Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Michael Peffer (SBN: 192265)
`Email: michaelpeffer@pji.org
`Nilab Sharif (SBN: 231296)
`Email: nsharif@pji.org
`PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
`2200 North Grand Ave.
`Santa Ana, CA 92704
`Tel: (714) 796-7150
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRIAN CLASEN
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BRIAN CLASEN, an individual,
`
`Case No.:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
`VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER
`TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
`ACT OF 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e et
`seq.]
`(DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL)
`
`
`vs.
`
`LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
`DISTRICT; DOES 1-10, inclusive
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff, BRIAN CLASEN (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”),
`
`and for his Complaint alleges as follows:
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael Peffer (SBN: 192265)
`Email: michaelpeffer@pji.org
`Nilab Sharif (SBN: 231296)
`Email: nsharif@pji.org
`PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
`2200 North Grand Ave.
`Santa Ana, CA 92704
`Tel: (714) 796-7150
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRIAN CLASEN
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BRIAN CLASEN, an individual,
`
`Case No.:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
`VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER
`TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
`ACT OF 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e et
`seq.]
`(DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL)
`
`
`vs.
`
`LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
`DISTRICT; DOES 1-10, inclusive
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff, BRIAN CLASEN (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”),
`
`and for his Complaint alleges as follows:
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:2
`
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff, BRIAN CLASEN brings this action against LOS ANGELES
`
`UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“LAUSD”) a California Public entity. This
`
`action is based on violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2000e et. seq.).
`
`Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for over 20 years as a Skip Loader
`
`Operator. Defendant required its employees to be vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2
`
`(COVID-19) pursuant to the Defendant’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy. Because of
`
`the Plaintiff’s faith, he sought an accommodation for his sincerely held religious
`
`beliefs to be exempt from taking the vaccine. His religious accommodation request
`
`was eventually denied and he was terminated from his employment.
`
`Notwithstanding having legitimately sought an accommodation for his
`
`sincerely held religious beliefs, which kept Plaintiff from taking the vaccine, he
`
`was terminated by Defendant on April 6, 2022, allegedly for not complying with
`
`the Defendant’s mandated COVID-19 Policy. The gravamen of the complaint is
`
`that Defendant refused to accommodate, otherwise discriminated against, retaliated
`
`against, and subsequently terminated Plaintiff from his job because he asked for an
`
`accommodation due to his religious beliefs. Defendant knew or should have
`
`reasonably known that Plaintiff held religious beliefs because he asserted them.
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`Defendant nevertheless failed to accommodate and terminated Plaintiff’s
`
`employment in retaliation for seeking an accommodation.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`The Court has authority over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
`
`in federal questions raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
`
`related claims arising under corollary state anti-discrimination law pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 42 U.S.C.
`
`§2000e-5(f)(3), in that the Defendant maintains significant operations within the
`
`Central District of California. The location of the School’s District where the
`
`alleged unlawful employment practices took place is within the Central District of
`
`California. This case is appropriate for assignment to the Los Angeles Division.
`
`The Defendant is headquartered in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, and the situs
`
`of the alleged unlawful employment practices took place at the Defendant’s Los
`
`Angeles location.
`
`PARTIES
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`3.
`
`At all times relevant herein, BRIAN CLASEN was an employee of
`
`LAUSD since August 2001. Mr. CLASEN worked as a skip loader operator. Mr.
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`CLASEN resided in the county of Los Angeles at the time of the events that gave
`
`rise to the Complaint.
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, LAUSD is a public entity operating and
`
`headquartered in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. LAUSD
`
`is a school district. At the time of the events that gave rise to this Complaint,
`
`LAUSD employed PLAINTIFF as a skip loader operator.
`
`5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
`
`associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1-100, inclusive are unknown to PLAINTIFF at
`
`the time, who therefore sues said DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names.
`
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
`
`fictitiously named DEFENDANTS is in some way responsible for, or participated
`
`in, or contributed to, the matters and things complained of herein, and is legally
`
`responsible in some manner. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the Complaint
`
`when the true names, capacities, and responsibilities have been ascertained.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`6. At all times relevant hereto, the PLAINTIFF was performing
`
`competently in the position he held with DEFENDANT.
