Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`EXCELSIS LAW, P.C.
`C. GENEVIEVE JENKINS (SBN 271128)
`ZAINAH ALFI (SBN 304164)
`1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (213) 340-0300
`Facsimile: (213) 340-0200
`cgjenkins@excelsislaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`BRYON TOMMERAASON
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION
`
`
`
` COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
`LABOR CODE § 6310;
`
`2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
`LABOR CODE § 1102.5;
`
`3. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
`VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; AND
`
`4. UNFAIR BUS. PRACTICES IN
`VIOLATION OF BUS. AND PROF. CODE
`§§ 17200, ET SEQ.
`
`[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
`
`BRYON TOMMERAASON, an
`individual;
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
`through 10, inclusive,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`Plaintiff BRYON TOMMERAASON (“Plaintiff”) hereby brings this Complaint for
`
`
`
`
`
`damages against Defendant SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC. (“Defendant”), and DOES 1
`
`through 10, inclusive, and alleges as follows on his knowledge or on information and
`
`belief as to all other matters:
`
`I.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`At the relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was employed by
`
`Defendant Siemens Mobility, Inc. (“Defendant” or the “Company”).
`
`2.
`
`The Company is registered as a Delaware corporation, operating multiple
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`locations in California.
`
`11
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff performed work for the Company in Sacramento, California. The
`
`12
`
`unlawful conduct alleged herein occurred in Sacramento County, CA.
`
`13
`
`4.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a resident of Sacramento
`
`14
`
`County.
`
`15
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
`
`16
`
`herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such
`
`17
`
`fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and
`
`18
`
`capacities of said Defendants when the same has been ascertained. Each of the fictitiously
`
`19
`
`named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts complained of herein.
`
`20
`
`Unless otherwise stated, all references to named Defendants shall include DOE
`
`21
`
`Defendants as well.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Federal diversity jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332
`
`25
`
`because Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than the Defendants and because the value
`
`26
`
`of the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`7.
`
`Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391 because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred in the
`
`Eastern District of California.
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`In or around July 2010, the Company hired Plaintiff as a welder in the
`
`mobility division of the urban transport unit of its plant in Sacramento, California.
`
`9.
`
`In or around 2018, Plaintiff was promoted to Weld Specialist in the Quality
`
`Department. Shortly after this promotion, the Company’s Quality Department was placed
`
`10
`
`under the direction of its Production Department.
`
`11
`
`10. For a decade, Plaintiff worked well, and had no issues with co-workers or
`
`12
`
`supervisors.
`
`13
`
`11. Then, in or around August 2020, the Company sent Plaintiff to a Depot
`
`14
`
`location. This was a temporary, 3-day assignment in the normal course of Plaintiff’s job
`
`15
`
`duties.
`
`16
`
`12. After the 3-day assignment concluded, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Simon Gems,
`
`17
`
`asked Plaintiff to return to the Depot again. Plaintiff declined based on his concerns about
`
`18
`
`unsafe working conditions at the Depot which he described to Mr. Gems. Nevertheless,
`
`19
`
`Mr. Gems sent Plaintiff home on a 3-day unpaid suspension.
`
`20
`
`13. During this suspension, Plaintiff reached out to Stacey Hill in the Company’s
`
`21
`
`Human Resources (“HR”) department to discuss his concerns about the Depot. He
`
`22
`
`informed HR that employees at the Depot location were forced to work in excessive heat,
`
`23
`
`without any air circulation, and that there were other workplace safety issues. When
`
`24
`
`Plaintiff had raised these issues to his Depot supervisor, James Fanning, and asked that
`
`25
`
`the central air system be turned on in a workplace over 110 degrees Fahrenheit,
`
`26
`
`Mr. Fanning told him that Mark Bennett had determined it was too expensive to turn the
`
`27
`
`air on.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`14. Ms. Hill told Plaintiff that he had to report back to the Depot, regardless of
`
`these concerns, and that he would report back to Mr. Fanning, a supervisor at the Depot,
`
`after his return from suspension.
