This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 08/06/2019 at 22:17:04 (UTC).

Janet Rodriguez vs. Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation

Case Summary

On 06/07/2018 a Labor - Other Labor case was filed by Janet Rodriguez against Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc an active corporation in the jurisdiction of Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2037

  • Filing Date:

    06/07/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Black, Donald

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Rodriguez, Janet

Defendant

Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation

 

Court Documents

Judgment

Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Rodriguez, Janet; Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation; Comment: with prejudice

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

rodriguez- dismissal.pdf; Comment: Request for Full Dismissal

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: CRC 3.1385 set for 5/23/19 at 3:30 pm in Dept. 402

ADR Stipulation Mediation filed

2213070_922stip.adrp; Comment: Parties to engage in mediation. Mediator:James M Phillips. Esq.

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Proof of Service

pos. cms.pdf; Comment: CMC statement

Case Management Statement Filed

p.cms 09 14 2018.pdf

Case Management Statement Filed

HRG 10.1.18 CMC.pdf

Notice Filed

p-ntc-jury fee -09 11 2018.pdf; Comment: Jury Fee Deposit

Answer Filed

Answer.pdf; Comment: Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - First Appearance Fee

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: Notice of CMC/CJAP

Summons issued and filed

summons-rodriguez.pdf; Summons issued and filed

Civil case cover sheet

civil cover-rodriguez.pdf

Summons issued and filed

summons-rodriguez.pdf

Civil Complaint filed

complaint-rodriguez.pdf

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Rodriguez, Janet; Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation; Comment: with prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • Jury Trial- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Settled; Comment: Jury Req by plaintiff; 5-7 Days

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • Trial Readiness- Judicial Officer: Simpson, Alan; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Settled

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • Mandatory Settlement Conference- Hearing Time: 1:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Settled

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • CRC 3.1385 After Settlement- Judicial Officer: Tharpe, D Tyler; Hearing Time: 3:31 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- rodriguez- dismissal.pdf; Comment: Request for Full Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Hearing- Notice of Hearing; Comment: CRC 3.1385 set for 5/23/19 at 3:30 pm in Dept. 402

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Conditional Settlement Reached- Comment: Projected Completion Date: 3/30/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • OSC - ADR Stipulation- Judicial Officer: Diaz, Monica; Hearing Time: 8:37 AM; Cancel Reason: Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • ADR Stipulation Mediation filed- 2213070_922stip.adrp; Comment: Parties to engage in mediation. Mediator:James M Phillips. Esq.

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 06/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons issued and filed- summons-rodriguez.pdf; Summons issued and filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Complaint filed- complaint-rodriguez.pdf

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • Financial info for Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-49802 Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • Financial info for Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • Financial: Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Fresno, Inc. an active corporation; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Financial info for Rodriguez, Janet: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-66687 Rodriguez, Janet $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Financial info for Rodriguez, Janet: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Financial info for Rodriguez, Janet: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-41679 Rodriguez, Janet $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Financial info for Rodriguez, Janet: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Financial: Rodriguez, Janet; Total Financial Assessment $585.00; Total Payments and Credits $585.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Zahra Khoury, SBN 231065

Ziad Elrawashdeh, SBN 237166 E-FILED

RAWA LAW GROUP, APC 6/7/2018 3:31 PM

5843 Pine Avenue

Chino Hills, California 91709 "RES I\Iclgyc:c,)b\l.J I\FI(TaYmSé)léf3 BEL%IE\yC OURT

Telephone: (909) 393-0660 Facsimile: (888) 250-8844

Attorneys for Plaintiff JANET RODRIGUEZ

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

JANET RODRIGUEZ, an individual, CASE NO. 18CECG02037 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: VS 1. Retaliation

2. Hostile work environment

PAUL BLANCO'S GOOD CAR 3. Failure to Prevent

COMPANY FRESNO, INC., Discri.n.linati.on/harassment

an active corporation, and DOES 1 4. Disability Dlscr:lmn_latmn (pregnancy) S. Wrongful termination

through 50, inclusive,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, JANET RODRIGUEZ (“Plaintiff” or “RODRIGUEZ”) brings this action against Defendants PAUL BLANCO’S GOOD CAR COMPANY FRESNO, INC. (“CAR COMPANY?™) and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (collectively “DEFENDANTS”) and alleges as follows:

1. This Court has proper jurisdiction of this action because the alleged wrongful and Discriminatory conduct occurred at a place of employment situated at 4880 N Blackstone Ave, Fresno, CA 93726

2. Plaintiff, JANET RODRIGUEZ is an adult female living in the City of Fresno, in

the State of California;

the State of California; 3. At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of California’s Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. (“FEHA”), which obligates employers to provide a work environment free from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring;

3. At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of California’s Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. (“FEHA”), which obligates employers to provide a work environment free from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring;

4. On information and belief, and at all times material to this Complaint, Defendant PAUL BLANCO’S GOOD CAR COMPANY FRESNO, INC. (“CAR COMPANY”) has been and is an active Corporation that is authorized to conduct business in California and was, at all material times herein, conducting business at 4880 N Blackstone Ave, Fresno, CA 93726. Defendant was at all material times an employer within the meaning of FEHA and, as such, is barred from discriminating in employment, as set forth in FEHA.

S. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, and therefore, sue these defendants by such fictitious names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each fictitiously named defendant is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiff’s injuries as alleged herein were proximately caused by the conduct of said Doe defendants;

6. Plaintiffs is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, at all material times herein, each of the DEFENDANTS was the agent, employee, and/or working in concert with the co-defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or concerted activity. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, all actions of each DEFENDANT herein alleged were ratified and approved by the other individual defendants and by the officers and managing agents of each other corporate defendants. To the extent that certain acts and omissions were perpetrated by certain DEFENDANTS, the remaining defendant or DEFENDANTS confirmed and ratified said acts and omission;

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all material times herein each defendant was completely dominated and controlled by his co-defendant and each was

the alter-ego of the other;

the alter-ego of the other; 8. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff, filed charges with the California

8. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff, filed charges with the California

Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and obtained right to sue notices. (see

EXHIBIT “A”) FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

0. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein; 10. Plaintiff started working at CAR COMPANY at its Fresno location in or

about September 2016. She was hired as a front desk receptionist. 11. Throughout her employment with defendant, plaintiff was subjected to continuing ongoing unwelcome sexual harassment by management. By way of an example, Defendant’s manager, Rod offered plaintiff one of his cars in exchange of sex with him and his wife; manager Soto asked her out on multiple occasions and she constantly adamantly refused. Soto kept coming to her desk, watching what she was doing, staring at her, which was so offensive and disturbing. Soto also walkedrestroom. Finance manager Reyes constantly made unwelcome sexual remarks directed at plaintiff’s body and “big butt.” Manager Jeff would always come up at her desk and massage her arms and touch her daily. He would make remarks stating that she was sexy and whoever had her was lucky. Defendant work atmosphere was extremely offensive to plaintiff. 12. In or about March 2018, a customer sexually molested plaintiff. The incident was witnessed by two employees —Jared and Elyssa along with other employees and customers.. Management was aware of the situation and took no action. Customer Michael had purchased a vehicle and came to the front desk to give his deferred down payment, where plaintiff was with Elyssa. Customer Michael began to throw all of his money at plaintiffstripper. He then began picking up the money to throw it at plaintiff again. She immediately grabbed his arm to stop him; he then moved his hand grabbing the moneymoney inside her bra exposing her breast. He did it so rough that he touched her nipple. Plaintiff was very humiliated as her private area was exposed to her customers, her coworkers. Plaintiff was in complete shock and

about September 2016. She was hired as a front desk receptionist. 11. Throughout her employment with defendant, plaintiff was subjected to continuing ongoing unwelcome sexual harassment by management. By way of an example, Defendant’s manager, Rod offered plaintiff one of his cars in exchange of sex with him and his wife; manager Soto asked her out on multiple occasions and she constantly adamantly refused. Soto kept coming to her desk, watching what she was doing, staring at her, which was so offensive and disturbing. Soto also walkedrestroom. Finance manager Reyes constantly made unwelcome sexual remarks directed at plaintiff’s body and “big butt.” Manager Jeff would always come up at her desk and massage her arms and touch her daily. He would make remarks stating that she was sexy and whoever had her was lucky. Defendant work atmosphere was extremely offensive to plaintiff. 12. In or about March 2018, a customer sexually molested plaintiff. The incident was witnessed by two employees —Jared and Elyssa along with other employees and customers.. Management was aware of the situation and took no action. Customer Michael had purchased a vehicle and came to the front desk to give his deferred down payment, where plaintiff was with Elyssa. Customer Michael began to throw all of his money at plaintiffstripper. He then began picking up the money to throw it at plaintiff again. She immediately grabbed his arm to stop him; he then moved his hand grabbing the moneymoney inside her bra exposing her breast. He did it so rough that he touched her nipple. Plaintiff was very humiliated as her private area was exposed to her customers, her coworkers. Plaintiff was in complete shock and did not know what to do or even how to react. Another colleague accused her of “liking it.” Defendant allowed the same customer to be back at the premise about five or more times afterwards and it was so uncomfortable for plaintiff.

did not know what to do or even how to react. Another colleague accused her of “liking it.” Defendant allowed the same customer to be back at the premise about five or more times afterwards and it was so uncomfortable for plaintiff.