`
`7. PLAINTIFF began his career with DEFENDANT in 2001 as a skip
`
`loader operator. At the time of his termination, PLAINTIFF had been an employee
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`of DEFENDANT for over 20 years and had plans to retire with the same employer.
`
`8. For all intent and purposes, PLAINTIFF’s job was remote because his
`
`job entailed mainly working alone and outdoors on a daily basis, and operating
`
`heavy machinery which required a consistent distance of 10 feet to be maintained
`
`at all times from other individuals. The heavy machinery that PLAINTIFF
`
`operated were large reaching 65 feet in length, and had to be parked in remote
`
`locations due to their size.
`
`9. PLAINTIFF would typically receive work his assignments telephonically
`
`each morning at a remote site, such as a parking lot, and then report to the
`
`designated work site.
`
`10. In March 2020, a COVID lockdown was issued by the State of
`
`California.
`
`11. The Maintenance & Operations staff of LAUSD (which included
`
`PLAINTIFF) were still required to be on call for emergencies as they were deemed
`
`to be emergency responders by LAUSD.
`
`12. Around the same period of time, LAUSD required PLAINTIFF and
`
`others to submit to weekly COVID testing, masking, and social distancing.
`
`13. LAUSD meetings, when PLAINTIFF was required to attend, were
`
`held remotely on Zoom using District issued phones.
`
`14. Effective August 13, 2021, DEFENDANT LAUSD issued a COVID-
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`19 Vaccine Mandate (“Mandate”) that required all employees who worked at any
`
`LAUSD sites to be fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021.
`
`15. The Mandate provided employees the option to request a reasonable
`
`accommodation which would allow them to perform the essential functions of their
`
`job and, at the same time, ensure the safety of employees and students. The
`
`accommodation request would be received by the LAUSD Sincerely Held
`
`Religious Belief Committee (“the Committee”) for review. Purportedly, the
`
`Committee then reviews the request and approves or denies the request on an
`
`individualized basis. However, the accommodation request process appears as if it
`
`may have been a sham process.
`
`16. On or about August 19, 2021, PLAINTIFF submitted to
`
`DEFENDANT his completed LAUSD COVID-19 Reasonable Accommodation
`
`Application (“Application”).
`
`17. The Application did not seek an explanation of the employee’s
`
`religious beliefs, and only required that he check a box next to the sentence “I
`
`object based on a sincerely held religious belief”. PLAINTIFF checked off this
`
`box.
`
`18. On or about September 22, 2021, LAUSD project manager, Mauricio
`
`Pinto, met with PLAINTIFF and another co-worker regarding their vaccination
`
`status. During this meeting, Mr. Pinto openly discussed PLAINTIFF’s vaccination
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`status in front of the other employee without any regard to maintaining
`
`confidentiality of PLAINTIFF’s vaccination status. Mr. Pinto’s actions amounted
`
`to an involuntary disclosure of PLAINTIFF’s vaccination status.
`
`19. Mr. Pinto then proceeded to cause PLAINTIFF to feel coerced into
`
`agreeing to take the COVID-19 vaccine by reminding him that he would lose his
`
`job if he did not become vaccinated, followed by him handing PLAINTIFF a “Get
`
`Vaccinated…Lunch or Dinner” flyer.
`
`20. On or about September 30, 2021, LAUSD Supervisor, Carlos Vargas,
`
`contacted PLAINTIFF questioning his intent to be vaccinated. Mr. Vargas used a
`
`harassing tone and threatened PLAINTIFF’s employment if he did not become
`
`vaccinated. Specifically, Mr. Vargas informed PLAINTIFF that he would have to
`
`turn in his ID badge and keys on October 18, 2021 unless he became vaccinated.
`
`21. On or about October 12, 2021, PLAINTIFF was forced to call in sick
`
`to work, something which PLAINTIFF very rarely did, due to his experiencing
`
`high levels of stress and anxiety brought on by DEFENDANT’s actions toward
`
`him. PLAINTIFF explained to DEFENDANT he did not feel it was safe for him
`
`to operate heavy machinery under such high levels of stress. PLAINTIFF did not
`
`return to work for four days.
