Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 55 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`Raymond Babaian (State Bar No. 232486)
`rb@valiantlaw.com
`Kamran Shahabi (State Bar No. 276194)
`ks@valiantlaw.com
`VALIANT LAW
`800 Ferrari Lane, Suite 100
`Ontario, California 91764
`Phone: 909 677 2270 ♦ Fax: 909 677 2290
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, CONRAD LEPE
`
`
`
`
`CONRAD LEPE, an individual
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SWIFT BEEF COMPANY dba JBS CASE
`READY PLANT; a Delaware Corporation;
`and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`RIVERSIDE COUNTY
`
` Case No.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`1. Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation
`of Labor Code § 1102.5;
`2. Disability Discrimination in Violation
`of FEHA;
`3. Failure to Accommodate in Violation
`of FEHA;
`4. Failure to Engage in the Interactive
`Process in Violation of FEHA;
`5. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;
`6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and
`Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
`7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of
`Public Policy; and
`8. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code
`§ 6310.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 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
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 55 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
`
`
`
`
`COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, CONRAD LEPE, an individual, and alleges as follows:
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This is an unlimited civil case, and the Court has jurisdiction over this action because
`1.
`the amount of controversy exceeds $25,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`Jurisdiction and venue are also proper in this Court because all the claims alleged
`2.
`herein arose in Riverside County and all the defendants are doing or did business in Riverside
`County, and/or their principal place of business is in Riverside County, in each case, at the times
`relevant herein. See also California Code of Civil Procedure § 395, which provides that venue is
`proper in this County because Defendants reside in this County and the harm to Plaintiff occurred
`in this County.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff CONRAD LEPE (hereinafter, “PLAINTIFF”), at all times relevant hereto,
`3.
`was, and is, a resident of the State of California.
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant SWIFT
`4.
`BEEF COMPANY dba JBS CASE READY PLANT (hereinafter, “JBS”), is a Delaware corporation
`which does substantial business in the State of California, County of Riverside, with its relevant
`business located at 15555 Meridian Pkwy, Riverside, CA 92518.
`PLAINTIFF was employed by JBS to perform work in the County of Riverside,
`5.
`California during the applicable limitations period.
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 20
`6.
`(hereinafter, “DOES”), inclusive, are, or were, individuals and are, or were, doing business at all
`times herein mentioned and material hereto in the State of California, and are, or were, the alter ego,
`or the duly authorized agent, or the managing agent, or the principal, or owner, or the partner, or
`joint venture, or representative, or manager, or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, and
`were at all times mentioned herein acting within the course and scope of said agency and
`employment, and that all acts or omissions alleged herein were duly committed with the ratification,
`knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and consent of each defendant designated
`herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 10
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 3 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or associate, or
`7.
`otherwise, designated herein as DOES are unknown to PLAINTIFF at this time, who, therefore, sue
`said DOES by such fictitious names and will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show
`their true names and capacities when ascertained.
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times
`8.
`material hereto, JBS and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, (hereinafter collectively referred to as
`"DEFENDANTS") and each of them, were duly authorized agents, servants, representatives, co-
`conspirators of the other, the alter ego, the principal, the owner, or representatives, and were acting
`at all times within the course and scope of their agency or representative capacity with the
`knowledge and consent of the other.
`All the acts and conduct herein and below described of every corporate Defendant
`9.
`was duly authorized, ordered by management-level employees of said corporate employers. In
`addition, thereto, said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of
`their said employees, agents and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the
`aforesaid acts and conduct of said corporate employees, agents and representatives, the Defendant
`corporations, respectively and collectively, ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded,
`acquiesced, authorized and otherwise approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the
`aforementioned corporate employees, agents and representatives.
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
`PLAINTIFF exhausted his administrative remedies by timely filing a complaint for
`10.
`the issues required to be raised herein against DEFENDANT with the California Department of Fair
`Employment & Housing (“DFEH”) and thereafter received a “Right to Sue” letter from the DFEH
`attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`JBS is a corporation in the business of food processing and is one of the world’s
`11.