`
`15. On or around August 18, 2020, immediately upon his return from
`
`suspension, and immediately after his complaints to HR about unsafe working conditions,
`
`Plaintiff returned to the Depot and was written up for insubordination.
`
`16.
`
`In September 2020, Mr. Fanning forced Plaintiff to wear a specific heavy
`
`jacket that was at no time actually required for Plaintiff’s work, but in fact made Plaintiff
`
`uncomfortable and limited his ability to do his work. Plaintiff ultimately refused to wear
`
`10
`
`the jacket, and was sent home on or around September 15, 2021, for a 1-day unpaid
`
`11
`
`suspension. Plaintiff had never before been required to wear this jacket.
`
`12
`
`17. Again, immediately upon his return to work, on or around September 17,
`
`13
`
`2020, Plaintiff was written up for insubordination by Dennis Bryant, Mr. Fanning’s boss.
`
`14
`
`18. On or around October 19, 2020, Plaintiff made formal complaints to HR
`
`15
`
`about unsafe working conditions under Mr. Fanning’s supervision.
`
`16
`
`19. From approximately October 26 through November 22, 2020, Plaintiff took
`
`17
`
`a medical leave.
`
`18
`
`20. While on leave, Plaintiff reached out to HR in person to discuss, inter alia,
`
`19
`
`his concerns regarding unsafe working conditions and the retaliation that he was
`
`20
`
`experiencing at the Depot. HR scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff and Mr. Fanning.
`
`21
`
`21. Also while on leave, Plaintiff received quality reports from inspectors, which
`
`22
`
`made clear that there were code violations resulting from work done at the Depot under
`
`23
`
`Mr. Fanning’s supervision. The violations of the code, created by the American Welding
`
`24
`
`Society, created risks for the consumer, and waste for the Company, as the time and
`
`25
`
`money spent on a product that was ultimately not in compliance with the applicable
`
`26
`
`code(s) had to be reworked or entirely scrapped.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`22. On or around November 10, 2020, at the meeting with HR Representatives
`
`Christine Laster and Jesse Welter, and Mr. Fanning, Plaintiff disclosed that there were
`
`code violations at the Depot in which he believed were created at Mr. Fanning’s direction
`
`and under his supervision. Specifically, AWS code 7.25.3, which provides that base metal
`
`repair due to discontinuity or design deficiencies shall have prior engineering approval.
`
`Carshell 70A, at that time, had an indefinite engineering hold on a red tag, meaning it
`
`could not be reworked until after engineering approval. Plaintiff had reason to believe
`
`that Mr. Fanning directed a worker to cut and stretch the opening(s) of inspected, tested
`
`and signed off structure components of the complete car shell and fill in those opening(s)
`
`10
`
`with excessive amounts of weld filler wire, resulting in an unapproved repair to resolve a
`
`11
`
`serious dimensional defect during assembly; moreover, Plaintiff had reason to believe that
`
`12
`
`these attempts were done secretly to sneak them past quality inspectors.
`
`13
`
`23. At the time he made the complaints about the code violations, Plaintiff had
`
`14
`
`reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed a violation of state or federal
`
`15
`
`statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.
`
`16
`
`24. Weld inspectors who reviewed the issues resulting from the products made
`
`17
`
`under Mr. Fanning’s supervision indicated that Mr. Fanning was “willfully deceptive”
`
`18
`
`when asked questions about his production.
`
`19
`
`25. On or around November 22, 2020, Plaintiff emailed Ms. Welter and
`
`20
`
`Ms. Laster, expressing his concern that, “given the severity of the accusations” he had
`
`21
`
`made about Mr. Fanning’s breach of consumer and workplace safety regulations, he was
`
`22
`
`concerned that returning him to the Depot would result in an “extremely hostile and
`
`23
`
`retaliatory” work environment.
`
`24
`
`26. Plaintiff returned to work November 23-24, 2020, and then was off for
`
`25
`
`Thanksgiving. While Plaintiff was away from work for the Thanksgiving holiday, HR
`
`26
`
`emailed Plaintiff to tell him he had to report back to work at the Depot, reporting to Mr.
