Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 27
`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`Merced Superior Court
`4/29/2022 12:25 PM
`Amanda Toste
`Clerk of the Superior Court
`By: Nengsy Moua, Deputy
`
`Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461
`CShegerian@She erianlaw.com
`Anthony Nguyen, Esq., State Bar No. 259154
`ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
`Mahru Mad'idi, Esq. State Bar No. 297906
`MMadjidi Shegerianlaw.com
`Sierra Dup antis, Esq., State Bar No. 340169
`SDuplantis Shegerianlaw.com
`SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES INC.
`1 1520 San Vicente Boulevard,
`Los Angeles, California 90049
`Telephone Number: (310) 860 0770
`Facsimile Number: (310) 860 0771
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`RICARDO PEREZ
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF MERCED
`
`RICARDO PEREZ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`FOSTER POULTRY FARMS,
`FOSTER FARMS, LLC, TOM DOE,
`ALYSSA MELO, BALHAR KAUR,
`and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.:
`
`22CV-01150
`
`PLAINTIFF RICARDO PEREZ'S
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
`
`(1) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
`OF THE FEHA;
`
`(2) HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
`HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF
`THE FEHA;
`
`(3) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
`THE FEHA;
`
`(4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE
`REASONABLE
`ACCOMMODATION IN
`VIOLATION OF THE FEHA;
`
`(5) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE
`INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN
`VIOLATION OF FEHA;
`
`(6) FAILURE TO PREVENT
`DISCRIMINATION,
`HARASSMENT, OR
`RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
`FEHA;
`
`(71 NEGLIGENT HIRING.
`
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION;
`
`(8) WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF
`EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION
`OF PUBLIC POLICY;
`
`(9) WHISTLEBLOWER
`RETALIATION (LABOR CODE
`§ 1102.5);
`
`(10) WAITING TIME PENALTIES
`(LABOR CODE § 203);
`
`(11) FAILURE TO PROVIDE
`ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS
`(LABOR CODE § 226);
`
`(12) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
`EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`-2-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY
`
`PARTIES
`
`VENUE
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Discrimination on the Bases of Disability, Race, National Origin, Color,
`Ethnicity, and Ancestry (Violation of Government Code § 12-900, et seq.)
`Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Hostile Work Environment Harassment on the Bases of Disability, Race,
`National Origin, Color, Ethnicity, and Ancestry (Violation of Government
`Code § 12900, et seq.) Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity (Violation of Government
`Code § 12900, et seq.) Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100,
`Inclusive
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (Violation of Government
`Code § 12940(a), (i), (m), (n)) Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100,
`Inclusive
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Failure to Engage in Interactive Process (Violation of Government Code
`§ 12940(a), (i), (m), (n)) Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100,
`Inclusive
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation (Violation of
`Government Code § 12900, et seq.) Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to
`100, Inclusive
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50
`Ca1.App.4th 1038) Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`9
`
`9
`
`10
`
`10
`
`11
`
`11
`
`13
`
`13
`
`14
`
`14
`
`15
`
`15
`
`16
`
`16
`
`17
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`• 23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny
`v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Ca1.3d 167) Against Entity Defendants;
`and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Whistleblower Retaliation (Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq.)
`Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Waiting Time Penalties (Violation of Labor Code § 203) Against Entity
`Defendants;and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (Violation of Labor Code
`§ 226, et seq.) Against All Defendants; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Ca1.4th
`1035) Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`PRAYER
`
`17
`
`18
`
`18
`
`19
`
`19
`
`20
`
`20
`
`21
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`Plaintiff, Ricardo Perez, alleges, on the basis of personal knowledge and/or
`
`information and belief:
`
`SUMMARY
`
`This is an action by plaintiff, Ricardo Perez ("Plaintiff' or "Perez"), whose
`
`employment with defendants Foster Poultry Farms, and Foster Farms, LLC (hereinafter
`
`collectively "Entity Defendants" or "Foster Farms") was wrongfully terminated. Plaintiff
`
`brings this action against defendants for economic, non-economic, compensatory, and
`
`punitive damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, pre-judgment interest pursuant to
`
`Code of Civil Procedure section 3291, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant
`
`to Government Code section 12965(b), Labor Code section 1102.5(j), and Code of Civil
`
`Procedure section 1021.5.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff. Plaintiff Perez is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a
`
`resident of the County of Merced, California.
