Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:9
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:9
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`'
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 2 of 37 Page ID #:10
`Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/08/2021 01:38:40 PM.
`30=2U21-01204683-CU-WT-CJC - ROA # 4- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jessica Duarte, Deputy
`I
`S!J M M® N S
`(C'TA ClON JUDICI AL)
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive,
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTi4 DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`Madelaine Esquibel, an individual,
`
`NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard un[ess you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`be[ow.
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response: You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
`the court c[erk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your resporise on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
`may be taken without further warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligib[e for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`(www.couftinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any sett[ement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`)AV!SO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea /a informaci6n a
`continuacion.
`Tiene 30 D/AS DE CALENDAR/O despues de que /e entreguen esta citacion y papeles /ega/es para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una Ilamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posib/e que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacidn en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presenfaci6n, pida al secretario de la corte
`que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
`podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`Hay otros requisitos /ega/es. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilamar a un servicio de
`remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posib/e que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
`programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin ffnes de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Sefvices,
`(www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de /as Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o e/
`colegio de abogados loca/es. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquierrecuperacidn de $10,000 o mas de valorrecibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
`pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar e/ caso.
`CASE NUMBER:
`The name and address of the court is:
`(EI nombre y direccidn de la corte es): Superior Court of California, County of Orange (N(jme'° dei cas°): g0-2021-U 1204683-eU-WT-CIe
`Central Justice Center
`700 Civic Center Drive W., Santa Ana, CA 92701
`The name, address, and telephone number of plaintifPs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
`(EI nombre, la direcci6n y el n(imero de te/efono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`KING & SIEGEL LLP, 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA 90014; 213-465-4802
`06/~D8/2~021
`
`) u d g e D e re k W. H u nt
`
`
`
`J essica Duarte
`
`, De ut
`P Y
`(Adjunto)
`
`Clerk, by
`DATE:
`DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court
`(Fecha)
`(Secretario)
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
`d
`0 ICE TO THE PERSON SERVED Y
`ou are serve
`N T
`as an individual defendant.
`1.
`as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
`2. 0
`
`~I~
`
`on behalf of (specify): Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation
`
`3.0
`0
`under: EK] CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`0
`CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`0
`CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) 0
`~
`other (specify):
`0
`by personal delivery on (date):
`
`4. 0
`
`CCP 416.60 (minor)
`CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judicial Council of California
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`SU MMONS
`
`Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`www.courtinfo.ca.gov
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`30-2021-01
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 3 of 37 Page ID #:11
`Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/08/2021 01:38:40 PM.
`-CJC - ROA # 2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jessica Duarte, Deputy Clerk.
`
`J
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617)
`julian@kingsiegel.com
`John L. Schwab (Bar No. 307599)'
`john@kingsiegel.com
`KING & SIEGEL LLP
`724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201
`Los Angeles, California 90014
`tel.•
`(213) 465-4802
`fax: (213) 465-4803
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Madelaine Esquibel
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
`~
`CASE NO. 30-202 i-0 i2o4683-cu-VT-cac
`A53igne d lor AIl Purp'ases
`a ud g e De re k W. H u nt
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`Madelaine Esquibel, an individual,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`~
`Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation; and
`Does 1-10, inclusive,
`
`Defendant.
`
`;
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`4)
`
`5)
`
`6)
`
`Pregnancy Discrimination in
`Violation of FEHA;
`Interference in Violation of the
`PDLL;
`3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
`and the PDLL;
`Failure to Accommodate in
`Violation of FEHA and the PDLL
`Failure to Engage in the Interactive
`Process in Violation of FEHA and
`the PDLL;
`Failure to Prevent Discrimination
`and Retaliation in Violation of
`FEHA;
`7) Associational Disability
`Discrimination in Violation of
`FEHA;
`8) Wrongful Termination in Violation
`of Public Policy
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 4 of 37 Page ID #:12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`€
`
`MA
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiff Madelaine Esquibel, by and through her attorneys, complains and alleges as
`I follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Madelaine Esquibel ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Esquibel"), a single mother
`1.