`
`27
`
`Fanning, upon his return to work on November 30, 2020. Ms. Welter acknowledged
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Plaintiff’s complaints but merely asked for more supporting details, and then wrote, “your
`
`skill set is critical to the success of the team.”
`
`27. Two days after returning from stress leave, Plaintiff contracted COVID-19
`
`and had to go back on leave from approximately November 26, 2020 through January 3,
`
`2021.
`
`28. On December 11, 2020, by email, Plaintiff reiterated to Mr. Gems that he
`
`was “being forced to support the malicious conduct of a manager who refuses to follow
`
`the guidelines of the programs, instructions, and the AWS code.” Plaintiff asked to be
`
`moved back under Mr. Gems’s supervision. Mr. Gems instructed Plaintiff to “fully
`
`10
`
`support” Mr. Fanning’s team, and said, “Everything you brought up is not as urgent as
`
`11
`
`the support of [this team].”
`
`12
`
`29. Plaintiff returned to the Depot for work from January 4 through January 11,
`
`13
`
`2021.
`
`14
`
`30. On or around January 10, 2021, Plaintiff provided an updated doctor’s note
`
`15
`
`to HR for his extension and unpaid COVID-leave. Ms. Welter responded to Plaintiff that
`
`16
`
`he was required, “effective immediately” to “report any concerns, paper work, PTO or
`
`17
`
`leaves directly to James Fanning.” In other words, the Company’s HR department told
`
`18
`
`Plaintiff that he could only correspond with the very person Plaintiff had accused of
`
`19
`
`creating an unsafe work environment and engaging in practices that were unsafe for the
`
`20
`
`Company’s consumers. The Company thus facilitated the retaliation that resulted in
`
`21
`
`Mr. Fanning’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment by ensuring that there was no one
`
`22
`
`to protect Plaintiff.
`
`23
`
`31. On or around January 12, 2021, based on optional COVID-19 leave offered
`
`24
`
`by the Company, Plaintiff took voluntary unpaid COVID-19 leave, through April 13,
`
`25
`
`2021. This leave was approved by the Company’s benefits and insurance provider,
`
`26
`
`Lincoln Financial.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`32. While Plaintiff was out on COVID-19 leave, on or around March 19, 2021,
`
`HR representative Ms. Welter communicated to him that his voluntary leave was
`
`unapproved and that he would be terminated if he did not return immediately. Plaintiff
`
`submitted documents showing that his leave had been approved, based on a Company-
`
`wide policy, and that the agreed-upon return date was April 13, 2021.
`
`33. During the time he was on his COVID-19 leave, Plaintiff received more code
`
`violation and images from the quality reports submitted by inspectors.
`
`34. On or around April 6, 2021, the Company’s HR representative, Ms. Welter,
`
`emailed Plaintiff to notify him that his leave had been approved through April 12, 2021.
`
`10
`
`35. On or around April 7, 2021, Plaintiff emailed the Company’s head of HR for
`
`11
`
`North America, Tami Wolonik, to ask for help with what he perceived to be retaliation
`
`12
`
`from Mr. Fanning and the local HR department.
`
`13
`
`36. To Ms. Wolonik, Plaintiff reiterated the following specific concerns about
`
`14
`
`workplace safety, which he had raised several times to supervisors and other HR
`
`15
`
`representatives:
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`a. Use of unapproved stands to elevate vehicles off the ground, thereby
`
`endangering the employees underneath and inside of the vehicle;
`
`b. Lack of air circulation in work environments where the temperature was over
`
`110 degrees Fahrenheit despite the existence of an industrial central air
`
`system;
`
`c. Mr. Fanning’s mandating heavy, uncomfortable gear without any Company
`
`standard to do so.