`
`2. Defendants: Entity Defendants are, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint
`
`were, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government
`
`and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Merced. Entity Defendants'
`
`place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the
`
`County of Merced, at 1000 Davis Street, Livingston, California, 95334. Defendant Tom
`
`Doe ("defendant" or "Tom") is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a
`
`supervisor with defendants. Defendant Tom is, and at all times mentioned in this
`
`Complaint was, a resident of Merced County, California. Defendant Alyssa Melo
`
`("defendant" or "Melo") is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a supervisor
`
`with defendants. Defendant Melo is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a
`
`resident of Merced County, California. Defendant Balhar Kaur ("defendant" or "Kaur")
`
`is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a supervisor with defendants.
`
`-1-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`Defendant Kaur is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Merced
`
`County, California.
`
`3. Doe defendants: Defendants Does 1 to 100, inclusive, are sued under fictitious
`
`names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
`
`and on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is in some
`
`manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below, in so acting was functioning
`
`as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the co-defendants, and in taking the actions
`
`mentioned below was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such
`
`agent, servant, partner, and employee, with the permission and consent of the co-defendants.
`
`The named defendants and Doe defendants are sometimes hereafter referred to, collectively
`
`and/or individually, as "defendants."
`
`4. Relationship of defendants: All defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or
`
`abetted the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which
`
`conduct is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). All defendants
`
`were responsible for the events and damages alleged herein, including on the following
`
`bases: (a) defendants committed the acts alleged; (b) at all relevant times, one or more of
`
`the defendants was the agent or employee, and/or acted under the control or supervision,
`
`of one or more of the remaining defendants and, in committing the acts alleged, acted
`
`within the course and scope of such agency and employment and/or is or are otherwise
`
`liable for plaintiff's damages; (c) at all relevant times, there existed a unity of ownership
`
`and interest between or among two or more of the defendants such that any individuality
`
`and separateness between or among those defendants has ceased, and defendants are the
`
`alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control over one another
`
`to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of defendants does not, and at all
`
`times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence
`
`of defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud and
`
`promote injustice. All actions of all defendants were taken by employees, supervisors,
`
`executives, officers, and directors during employment with all defendants, were taken on
`
`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
`
`-2-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`behalf of all defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, ratified, and approved of by all
`
`other defendants.
`
`5. Entity Defendants both directly and indirectly employed plaintiff Perez, as
`
`defined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") at Government Code section
`
`12926(d).
`
`6. In addition, Entity Defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and abetted the
`
`discrimination, which is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i).
`
`7. Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of
`
`all other defendants in committing the acts alleged herein.
`
`VENUE
`
`8. The actions at issue in this case occurred in the State of California, in the County
`
`of Merced. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, this case can
`
`alternatively, at Plaintiff's choice, be filed:
`
`[Ijn a county in which the department has an office, in a county in
`which unlawful practices are alleged to have been committed, in the
`county in which records relevant to the alleged unlawful practices are
`maintained and administered, m the county in which the person
`claiming to be aggrieved would have worked or would have had
`access to public accommodation, but for the alleged unlawful
`
`ipractices, n the county of the defendant's residence or principal
`office. . . (Italics and bolding added)
`
`(California Government Code § 12965(b).)
`
`9. Here, the plaintiff worked primarily in California in the County of Merced. The
`
`location where plaintiff worked was located in Livingston, California. The majority of the
`
`unlawful actions on the part of the defendants occurred at said Livingston location.
`
`10. "[I]n the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is
`
`that the county in which the title of the actions shows that the case is brought is, prima
`
`facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action." (Mission Imports,
`
`Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Ca1.3d 921, 928.) The FEHA venue statute — section
`
`12965(b) — thus affords a wide choice of venue to persons who bring actions under FEHA.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-3-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`(Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Ca1.3d 477, 486.) "[The special provisions of the
`
`FEHA venue statute control in cases involving FEHA claims joined with non-FEHA
`
`claims arising from the same facts." (Id. at 487.)
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`1 1. Plaintiff's hiring: Ricardo Perez ("Perez"), a 30-year-old Hispanic male, began
`
`working for Entity Defendants in or around May 2018 and was hired on a permanent basis
`
`in May 2019 as a Stacker. As a Stacker, Perez operated a pallet jack to load and unload
`
`products and placed them in the shipping area.
`
`12. Plaintiff's job performance: Perez was a leader throughout his employment and
`
`oftentimes the newer stackers looked to him for guidance. He performed his job duties in
`
`an exemplary manner.
`
`13. Plaintiff's protected status and activity:
`
`a. Perez is a Hispanic man;
`
`b. During his employment with Defendants, Perez suffered from a disability;
`
`and
`
`c. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff made protected
`
`complaints of illegal activity and otherwise opposed illegal conduct.