`
`22. On or about October 18, 2021, PLAINTIFF was informed that he
`
`needed to turn in all district items, keys, ID badge, tools, etc.,.
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 8 of 24 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
`
`
`
`23. During the process of turning in all the district requested items at
`
`LAUSD director Gene Hernandez’s office, PLAINTIFF was instructed to attend a
`
`Zoom meeting using Ms. Hernandez’s laptop. What was falsely announced as a
`
`pre-disciplinary Zoom meeting with LAUSD employee Brandee Verret, turned out
`
`to be a notice of separation from LAUSD meeting. At the conclusion of the Zoom
`
`meeting, PLAINTIFF was told by LAUSD project manager, Ron Rackliffe, to not
`
`report to work until further notice. Despite PLAINTIFF’s repeated pleas for
`
`answers regarding this news of his separation of employment which he had just
`
`unsuspectingly received, all of DEFENDANT’s employees who were present, in
`
`person or virtually, refused to give PLAINTIFF any answers or information.
`
`24. In October 2021, due to DEFENDANT’s coercive actions and
`
`harassing statements to PLAINTIFF regarding the status of his employment,
`
`PLAINTIFF experienced a complete breakdown brought on by the stress and
`
`uncertainty of his employment.
`
`25. Also in October 2021, in its effort to streamline the interactive
`
`process, DEFENDANT informed PLAINTIFF that he must submit, in his own
`
`words, an explanation of his objections to DEFENDANT’s COVID-19 vaccine
`
`mandate.
`
`26. PLAINTIFF is not versed in writing religious accommodation
`
`requests. Despite the personal nature of his religious beliefs, PLAINTIFF wrote
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`his beliefs to the best of his ability.
`
`27. On or about October 21, 2021, PLAINTIFF submitted his “Statement
`
`to COVID-19 Reasonable Accommodation Application” via email to the
`
`Committee. Within this Statement, PLAINTIFF explained his objections to the
`
`Mandate, which included: “First and foremost I believe in God, The Creator of all!
`
`I believe that as a sovereign being that my body is a Temple,” "Covid-19 injection
`
`is … an experimental use of a genetic altering substance that modifies YOUR
`
`BODY-YOUR Temple of the Holy Spirit. It is NOT a vaccine, and the use of that
`
`word bears False Witness to the truth,” and “GOD IS STILL THE BEST
`
`DOCTOR AND PRAYER IS STILL THE BEST MEDICINE.”
`
`28. Following the submission of his Statement to the Committee,
`
`PLAINTIFF within minutes received a response stating he had satisfactorily
`
`articulated his sincerely held religious beliefs, but neither an accommodation
`
`from the mandate allowing him to work at a District facility nor remote work was
`
`available. The response also stated the only available accommodation was for
`
`PLAINTIFF to use his accrued benefit time or take an unpaid permissive leave
`
`effective October 16, 2021.
`
`29. DEFENDANT declined remote work as a possible accommodation
`
`even though PLAINTIFF, for all intent and purposes, had worked remotely for
`
`twenty years.
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 10 of 24 Page ID
`#:10
`
`
`
`30. On or about November 19, 2021, PLAINTIFF attended a Skelly
`
`meeting via Zoom with LAUSD’s employees Naomi Suenaka and Randy Chung.
`
`During this interview, PLAINTIFF again felt pressured to receive the COVID-19
`
`vaccine or resign.
`
`31. On or about November 22, 2021, PLAINTIFF received notification
`
`that DEFENDANT was moving forward with its recommendation to place
`
`PLAINTIFF on a suspension pending dismissal effective 11/1/2021 for not
`
`complying with DEFENDANT’s Mandate, and that he had the option of
`
`voluntarily resigning prior to the LAUSD Board of Education’s decision.
`
`32. On February 11, 2022, PLAINTIFF filed a charge of religious
`
`discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity
`
`Commission (“EEOC”).
