This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 08/05/2019 at 22:27:17 (UTC).

Janell Bandy vs. Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.

Case Summary

On 06/11/2018 a Labor - Other Labor case was filed by Janell Bandy against Pacific Choice Brands, Inc in the jurisdiction of Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2071

  • Filing Date:

    06/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Gaab, Kimberly

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Bandy, Janell

Camargo, Elizabeth

Defendant

Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.

 

Court Documents

Request Filed

Request for Judicial Notice - HRG 09-26-2018; Comment: Request for Judicial Notice - HRG 09-26-2018

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - HRG 09-26-2018; Comment: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - HRG 09-26-2018

Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion - HRG 09-26-2018; Comment: Notice of Motion - HRG 09-26-2018

Answer Filed

Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - First Appearance Fee; Comment: Defendant's Answer to Unverified Complaint

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: Case Management Conference and Assignment of Judge for all Purposes

Summons issued and filed

Summons; Summons issued and filed

Summons issued and filed

Summons; Summons issued and filed

Civil case cover sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Complaint filed

Complaint

Reply filed

Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration - HRG -; Comment: Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration - HRG - 9-26-2018

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH CAMARGO

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration_Points & Authorities

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: DECLARATION OF WALTER W. WHELAN

Proof of Service

Proof of Service - HRG 09-26-2018; Comment: Proof of Service - HRG 09-26-2018

Order Received for Signature

Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration - HRG 0; Comment: Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration - HRG 09-26-2018

Declaration Filed

Declaration of Lina Sandoval - HRG 09-26-2018; Comment: Declaration of Lina Sandoval - HRG 09-26-2018

Declaration Filed

Declaration of Faith Buller - HRG 09-26-2018; Comment: Declaration of Faith Buller - HRG 09-26-2018

Declaration Filed

Declaration of Mark D. Kruthers - HRG 09-26-2018; Comment: Declaration of Mark D. Kruthers - HRG 09-26-2018

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Bandy, Janell; Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.; Camargo, Elizabeth; Comment: With Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Arbitration Status Conference- Judicial Officer: Gaab, Kimberly; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Per 10/3/18 TR case staying pending arbitration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Hearing- Notice of Hearing; Comment: Arbitration Status Conference set for 4/24/19 @ 3:30 pm in Dept. 503. Case Stayed per Tentative Ruling 10/3/18

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2018
  • Case Management Conference- Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Case Stayed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Notice or Order Staying Action- Comment: Per TR on 10/3/18 pending arbitration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: from Chambers and Adopted Tentative Ruling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: Gaab, Kimberly; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • Taken Under Submission or Advisement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: (L&M-Ptn. to Compel Arb.)

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 06/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil case cover sheet- Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Complaint filed- Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • Financial info for Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-64828 Pacific Choice Brands, Inc. $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • Financial info for Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • Financial info for Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-50836 Pacific Choice Brands, Inc. $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • Financial info for Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • Financial: Pacific Choice Brands, Inc.; Total Financial Assessment $495.00; Total Payments and Credits $495.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • Financial info for Bandy, Janell: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-42666 Bandy, Janell $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • Financial info for Bandy, Janell: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • Financial: Bandy, Janell; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Walter W. Whelan, Esq. (SBN 106655) E-FILED

Brian D. Whelan, Esq. (SBN 256534) 6/11/2018 12:08 PM Lucas C. Whelan, Esq. (SBN 292814) ~ FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT WHELAN LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation By: C. York, Deputy

1827 East Fir Avenue, Suite 110 Fresno, California 93720 Telephone: (559) 437-1079 Facsimile: (559) 437-1720

E-mail: walt@whelanlawgroup.com E-mail: brian@whelanlawgroup.com E-mail: lucas@whelanlawgroup.com

Attorneys for: Plaintiffs JANELL BANDY and ELIZABETH CAMARGO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF FRESNO, UNLIMITED CIVIL DIVISION

JANELL BANDY and ELIZABETH Case No. 18CECG02071

) CAMARGO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY

) DAMAGES FOR UNPAID OVERTIME

V. ) WAGES UNDER BUSINESS & ) PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200; UNPAID PACIFIC CHOICE BRANDS, INC., a ) OVERTIME WAGES UNDER LABOR California corporation, and DOES 1 through) CODE § 1194; PENALTY ASSESSMENT 20, inclusive, ) (LABOR CODE § § 203, 226.3, AND 226(a));

) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN

) VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; ) RETALIATION; AND JURY DEMAND

Defendants.

