`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
`
`BRENTS. BUCHSBAUM, CSBN: 194816
`
`brent(a),buchs baumhaag. com
`LAUREL N. HAAG, CSBN: 211279
`
`
`laurel@buchs baumhaag. com
`
`100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
`
`Long Beach, California 90802
`
`Telephone: (562) 733-2498
`
`Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Diana Alvarez
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`10
`
`DIANA ALVAREZ,
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-8665
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`vs.
`(1)Disability Discrimination; and
`
`
`
`
`(2)Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
`
`MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC. A
`
`
`
`(3)Disability Discrimination -Failure to
`
`Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1
`
`Reasonably Accommodate
`
`through 10, inclusive,
`15
`
`
`
`( 4)Disability Discrimination -Failure to
`
`Engage in the Interactive Process
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`(5)Wrongful Termination in Violation of
`Public Policy
`(6)Violation of California Labor Code§§
`
`
`
`510-Unpaid Overtime
`
`(7)Violation of Labor Code §2802-
`U nreimbursed Expenses
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`--------- - - -�
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:2
`
`Plaintiff DIANA ALVAREZ ("ALVAREZ" or "PLAINTIFF") alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action brought by the Plaintiff, pursuant to California
`
`statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC. ("MOLINA" and/or "DEFENDANT" ) at all
`
`9
`
`times herein mentioned.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that California statutory, decisional and regulatory
`
`laws prohibit the conduct by Defendant herein alleged, and therefore Plaintiff has
`
`an entitlement to monetary relief on the basis that Defendant violated such statutes,
`
`decisional law and regulations.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this court by virtue of the Federal statutes,
`
`decisional law, and regulations. Defendant MOLINA is a Delaware Corporation
`
`doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief,
`
`the acts and omissions alleged herein took place in this District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Diana Alvarez ("ALVAREZ") is, and at all relevant times
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2 1
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26 was, a citizen of the State of California, residing in Los Angeles, California.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Molina Healthcare, Inc. ("MOLINA") was and is, upon
`
`information and belief, a Delaware Corporation, with a place of business in the
`
`Page 1
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`State of California, located at 200 Oceangate, Ste 100, Long Beach, CA 90802.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the persons
`
`or entities sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore, sues said
`
`4 Defendants by such fictitious names. Each of the DOE Defendants was in some
`
`5 manner legally responsible for the violations alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend
`
`6
`
`this complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these Defendants
`
`7 when they have been ascertained, together with appropriate charging allegations,
`
`8
`
`9
`
`as may be necessary.
`
`8.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants named as DOES 1
`
`1 O
`
`through 10, inclusive, and each of them, were residents of, doing business in,
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`availed themselves of the jurisdiction of, and/or injured Plaintiff.
`
`9.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was the agent,
`
`servant, or employee of the other Defendants and in acting and omitting to act as
`
`alleged herein did so within the course and scope of that agency or employment.
`
`10. Defendant MOLINA and DOES 1 through 10 are collectively
`
`referred to herein as "DEFENDANTS."
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`11 . Plaintiff ALVAREZ worked for Molina for approximately 10 years,
`
`21 most recently as a reconciliation specialist in the Medicare Department. Her job
`
`22
`
`23
`
`consisted primarily of administrative and data entry work.
`
`12. On December 22, 2020, PLAINTIFF was diagnosed with Covid. She
`
`24 was ill for about a month, but then became very depressed thereafter. Partly this
`
`25 was because her husband became extremely sick and was hospitalized and on
`
`26
`
`27
`
`oxygen for a full month.
`
`13.
`
`PLAINTIFF turned in a series of notes excusing her absence. She
`
`28 was in therapy and taking medication for Depression. Based on the set of
`
`Page 2
`
`C OM PLA INT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`circumstances, she had a qualifying disability under the California Fair
`
`Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
`
`14. Yet, shortly after her FMLA/CFRA leave expired, the absence control
`
`4 manager, Zaharah Greene, started pressuring PLAINTIFF to return back to work,
`
`5
`
`6
`
`telling her that her job was not protected past April 11, 2021.
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`explained that she was on leave until May 1st and did not have an appointment
`
`7 with her doctor until the end of April. She also explained that she was still under
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`doctor's case for her medical condition. However, Ms. Greene said if she managed
`
`to get back before they hired someone else, she could have her job, but otherwise
`
`she was out of luck.