`largest processors of fresh beef and pork, including the business location relevant to this action
`located at 15555 Meridian Pkwy, Riverside, CA 92518, which was at all relevant times
`PLANTIFF’s legal employer and primary place of employment.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 11
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 4 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`PLAINTIFF began his employment with JBS in the Maintenance Department as a
`12.
`Mechanic in or about May 2019. By all accounts, PLAINTIFF was a model employee for JBS,
`always met expectations and was willing to go above and beyond what was expected of him.
`PLAINTIFF had an exemplary tenure with JBS and never received a write-up prior to JBS’s
`discriminatory and retaliatory scheme to terminate PLAINTIFF’s employment.
`Notwithstanding his work ethic and dedication to the company, PLAINTIFF was
`13.
`mistreated, discriminated and retaliated against, and ultimately, wrongfully terminated.
`Throughout his employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF was eager to
`14.
`impress and excel in his work. However, in or about the last week of August 2019, PLAINTIFF
`notified DEFENDANTS that he had been experiencing respiratory complications that required his
`absence from work. Specifically, PLAINTIFF notified DEFENDANTS that his doctor had
`prescribed antibiotics, steroids, an inhaler, and recommended he undergo X-ray examinations of his
`lungs. PLAINTIFF provided DEFENDANTS a doctor note placing him off work through the
`beginning of September 2019. At such time, DEFENDANTS began to perceive and/or regard
`PLAINTIFF as having a disability and/or medical condition in need of reasonable accommodation.
`Thereafter, PLAINTIFF returned to work on or about September 6, 2019, after his
`15.
`short medical absence, however, his medical complications persisted causing PLAINTIFF’s doctor
`to place him off work again. As such, PLAINTIFF notified DEFENDANTS that his medical
`condition and disability relapsed and provided DEFENDANTS a notice from his doctor that he
`would be able to return to work on or about September 12, 2019. However, after returning to work
`for a short time, PLAINTIFF was again placed off work for the last week of September 2019 with
`an expected return date of October 3, 2019, for his recurring medical condition. Accordingly,
`PLAINTIFF reached out to DEFENDANTS to provide all necessary documentation and requested
`a meeting with Human Resources representative Araceli Burket (hereinafter “Burket”) and
`PLAINTIFF’S Supervisor, Carlos Palacios (hereinafter “Palacios”) to discuss a reasonable
`accommodation. However, upon PLAINTIFF’s return to work during the first week of October
`2019, Burket and Palacios failed to conduct any good faith interactive process to see if PLAINTIFF
`could be accommodated.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 12
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 5 of 55 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
`
`
`Upon his return, PLAINTIFF complained to Palacios that various JBS employees
`16.
`were routinely arriving at work showing signs of being ill but were not being sent home; a practice
`contrary to JBS’s policy which PLAINTIFF reasonably believed to be hazardous to the health and
`safety of DEFENDANTS’ employees in violation of Cal/OSHA, including PLAINTIFF’s well-
`being. PLAINTIFF complained that such a practice continued to put his, as well as his co-workers’
`health and safety at risk and could further exacerbate his own disability and medical condition.
`Despite PLAINTIFF’s pleas for help and complaints regarding the foregoing, Palacios failed to take
`any action, including agreeing to an interactive process, and embarked on a retaliatory scheme aimed
`toward forcing PLAINTIFF’s resignation.
`Further, after PLAINTIFF’s disability notice and request for accommodation,
`17.
`Palacios and PLAINTIFF’s Plant Manager, consistently engaged in retaliatory conduct aimed to
`harass, embarrass and defame PLAINTIFF. In doing so, DEFENDANTS routinely attempted to
`single out and “make an example” of PLAINTIFF during department meetings in retaliation for his
`complaints and disability. On or about October 23, 2019, PLAINTIFF complained to Palacios about
`the harassment and retaliation he reasonably believed he was being subjected to—conduct
`PLAINTIFF had not previously experienced prior to his disability notice. In response, Palacios
`issued an unwarranted and retaliatory write-up on or about October 25, 2019, for, “trying to be a
`perfectionist”—a write up that made no legal or justifiable sense.