`
`37. To Ms. Wolonik, Plaintiff reiterated the following specific concerns about
`
`24
`
`consumer safety of Company products, which he had raised several times to supervisors
`
`25
`
`and other HR representatives:
`
`a. Seeming lack of quality control under Mr. Fanning’s supervision, and cars
`
`that were being cut apart multiple times due to “serious dimensional issues;”
`
`- 6 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`b. Violations of the AWS code that resulted in inspectors red-tagging cars
`
`produced at Mr. Fanning’s direction; and
`
`c. Mr. Fanning’s instructions to welders to do cutting and unapproved build-up
`
`on cars at the Depot.
`
`38. On or around April 12, 2021, Ms. Wolonik told Plaintiff she would
`
`investigate the matter and get back to him.
`
`39. On or around April 13, 2021, Plaintiff returned to work and worked a full
`
`shift.
`
`40. On or around April 14, 2021, Plaintiff arrived at work and was sent home
`
`10
`
`immediately, allegedly due to his performance the day before. James Fanning told
`
`11
`
`Plaintiff that the Company would “be in touch.”
`
`12
`
`41. On or around April 19, 2021, Plaintiff received notice by mail that his
`
`13
`
`benefits had been terminated on April 14, 2021.
`
`14
`
`42. On or around April 23, 2021, the Company sent a separation letter to Plaintiff
`
`15
`
`but addressed it incorrectly, such that it was delivered to Plaintiff’s neighbor. This letter
`
`16
`
`stated that the termination date was April 16, 2021, and that the reasons for termination
`
`17
`
`were “insubordination” and “safety violations” that Plaintiff allegedly engaged in on
`
`18
`
`April 13, 2021. The termination letter was signed by Mr. Fanning. On information and
`
`19
`
`belief, the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was made by Mr. Fanning, the
`
`20
`
`same person Plaintiff had repeatedly complained about as creating unsafe work
`
`21
`
`conditions.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`43. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was an excellent employee.
`
`44. At the time of the Company’s termination of his employment, Plaintiff was
`
`24
`
`a salaried employee paid $55,000 per year.
`
`25
`
`45. For a decade before his complaints about Mr. Fanning and unsafe work
`
`26
`
`conditions, Plaintiff had received only 2 write-ups for tardiness (many years ago), and
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`had consistently performed well. He had received no complaints whatsoever for
`
`insubordination, safety violations, or anything related thereto.
`
`46.
`
`Instead, the Company retaliated against Plaintiff for his complaints about
`
`workplace safety and Labor Code violations, as well as his need for medical
`
`leave/disability leave.
`
`47. The Company’s conduct, as described above, was performed or ratified by
`
`managing agents, including, but not limited to James Fanning, Simons Gems, Stacey Hill,
`
`Christina Laster, Jessie Welter, Tami Wolonik (collectively, the “Managing Agents”). The
`
`Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the
`
`10
`
`Company’s operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital
`
`11
`
`aspects of such operations, including making significant decisions that affected the
`
`12
`
`Company’s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent,
`
`13
`
`and oppressive conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages.
`
`14
`
`48.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agents
`
`15
`
`willfully disregarded Plaintiff’s right to be free from unlawful retaliation in the workplace.
`
`16
`
`49.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs above, the
`
`17
`
`Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in
`
`18
`
`conscious disregard for his rights under California law. By way of example, the Managing
`
`19
`
`Agents retaliated against Plaintiff for his complaints and ultimately terminated his
`
`20
`
`employment. The Managing Agents’ conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the
`
`21
`
`law and Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`22
`
`50.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agents
`
`23
`
`intended to cause emotional injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing Agents refused
`
`24
`
`to investigate Plaintiff’s complaints, but instead retaliated against him for his complaints,
`
`25
`
`and ultimately terminated his employment with the intent to cause him severe emotional
`
`26
`
`distress or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff’s career, livelihood,
`
`27
`
`and his emotional well-being.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`IV.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 6310)
`
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff against Defendant, and Does 1-10)
`
`51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the facts as alleged above,
`
`inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`52. California Labor Code section 6310 states that “no person shall discharge or
`
`in any manner discriminate against any employee because…” the employee has made
`
`bona fide oral or written complaints to their employers and/or other governmental
`
`10
`
`agencies “having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to
`
`11
`
`employee safety or health … of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or
`
`12
`
`her employment or place of employment.”