`
`15. On April 27, 2021, she sent in a new note excusing her until August
`
`1, 2021. MOLINA terminated her the same day, claiming they were filling her
`
`position. There was no discussion on how to accommodate Plaintiffs disability.
`
`16.
`
`Further, throughout PLAINTIFF's employment, she was provided
`
`blocks of overtime approval, like one hour or two hours, but was then relentlessly
`
`pressured to get work done by certain deadlines, which forced her to work off the
`
`clock. PLAINTIFF's supervisor was aware she was working off the clock, but she
`
`18 was never compensated for this additional time.
`
`19
`
`17.
`
`Finally, PLAINTIFF had been working from home starting around
`
`20 March 2020. MOLINA failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF for internet and data
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`usage, which was necessary to have in order for her to perform the functions of
`
`her job while at home.
`
`18.
`
`Prior to filing this Complaint, Plaintiff fulfilled any legal requirement
`
`or exhausted any administrative remedy imposed on her by having filed the
`
`substance of claims alleged herein with the California Department of Fair
`
`Employment and Housing (hereinafter "DFEH"), and has received Right to Sue
`
`Letters from the DFEH. Plaintiff has therefore substantially complied with all
`
`requirements for the filing of this Complaint and has exhausted her administrative
`
`Page 3
`
`C OMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:5
`
`remedies prior to filing, commencing, and serving the within action.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Disability Discrimination
`
`(Plaintiff Against MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC. and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the relevant allegations
`
`contained in this pleading as if fully set forth herein.
`
`20. At all times herein mentioned, California Fair Employment and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9 Housing Act Government Code§§ 12940, et seq. ("FEHA"), was in full force and
`1 o
`
`effect and was binding on Defendants. Plaintiff was, at all times material hereto,
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`an employee covered by the provisions and protections of the FEHA. These
`
`sections require Defendants to refrain from discriminating any employee on the
`
`basis of disability or medical condition, or because an employee was associated
`
`14 with someone with a disability.
`
`15
`
`21. The
`
`foregoing conduct by Defendants violates
`
`the FEHA,
`
`16 Government Code § 12940(a), which provides that discrimination of employees
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`on the basis of disability, or association with someone with a disability is an
`
`unlawful employment practice. The discrimination by Defendants of Plaintiff
`
`based on her disability violates Government Code§ 12940(a).
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs disability was a substantial motivating
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`21 Defendants' decisions to change her conditions of employment and ultimately
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`terminate her employment. Such discrimination violates Government Code §
`
`12940(a) and has resulted in damage to Plaintiff.
`
`23. As a legal result of the discrimination of Plaintiff described above,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer humiliation, embarrassment,
`
`26 mental anguish and severe emotional and physical distress, all causing her
`
`27
`
`28
`
`damages in an amount to be determined at trial and according to proof.
`
`24. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory conduct of
`
`Page 4
`
`C OMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:6
`
`1 Defendants, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm. Plaintiff suffered economic and
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`non-economic damages and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress,
`
`and mental and physical pain and anguish.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff has incurred and continues to mcur legal expenses and
`
`attorney's fees. Pursuant to Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., and/or other
`
`applicable law, Plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed said legal expenses and
`
`attorney's fees.
`
`26.
`
`Said discrimination was wrongful and justifies the imposition of
`
`punitive damages since the discrimination was against public policy. Defendants
`
`intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff because of her disability, and in doing
`
`so, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the
`
`12 wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is
`
`13
`
`entitled to recover punitive damages m an amount according to proof from
`
`14 Defendants and each of them.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Retaliation [Gov. Code§ 12940(h)]
`
`(Plaintiff Against MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the relevant allegations
`
`contained in this pleading as if fully set forth herein.
`
`28. At all relevant times, the FEHA has precluded an employer from
`
`taking any adverse employment action against an employee who has engaged in
`
`protected conduct, such as requesting reasonable accommodations or taking
`
`24 medical leave.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29. As alleged herein, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because she
`
`requested a reasonable accommodation and took a medical leave of absence for
`
`her disability.
`
`30. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliatory and illegal conduct
`
`Page 5
`
`C OM PLA INT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm. Plaintiff suffered economic and
`
`non-economic damages and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress,
`
`and mental and physical pain and anguish.
`
`31.