`
`33. On or about February 12, 2022, PLAINTIFF received a Notice of
`
`Right to Sue Letter from the Civil Rights Department (“CRD”), formerly known as
`
`DFEH.
`
`34. On or about February 16, 2022, DEFENDANT held another Zoom
`
`meeting with PLAINTIFF to remind him of his upcoming termination, as well as
`
`his options of retirement, resignation, or becoming vaccinated for COVID-19.
`
`35. On or about February 23, 2022, a Skelly meeting was held with
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 11 of 24 Page ID
`#:11
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT and PLAINTIFF, during which DEFENDANT yet again
`
`encouraged PLAINTIFF to voluntarily resign.
`
`36. On or about April 5th 2022, PLAINTIFF received notification of
`
`termination of his employment with DEFENDANT.
`
`37. On or about April 18, 2022, PLAINTIFF submitted his request for an
`
`appeal of his termination to DEFENDANT.
`
`38. On or about June 21, 2022, PLAINTIFF received DEFENDANT’s
`
`email stating his appeal request would be added to a scheduling list for a
`
`disciplinary virtual hearing, and that a strike-off letter would be sent to
`
`PLAINTIFF assigning his appeal to a Hearing Officer. However, no such letter
`
`was ever received by PLAINTIFF, and a hearing was never scheduled.
`
`39. In July 2021, before DEFENDANT implemented its COVID-19
`
`vaccine mandate, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admitted that the
`
`approved covid vaccines do not prevent the transmission of covid between
`
`individuals, and that “vaccinated people . . . can transmit the virus.” 1
`
`40. Further, regular testing had been found to be an acceptable practice as
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR December 19,
`https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid-19.html (last visited on
`2024) (emphasis added).
`
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 12 of 24 Page ID
`#:12
`
`
`
`an alternative to vaccination by the appropriate authorities.
`
`41. Accordingly, it was clear to DEFENDANT, when it insisted on
`
`denying PLAINTIFF’s exemption request and eventually terminating him, that
`
`vaccinated employees could transmit the COVID virus, and alternative
`
`accommodations had proven to be effective.
`
`42. PLAINTIFF received a Notice of Right to Sue (NRTS) from the
`
`EEOC on June 18, 2024. PLAINTIFF’s EEOC NRTS serves as “Exhibit One” to
`
`this Complaint.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.]
`Failure to Accommodate Against Defendant
`
`43. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates and realleges the preceding
`
`paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`44. Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`2000e-2(a)(1), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: (1) to fail or
`
`refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any
`
`individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
`
`of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national
`
`origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his or her employees or applicants for
`
`employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 13 of 24 Page ID
`#:13
`
`
`
`employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his or her status as an
`
`employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
`
`45. A plaintiff can make out a Title VII prima facie case for a failure
`
`to accommodate by showing (1) he had a bona fide religious belief, the practice
`
`of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) he informed his employer of
`
`the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened him or subjected him
`
`to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of his inability to fulfill
`
`the job requirements. Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th
`
`Cir. 1998).
`
`46. PLAINTIFF was, at all times relevant herein, an employee and
`
`applicant covered by U.S.C. 42 § 2000e et seq.
`
`47. PLAINTIFF held a deeply sincere religious objection to receiving
`
`the COVID-19 vaccine injection, and asked DEFENDANT to accommodate his
`
`sincerely held religious belief.
`
`48. PLAINTIFF’s request for an accommodation was denied without any
`
`meaningful discussions as to his exemption request or available accommodations.
`
`49. DEFENDANT insisted on terminating PLAINTIFF’s employment
`
`despite the CDC’s statement that vaccinated individuals could transmit the virus.
`
`50. Therefore, PLAINTIFF’s religious beliefs and practices were a
`
`motivating factor in his employment being terminated.
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 14 of 24 Page ID
`#:14
`
`
`
`51. PLAINTIFF suffered significant damages because of DEFENDANT’s
`
`unlawful discriminatory actions, including emotional distress, past and future lost
`
`wages and benefits, and the costs of bringing the action.