`As a result of DEFENDANTS failing to protect the health and safety of their
`18.
`employees, failure to follow their own policy, and ignoring PLAINTIFF’s health condition,
`PLAINTIFF continued to fall ill after returning to work. Accordingly, in or about the beginning of
`November 2019, PLAINTIFF was forced to again seek medical leave for his medical
`condition/disability and continued to submit medical documentation as directed. However, rather
`than engaging in any good faith interactive process to see if PLAINTIFF could be accommodated,
`DEFENDANTS egregiously told PLAINTIFF he should start looking for employment elsewhere.
`On November 19, 2019, PLAINTIFF returned to work at JBS only to fall ill again
`19.
`and be placed off work on November 22, 2019. Upon notification of PLAINTIFF’s leave, Palacios
`egregiously responded: “As we discussed, please pursue seeking work in a dry location,” ignored
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 13
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 6 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’s request, and again failed to engage in any good faith interactive process to see if
`PLAINTIFF could be accommodated. Thereafter, PLAINTIFF worked intermittently with
`DEFENDANTS under the supervision of his treating physicians without any accommodations or
`interactive process. During such time, PLAINTIFF complied with DEFENDANTS’ requests and
`submitted all necessary medical documentation for all required absences.
`On or about January 14, 2020, PLAINTIFF requested he be accommodated by being
`20.
`placed in a different work environment, however, again DEFENDANTS failed to engage
`PLAINTIFF in any good-faith interactive process to see if he could be reasonably accommodated.
`As such, on or about January 16, 2020, PLAINTIFF was again forced off work due to his disability
`and medical condition.
`On or about February 14, 2020, PLAINTIFF informed DEFENDANTS he was
`21.
`medically cleared to return to work starting on or about March 2, 2020. In the same communication,
`PLAINTIFF detailed that he had been depressed and previously diagnosed with PTSD and Chronic
`Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) which was contributing to his off-work orders. Again, at
`no time, did DEFENDANTS engage PLAINTIFF in a good faith interactive process to see if any of
`his disclosed medical conditions and disabilities could be accommodated.
`On or about March 2, 2020, PLAINTIFF returned to work only to be met with a
`22.
`discriminatory and retaliatory write-up for nine (9) unexcused absences and allegedly exceeding
`available leave time despite PLAINTIFF submitting documentation for all of his absences and never
`being notified that any of his absences were, or would be, considered “unexcused.” In fact,
`DEFENDANTS intentionally misled PLAINTIFF and continued to assure PLAINTIFF that no
`disciplinary points would be issued to him as long as he provided a doctor’s note.
`Thereafter, on or about March 19, 2020, PLAINTIFF submitted an inquiry to JBS
`23.
`regarding how the California “Stay at Home Order” would affect JBS’s employees. PLAINTIFF
`received no response, however, the following day JBS’s Global CEO issued an email regarding the
`Coronavirus Pandemic assuring employees’ safety. However, DEFENDANTS continued to hold
`large weekly meetings in enclosed rooms, without implementing sufficient and/or mandatory safety
`protocols and failed to consider their employees’ health and/or well-being. When PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 14
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 7 of 55 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
`
`
`complained regarding the dangerous meetings, which he reasonably believed posed a risk to the
`health and safety of employees including himself, he was told “if you are scared, you can go home.”
`On or about March 24, 2020, PLAINTIFF submitted a further complaint to JBS
`24.
`stating that DEFENDANTS and its employees were violating guidance issued under the authority
`of OSHA. However, DEFENDANTS continued to ignore PLAINTIFF’s concerns which put the
`health and safety of JBS’ employees, including PLAINTIFF, at risk. Accordingly, the following
`day, PLAINTIFF sent a complaint to JBS’s Global CEO, Gilberto Tomazoni, stating that the rules
`issued by local, state, and federal governments were not being followed by DEFENDANTS and his
`complaints regarding health and safety were being ignored. As a result of PLAINTIFF’s email, he
`was verbally reprimanded by DEFENDANTS, through Palacios for allegedly “failing to follow the
`chain of command.”