`
`Said retaliation was wrongful and justifies the imposition of punitive
`
`damages since the retaliation was against public policy. Defendants intentionally
`
`retaliated against Plaintiff for having requested accommodations for her disability
`
`and retaliated against Plaintiff for suffering from a disability, taking a medical
`
`leave and requesting an accommodation, and in doing so, Defendants acted
`
`9 maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring
`
`Plaintiff. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages
`
`in an amount according to proof from Defendants and each of them.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Disability Discrimination - Failure to Reasonably Accommodate [Cal. Gov.
`
`Code§ 12940(m)]
`(Plaintiff Against MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`32. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the relevant allegations
`
`contained in this pleading as if fully set forth herein.
`
`33. At all times herein mentioned, California's Fair Employment and
`
`Housing Act Government Code§§ 12940, et seq. was in full force and effect and
`
`was binding on Defendants. Plaintiff was, at all times material hereto, an
`
`employee covered by the provisions and protections of the FEHA. These sections
`
`require an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee with
`
`a known disability, pursuant to Government Code§ 12940(m).
`
`34. Plaintiff provided notice to Defendants of her disability, which gave
`
`rise to the employer' s duty to provide reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff
`
`concerning her disability.
`
`3 5. Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodation as required
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 6
`
`C OM PLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`by Government Code§ 12940(m), by allowing her to remain on a medical leave
`
`of absence. Instead, he was summarily terminated.
`
`36. The foregoing conduct violates the Fair Employment and Housing
`
`Act, Government Code § 12940(m), which provides that the failure to provide
`
`reasonable accommodation to an employee with a known disability is an unlawful
`
`employment practice.
`
`3 7. As a legal result of the discrimination of Plaintiff described above,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer humiliation, embarrassment,
`
`mental anguish and severe emotional and physical distress, all causing her
`
`damages in an amount to be determined at trial and according to proof.
`
`38. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory conduct of
`
`Defendants, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm. Plaintiff suffered economic and
`
`non-economic damages and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress,
`
`and mental and physical pain and anguish.
`
`39. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to mcur legal expenses and
`
`attorney's fees. Pursuant to Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., and/or other
`
`applicable law, Plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed said legal expenses and
`
`attorney's fees.
`
`Disability Discrimination - Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process [Cal.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Gov. Code§ 12940(n)]
`
`(Plaintiff Against MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`40. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the relevant allegations
`
`contained in this pleading as if fully set forth herein.
`
`41. At all times herein mentioned, California's Fair Employment and
`
`Housing Act Government Code§§ 12940, et seq. was in full force and effect and
`
`was binding on Defendants. Plaintiff was, at all times material hereto, an
`
`Page 7
`
`C OMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:9
`
`employee covered by the provisions and protections of the PEHA. These sections
`
`require an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee with
`
`a known disability, pursuant to Government Code § 12940(n).
`
`42. Plaintiff provided notice to Defendants of her disability, which gave
`
`rise to the employer' s duty to provide reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff
`
`concerning her disability.
`
`43. Defendants failed to engage in a good faith interactive process with
`
`Plaintiff as required by Government Code § 12940(m), and instead Defendants
`
`summarily terminated Plaintiff's employment as a result of her disability, rather
`
`than provide her a reasonable accommodation pursuant to her doctor' s request,
`
`all without properly engaging in the interactive process.
`
`44. The foregoing conduct violates the Fair Employment and Housing
`
`Act, Government Code § 12940(m), which provides that the failure to provide
`
`reasonable accommodation to an employee with a known disability is an unlawful
`
`employment practice.
`
`45. As a legal result of the failure to engage in the interactive process,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer humiliation, embarrassment,
`
`mental anguish and severe emotional and physical distress, all causing her
`
`damages in an amount to be determined at trial and according to proof.
`
`46. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory conduct of
`
`Defendants, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm. Plaintiff suffered economic and
`
`non-economic damages and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress,
`
`and mental and physical pain and anguish.
`
`4 7. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to mcur legal expenses and
`
`attorney's fees. Pursuant to Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. , and/or other
`
`applicable law, Plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed said legal expenses and
`
`attorney ' s fees.
`
`II
`
`Page 8
`
`C OMPLA INT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
`
`(Plaintiff Against MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`48. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the relevant allegations
`
`contained in this pleading as if fully set forth herein.
`49. At all
`times herein mentioned
`in
`this complaint, California
`
`Government Code Section 12940, et seq. were in full force and effect and were
`
`binding on the Defendants and the Defendants were subject to their terms, and
`
`therefore Defendants were required to refrain from violations of public policy,
`
`including retaliating against for requesting accommodations and ultimately
`
`wrongfully terminating Plaintiff for suffering from a disability.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that her
`
`disability and requests for accommodations were factors in Defendants' decision
`
`to terminate Plaintiff.