`
`13
`
`53. As set forth above, Plaintiff made bona fide oral and/or written complaints
`
`14
`
`to Defendant about unsafe working conditions and work practices, including, but not
`
`15
`
`limited to the excessive heat in the workplace and violations of the AWS Code.
`
`16
`
`Thereafter, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for making complaints by terminating
`
`17
`
`his employment. Defendant’s conduct therefore violated California Labor Code section
`
`18
`
`6310.
`
`19
`
`54. As a proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and
`
`20
`
`continues to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other
`
`21
`
`pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer
`
`22
`
`physical and emotional injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish,
`
`23
`
`embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of
`
`24
`
`Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained at trial.
`
`25
`
`55. Defendant’s conduct, as described above, was performed or ratified by the
`
`26
`
`Company’s Managing Agents. The Managing Agents were each responsible for
`
`27
`
`overseeing a substantial portion of the Companies’ operations, and each exercised
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making
`
`significant decisions that affect the Company’s internal policies. The Managing Agents
`
`engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award of
`
`punitive damages.
`
`56.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, Defendant willfully
`
`disregarded Plaintiff’s right to be free from hazardous, unsafe work conditions as well as
`
`unlawful retaliation and discrimination at the workplace.
`
`57.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, Defendant acted
`
`despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for
`
`10
`
`his rights under California law. By way of example, Defendant did not take seriously
`
`11
`
`Plaintiff’s repeated complaints about the unsafe practices and conditions in the workplace.
`
`12
`
`This is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiff repeatedly voiced his concerns to supervisors,
`
`13
`
`but no substantive action was taken. Thereafter, and in retaliation for his complaints,
`
`14
`
`Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment. The Company’s Managing Agents’
`
`15
`
`conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`16
`
`58.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Company’s
`
`17
`
`Managing Agents intended to cause emotional injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the
`
`18
`
`Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff’s employment with the intent to cause him severe
`
`19
`
`emotional distress or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff’s career,
`
`20
`
`livelihood, and her emotional wellbeing.
`
`21
`
`59. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional
`
`22
`
`limits of this Court.
`
`23
`
`//
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`V.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 1102.5)
`
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff against Defendant, and Does 1-10)
`
`60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in
`
`this paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`61. Employers are required by California Labor Code section 1102.5,
`
`subdivision (b) to not retaliate against an employee where the employee has disclosed
`
`information, or the employer believes that the employee may disclose information, to a
`
`government or law enforcement agency, or to a person with authority over the employee
`
`or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation
`
`or noncompliance, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information
`
`discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a
`
`local, state or federal rule or regulation, without regard for whether disclosing the
`
`information is part of the employee’s job duties.
`
`62. As set forth above, Plaintiff complained to his supervisors and the
`
`Company’s human resources department about the excessive heat and violations of the
`
`AWS code. Plaintiff also lodged complaints about Mr. Fanning’s mistreatment of him
`
`and his creation of a hostile work environment as a result of the same complaints made
`
`directly to him.
`
`63.
`
`In response to Plaintiff’s complaints, the Company reassured him that he
`
`would not be retaliated against but thereafter terminated his employment – claiming that
`
`that there were insubordination and safety issues. Plaintiff, however, had not been written
`
`up for anything but tardiness in his long career with the Company.
`
`64. The Company’s conduct constitutes unlawful retaliation on account of
`
`Plaintiff’s protected activity in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5(b).
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`65. As a proximate result of the Company’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and
`
`continues to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other
`
`pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer
`
`physical and emotional injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish,
`
`embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of
`
`Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained at trial.
`
`66. The Company’s conduct, as described above, was performed or ratified by
`
`the Managing Agents, who engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that
`
`justifies an award of punitive damages.