`On or about April 21, 2020, PLAINTIFF notified DEFENDANTS that he needed to
`25.
`get tested for COVID and would need to be out 7-10 days. The following day, on or about April 22,
`2020, DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF’s employment because of his medical condition and
`repeated whistleblower complaints.
`PLAINTIFF has suffered financially and emotionally as a result of DEFENDANTS’
`26.
`discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and multiple violations of the California Labor Code.
`DEFENDANTS’ actions have caused PLAINTIFF emotional and physical pain, mental anguish,
`anxiety, and depression.
`PLAINTIFF now commences this suit against DEFENDANTS and alleges the
`27.
`following:
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5
`(As to JBS and DOES 1 through 20)
`PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference, repeats and realleges, all preceding and
`28.
`subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`At all times herein mentioned, Labor Code § 1102.5 was in full force and effect to
`29.
`promote a “broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 15
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 8 of 55 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
`
`
`acts without fearing retaliation.” See Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66, 77 (Cal. 1998).
`Specifically, Labor Code § 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee
`for disclosing information “to a person with authority over the employee or another employee” who
`has “authority to investigate, discover, or correct” an employer for violating or failing to comply
`with a “local, state, or federal rule or regulation.”
`At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’S legal employer.
`30.
`31.
`As described herein, PLAINTIFF, engaged in protected activity under the Labor
`Code when he complained of, reported, and disclosed DEFENDANTS’ non-compliance with
`California Executive Order N-51-20 and Cal/OSHA rules and regulations, codified under the
`California Labor Code. PLAINTIFF complained of, disclosed, and reported the aforementioned
`legal violations and/or non-compliance to his supervisor, JBS executives, and JBS human resources
`who had the ability to correct the legal violations and/or non-compliance. Furthermore,
`DEFENDANTS believed PLANTIFF might disclose the legal violations and non-compliance to a
`government agency.
`PLAINTIFF had a reasonable and good faith belief that DEFENDANTS actions as
`32.
`described herein were violations of local, state, and/or federal law, rules, and regulations.
`As a direct consequence of his numerous complaints, PLAINTIFF was issued
`33.
`retaliatory write-ups, denied further accommodations for his disability and medical condition, and
`was terminated from employment.
`PLAINTIFF’S multiple complaints regarding non-compliance with local, state,
`34.
`and/or federal law, rules, and regulations were a contributing factor in DEFENDANTS’ decision to
`terminate PLAINTIFF’S employment, issue disciplinary actions and deny PLAINTIFF further
`accommodations for his medical condition and disability.
`Furthermore, JBS’s retaliatory efforts were intentional and meant to subject
`35.
`PLAINTIFF to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights by
`wrongfully terminating PLAINTIFF mere weeks after notifying JBS of the legal violations.
`In light of JBS’s illegal, willful, knowing, and intentionally malicious and/or
`36.
`oppressive conduct, PLAINTIFF is entitled to exemplary, general and compensatory damages and
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 16
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 9 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`attorney’s fees and costs in amounts to be proven at trial, in addition to liquidated damages and
`prejudgment and post judgement interest thereon in addition to interest thereon and any and all other
`remedies and any and all other remedies and damages available under applicable laws.
`As a direct result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct, PLAINTIFF was caused to suffer,
`37.
`and continues to suffer from loss of wages, humiliation, anxiety, severe emotional distress, special
`damages, and general damages according to proof at the time of trial. DEFENDANTS’ conduct, as
`described herein, was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’s harm.
`Furthermore, PLAINTIFF has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and
`38.
`attorney’s fees. PLAINTIFF will seek to recover their attorney’s fees and costs at the conclusion of
`this lawsuit.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA
`(As to JBS and DOES 1 through 20)
`PLAINTIFF incorporated by reference, repeats, and realleges, all preceding and
`39.
`subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`At all times herein mentioned, Government Code § 12490(a), was in full force and
`40.
`effect and was binding on DEFENDANTS. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”),
`pursuant to Government Code § 12490(a), prohibits disability discrimination and/or requires
`DEFENDANTS to refrain from discrimination against any employee because of his disability.
`The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employment
`41.
`discrimination on the basis of “physical disability, mental disability [and] medical condition…” Cal.
`Government Code § 12940(a). Furthermore, FEHA protects employees, “not only from
`discrimination based on an existing physical disability, but also from discrimination based on a
`potential disability.” Sonia v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 584.
`Disability discrimination based on a potential disability violated FEHA whether or not the condition
`becomes disabling. “The Legislature intended to protect employees from adverse employment
`action by employers concerned about what may happen in the future.” Id at 589.
`PLAINTIFF suffered from a disability and/or medical condition related to his lungs
`42.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 17
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 10 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`and immune system and was subject to disparate treatment because of his disability and/or medical
`condition. Upon PLAINTIFF notifying DEFENDANTS of his medical condition and/or disability,
`DEFENDANTS regarded PLAINTIFF, and perceived PLAINTIFF as being disabled or potentially
`disabled.
`PLAINTIFF was discriminated against by DEFENDANTS based on PLAINTIFF’S
`43.
`medical condition, disability, and work restrictions. Upon notice to DEFENDANTS of
`PLAINTIFF’S work restrictions, DEFENDANTS regarded and perceived PLAINTIFF as having a
`disability.
`At all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF was willing and able to perform the
`44.
`duties and functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’S disability
`and/or medical condition. At no time would the performance of the functions of the employment
`position, with a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’S disability/medical condition, have
`been a danger to PLAINTIFF or any other person’s health and/or safety, nor would it have created
`an undue hardship to the operation of DEFENDANTS’ business.
`PLAINTIFF’s medical condition and disability were substantial motivating reason
`45.
`for DEFENDANTS’ decision to discriminate, retaliate and terminate PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS
`engaged in a pattern and practice of disability discrimination. DEFENDANTS managers and
`supervisors, trusted to employ fair and legal practices, denied PLAINTIFF his legal rights, and
`treated him differently because of his disability. By engaging in the above referenced acts and
`omissions, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, discriminated against PLAINTIFF because of his
`disability/medical condition in violation of Gov.C. §§ 12940, et seq.
`DEFENDANTS wrongfully terminated PLAINTIFF because of his known
`46.
`disabilities/medical conditions, which could have been accommodated. PLAINTIFF received
`adverse employment actions because of his disability or perceived disability by being issued
`disciplinary action, being denied an interactive process, denied accommodations, and ultimately
`being unlawfully terminated. Damages available to an employee – with significant wrongdoing by
`the employer – for discrimination based on a disability, includes economic damages, general
`damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and expert witness fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 18
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 11 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’s medical condition, disability, and work restriction were motivating
`47.
`reasons for DEFENDANTS’ decision to terminate, retaliate, harass, and discriminate against
`PLAINTIFF and was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’S harm.
`As a result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFF was harmed both
`48.
`economically and emotionally. Specifically, DEFENDANTS’ discrimination, harassment, and
`retaliation has caused PLAINTIFF to sustain and continue to sustain losses in earnings and other
`employment benefits. Further, as a result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFF has
`suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress, exacerbated mental and physical pain,
`anguish, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, severe anxiety, depression, and shame.
`As a result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFF suffered and
`49.
`continues to suffer economic loss or disadvantage both as earnings and benefits, and emotional
`distress, including but not limited to, depression, decline in health, anxiety, embarrassment,
`humiliation, loss of self-esteem, and mental anguish. PLAINTIFF is entitled to and will seek
`exemplary, general and compensatory damages and attorney’s fees and costs as to all
`DEFENDANTS in amounts to be proven at trial in addition to interest thereon and any and all other
`remedies and damages available under the applicable laws.
`In light of the willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination related to
`50.