`
`51. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliatory and illegal conduct
`
`of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm. Plaintiff suffered economic
`
`and non-economic damages and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional
`
`distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish.
`
`52.
`
`Said termination was wrongful and justifies the imposition of punitive
`
`damages since the termination was against public policy. Defendants intentionally
`
`retaliated against Plaintiff for having requested accommodations for her disability
`
`and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff for suffering from a disability, and in doing
`
`so, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the
`
`Page 9
`
`C OM PLA INT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:11
`
`wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is
`
`entitled to recover punitive damages m an amount according to proof from
`
`Defendants and each of them.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Violation of California Labor Code§§ 510-Unpaid Overtime
`
`(Plaintiff Against MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10)
`53.
`Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`54. California Labor Code § 510 provides that employees in California
`
`shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or forty hours in a
`
`workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages
`
`in amounts specified by law. California Labor Code § 510 further provides that
`
`any work in excess of twelve hours in one day and for all hours worked in excess
`
`of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek shall be
`
`compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an
`
`employee.
`
`55. California Labor Code§§ 1194 and 1198 provide that employees in
`
`California shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday unless
`
`they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts
`
`specified by law. Additionally, California Labor Code § 1198 states that the
`
`employment of an employee for longer hours than those fixed by the IWC is
`
`unlawful. The governing Wage Order of the IWC requires, among other things,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 10
`
`C OMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:12
`
`payment of a premium wage rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per
`
`day or forty hours per week.
`
`56. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
`
`accurate overtime compensation for the hours she worked in excess of the
`
`maximum hours permissible by law as required by California Labor Code § 510
`
`and 1198 as described in more detail above.
`
`57. By virtue of Defendants' unlawful failure to pay additional, premium
`
`rate compensation to Plaintiff for her overtime hours worked, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently
`
`unknown to her but which exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court and which
`
`will be ascertained according to proof at trial.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff requests recovery of overtime compensation and minimum
`
`wage compensation according to proof, interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant
`
`to California Labor Code § 1194(a), liquidated damages under Labor Code
`
`§ 1194.2, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against Defendants,
`
`in a sum as provided by the California Labor Code and/or other statutes. Further,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
`
`pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194.
`
`II
`
`II
`
`II
`
`Page 11
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Violation of Labor Code §2802-Unreimbursed Expenses
`(Plaintiff Against MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`59. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`60. Under Labor Code §2802, an employer must indemnify its employees
`
`"for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
`
`consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.
`
`61. The Defendant in this case required plaintiff to use internet and data
`
`usage for work-related purposes, but failed to provide any reimbursement, even
`
`though the internet and data usage were necessary for carrying out job duties.
`
`62. Plaintiff was damaged by having to pay for necessary business
`
`expenses out of her own personal funds.
`
`63. Plaintiff also seeks attorney's fees under Labor Code §2802 because
`
`these fees were necessarily incurred in protecting the rights of plaintiff to the
`
`underlying reimbursement claim.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and
`
`severally, as follows:
`
`1. For damages according to proof, including loss of earnings, deferred
`
`compensation, unpaid wages, overtime and other employment
`
`benefits;
`
`2. For general damages, according to proof;
`
`3. For other special damages according to proof, including but not
`
`limited to reasonable medical expenses;
`
`4. For punitive damages according to proof;
`
`5. For prejudgment interest on lost wages and benefits;
`
`6. For any and all penalties and fees pursuant to the Labor Code;
`
`Page 12
`
`C OMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-08665 Document 1 Filed 11/03/21 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:14
`
`7. For costs incurred by Plaintiff, including reasonable attorneys ' fees
`
`and costs of suit, in obtaining the benefits due Plaintiff and for
`
`violations of Plaintiff's civil rights, as set forth above; and
`
`8. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Dated: November 3, 2021
`
`The Law Offices of Buchsbaum & Haag, LLP
`
`Isl Laurel N Haag
`
`By ________________ _
`Laurel N. Haag, Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Diana Alvarez
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs hereby respectfully demand a jury trial.
`
`Dated: November 3, 2021
`
`The Law Offices of Buchsbaum & Haag, LLP
`
`Isl Laurel N Haag
`
`By _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`Laurel N. Haag, Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Diana Alvarez
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2 1
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 13
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`