`
`52. DEFENDANT intentionally violated PLAINTIFF’S rights under Title
`
`VII with malice or reckless indifference.
`
`53. PLAINTIFF is entitled to backpay, front pay, compensatory damages,
`
`attorney’s fees, costs of suit, a declaration that DEFENDANT violated his rights
`
`under Title VII, and an injunction preventing DEFENDANT from enforcing their
`
`discriminatory policies.
`
`54. PLAINTIFF is entitled to further relief as set forth below in his Prayer
`
`for Relief.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.]
`Retaliation Against Defendant
`
`55. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates and realleges the preceding
`
`paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`56. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a)(1),
`
`prohibits retaliation by an employer, employment agency, or labor organization
`
`because an individual has engaged in protected activity. The EEOC has taken the
`
`position that requesting a religious accommodation is a protected activity under
`
`this provision of Title VII. According to the EEOC, retaliation includes a fact
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 15 of 24 Page ID
`#:15
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`pattern where an employee has opposed discrimination on the basis of religion, or
`
`complained about alleged religious discrimination.
`
`https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination.
`
`57. To make out a prima case for retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff
`
`must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) his employer took an
`
`adverse employment action against him, and (3) there was a causal connection
`
`between the protected activity and the employer's act. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal
`
`USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042(2005); Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson
`
`Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 506 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`58. PLAINTIFF was, at all times relevant herein, an employee and
`
`applicant covered by U.S.C. 42 § 2000e et seq.
`
`59. PLAINTIFF held a deeply sincere religious objection to receiving the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine injection.
`
`60. PLAINTIFF engaged in a protected activity when he submitted to
`
`DEFENDANT a request for a religious accommodation to his sincerely held
`
`religious belief.
`
`61. Soon after his submission of a religious exemption request,
`
`PLAINTIFF was subjected to harassing behavior by DEFENDANT’s employees.
`
`62. PLAINTIFF further engaged in a protected activity when he filed a
`
`charge of religious discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC, allegations of
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 16 of 24 Page ID
`#:16
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`which DEFENDANT was fully aware at the time of the Skelly hearing and when it
`
`made a decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’s employment.
`
`63. PLAINTIFF’s request for an accommodation was denied by
`
`DEFENDANT without an interactive process, without providing any reason, and
`
`without any meaningful discussions as to available accommodations.
`
`64. DEFENDANT willfully ignored its own policy of engaging in an
`
`interactive process and accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs, and instead
`
`chose to terminate PLAINTIFF’s employment.
`
`65. DEFENDANT insisted on taking adverse actions against PLAINTIFF
`
`despite its knowledge that vaccinated employees can transmit the virus. Therefore,
`
`PLAINTIFF’s submission of a religious accommodation request, and his
`
`complaints to the EEOC of religious discrimination were motivating factors in the
`
`termination of his employment.
`
`66. PLAINTIFF suffered significant damages because of DEFENDANT’s
`
`unlawful retaliatory actions, including emotional distress, past and future lost
`
`wages and benefits, and the costs of bringing the action.
`
`67. DEFENDANT intentionally violated PLAINTIFF’S rights under Title
`
`VII with malice or reckless indifference.
`
`68. PLAINTIFF is entitled to backpay, front pay, compensatory damages,
`
`attorney’s fees, costs of suit, a declaration that DEFENDANT violated his rights
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 17 of 24 Page ID
`#:17
`
`
`
`under Title VII, and an injunction preventing DEFENDANT from enforcing their
`
`discriminatory policies.
`
`69. PLAINTIFF is entitled to further relief as set forth below in his Prayer
`
`for Relief.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Breach Of The Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing
`Against Defendant
`
`70. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates and realleges the preceding
`
`paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`71. PLAINTIFF was at all times relevant herein an employee who performed
`
`his job in an exemplary manner.
`
`72. DEFENDANT and PLAINTIFF entered into an employment relationship
`
`in 2001.
`
`73. According to California law, employment contracts consist of “an implied
`
`promise of good faith and fair dealing.” “This implied promise means that neither
`
`the employer nor the employee will do anything to unfairly interfere with the right
`
`of the other to receive the benefits of the employment relationship.” CACI 2423;
`
`(Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654).