13. On or about April 1, 2018, plaintiff notified her supervisor and human resources of

the continuing sexual harassment and even the incidents with the customer.

14. Immediately thereafter, on April 8, 2018, defendant terminated her employment

statin they did not have to give a reason that she was at will. 15. In or about April 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Department of

Fair Employment and Housing and received her right to sue letter. (see EXHIBIT “A”)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

16. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein;

17. Califormia law prohibits an employer from retaliating against any employee who engages in protected activity under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") which is contained in the California's Government Code at section 12900 and those that follow. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h), protects from retaliation employees who resist or object to discrimination or harassment. That provision makes it unlawful "[flor any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the

person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.

18. Plaintiff notified her supervisor regarding the sexual harassment, and immediately thereafter, Defendants terminated her employment. (Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36

Cal.4th 1028, 1042.) An employee's opposition to discrimination or harassment need not be a

Cal.4th 1028, 1042.) An employee's opposition to discrimination or harassment need not be a formal charge to qualify as a protected activity, but must be sufficient to "put an employer on notice as to what conduct it should investigate ...." (Id. at p. 1047.) The employee must reasonably believe the activity he or she opposes is unlawful, but it need not actually be later found unlawful by a court. (Id. at pp. 1043, 1047.) In the context of harassment, protected activity under FEHA includes but is not limited to making a complaint or opposing any activity which the employee reasonably

formal charge to qualify as a protected activity, but must be sufficient to "put an employer on notice as to what conduct it should investigate ...." (Id. at p. 1047.) The employee must reasonably believe the activity he or she opposes is unlawful, but it need not actually be later found unlawful by a court. (Id. at pp. 1043, 1047.) In the context of harassment, protected activity under FEHA includes but is not limited to making a complaint or opposing any activity which the employee reasonably

believes to be unlawful harassment or other conduct forbidden by FEHA.

19. Plaintiff was on pregnancy disability leave from March 3, 2017 through August 2017. Plaintiff notified defendant and defendant approved her pregnancy disability leave. Upon her return, defendant refused to take her back. Plaintiff notified defendant that she would seek legal representation and action for defendant’s failure to give her, her position back after her return from pregnancy leave. Defendant reluctantly gave her another position; however, defendant significantly reduced her hours.

20. Defendants’ retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff,

including but not limited to: loss of earnings and other employment benefits, physical injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff is entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial;

21. Asadirect and proximate cause of the acts alleged above, Plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are more fully known; The conduct of Defendants and each of them as described above was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each

other. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of said Defendants.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein;

23. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), it is an unlawful employment practice to harass an employee because of "sex," which is defined as including sexual harassment. Govt C §12940(j)(1), (4)(C); see 2 Cal Code Regs §11019(b)(2). Harassment consists of conduct outside the scope of necessary job performance, conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives. Harassment is not conduct of a type necessary for management of the employer's business or performance of

the supervisory employee's job. The sexually harassing conduct does not need to be motivated by

sexual desire to be unlawful. Govt C §12940(3)(4)(C); Tavlor v Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 CA4th 1228, 1239,

24. Under FEHA, liability for sexual harassment extends to Employers and supervisors and employment agencies. [ (Govt C §12940()(1))]

25. As indicated supra, plaintiff was sexually harassed by management and customers. The harassment took the form of unwelcome sexual comments, and requests for sexual encounter. The unwelcome comments were ongoing and continuing throughout plaintiff’s period of employment . This was common knowledge in defendant’s place of employment.

26. This behavior created an abusive work environment that no reasonable person could tolerate. As a direct and proximate result of defendants” unlawful conduct, plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and pain and suffering; Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial; As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged above, plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees

26. This behavior created an abusive work environment that no reasonable person could tolerate. As a direct and proximate result of defendants” unlawful conduct, plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and pain and suffering; Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial; As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged above, plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are more fully known; The conduct of Defendants and each of them as described above was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of defendants actions. Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful

and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are more fully known; The conduct of Defendants and each of them as described above was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of defendants actions. Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful

conduct of each other.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT

IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12940 (k) AGAINST CAR COMPANY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE

27. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein;

28. Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware of management’s acts of harassment; upon learning of the harassment, Defendants did not take proper measures and reasonable steps to remedy the harassment. Instead, defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment. Defendants, and/or their agents/employees, violated Government Code § 12940 (k), by failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and/or harassment from occurring and by failing to remedy such discrimination and/or harassment.