`of a disabled child, worked for Defendant Walgreen Co. ("Walgreens" or the "Company")
`in Santa Ana from June 2018 and January 2021. She was a loyal, hardworking employee who
`received nothing but positive feedback about her work performance from her supervisors and
`managers.
`In November 2020, Ms. Esquibel learned that she was pregnant with a second
`2.
`child. Doctors classified her pregnancy as high-risk due to a previous preterm birth. When
`she informed Walgreens of her pregnancy, no one from the company notified her of her right
`to accommodations. She was forced to desperately scour the Walgreen's website for infor-
`mation.
`In early December 2020, she asked her store manager, Shane Chang, for a
`3.
`modified schedule starting in January 2021 so that she could receive weekly injections for her
`pregnancy and take her disabled daughter to speech therapy appointments. Mr. Chang sum-
`marily denied her request, stating that she should instead consider working "part-time" or
`take "leave." When she asked her assistant manager to be accommodated so that she did not
`have to engage in heavy lifting, he told her she was just "being lazy" and "taking advantage"
`of her pregnancy.
`Ms. Esquibel continued to work her regular shifts without accommodations,
`4.
`even after she contracted a urinary tract infection (UTI) because she was denied breaks to use
`the bathroom. Ms. Esquibel turned in yet another doctor's note to prevent this from happen-
`ing again. Her doctor requested on he'r behalf a modified schedule, including extra time to use
`the bathroom.
`5. Within a week a turning in the doctor's note, on January 9, 2021, the Company
`terminated her employment for alleged "misconduct." When she asked for details of the al-
`leged misconduct, the Company claimed it could not provide any. A manager vaguely alluded
`1
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`I
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #:13
`
`1 I to a policy regarding the "merchandise bay," which employees were allowed to use to set aside
`
`2
`
`3
`
`items that they intended to buy.
`
`;
`In reality, Ms. Esquibel's manager was frustrated with her pregnancy and requests
`
`6.
`
`4 for accommodation, and seized a flimsy opportunity to pretextually justify her termination. This law-
`
`5 I suit seeks redress for Walgreens' blatant violations of California law.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`7.
`
`PlaintiffMadelaine Esquibel ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Esquibel") was a hardwork-
`
`PARTIES
`
`8 I ing and dedicated hourly employee of Walgreens from June 2018 until her wrongful termina-
`
`9
`
`tion in January 2021. At all times relevant to this Complaint, she was a resident of Orange
`
`10 County.
`
`11
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Walgreen Co. ("Walgreen") is an Illinois corporation registered to
`
`12 I do business in the State of California. Walgreen operates the second-largest pharmacy store
`
`13 chain in the United States and, according to its website, is a"global leader in retail and whole-
`
`14 sale pharmacy . . . ."
`
`15
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff does not currently know the names and true identities of Defendant
`
`16 I Does 1 through 10. Ms. Esquibel reserves the right to amend this Complaint to allege their
`
`17
`
`true names and capacities when this information is available. Each Doe defendant is respon-
`
`18 sible for the damages alleged pursuant to each of the causes of action asserted, either through
`
`19 its own conduct, or vicariously through the conduct of others. All further references in this
`
`20 complaint to any of the named Defendant includes the fictitiously-named Defendant.
`
`21
`
`10. At all times alleged in the complaint, each Defendant was an agent, servant,
`
`22 I joint employer, employee, partner, and/or joint venture of every other Defendant and was
`
`23 acting within the scope of the Defendant' relationship. Moreover, the conduct of every De-
`
`24 fendant was ratified by each other Defendant.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`VENUE AND TURISDICTION
`
`11.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action in this complaint pursuant
`
`27 I to Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution. No federal question is at issue; Ms.
`
`28 Esquibel relies solely on California statutes and law.
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 6 of 37 Page ID #:14
`
`1
`
`12. Venue as to Defendant is proper in this Superior Court pursuant to California
`
`2
`
`I Code of Civil Procedure § 395 and Government Code § 12965(b). Ms'. Esquibel lived and
`
`3
`
`Iworked in Orange County at all times relevant to this Complaint. The unlawful acts alleged
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`:
`
`I herein directly affected her in Orange County. This Court therefore maintains appropriate
`I jurisdiction over this dispute.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Ms Esquibel Excels At Walgreens
`
`13.