`
`14. Defendants' adverse employment actions and behavior:
`
`a. Shortly after beginning his employment with Entity Defendants, Perez
`
`noticed that almost all managerial and supervisor positions were held by employees of
`
`Indian ethnicity. Perez also noticed his colleagues who were of Indian ethnicity acted like
`
`family with one another. The stackers with Indian ethnicity mainly spoke amongst
`
`themselves and rarely communicated with employees who were not Indian. Perez often
`
`felt like an outsider as a result.
`
`b. In or around February 2020, Harvinder Doe ("Harvinder"), a stacker of
`
`Indian ethnicity, started a verbal altercation with Perez and abruptly punched Perez in the
`
`face. Perez rushed away from the scene to find safety. He was frightened and shaken up
`
`-4-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`from the incident and bewildered by Harvinder's attack. Perez immediately went to his
`
`Supervisor Balhar Kaur ("Kaur"), who was also of Indian ethnicity, to report the incident.
`
`When Perez talked with Kaur, he was not met with any support or concern for his safety
`
`or situation. Instead, Kaur denied him the opportunity to see the onsite clinic and also
`
`declined to file an incident report. Because Kaur refused to report the incident, Perez
`
`reported the incident and complained about Kaur's lack of concern for his safety to Entity
`
`Defendant's general manager, Tom Doe ("Tom"). Tom also shrugged off the incident and
`
`did not see a reason to report the incident.
`
`c. Since Perez's supervisors were unwilling to report the incident, Perez
`
`reported the incident that same day to Human Resources Representative, Alyssa Melo
`
`("Melo"). Melo subsequently filed an incident report in or around February 2020,
`
`reporting the battery and assault. Perez was frustrated at managements' lack of action for
`
`the workplace violence and the harassment he was subjected to.
`
`d. A few days later, Perez was suddenly suspended for two weeks without pay.
`
`He was surprised that he was suspended and complained to Melo. He asked her why he
`
`was being suspended without pay for an incident where he was the victim. Perez felt this
`
`was done in retaliation for him raising a complaint about management's lack of attention
`
`to his safety concerns. Melo responded he was being investigated for the incident and was
`
`going to be suspended in the meantime. As a result of the investigation, Harvinder was
`
`moved to a different department.
`
`e. In or around March 2020, Perez returned to work from his unpaid, retaliatory
`
`suspension and he noticed a shift in Kaur's attitude towards him. Perez accredits this
`
`change to the fact that Kaur treated flarvinder like family and he was among her favorite
`
`employees. She began retaliating against Perez by attempting to write him up or send him
`
`home early for non-critical and non-existent incidents and scrutinized him more than other
`
`non-Hispanic employees in his department. On one instance, Kaur wrote Perez up for not
`
`wearing a beard net at his station, even though Perez did not have facial hair and as such,
`
`was not required to wear one. Perez observed similar situations where non-Hispanic
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-5-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`employees who were not wearing beard nets did not receive a write-up. Additionally, a
`
`quality control representative told Perez he did not need a beard net, but regardless, Kaur
`
`still issued Perez a write-up for not wearing one.
`
`f. In or around late March 2020, Kaur began demanding Perez to work faster,
`
`while also speeding up the conveyer belt to unsafe speeds, threatening Perez's safety, and
`
`the safety of his coworkers. Perez complained to Kaur that working at the speeds Kaur
`
`expected was dangerous, unfair, and threatened his safety. Because Perez's position was
`
`the last stop on the production line, the product overload landed at his station. Perez dealt
`
`with the packaging and shipping of hot dogs. He would scan, process, wrap, and drive the
`
`boxes over to the shipping area. Oftentimes the tape machine for the boxes would get stuck
`
`and Perez would have to stick his hand in quickly to fix it and prevent all the production
`
`lines from going down for the day and everyone having to work overtime. Perez had to
`
`work at unsafe speeds to stack and move product to the shipping area, which later caused
`
`him to slip on the pallet jack. Although Perez confronted Kaur about the pace of the
`
`conveyor belt, Perez's complaints were disregarded. Mr. Perez again felt singled out for
`
`raising complaints and having zero concern for his safety.
`
`g. In or around April of 2020, Perez's concern for his safety grew. Oftentimes
`
`during the workday, there was grainy soap powder on the facility floor. Throughout the
`
`day, water fell on the ground and by nighttime, the floor became moist and slippery. Perez
`
`worked the nightshift and either slipped, or nearly slipped on the floor numerous times.