`
`10
`
`67.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agents
`
`11
`
`willfully disregarded Plaintiff’s right to be free from unlawful retaliation at the workplace.
`
`12
`
`68.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agents
`
`13
`
`acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious
`
`14
`
`disregard for his rights under California law. By way of example, the Managing Agent
`
`15
`
`ultimately retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating his employment when he continued
`
`16
`
`to complain about, inter alia, the Company’s unsafe workplace, the violations of the AWS
`
`17
`
`Code, and Mr. Fanning’s retaliation against him for making complaints. This is evidenced
`
`18
`
`by the fact that Plaintiff repeatedly voiced his complaints to supervisors and the HR
`
`19
`
`Department, and the Company terminated his employment. The Managing Agent’s
`
`20
`
`conduct demonstrates callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`21
`
`69.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agent
`
`22
`
`intended to cause emotional injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing Agents
`
`23
`
`terminated Plaintiff’s employment in response to his complaints about, inter alia, the the
`
`24
`
`Company’s unsafe workplace, the violations of the AWS Code, and Mr. Fanning’s
`
`25
`
`retaliation against him for making complaints. The Managing Agents acted with the intent
`
`26
`
`to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress or at least without regard for the consequences
`
`27
`
`on Plaintiff’s career, livelihood, and his emotional well-being.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`70. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional
`
`limits of this Court.
`
`VI.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
`
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff against Defendant, and Does 1-10)
`
`71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in
`
`this paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`72. As detailed above, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment in
`
`violation of fundamental and well-established public policies, as set forth in various
`
`statutes, including, but not limited to, the California Labor Code.
`
`73. As a proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff suffered and
`
`continues to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other
`
`pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer
`
`physical and emotional injuries, including difficulty sleeping, nervousness, humiliation,
`
`depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety.
`
`The amount of Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained during trial.
`
`74. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was performed or ratified by the
`
`Companies’ Managing Agents, who engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive
`
`conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages.
`
`75.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agents
`
`willfully disregarded Plaintiff’s right to be free from discrimination for having a disability
`
`and his right to be free from retaliation.
`
`76.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agents
`
`acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious
`
`disregard for his rights under California law. For example, the Managing Agents
`
`terminated Plaintiff’s employment to intentionally cause him harm because they wanted
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`to punish him for, inter alia, having a disability and making complaints about unlawful
`
`activity in the workplace.
`
`77.
`
`In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above, the Managing Agents
`
`intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing
`
`Agents terminated Plaintiff’s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe
`
`emotional distress or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff ’s career,
`
`livelihood, and his emotional well-being.
`
`78. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional
`
`limits of this Court.
`
`VII.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Unfair Business Practices)
`
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff against Defendants, and Does 1-10)
`
`79. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in
`
`this paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`80. A violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et
`
`seq., may be predicated on the violation of any state common and/or statutory law. As
`
`described herein, the Companies violated a number of state laws, including, without
`
`limitation, California Labor Code sections 1102.5, and 6310.
`
`81. As a direct and proximate result of the violations described herein, the
`
`Companies unlawfully gained an unfair advantage over other businesses. Plaintiff and
`
`the other businesses have suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the Companies’ unlawful
`
`business acts and practices alleged herein.
`
`82. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the wages and other monies wrongfully withheld and
`
`retained by the Companies pursuant to the violations of state laws alleged herein,
`
`including, without limitation, California Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 6310.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00344-MCE-DB Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`83. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code
`
`of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
`
`VIII.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`As to All Causes of Action
`
`1.
`
`For general damages, including emotional distress damages, according to
`
`proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available.
`
`2.
`
`For special damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`such damages are available.
`
`11
`
`3.
`
`For compensatory damages,
`
`including emotional distress damages,
`
`12
`
`according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available.
`
`13
`
`4.
`
`For punitive damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which
`
`14
`
`such damages are available.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`For declaratory and injunctive relief as appropriate.
`
`For prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest according to law.
`
`For reasonable attorneys’ fees incu