`
`In June 2018, Ms. Esquibel was hired to work as an hourly employee at the
`
`9
`
`I Walgreens store located at 1301 E.17th Street in Santa Ana, California 92705. Her job duties
`
`10
`
`11
`
`included, but were not limited to, providing exemplary customer service, assisting her super-
`~
`visors and managers with day-to-day store needs, and various other tasks. She was originally
`
`12
`
`paid $15.20 per hour. As a testament to her excellent work performance, her compensation
`
`13
`
`was increased to $17 per hour in November 2020.
`
`14
`
`14. Ms. Esquibel received regular performance reviews from her managers
`
`15
`
`throughout her employment. Her performance was always rated above average, and she re-
`
`16
`
`ceived nothing but positive feedback from her supervisors. Indeed, she was nominated for an
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`award from her District Manager for being an "outstanding" employee.
`Ms Esquibel's High Risk Pregnancy And Requests For Reasonable Accommodations
`In November 2020, Ms. Esquibel learned that she was pregnant with her second
`
`15.
`
`I child. While she was overjoyed with the news, she was deeply concerned about the health of
`20
`
`21
`
`her baby. Her first child had been born preterm resulting in a developmental disability, and
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`her doctors informed her that her pregnancy was high-risk because of this medical history.
`1
`In or about December 2020, Ms. Esquibel informed her assistant manager Andy
`~
`j
`Cortez about her pregnancy. Neither Mr. Cortez nor anyone from Walgreens provided her
`
`16.
`
`25
`
`information about her rights, which is required under California law. i Indeed, during one shift
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`' See Cal. Code Regs, tit: 2§ 11049 (a) ("An employer shall give its employees reason-
`able advance notice of employees' FEHA rights and obligations regarding pregnancy, child-
`birth, or related medical conditions as set forth at section 11049(e) and as contained in the
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 7 of 37 Page ID #:15
`
`2
`
`3
`
`11 where Ms. Esquibel asked for an accommodation limiting the amount of weight she would
`1
`II have to lift, Mr. Cortez commented that she was "taking advantage" because she was preg-
`I I nant, and was just "being lazy."
`17.
`These discriminatory comments were completely uncalled for, particularly in
`
`4
`
`5
`
`I I light of Ms. Esquibel's demonstrated track record of positive work performance. Mr. Cortez's
`
`11 attitude towards pregnant women and/or disabled employees, however, came from the top of
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`her store. When Ms. Esquibel pleaded with store manager Shane Chang to provide her infor-
`h
`mation pertaining to her rights as a pregnant employee, he abdicated any responsibility, telling
`her that he was "unsure" about her rights, and that she should "reach out to HR."
`
`10
`
`18. Ms. Esquibel was forced to spend an inordinate amount scouring Walgreens's
`
`11
`
`website to locate information pertaining to her rights—information that should have been al-
`
`12
`
`ready provided to her. She eventually found a section of Walgreen's website stating that qual-
`
`13
`
`ifying employees could request flexible work schedules from their managers. She did not lo-
`
`14
`
`cate information about her rights under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19.
`
`Shortly thereafter, Ms. Esquibel requested a modified work schedule from Mr.
`
`I Chang beginning in January 2021. She explained that her doctors ordered her to receive
`I weekly injections to avoid another pre-term birth. She also explained that she needed the mod-
`ified schedule—i.e., one day off a week—because her disabled daughter was beginning speech
`
`19
`
`I therapy and she needed to take her to these weekly appointments.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`20.
`
`- Mr. Chang; without ;a shred of compassion; summarily denied the request,
`I claiming that he could not "accept" it. He claimed that she needed make the request through
`
`Sedgwick, a third-party leave claims administrator. This was false; Mr. Chang—a store man-
`ager—had the discretion to adjust employee work schedules. Demonstrating his bias and frus-
`tration with her request for an accommodation, he told her that she should consider "going
`part-time," or "taking leave," as if she had the luxury of foregoing income for herself and her
`family simply because she was having a child. (Ms. Esquibel was not requesting leave at this
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`I Notice as set forth at section 11051(a), or its equivalent.")
`281
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 8 of 37 Page ID #:16
`
`1
`
`I time.)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`21.