`
`74. An employer breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
`
`by acting in bad faith to prevent an employee from enjoying the benefits of his or
`
`her employment contract, thus causing the employee damage. (Foley v. Interactive
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 18 of 24 Page ID
`#:18
`
`
`
`Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 683; Sheppard v. Morgan Keegan & Co. (1990)
`
`218 Cal.App.3d 61, 66; see also BAJI 10.05, 10.35, 10.38.)
`
`75. DEFENDANT breached its obligation to PLAINTIFF to act in good faith
`
`and fair dealing when it:
`
`a. Imposed its vaccine mandate without any intention of granting
`
`PLAINTIFF an accommodation;
`
`b. Refused to respond to PLAINTIFF’s questions regarding his
`
`separation of employment;
`
`c. Refused to engage in good faith discussions regarding PLAINTIFF’s
`
`request for an accommodation, even though DEFENDANT was aware
`
`of available accommodations and the lack of the vaccine’s efficacy;
`
`d. Placed PLAINTIFF on unpaid leave and eventually terminated his
`
`employment despite PLAINTIFF having timely submitted a valid
`
`request for an accommodation, and despite DEFENDANT’s
`
`knowledge that vaccinated individuals could transmit the virus.
`
`76. PLAINTIFF suffered damages because of DEFENDANT’s unlawful
`
`discriminatory actions, including emotional distress, past and future loss of wages
`
`and benefits, and the cost of bringing this action.
`
`77. DEFENDANT intentionally violated PLAINTIFF’s rights under
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 19 of 24 Page ID
`#:19
`
`
`
`CACI 2423 with malice or reckless indifference, and, as a result, is liable for
`
`punitive damages.
`
`78. PLAINTIFF is entitled to such other and further relief as more fully
`
`set forth below in his Prayer for Relief.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court grant relief as follows:
`
`A. Award PLAINTIFF backpay, including past loss of wages and
`
`benefits, plus interest;
`
`B. Award PLAINTIFF his front pay, including future wages and
`
`benefits;
`
`C. Award PLAINTIFF other and further compensatory damages in an
`
`amount according to proof;
`
`D. Award PLAINTIFF noneconomic damages, including but not limited
`
`to mental health suffrage;
`
`E. Award PLAINTIFF his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit;
`
`F.
`
`Enjoin DEFENDANT from enforcing its discriminatory policies;
`
`G. Declare that DEFENDANT has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
`
`Act; and
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 19 -
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 20 of 24 Page ID
`#:20
`
`H.
`
`Grant PLAINTIFF such additional or alternative relief as the Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`DATED: 8/15/2024
`
`PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
`
`By:___________________________
`MICHAEL J. PEFFER, ESQ.,
`NILAB O. SHARIF, ESQ.
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRIAN CLASEN
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 20 -
`
`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 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 21 of 24 Page ID
`#:21
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`PLAINTIFF, BRIAN CLASEN, hereby demands a jury trial in the matter.
`
`DATED: 8/15/2024
`
`PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
`
`By:___________________________
`MICHAEL J. PEFFER, ESQ.,
`NILAB O. SHARIF, ESQ.
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRIAN CLASEN
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`- 21 -
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 22 of 24 Page ID
`#:22
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, BRIAN CLASEN, am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. I have
`
`4
`
`5
`
`read the VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER
`
`
`
`6 TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.] and
`
`
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`
`am familiar with same. The contents are true and accurate and known to me by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and belief. A asserted on information for those matters 9 personal knowledge except
`
`
`
`
`
`10 to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of lying under
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`oath, under the laws of the United States and the State of California, that the
`
`this l�TU day of August 2024, in the county
`13 foregoing is true and correct. Executed
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`of Apache, State of Arizona.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`BRIAN CLASEN
`
`-22 -
`
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-06910-AB-AJR Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 23 of 24 Page ID
`#:23
`
`EXHIBIT ONE (1)
`
`- 23 -
`CLASEN COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