`PLAINTIFF’S disability, PLAINTIFF seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
`amount according to proof at trial.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA
`(As to JBS and DOES 1 through 20)
`PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference, repeats and realleges, all preceding and
`51.
`subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, the FEHA (Cal. Govt. Code § 12900 et seq)
`52.
`and its implementing regulations were in full force and effect and binding on the defendants. These
`statutes required DEFENDANTS to provide reasonable accommodations that will allow an
`employee suffering from physical disability to perform the essential functions of his/her job.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 19
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 12 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`California Government Code § 12940(m) makes it an unlawful employment practice from an
`employer to fail to make reasonable accommodations for a known physical disability of an
`employee. Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2d Dist. 2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 373.
`In violation of FEHA, DEFENDANTS failed
`to make any reasonable
`53.
`accommodation(s) for PLAINTIFF’s disability, despite PLAINTIFF’s efforts
`to obtain
`accommodations to allow him to return to work. PLAINTIFF attempted to reach an agreeable
`resolution to concurrently satisfy his need to eliminate health hazards specific to PLAINTIFF’S
`condition and fulfill his employment requirements, however, DEFENDANTS met these attempts
`with inaction and retaliation.
`In perpetrating the above-described conduct, DEFENDANTS engaged in a pattern,
`54.
`practice, policy and custom of unlawfully failing to accommodate the disability of an employee.
`PLAINTIFF alleges that DEFENDANTS after having been made aware of PLAINTIFF’s disability,
`failed to protect him from the unlawful behavior. The conduct on the part of DEFENDANTS denied
`PLAINTIFF protection of the employment rights contained in the statutes enumerated above.
`At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS had actual and constructive knowledge of the
`55.
`failure to accommodate described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and participated in the
`unlawful activity.
`The failure of DEFENDANTS and each of them, to engage in the interactive process
`56.
`concerning disability accommodation or to provide any adequate education, training, and
`information to personnel concerning policies and practices regarding disability accommodation or
`discrimination, constituted deliberate indifference to the rights of employees, including
`PLAINTIFF.
`DEFENDANTS acts were malicious, oppressive or fraudulent with intent to vex,
`57.
`injure, annoy, humiliate and embarrass PLAINTIFF, and in conscious disregard of the rights or
`safety of PLAINTIFF and other employees of DEFENDANTS and in furtherance of
`DEFENDANTS ratification of their wrongful conduct.
`As a result of DEFENDANTS’ failure to reasonably accommodate PLAINTIFF’S
`58.
`disability, PLAINTIFF has sustained and continues to suffer lost wages and benefits, emotional
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit A - Page 20
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE 909 677 2270 ♦ FAX 909 677 2290
`
`ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764
`800 FERRARI LANE, SUITE 100
`
`VALIANT LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01246-RGK-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 13 of 55 Page ID #: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
`
`
`distress, mental and physical pain, anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite,
`anxiety, depression and shame.
`DEFENDANTS failure to reasonably accommodate PLAINTIFF’s disability were
`59.
`substantial factors in causing PLAINTIFF’S harm.
`In light of the willful, knowing, and intentional failure to reasonably accommodate
`60.
`PLAINTIFF’S disability, PLAINTIFF seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
`amount according to proof at trial.
`PLAINTIFF has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees.
`61.
`PLAINTIFF will seek the recovery of his attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of this lawsuit.
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
`(As to JBS and DOES 1 through 20)
`PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference, repeats, and re-alleges, all preceding and
`62.
`subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’S employer at all times relevant herein; and
`63.
`PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS at all times relevant herein.
`Pursuant to Gov. Code § 12940(n), DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were required
`64.
`to engage in a good faith interactive process with PLAINTIFF to determine the extent of
`accommodations needed based upon his notice of disability and his requests for accommodations
`pursuant to his doctor ordered medical leave and/or medical limitations.
`In violation of FEHA, California Government Code § 12940(n), DEFENDANTS
`65.
`failed to engage in the interactive process concerning a reasonable accommodation for
`PLAINTIFF’S disability. “The obligation [to engage in the inter