`
`In December 2020, Ms. Esquibel called Sedgwick to submit a request for a mod-
`
`ified schedule per Mr. Chang's demand. After days of receiving no response, she again con-
`I
`tacted Sedgwick, who claimed that there was "no record" of any request for accommodation.
`She was forced to request an accommodation a second time with the Sedgwick agent on the
`
`Iphone.
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Walgreens Terminates Ms. Esquibel Days Af ~eY She Submits A Doctor's Note
`
`22.
`
`Sedgwick's delay in processing Ms. Esquibel's request did not obviate her need
`
`9
`
`I for accommodations. Indeed, in early.January 2021, she suffered a urinary tract infection as a
`
`10
`
`result of her inability to take adequate bathroom breaks during her shifts. Concerned for her
`
`11
`
`health and the wellbeing of her child, her doctors provided her a note ordering Walgreens to
`
`12
`
`provide her longer, more frequent bathroom breaks. Within days of providing this note to the
`
`13
`
`Company, she was terminated.
`
`14
`
`23.
`
`On the date of her termination, January 9, 2021, Ms. Esquibel arrived at 7:30
`
`15
`
`16
`
`I a.m., as scheduled, to open,the store. A few hours later, around 10:00 a.m., Mr. Chang called
`,
`her into the office where an HR employee was waiting. After pretending to care how Ms.
`Esquibel was doing, they told her that she was being terminated for "misconduct."
`24. Ms. Esquibel was stunned. She had never had any issues with her performance
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`I in her almost three years with the Company, let alone any allegations of misconduct.
`
`20
`
`25. Ms. Esquibel asked for details about the alleged misconduct, Mr. Chang and
`I the HR employee refused to respond and claimed they "couldn't say anything." However,
`21
`
`22
`
`Ms. Esquibel did not need any pretextual excuses to know what happening. Shortly before
`I
`her termination, Mr. Cortez had texted her about her about merchandise she set aside in the
`23.
`
`24
`
`stockroom, which she intended to buy. A single mother juggling a job, existing childcare
`
`25
`
`needs, and a stressful pregnancy, she simply forgot to purchase the items; she purchased them
`
`26
`
`when she went to the store for her next shift.
`
`27
`
`26.
`
`In reality, he~ termination had nothing to do with the "merchandise bay." Mr.
`
`I Chang was annoyed with Ms. Esquibel's pregnancy and requests for accommodations and
`28
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 9 of 37 Page ID #:17
`
`I terminated her as a result. Indeed, tlie store's policies regarding the duration of time items
`1
`could be left on the merchandise bay were routinely ignored by nearly everyone at Ms. Esqui-
`bel's location, and she was not aware of anyone else being disciplined at all—much less ter-
`minated—because they left an item on the merchandise bay for an extra day or two. Her ter-
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`I mination was because of her pregnancy, requests for accommodations, and her association
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I with her disabled daughter.
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`27. Ms. Esquibel has exhausted all administrative remedies required as a prerequi-
`
`site to bringing this action. On June 1, 2021, Ms. Esquibel filed a complaint of discrimination
`
`10
`
`against Walgreens with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`obtained a right-to-sue letter, attached as Exhibit 1, authorizing her to enforce her rights
`~
`
`through a civil action.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA
`Gov.' Code §§ 12940, et seq.
`(Plaintiff Against Defendant)
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the
`
`19
`
`preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`20
`
`29: The California- Fair Employment-and Housing Act provides that it is unlawful
`
`I for "an employer, because of the ... sex ... of any person, to ... discharge the person from
`21
`I employment, ... or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, condi-
`22
`tions, or privileges of employment." Gov. Code §§ 12940(a). "Sex" is defined to include
`23
`I
`pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and related medical conditions. Gov. Code
`,
`
`24
`
`25
`
`§ 12926(r)(1).
`
`26
`
`30. Ms. Esquibel was a pregnant woman who was protected from discrimination
`
`27
`
`based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.
`
`28
`
`31. Walgreens discriminated against Ms. Esquibel because of her sex and her
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 10 of 37 Page ID #:18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`pregnancy in violation of Government Code § 12940(a) by refusing to provide reasonable ac-
`
`commodations, by slashing her job duties, and, ultimately, terminating her.