`
`Perez witnessed his co-workers slip as well.
`
`h. On or around May 5, 2020, after Perez again slipped and fell off the pallet
`
`jack, he reported these concerns to his onsite supervisor, Kaur. After voicing these
`
`concerns, Kaur dismissed Perez's complaints, and told him it was "protocol to lay soap."
`
`Since no precautionary actions were taken, Perez raised his complaints to Melo on or
`
`around May 10, 2020. Again, Perez was given the same response, it was "protocol to lay
`
`soap," as no action would be taken to remediate the unsafe workplace conditions.
`
`i. On or around May 12, 2020, the inevitable and foreseeable event occurred.
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-6-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`While Perez was operating the pallet jack on the soapy floor, he slipped and slammed his
`
`shoulder into a pallet full of product. Perez immediately felt whiplash in his neck. Perez
`
`was in extreme pain and went to the onsite medical clinic with his supervisor. The clinic
`
`nurse treated Perez for his pain but required he return to work on "light duty," to prevent
`
`further exasperation of Perez's injury. Kaur was aware Perez was on light duty, but yet
`
`refused to provide him with accommodations. Not only did Perez continue working,
`
`essentially going back to full duty, but Kaur also gave him duties for entry-level
`
`employees, removed him from operating the pallet jack, and made him perform duties that
`
`required more physical labor, in retaliation of his physical disability and request for
`
`accommodations. The pain in his shoulder and neck was excruciating and made work
`
`strenuous. Perez made an appointment for on or around May 14, 2020, to get treatment
`
`for his lingering shoulder and neck pain with Defendants' doctor.
`
`15. Defendants' termination of plaintiff's employment:
`
`a. On May 13, 2020, Perez was called into an office meeting with an attorney
`
`who represented the Defendants, Melo, Tom, and other management employees. The
`
`lawyer began discussing Perez's injury and asking him questions such as, "Is there
`
`anything you could've done better?" Perez was confused and hurt by the line of
`
`questioning. He reiterated that Kaur was running the production line at unsafe speeds and
`
`caused the employees to rush and slip on the soapy floor. Defendants' management team
`
`was disinterested in Perez's past safety complaints and the fact that management failed to
`
`act. They blamed Perez for his fall. Tom proceeded to terminate Perez for allegedly
`
`"causing a safety hazard." Perez was shocked by how management falsely framed the
`
`incident and blamed him, to cover up their otherwise unlawful reasons for terminating his
`
`employment.
`
`b. At the end of the meeting, Perez was given a letter of termination with a final
`
`check. However, Entity Defendants' failed to include Perez's forty hours of accrued
`
`vacation days in the check and denied they existed. The Defendants also denied his request
`
`for his personnel file.
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15'
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-7-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`16. Economic damages: As a consequence of defendants' conduct, plaintiff has
`
`suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and employment
`
`benefits, damage to his career, and lost wages, overtime, unpaid expenses, and penalties,
`
`as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which
`
`those wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial.
`
`17. Non-economic damages: As a consequence of defendants' conduct, plaintiff has
`
`suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation, and mental and
`
`physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial.
`
`18. Punitive damages: Defendants' conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and/or
`
`malice under California Civil Code section 3294 and, thus, entitles plaintiff to an award
`
`of exemplary and/or punitive damages.
`
`a. Malice: Defendants' conduct was committed with malice within the meaning
`
`of California Civil Code section 3294, including that (a) defendants acted with intent to
`
`cause injury to plaintiff and/or acted with reckless disregard for plaintiff's injury, in-
`
`cluding by terminating plaintiff's employment and/or taking other adverse job actions
`
`against plaintiff because of his age, disability, medical leave, race, national origin,
`
`ancestry, pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation, and/or good faith complaints, and/or
`
`(b) defendants' conduct was despicable and committed in willful and conscious disregard
`
`of plaintiff's rights, health, and safety, including plaintiff's right to be free of
`
`discrimination, harassment, retaliation, abuse of the requirements of accommodation and
`
`engaging in the interactive process, and wrongful employment termination.
`
`b. Oppression: In addition, and/or alternatively, defendants' conduct was
`
`committed with oppression within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294,
`
`including that defendants' actions against plaintiff because of his disability, race, color,
`
`national origin, ancestry, and/or good faith complaints were "despicable" and subjected
`
`plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, in knowing disregard of plaintiff's rights to a work
`
`place free of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, abuse of the requirements of
`
`accommodation and engaging in the interactive process, and wrongful employment
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-8-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`termination.
