 was in effect and was binding on 17 defendants. This statute requires defendants to refrain from retaliating against employ- 18 ees for complaining about unsafe working conditions. 19 115. Defendants retaliated against plaintiff for his complaints of unsafe working 20 conditions by refusing to provide training or protection for plaintiff, thereby violating 21 Labor Code section 6310. 22 116. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional violations 23 of Labor Code section 6310, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, 24 emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum 25 according to proof. 26 117. As a result of defendants’ adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plaintiff 27 has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof. 28 118. [] -10- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE/WRONGFUL TERMINATION 2 In Violation of Public Policy 3 Against Defendant UPS and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 4 119. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains and re-alleges all 5 the allegations contained in this Complaint and incorporates them by reference into this 6 cause of action as though fully set forth herein, excepting those allegations which are 7 inconsistent with this cause of action. Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually 8 against Defendants. 9 120. “[W]hen an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental 10 principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and 11 recover damages traditionally available in such actions.” (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield 12 Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 [164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330].) 13 121. Plaintiff believes and hereon alleges that Defendant forced him to resign from his 14 position for reasons that violate public policy. 15 122. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. 16 123. Plaintiff was subjected to working conditions that violated public policy, in that 17 Defendant refused and/or failed to provide reasonable accommodations for the 18 devastating injury to his shoulder that he suffered at work, making the conditions of 19 employment so intolerable, physically and emotionally painful that Plaintiff was 20 justified to quit reporting to work. 21 124. Following Plaintiff’s injury, he was given doctor-ordered restrictions prohibiting 22 him from lifting anything over 20 pounds or doing overhead work. Despite the 23 documented restrictions, Plaintiff was required to do tasks that violated them. Plaintiff 24 complained to his supervisors that he was being required to work in violation of his 25 doctor-ordered restrictions, and each time Plaintiff complained, he was forced to work 26 in violation of the doctor-ordered restrictions because his job was threatened if he did 27 not. 28 125. Plaintiff’s doctor-ordered restrictions to his workload were repeatedly ignored by -11- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Defendant and each time he reminded his supervisor that his assignment violated his 2 doctor-ordered restrictions, he was threatened with losing his job. 3 126. Defendant intentionally created or knowingly permitted these working conditions 4 that violated public policy. 5 127. This became an intolerable work environment and Plaintiff had no choice but to 6 stop reporting to work and was thereby constructively discharged. 7 128. Plaintiff’s working conditions were so intolerable and unusually and repeatedly 8 offensive that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have no reasonable 9 alternative except to resign. 10 129. Plaintiff stopped reporting to work on or around March 8, 2017 because of the 11 aforementioned intolerable working conditions. 12 130. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general and special 13 damages, in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer 14 humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his 15 damage in a sum according to proof. 16 131. Plaintiff’s intolerable working conditions were a substantial factor in causing 17 Plaintiff’s harm and damages. 18 132. Said constructive discharge was wrongful and justifies the imposition of damages 19 since it was against public policy. Defendant intentionally discriminated against 20 Plaintiff on account of the age and disability and retaliated against him on the basis of 21 Plaintiff’s aforementioned complaints. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided. 2 3 PRAYER 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Shaun Medina, prays for judgment against defendants as 5 follows: 6 1. For general and special damages according to proof; 7 2. [] 8 3. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded; 9 4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees; 10 5. For declaratory relief; 11 6. For costs of suit incurred; 12 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 13 14 15 16 ADDITIONALLY, plaintiff, Shaun Medina, demands trial of this matter by jury. 17 The amount demanded exceeds $25,000.00 (Government Code § 72055). 18 Dated: March 16, 2022 KOUL LAW FIRM. 19 20 By: 21 By: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. 22 Christine Harmandayan, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 23 Attorney for Plaintiff, 24 25 26 27 28 -13- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2019-0010377 Medina v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al. I, JACKELINE HERNANDEZ declare that I am a resident of or employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the entitled case. The name and address of my residence or business is KOUL LAW FIRM, 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 1710, Los Angeles, California 90010. On March 16, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as: PLAINTIFF SHAUN MEDINA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for such in our offices, following ordinary business practices. by overnight delivery. I deposited a true copy of the same enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees provided for, in an overnight delivery service pick up box or office designated for overnight delivery, and addressed as set forth below. X by transmitting via electronic mail the document(s) listed above to the electronic mailing address set forth below on this date. by causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. on the parties listed below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing in the United States Postal Service following ordinary business practices at Los Angeles, California addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST I am readily familiar with the ordinary practice of the business of collecting, processing and depositing correspondence in the United States Postal Service and that the correspondence will be deposited the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this March 16, 2022, in Los Angeles, California. JACKELINE HERNANDEZ PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2019-0010377 Medina v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al. LISA LIN GARCIA, ESQ. (llgarcia@littler.com) NICHOLAS MCKINNEY, ESQ. (nmcKinney@littler.com) D. CHAD ANDERSTON, ESQ. (CAnderton@littler.com) JEFF PILCHARD (jpilchard@littler.com) MARCIA NEY (mney@littler.com) LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Fax No.: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendants UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.