`32. Ms. Esquibel's sex, pregnancy, and requests for accommodations were the sole
`or motivating factors in Walgreen's decision to take these adverse employment actions.
`
`33.
`
`As a direct and proximate result Defendant's conduct, Ms. Esquibel has suf-
`
`fered special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/or out-of-pocket expenses in
`
`an amount subject to proof at trial. As further direct and proximate result of Defendant's
`
`conduct, Ms. Esquibel continues to suffer damages in the form of lost future earnings, bene-
`
`fits, and/or other prospective damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`10
`
`34. Defendant's conduct has further caused Ms. Esquibel to lose financial stability,
`
`11
`
`peace of mind, and future security. Defendant's conduct has caused her severe embarrass-
`
`12
`
`ment, humiliation, and mental and elnotional distress and discomfort in an amount not fully
`
`13
`
`14
`
`ascertained but subject to proof at trial.
`i
`Because of!the conduct alleged herein, Ms. Esquibel hired attorneys to prose-
`
`35.
`
`15
`
`cute her claims under FEHA. Accordingly, Ms. Esquibel is entitled to recover attorneys' fees
`
`16
`
`and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), in addition to other damages as provided
`
`17
`
`by law.
`
`18
`
`191
`
`36. Moreover, Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, mali-
`
`cious, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard for Ms. Esquibel's rights, entitling her to
`~
`
`punitive damages.
`201
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Interference in Violation of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law
`Gov. Code §§ 12940, etseq.
`(Plain tiff Against Defendant)
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the
`
`preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`261
`
`27
`
`38.
`
`At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was an applicant for employ-
`
`ment or an employee of Defendant and was covered by FEHA and the PDLL.
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 11 of 37 Page ID #:19
`
`The PDLL prohibits employers from, among other things: (1) refusing to allow
`39.
`1
`2 I an employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave
`3 I for a reasonable period of time not to exceed fourth months, including intermittent leave re-
`
`4
`
`lated to pregnancy related inedical conditions; (2) refusing to provide reasonable accommo-
`
`5 I dations for conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition; and (3)
`6 I refusing to temporarily transfer a pregnancy employee to a less strenuous or hazardous posi-
`7 I tion. See Gov. Code § 12945. The PDLL also creates obligations for employers to provide
`
`8 reasonable accommodations for "conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related
`
`9 condition." Gov. Code § 12945(a)(3)(A); Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 2, § 11039(a)(2)(C).
`
`10
`
`40. The PDLL's implementing regulations require employers to distribute notice
`
`11 I to employees of their rights under the PDLL in three separate ways. First, the employer must
`
`12 post notice on premises in conspicuous locations where employees work. Cal. Code Regs.,
`
`13 tit. 2, § 11049(d)(1). Second, the employer must also include a description of PDLL rights in
`
`14 any employee handbooks that discuss personnel's right to reasonable accommodations, trans-
`
`15 fers, or other types of temporary disability leaves. Id. § 11049(d)(3). Third, the employer must
`
`16 provide an employee with ~a copy of the appropriate notice "as soon as practicable after the
`
`17 employee tells the employer of her pregnancy or sooner if the employee inquires about reasonable ac-
`
`18 commodation, transfer, or pregnancy disability leaves. " Id. § 11049(d) (2).
`
`41. Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's rights by, failing to notify her of her rights
`19
`20 I under the PDLL in their benefits package discussing other types of temporary disability leave;
`21 when she disclosed her pregnancy; and on the premises where she worked.
`
`22
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes that in addition to the practices enumerated
`
`23 I above, Defendant may have engaged in other violations of the PDLL which are not yet fully
`
`24 known.
`
`25
`
`43.
`
`As a direct and proximate result Defendant's conduct, Ms. Esquibel has suf-
`
`26 I fered special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/or out-of-pocket expenses in
`
`27 an amount subject to proof at trial. As further direct and proximate result of Defendant's
`
`28 conduct, Ms. Esquibel continues to suffer damages in the form of lost future earnings,
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 12 of 37 Page ID #:20
`
`2
`
`1 benefits, and/or other prospective damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`44. Defendant's conduct has further caused Ms. Esquibel to lose financial stability,
`3 peace of mind, and future security. Defendant's conduct has caused her severe embarrass-
`4 ment, humiliation, and mental.and emotional distress and discomfort in an amount not fully
`
`5 ascertained but subject to proof at trial.