29. Defendants’ failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent and/or remedy the discrimination and harassment was a substantial factor in causing harm to PLAINTIFF, including but not limited to: loss of earnings and other employment benefits, physical injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress. As such, PLAINTIFF is entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial;

30. Asa direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged above, PLAINTIFF has had to hire the services of an attorney. PLAINTIFF has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

30. Asa direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged above, PLAINTIFF has had to hire the services of an attorney. PLAINTIFF has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). PLAINTIFF is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are more fully known; 31. The conduct of Defendants and each of them as described above was

Government Code § 12965(b). PLAINTIFF is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are more fully known; 31. The conduct of Defendants and each of them as described above was

malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants CAR COMPANY and AFLUENT STAFFING and DOES 1 through inclusive and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct

of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled to punitive damages against each of them.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

33. Plaintiff was on pregnancy disability leave from March 3, 2017 through August 2017.

34. Plaintiff notified defendant and defendant approved her pregnancy disability leave.

35. Upon her return, defendant refused to take her back. Plaintiff notified defendant that she would seek legal representation and action for defendant’s failure to give her, her position back after her return from pregnancy leave. Defendant reluctantly gave her another position; however, defendant significantly reduced her hours.

36. California Government Code Section 12926.1 (b) indicates in pertinent parts that it is the intent of the Legislature that the definitions of physical disability and mental disability be construed so that applicants and employee are protected from discrimination due to an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived as disabling or potentially disabling. Plaintiff was able to do her job with or without modification upon returning from her pregnancy disability leave and defendant refused to give her position and

36. California Government Code Section 12926.1 (b) indicates in pertinent parts that it is the intent of the Legislature that the definitions of physical disability and mental disability be construed so that applicants and employee are protected from discrimination due to an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived as disabling or potentially disabling. Plaintiff was able to do her job with or without modification upon returning from her pregnancy disability leave and defendant refused to give her position and placed her in another position after cutting her hours. PLAINTIFF’S actual and/or perceived disability was a motivating factor for DEFENDANT’s adverse employment actions against PLAINTIFF by DEFENDANTS, and/or their agents/employees, in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); PLAINTIFF merely needed an additional month off and defendant terminated his employment with no valid basis.

placed her in another position after cutting her hours. PLAINTIFF’S actual and/or perceived disability was a motivating factor for DEFENDANT’s adverse employment actions against PLAINTIFF by DEFENDANTS, and/or their agents/employees, in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); PLAINTIFF merely needed an additional month off and defendant terminated his employment with no valid basis.

37. DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to PLAINTIFF, including but not limited to: loss of earnings and other employment benefits, physical injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress. As such, PLAINTIFF is entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial;

38. Asadirect and proximate cause of the acts alleged above, PLAINTIFF has had to hire the services of an attorney. PLAINTIFF has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). PLAINTIFF is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are more fully known;

39. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and each of them as described above was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of DEFENDANTS actions. DEFENDANTS and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, PLAINTIFF is entitled

to punitive damages against each of said DEFENDANTS.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein;

41. As articulated above, a motivating reason Plaintiff was subjected to adverse

41. As articulated above, a motivating reason Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions by Defendants was a result of Defendants’ violations of fundamental public policies. It is against fundamental public policy to retaliate against an employee for reporting sexual harassment. It 1s also against fundamental public policy to retaliate against an employee for requesting a pregnancy disability leave. These public policiesCalifornia Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12940 et seq), the California Constitution Article 1, §4, and California Civil Code § 51.

employment actions by Defendants was a result of Defendants’ violations of fundamental public policies. It is against fundamental public policy to retaliate against an employee for reporting sexual harassment. It 1s also against fundamental public policy to retaliate against an employee for requesting a pregnancy disability leave. These public policiesCalifornia Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12940 et seq), the California Constitution Article 1, §4, and California Civil Code § 51.

42. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff including but not limited to: loss of earnings and other employment benefits, physical injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial;

43. The conduct of Defendants and each of them as described above was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff ‘s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of

each other. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of said Defendants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for Judgment against DEFENDANTS and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive as follows: 1. For all actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including but not limited to loss of earnings, employment benefits, and employment opportunities according to proof; 2. For compensatory and general damages according to proof;

For exemplary and punitive damages;

4. For Statutory Attorneys’ fees and costs; 5. For costs of suit; 6. For pre-judgment and post judgment interest, at the legal rate; and