COME NOW PLAINTIFFS JANELL BANDY AND ELIZABETH CAMARGO

("Plaintiffs"), who allege as follows: L PARTIES AND JURISDICTION.

1. Plaintiff JANELL BANDY ("Bandy") is an individual residing in Fresno County, California. Plaintiff Bandy was employed by Defendant PACIFIC CHOICE BRANDS, INC. ("PCB"), as a production supervisor, from May 16, 2017 until April 24, 2018, when she was involuntarily terminated from her employment.

2 Plaintiff ELIZABETH CAMARGO ("Camargo") is an individual residing in Fresno County, California. Plaintiff Camargo was employed by PCB as the manager of human

2 Plaintiff ELIZABETH CAMARGO ("Camargo") is an individual residing in Fresno County, California. Plaintiff Camargo was employed by PCB as the manager of human resources for approximately seven months, from September 1, 2017 until she was mvoluntarily terminated on April 24, 2018. At all relevant times, she resided in Fresno County, California.

resources for approximately seven months, from September 1, 2017 until she was mvoluntarily terminated on April 24, 2018. At all relevant times, she resided in Fresno County, California.

3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that PCB is a California corporation, which has done business and continues to do business in Fresno County, California.

4. The true names and capacities of those sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, whether an individual, corporation or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs who, therefore, sue such Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to C.C.P. § 474. Alternatively, such DOE Defendants are persons whose identities are unknown to Plaintiffs but about whom sufficient facts are not known that would support the assertion by Plaintiffs of a civil claim at this time. When Plaintiffs obtain such information supporting a claim against any DOE Defendants, they will seek leave to amend this Complaint and will assert appropriate charging allegations.

S. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant PCB and DOE Defendants 1 through 20 are agents and/or employees and/or parents, subsidiaries, or sister corporations of each other, and are responsible for the acts complained of here, unless otherwise alleged in the Complaint.

I1. BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS.

6. Throughout her tenure with PCB, Plaintiff Camargo worked with the company as the manager of human resources. In her capacity as Director of Human Resources, she oversaw the personnel policies and the enforcement of those policies at the company.

7. Plaintiff Bandy, as the production supervisor, was expected to perform minimal supervisory/discretionary tasks. The vast majority of her work time, however, was spent on routine, non-exempt tasks. Typically, Plaintiff Bandy worked 72-75 hours per week. She was never paid overtime wages, in violation of California law.

8. Shortly after she began working at PCB, Plaintiff Bandy began to complain that she was working very long hours without being paid overtime, in violation of the law. Plaintiff Bandy complained to her immediate supervisor, Aurora Alacantar, and to the HR

8. Shortly after she began working at PCB, Plaintiff Bandy began to complain that she was working very long hours without being paid overtime, in violation of the law. Plaintiff Bandy complained to her immediate supervisor, Aurora Alacantar, and to the HR manager, Plaintiff Camargo. Plaintiff Camargo relayed Plaintiff Bandy's complaints to her supervisor, Faith Bueller. Frustrated that nothing was happening in response to the complaints that she relayed to her supervisor, Plaintiff Camargo took up Plaintiff Bandy's cause and attempted to persuade management that it was making a mistake in not following the law by failing to pay Plaintiff Bandy overtime wages. Management, including Faith Bueller, instructed each of the Plaintiffs not to have interaction with each other in an effort to try to make the "problem" go away. When the problem did not go away, management took matters into its own hands and, in retaliation for Plaintiff Bandy properly complaining about PCB's failure to abide by California overtime law, and in response to Plaintiff Camargo doing the right thing by relaying the complaints raised by Plaintiff Bandy, Plaintiff Bandy and Plaintiff Camargo were terminated on the same day, April 24, 2018. Their terminations were in retaliation for their efforts to persuade their employer to follow the law requiring the payment to employees of earned overtime wages.

manager, Plaintiff Camargo. Plaintiff Camargo relayed Plaintiff Bandy's complaints to her supervisor, Faith Bueller. Frustrated that nothing was happening in response to the complaints that she relayed to her supervisor, Plaintiff Camargo took up Plaintiff Bandy's cause and attempted to persuade management that it was making a mistake in not following the law by failing to pay Plaintiff Bandy overtime wages. Management, including Faith Bueller, instructed each of the Plaintiffs not to have interaction with each other in an effort to try to make the "problem" go away. When the problem did not go away, management took matters into its own hands and, in retaliation for Plaintiff Bandy properly complaining about PCB's failure to abide by California overtime law, and in response to Plaintiff Camargo doing the right thing by relaying the complaints raised by Plaintiff Bandy, Plaintiff Bandy and Plaintiff Camargo were terminated on the same day, April 24, 2018. Their terminations were in retaliation for their efforts to persuade their employer to follow the law requiring the payment to employees of earned overtime wages.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.

(Unfair Competition Under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Based on Non-Payment of Wages, in Violation of the Labor Code [Plaintiff Bandy v. PCB].)

9. Plaintiff Bandy incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth 1n paragraphs 1 through 8, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action.

10. Plaintiff Bandy is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, during the four years last past, PCB systematically failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages that were earned, which PCB intentionally declined to pay in violation of the Labor Code and applicable wage orders. Plaintiff was entitled to receive overtime compensation pursuant to Wage Order No. 4-2001 and/or Wage Order No. 7-2001, and Labor Code § 1194. PCB's non-payment of Plaintiff Bandy's overtime compensation constituted unfair business practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

11. Plaintiff Bandy is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, at all

relevant times, Plaintiff worked excessive hours in an amount according to proof, but typically

relevant times, Plaintiff worked excessive hours in an amount according to proof, but typically 72-75 hours per week. At all relevant times, Plaintiff devoted more than 50% of her work time to non-exempt tasks.

72-75 hours per week. At all relevant times, Plaintiff devoted more than 50% of her work time to non-exempt tasks.

12. Defendant PCB has failed to pay Plaintiff Bandy overtime wages, in an amount according to proof, but more than the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court.

13. Under Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiff Bandy is also entitled to recover interest on unpaid overtime wages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. Plaintiftf Bandy has retained the Whelan Law Group to represent her in asserting claims for overtime wages. Therefore, Plaintiff Bandy seeks recovery of interest and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff Bandy is also entitled to recover liquidated damages, in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest on the liquidated damages, pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.

(Penalty Assessment Under Labor Code § § 203, 226.3 and 226, against Defendant PCB [Plaintiff Bandy v. PCB].)

14, Plaintiff Bandy incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth 1n this cause of action.

15. In addition to unpaid overtime wages, interest and attorney's fees and costs, which Plaintiff seeks to recover under her First Cause of Action, Plaintiff Bandy is also entitled to recover wage penalties under Labor Code § § 203, 226.3 and 226(a), in an amount according to proof, because Defendant PCB failed to pay Plaintiff Bandy all earned wagestime of her termination and failed to render to her accurate wage statements reflecting overtime wages she earned.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION. (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy [Plaintiff Bandy v. PCB}.)

16. Plaintiff Bandy incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action.

16. Plaintiff Bandy incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action. manager, Plaintiff Camargo. Plaintiff Camargo relayed Plaintiff Bandy's complaints to her supervisor, Faith Bueller. Frustrated that nothing was happening in response to the complaints that she relayed to her supervisor, Plaintiff Camargo took up Plaintiff Bandy's cause and attempted to persuade management that it was making a mistake in not following the law by failing to pay Plaintiff Bandy overtime wages. Management, including Faith Bueller, instructed each of the Plaintiffs not to have interaction with each other in an effort to try to make the "problem" go away. When the problem did not go away, management took matters into its own hands and, in retaliation for Plaintiff Bandy properly complaining about PCB's failure to abide by California overtime law, and in response to Plaintiff Camargo doing the right thing by relaying the complaints raised by Plaintiff Bandy, Plaintiff Bandy and Plaintiff Camargo were terminated on the same day, April 24, 2018. Their terminations were in retaliation for their efforts to persuade their employer to follow the law requiring the payment to employees of earned overtime wages.

manager, Plaintiff Camargo. Plaintiff Camargo relayed Plaintiff Bandy's complaints to her supervisor, Faith Bueller. Frustrated that nothing was happening in response to the complaints that she relayed to her supervisor, Plaintiff Camargo took up Plaintiff Bandy's cause and attempted to persuade management that it was making a mistake in not following the law by failing to pay Plaintiff Bandy overtime wages. Management, including Faith Bueller, instructed each of the Plaintiffs not to have interaction with each other in an effort to try to make the "problem" go away. When the problem did not go away, management took matters into its own hands and, in retaliation for Plaintiff Bandy properly complaining about PCB's failure to abide by California overtime law, and in response to Plaintiff Camargo doing the right thing by relaying the complaints raised by Plaintiff Bandy, Plaintiff Bandy and Plaintiff Camargo were terminated on the same day, April 24, 2018. Their terminations were in retaliation for their efforts to persuade their employer to follow the law requiring the payment to employees of earned overtime wages.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.

(Unfair Competition Under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Based on Non-Payment of Wages, in Violation of the Labor Code [Plaintiff Bandy v. PCB].)

9. Plaintiff Bandy incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 8, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action.

10. Plaintiff Bandy 1s informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, during the four years last past, PCB systematically failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages that were earned, which PCB intentionally declined to pay in violation of the Labor Code and applicable wage orders. Plaintiff was entitled to receive overtime compensation pursuant to Wage Order No. 4-2001 and/or Wage Order No. 7-2001, and Labor Code § 1194. PCB's non-payment of Plaintiff Bandy's overtime compensation constituted unfair business practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

11. Plaintiff Bandy is informed and believes, and thercon alleges, that, at all

relevant times, Plaintiff worked excessive hours in an amount according to proof, but typically

relevant times, Plaintiff worked excessive hours in an amount according to proof, but typically PCB, without being paid any overtime wages for her overtime work, in violation of California law. In response to Plaintiff Bandy's complaints, she was terminated.

PCB, without being paid any overtime wages for her overtime work, in violation of California law. In response to Plaintiff Bandy's complaints, she was terminated.

23. As adirect result of Defendant PCB's retaliation against Plaintiff, in violation of Labor Code § 98.6, Plaintiff Bandy will suffer past and future lost wages, past and future lost benefits, emotional distress damages, damage to her employability, and other compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court. In addition, Plaintiff Bandy is entitled to recover civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. See Labor Code § 98.6(b)(3).

24. In doing the things alleged herein, Defendant PCB acted intentionally, maliciously, despicably, and in bad faith, with malice and in conscious disregard for Plaintiff Bandy's rights; as a consequence, Plaintiff Bandy is entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant PCB, in an amount according to proof.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION. (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(c) [Plaintiff Bandy v. PCB].)

25. Plaintiff Bandy incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12, and 21 and 22 above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action.

26. In doing the things alleged herein, PCB violated Labor Code § 1102.5(c) because it retaliated against Plaintiff Bandy for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state law requiring payment of overtime wages to Califormia employees who work in excess of 40 hours per week and/or in excess of 8 hours per day.

27. As adirect result of Defendant PCB's violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(¢c), Plaintiff Bandy will suffer past and future wages lost, past and future lost benefits, emotional distress damages, damage to her employability, and other compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court. In addition, Plaintiff Bandy is entitled to recover civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. See Labor Code § 1102.5(D).

28. In doing the things alleged herein, Defendant PCB acted intentionally, maliciously, despicably, and in bad faith, with malice and in conscious disregard for Plaintiff

28. In doing the things alleged herein, Defendant PCB acted intentionally, maliciously, despicably, and in bad faith, with malice and in conscious disregard for Plaintiff Bandy's rights; as a consequence, Plaintiff Bandy is entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant PCB, in an amount according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION. (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy [Plaintiff Camargo v. PCB].)

Bandy's rights; as a consequence, Plaintiff Bandy is entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant PCB, in an amount according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION. (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy [Plaintiff Camargo v. PCB].)

29. Plaintiff Bandy incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth 1n paragraphs 1 through 12, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action.

30. Plaintiff Camargo was terminated from her employment in retaliation for her complaining about the non-payment of overtime wages to Plaintiff Bandy, to which Plaintiff Bandy was entitled. Because retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints about the non-payment of overtime wages to Plaintiff Bandy was a motivating factor in PCB's decision to terminate Plaintiff Camargo, such action was in violation of public policy of the State of California.

31. In doing the things alleged herein, including terminating Plaintiff Camargo in retaliation for her legitimate complaints about PCB's unlawful conduct consisting of the non- payment of overtime wages to its employees, Plaintiff Camargo has suffered consequential damages, including lost past and future wages, lost past and future employee benefits, emotional distress damages (including emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish) and damage to her employability, in an amount according proof, but not less than the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

32. In doing the things alleged herein, Defendant PCB acted intentionally, maliciously, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff Camargo's rights, oppressively and despicably; as a consequence, Plaintiff Camargo is entitled to recover punitive damages against PCB, in an amount according to proof.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION. (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6 [Plaintiff Camargo v. PCB].)

33. Plaintiff Camargo incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action.

33. Plaintiff Camargo incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12, above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action. 34. Plaintiff Camargo is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant PCB retaliated against her because of Plaintiff Camargo's opposition to practices forbidden under the Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff Camargo orally complained to Defendant PCB's employees and agents that PCB was not paying Plaintiff Bandy overtime wages that Plaintiff was owed. Defendant PCB retaliated against Plaintiff Camargo in response to her complaints for non-payment of wages by terminating her employment.

34. Plaintiff Camargo is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant PCB retaliated against her because of Plaintiff Camargo's opposition to practices forbidden under the Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff Camargo orally complained to Defendant PCB's employees and agents that PCB was not paying Plaintiff Bandy overtime wages that Plaintiff was owed. Defendant PCB retaliated against Plaintiff Camargo in response to her complaints for non-payment of wages by terminating her employment.

35. As part of Plaintiff Camargo's job responsibilities, Plaintiff was required to enforce the personnel policies and practices of PCB and to make sure that PCB enforced those policies and practices in a way that conformed with California law. In response to Plaintiff Camargo's complaints seeking to make PCB comply with California law, she was terminated.

36. As adirect result of Defendant PCB's retaliation against Plaintiff Camargo in violation of Labor Code § 98.6, Plaintiff Camargo will suffer past and future lost wages, past and future lost benefits, emotional distress damages, damage to her employability, and other compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court. In addition, Plaintiff Camargo is entitled to recover civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. See Labor Code § 98.6(b)(3).

37. In doing the things alleged herein, Defendant PCB acted intentionally, maliciously, despicably, and in bad faith, with malice and in conscious disregard for Plaintiff Camargo's rights; as a consequence, Plaintiff Camargo is entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant PCB, in an amount according to proof.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION. (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(c) [Plaintiff Camargo v. PCB].)

38. Plaintiff Camargo incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12, and 21 and 22 above and, by this reference, incorporates those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause of action.

39. In doing the things alleged herein, PCB violated Labor Code § 1102.5(¢c) because it retaliated against Plaintiff Carmargo for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state law that requires employers to pay overtime wages to

39. In doing the things alleged herein, PCB violated Labor Code § 1102.5(¢c) because it retaliated against Plaintiff Carmargo for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state law that requires employers to pay overtime wages to California employees who work in excess of 40 hours per week and/or in excess of 8 hours per day.

California employees who work in excess of 40 hours per week and/or in excess of 8 hours per day.

40. As adirect result of Defendant PCB's violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(c), Plaintiff Camargo will suffer past and future wages lost, past and future lost benefits, emotional distress damages, damage to her employability, and other compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court. In addition, Plaintiff Camargo 1s entitled to recover civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. See Labor Code § 1102.5(%).

41. In doing the things alleged herein, Defendant PCB acted intentionally, maliciously, despicably, and in bad faith, with malice and in conscious disregard for Plaintiff Camargo's rights; as a consequence, Plaintiff Camargo is entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant PCB, in an amount according to proof.

PRAYER.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bandy prays for judgment against Defendant PCB as follows:

1. For compensatory damages for past and future wages lost, past and future lost benefits, emotional distress damages, damage to her employability, and other compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court;

2. For interest on the unpaid compensatory damages, pursuant to Labor Code

§ 1194(a) and any other applicable statute;

3. For penalties under Labor Code § 98.6(d)(3) and Labor Code § 1102.5(f);

4. For interest on Plaintiff's compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof;

S. For reasonable attorney's fees under Labor Code § 1194(a), and any other applicable statute:

6. For wage penalties under Labor Code § 203, 226 and 226.3, in an amount

| according to proof;

| according to proof; 7. For exemplary or punitive damages, in an amount according to proof, pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 and otherwise;

7. For exemplary or punitive damages, in an amount according to proof, pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 and otherwise;

8. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

9. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Camargo prays for judgment against Defendant PCB as follows:

1, For compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof, for past and future wages lost, past and future lost benefits, emotional distress damages, damage to her employability, and other compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court;

2. For interest on the unpaid compensatory damages, as permitted by law:

3. For exemplary or punitive damages, in an amount according to proof,

pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 and otherwise;

4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper. Dated: June 8, 2018 WHELAN LAW GROUP,

A Professional Corporation

By Walter fi Whelan, =

Attorneys for Plaintiffs JANELL BANDY and

ELIZABETH CAMARGO JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs Bandy and Camargo hereby request that all of the above legal and factual issues be tried to a jury. Dated: June 8, 2018 WHELAN LAW GROUP, A Prifessional Corporation By Walter W. Whelan, Attorneys for Plaintiffs JANELL BANDY and

ELIZABETH CAMARGO

10 oo e