`
`6
`
`45. Because of the conduct alleged herein, Ms. Esquibel hired attorneys to prose-
`
`7 cute her claims under FEHA. Accordingly, Ms. Esquibel is entitled to recover attorneys' fees
`
`8 and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), in addition to other damages as provided
`
`9 by law.
`46. Moreover, Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, mali-
`
`10
`
`11 cious, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard for Ms. Esquibel's rights, entitling her to
`
`12 punitive damages.
`
`'
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Retaliation in Violation of FEHA and the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law
`
`Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.
`
`(Plaintiff Against Defendant)
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the
`
`18 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`19
`
`48. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was an applicant for employ-
`
`20 ment or an employee of Defendant and was covered by FEHA and the PDLL.
`
`21
`
`49. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity in viola-
`
`22 tion of FEHA and the PDLL. Specifically, Defendant denied Plaintiff transfer and terminated
`
`23 Plaintiff because she exercised her right to pregnancy-related disability leave and accommo-
`
`24 dations pursuant to FEHA'and the PDLL.
`
`25
`
`50. Walgreens retaliated against Ms. Esquibel for engaging in protected activity in
`26 violation of the FEHA and PDLL. Specifically, Defendant denied Plaintiff's reasonable re-
`
`27 quest for a modified schedule and PDL due to her pregnancy.
`
`28
`
`51. Ms. Esquibel's
`
`requests
`
`for pregnancy-related disability
`
`leave and
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 13 of 37 Page ID #:21
`
`1 I accommodations were the sole or motivating factors in Defendant's decision to take these
`2 adverse employment actions against her.
`
`3
`
`52. As a direct and proximate result Defendant's conduct, Ms. Esquibel has suf-
`
`4 fered special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/or out-of-pocket expenses in
`
`5 an amount subject to proof at trial. As further direct and proximate result of Defendant's
`6 I conduct, Ms. Esquibel continues to suffer damages in the form of lost future earnings, bene-
`7 fits, and/or other prospective damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`8
`
`53. Defendant's conduct has further caused Ms. Esquibel to lose financial stability,
`
`9 peace of mind, and future security: Defendant's conduct has caused her severe embarrass-
`
`10 ment, humiliation, and mental and emotional distress and discomfort in an amount not fully
`
`11 ascertained but subject to proof at trial.
`
`54. Because of the conduct alleged herein, Ms. Esquibel hired attorneys to prose-
`
`12
`13 I cute her claims under FEHA. Accordingly, Ms. Esquibel is entitled to recover attorneys' fees
`14 and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), in addition to other damages as provided
`
`15 by law.
`
`16
`
`55. Moreover, Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, mali-
`
`17 I cious, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard for Ms. Esquibel' rights, entitling her to
`
`18 punitive damages.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Failure to Provide Iteasonable Accornmodation in
`
`Violation of FEHA and the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law
`
`Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.
`
`(PlaintiffAgainst Defendant)
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the
`
`25 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was an applicant for employ-
`26
`57.
`27 I ment or an employee of Defendant and was covered by FEHA and the PDLL.
`The PDLL prohibits employers from, among other things: (1) refusing to allow
`28
`58.
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL
`
`Exhibit 1 - Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01185 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/21 Page 14 of 37 Page ID #:22
`
`1 I an employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave
`2 I for a reasonable period of time not to exceed fourth months, including intermittent leave re-
`lated to pregnancy related medical conditions; (2) refusing to provide reasonable accommo-
`3
`I
`4 I dations for conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition; and (3)
`5 I refusing to temporarily transfer a pregnancy employee to a less strenuous or hazardous posi-
`6 I tion. See Gov. Code § 12945. The PDLL also creates obligations for employers to provide
`7 I reasonable accommodations for "conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related
`8 condition." Gov. Code § 12945(a)(3)(A); Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 2, § 11039(a)(2)(C).
`
`59. Government Code § 12945 provides that it