`
`c. Fraud: In addition, and/or alternatively, defendants' conduct, as alleged, was
`
`fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that
`
`defendants asserted false (pretextual) grounds for terminating plaintiff's employment
`
`and/or other adverse job actions, thereby to cause plaintiff hardship and deprive him of
`
`legal rights.
`
`19. Attorneys' fees: Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and
`
`attorneys' fees.
`
`20. Exhaustion of administrative remedies: Prior to filing this action, plaintiff ex-
`
`hausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely administrative complaint with the
`
`Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and receiving a DFEH right-to-
`
`sue letter.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Discrimination on the Bases of Disability, Race, National
`
`Origin, Color, Ethnicity, and Ancestry
`
`(Violation of Government Code 12900, et seq.)
`
`Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`21. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`22. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, et seq.,
`
`was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute requires defen-
`
`dants to refrain from discriminating against any employee because but not limited to he is
`
`more than 40 years old or because of the employee's disability (actual, perceived, and/or
`
`history of), race, color, ancestry, and/or national origin.
`
`23. Plaintiff's disability (actual, perceived, and/or history of), race, color, ancestry,
`
`and/or national origin, and/or other characteristics protected by FEHA, Government Code
`
`section 12900, et seq., were substantial motivating reasons in defendants' decision to
`
`-9-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 15 of 27
`
`terminate plaintiff's employment, not to retain, hire, or otherwise employ plaintiff in any
`
`position, and/or to take other adverse employment actions against plaintiff.
`
`24. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi-
`
`nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses
`
`of earnings and other employment benefits.
`
`25. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi-
`
`nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo-
`
`tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum
`
`according to proof.
`
`26. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys' fees.
`
`Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable
`
`attorneys' fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof.
`
`27. Defendants' discrimination was committed intentionally, in a malicious,
`
`fraudulent, despicable, and/or oppressive manner, and this entitles plaintiff to punitive
`
`damages against defendants.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Hostile Work Environment Harassment on the Bases of
`
`Disability, Race, National Origin, Color, Ethnicity, and
`
`Ancestry (Violation of Government Code § 12900, et seq.)
`
`Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`28. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`29. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, et seq.,
`
`was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute requires defen-
`
`dants to refrain from harassing any employee because of the employee's disability (actual,
`
`history of, and/or perceived), race, color, ancestry, or national origin.
`
`30. Plaintiff was subjected to harassing conduct through a hostile work environment,
`
`-10-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 16 of 27
`
`in whole or in part on the bases of plaintiff's disability, age, race, color, ancestry, national
`
`origin, and/or other protected characteristics, in violation of Government Code sections
`
`12940(j) and 12923.
`
`31. Pursuant to Government Code section 12923(b), a single incident of harassing
`
`conduct is sufficient to create a hostile work environment if the harassing conduct has
`
`unreasonably interfered with plaintiffs work performance or created an intimidating,
`
`hostile, or offensive working environment.
`
`32. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional harassment
`
`of plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings
`
`and other employment benefits.
`
`33. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional harassment
`
`of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress,
`
`and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof.
`
`34. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys' fees.
`
`Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable
`
`attorneys' fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof.
`
`35. Defendants' harassment was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent,
`
`despicable, and/or oppressive manner, and this entitles plaintiff to punitive damages
`
`against defendants.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity
`
`(Violation of Government Code 12900, et seq.)
`
`Against Entity Defendants; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive
`
`36. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`37. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, et seq.,
`
`was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute requires defendants
`
`-11-
`PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00691-JLT-SAB Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 17 of 27
`
`to refrain from retaliating against any employee making complaints or opposing
`
`discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, or otherwise engaging in activity protected by
`
`the FEHA, including for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under FEHA and/or
`
`assisting and/or participating in an investigation, opposing defendants' failure to provide
`
`rights, including rights to complain and to assist in a lawsuit, and/or the right to be free of
`
`retaliation, in violation of Government Code section 12940(h).
`
`38. Plaintiff's seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under FEHA and/or opposing
`
`defendants' failure to provide such rights, including the right to be free of discrimination,
`
`harassment, or retaliation, in violation of Government Code section 12940(h), were
`
`substantial motivating reasons in defendants' decision to terminate plaintiff's
`
`employment, not to retain, hire, or otherwise employ plaintiff in any position, and/or to
`
`take other adverse employment actions against plaintiff.
`
`39. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation
`
`against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of
`
`earnings and other employment benefits.
`
`40. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation
`
`against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffe