Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`Katharine Chao (CA State Bar No. 247571)
`OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
`201 Filbert St., Ste. 201
`San Francisco, CA 94133
`Tel. 415-484-0980
`Email: kathy@osclegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LARRY HOUSTON, an individual,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`FOSTER DAIRY FARMS, a California
`corporation, and CRYSTAL CREAMERY,
`INC., a California corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Larry Houston (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Houston”) brings this action against
`
`1.
`
`Defendants for employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil
`
`Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., the Age Discrimination in
`
`Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the California Fair Employment and
`
`- 1 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900, et seq. Despite Plaintiff’s superior
`
`qualifications and experience, Defendants’ adverse treatment of Plaintiff because he is an older
`
`African-American employee resulted in Defendants’ discriminatory refusal to promote Plaintiff
`
`to the Director of Transportation position.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff is an African-American
`
`2.
`
`man who was more than 40 years of age at all relevant times. At all relevant times, Plaintiff
`
`was employed by and performed work for Defendants as a Depot Branch Manager in Hayward,
`
`California, the County of Alameda.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Foster Dairy Farms (“Foster Farms”) is a for-profit California
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Modesto, California, the County of
`
`Stanislaus. Foster Farms is engaged in the business of producing and distributing food dairy
`
`products.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Crystal Creamery, Inc. (“Crystal Creamery”) is a for-profit California
`
`Corporation with its principal place of business in Modesto, California, the County of
`
`Stanislaus. Crystal Creamery is engaged in the business of producing and distributing food
`
`dairy products.
`
`5.
`
`Foster Farms and Crystal Creamery are collectively referred to herein as
`
`“Defendants.”
`
`6.
`
`Defendants, and each of them, were employers within the meaning of Title VII,
`
`the ADEA, and the FEHA.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
` This Complaint seeks damages for violations of the civil rights, privileges, and
`
`7.
`
`immunities guaranteed by Title VII, the ADEA, as well as California state law.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. This
`
`Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as these
`
`claims arise out of the same case or controversy.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims arose in the County of Alameda, California. Venue therefore
`
`lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Pursuant to Civil
`
`Local Rule 3-2(d), this action shall be assigned to the San Francisco Division or the Oakland
`
`Division.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`In or around November 2008, Plaintiff began working in Defendants’
`
`10.
`
`transportation department as a Depot Branch Manager in Hayward, California.
`
`11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that in the over half
`
`century Defendants have been in business, no African-American has ever held the Director of
`
`Transportation role. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that he is
`
`only one of two African-Americans ever hired into a manager role in Defendants’ history.
`
`12. As a Depot Branch Manager, Plaintiff reports to the Director of Transportation.
`
`During the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment, the Director of Transportation position has been
`
`held by a Caucasian man, most of whom Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges,
`
`were younger than Plaintiff.
`
`13. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has performed the duties of the Depot Branch
`
`- 3 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`Manager in Hayward satisfactorily.
`
`14. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff has received positive
`
`performance reviews.
`
`15. Over the years, whenever the Director of Transportation position became open,
`
`Defendants have repeatedly failed to promote Plaintiff to Director of Transportation in favor of
`
`less qualified Caucasian candidates and younger candidates. Defendants also failed to post the
`
`position so that interested employees such as Plaintiff could apply.
`
`16. For example, in or around 2012, a younger Caucasian employee, Colby Bell, was
`
`promoted to the position of Director of Transportation without the position being posted.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that company policy at the time
`
`required Defendants to post the open position.
`
`17. Mr. Bell lasted in the Director of Transportation position until around March
`
`2014.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In or around April 2014, Plaintiff learned that Defendants had promoted Doug
`
`Peterson, a younger Caucasian man, into the position of Director of Transportation (to replace
`
`Colby Bell). Defendants did not post the job before promoting Mr. Peterson. Plaintiff is
`
`informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that company policy at the time required
`
`Defendants to post the open position.
`
`19. Shortly after Mr. Peterson was promoted to Director of Transportation in or
`
`around April 2014, Plaintiff contacted Defendants’ human resources department to inquire
`
`about why the job had not been posted so Plaintiff could have applied and been considered.
`
`Plaintiff never received a satisfactory answer.
`
`20. On or around May 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the
`
`- 4 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), charge no. 555-2017-00504, against
`
`Defendants alleging that Defendants were discriminating against Plaintiff on account of his race
`
`and age. Plaintiff alleged in his EEOC charge no. 555-2017-00504 that “[o]n or about February
`
`7, 2017, Doug Petersen, Director of Transportation, subjected me to disparate treatment and
`
`terms of conditions of employment when it [sic] allowed another white, younger Manager to
`
`delegate Purchase Orders to his staff but I was not afforded the same opportunity. On or about
`
`February 8, 2017, I sent an email to Mr. Petersen, inquiring about this delegation and being held
`
`to a different standard but not equally. I also spoke to my HR Manager, but as of today, I have
`
`not heard from HR.”
`
`21.
`
`In a letter to Plaintiff dated July 14, 2017, the EEOC acknowledged receipt of
`
`Plaintiff’s charge no. 555-2017-00504, which was dual-filed with the California Department of
`
`Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon
`
`alleges, that the EEOC furnished a copy of Plaintiff’s charge no. 555-2017-00504 to Defendants
`
`sometime in the summer of 2017.
`
`22.
`
`In or around November 2017, and while his EEOC charge no. 555-2017-00504
`
`was still pending at the EEOC, Plaintiff became aware through word of mouth that the position
`
`of Director of Transportation was open, and that Defendants had recently interviewed three
`
`younger, Caucasian employees for the position. Defendants had not posted the job listing
`
`before interviewing for the position. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon
`
`alleges, that company policy at the time required Defendants to post the open position.
`
`23. Shortly after Plaintiff learned that the position was open and that Defendants were
`
`already considering individuals for the position, Plaintiff contacted human resources to ask
`
`about the position. The human resources representative informed Plaintiff that she was not sure
`
`- 5 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`Defendant actually intended to fill the position. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff asked Defendants’
`
`then-Chief Executive Officer, Frank Otis, if Plaintiff could be considered for the position. A
`
`few days later, Plaintiff interviewed for the position. At the time Plaintiff interviewed for the
`
`position, he was approximately 61 years of age.
`
`24.
`
`In December 2017, Plaintiff was informed that a younger, Caucasian employee,
`
`Richard Hunter, had been selected for the Director of Transportation position. Mr. Hunter was
`
`less qualified than Plaintiff for the position.
`
`25. After Plaintiff became aware that Mr. Hunter had been selected, Plaintiff
`
`submitted an intake questionnaire, on or around December 27, 2017, to the EEOC alleging that
`
`Defendants had discriminatorily refused to promote Plaintiff to the Director of Transportation
`
`position on account of his race and age, in favor of Mr. Hunter.
`
`26. On or around February 9, 2018, the EEOC mailed to Plaintiff a Dismissal and
`
`Notice of Rights regarding Plaintiff’s EEOC charge no. 555-2017-00504, wherein the EEOC
`
`stated that it was closing its file.
`
`27. On or around April 6, 2018, Plaintiff signed and submitted to the EEOC his
`
`charge no. 556-2018-00208, alleging that Defendants’ refusal to promote him to Director of
`
`Transportation in or around December 2017, in favor of Mr. Hunter, constituted employment
`
`discrimination on the basis of race and age. Plaintiff’s EEOC charge no. 556-2018-00208 was
`
`dual-filed with the DFEH.
`
`28. Mr. Hunter only lasted in the Director of Transportation position about 8 months.
`
`29. On or around March 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amendment to his EEOC charge
`
`no. 556-2018-00208 to add the allegation that the refusal to promote Plaintiff in or around
`
`December 2017 constituted unlawful retaliation in response to Plaintiff having previously
`
`- 6 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`complained about Defendants’ discriminatory treatment to the EEOC.
`
`30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there is not now,
`
`nor has there ever been, a Director of Transportation working for Defendants who is African-
`
`American. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants
`
`have never promoted an African-American employee to a Director role from within the
`
`company.
`
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`31. On or around April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed charge no. 556-2018-00208 with the
`
`EEOC alleging that the conduct above violated Title VII and the ADEA. On or around March
`
`18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amendment to Charge No. 556-2018-00208 to add retaliation
`
`allegations. Plaintiff’s EEOC charge no. 556-2018-00208 was dual-filed with the DFEH. On
`
`or around June 18, 2018, while the EEOC was investigating Plaintiff’s charge, the DFEH issued
`
`an immediate right-to-sue letter on Plaintiff’s FEHA claims, said letter stating that Plaintiff’s
`
`FEHA claims would be tolled during the pendency of the EEOC’s investigation.
`
`32. On or around August 25, 2020, the EEOC ceased its investigation of Plaintiff’s
`
`charge and issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue, which Plaintiff received on or around
`
`August 31, 2020. Plaintiff timely brought this action thereafter.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`Race Discrimination In Violation Of Title VII
`
`33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`34. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits
`
`employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race.
`
`- 7 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`35. As set forth herein, Defendants refused to promote Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s
`
`superior qualifications, to the position of Director of Transportation in favor of less qualified
`
`Caucasian candidates.
`
`36. Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating
`
`against Plaintiff with respect to compensation, terms, conditions privileges of employment
`
`because of his race.
`
`37. Defendants’ actions and omissions have caused Plaintiff severe injury including
`
`economic damages and serious physical and emotional distress.
`
`38. The conduct of Defendants, through their agents and employees, was malicious,
`
`fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with the knowledge that the company was acting in
`
`violation of law, and/or with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and the
`
`deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. As a result, Defendant’s actions justify an
`
`award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to
`
`deter such conduct in the future.
`
`39. For this cause of action, Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k).
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`Title VII Retaliation
`
`40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`41. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), prohibits
`
`employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in the protected activity of filing an
`
`- 8 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`employment discrimination complaint.
`
`42. As set forth herein, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in
`
`protected activity, including filing complaints with the EEOC concerning employment
`
`discrimination based on race and age.
`
`43. The protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the retaliatory action.
`
`44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and psychological injuries, and loss of earnings
`
`and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory
`
`damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
`
`45. The conduct of Defendants, through their agents and employees, was malicious,
`
`fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with the knowledge that the company was acting in
`
`violation of law, and/or with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and the
`
`deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. As a result, Defendant’s actions justify an
`
`award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to
`
`deter such conduct in the future.
`
`46. For this cause of action, Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k).
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`Age Discrimination In Violation of The ADEA
`
`47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`48. The ADEA makes it unlawful for employers and their agents “to fail or refuse to
`
`- 9 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
`
`49. At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, employers within
`
`the meaning of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). At all relevant times, Defendants have been
`
`engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the ADEA and has employed, and
`
`continues to employ, twenty or more employees.
`
`50. Plaintiff was approximately 61 years of age in 2017 when Defendants selected a
`
`younger, Caucasian candidate, Mr. Hunter, over Plaintiff for the Director of Transportation
`
`position despite Plaintiff’s superior qualifications.
`
`51. Plaintiff was qualified for the position of Director of Transportation.
`
`52. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing violations of the ADEA,
`
`Plaintiff has sustained economic and non-economic damages, including, but not limited to,
`
`denial of the wages and other benefits and lost interest on those wages and other benefits.
`
`53. Defendants’ violations of the ADEA were intentional and willful. Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages doubling the award of interest, wages,
`
`lost employment benefits, and other compensation lost to him as a result of Defendants’
`
`discriminating against him on the basis of his age. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`54. For this cause of action, Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`ADEA Retaliation
`
`55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`- 10 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`56. Defendants committed unlawful employment practices when they discriminated
`
`against Plaintiff for his efforts to oppose age discrimination prohibited by the ADEA, in
`
`violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d).
`
`57. Defendants’ violation of the ADEA was willful and Plaintiff seeks liquidated
`
`damages for each violation. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`58. Defendants’ violations of the ADEA were intentional and willful. Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages doubling the award of interest, wages,
`
`lost employment benefits, and other compensation lost to him as a result of Defendants’
`
`discriminating against him on the basis of his age. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`59. For this cause of action, Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`Race Discrimination In Violation Of The FEHA
`
`60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`61. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA was in full force and effect and fully
`
`binding upon Defendants. Plaintiff was a member of a group protected by the statute, in
`
`particular section 12940(a), prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race or color.
`
`Each of the Defendants was at all relevant times an “employer” within the meaning of the
`
`FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926(d).
`
`62. Defendants’ refusal to promote Plaintiff to the position of Director of
`
`Transportation in favor of Caucasian candidates constitutes discrimination based on race and is
`
`- 11 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`a violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a).
`
`63. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other
`
`employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses.
`
`64. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
`
`actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to
`
`the Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
`
`65. Defendants committed the acts described herein maliciously, fraudulently, and
`
`oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
`
`amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus
`
`entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.
`
`66. For this cause of action, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, costs,
`
`and expert fees pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b).
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`Age Discrimination In Violation Of The FEHA
`
`67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`68. The FEHA, in California Government Code Section 12940(a), prohibits any
`
`employer from discharging a person from employment, or discriminating against a person in
`
`compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of that person’s
`
`age.
`
`69. Plaintiff’s age was a substantial motivating factor in Defendants’ decision not to
`
`- 12 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`promote Plaintiff into the Director of Transportation position in favor of younger candidates.
`
`This violates the FEHA.
`
`70. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other
`
`employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses.
`
`71. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
`
`actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to
`
`the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
`
`72. Defendants committed the acts described herein maliciously, fraudulently, and
`
`oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
`
`amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus
`
`entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.
`
`73. For this cause of action, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, costs,
`
`and expert fees pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`FEHA Retaliation
`
`74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`75. Pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(h), it is an unlawful employment practice
`
`for an employer to discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any
`
`practices forbidden under the FEHA.
`
`76. Plaintiff complained to the EEOC about the workplace discrimination he
`
`- 13 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`experienced on account of his race and age as an employee of Defendants. At all relevant
`
`times, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had complained to the EEOC. In retaliation for his
`
`complaints about discrimination, Defendants denied Plaintiff promotion to the Director of
`
`Transportation position.
`
`77. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses in earnings and other employment benefits
`
`and has incurred other economic losses.
`
`78. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment, all
`
`to the Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
`
`79. Defendants committed the action herein maliciously, fraudulently, and
`
`oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
`
`amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to
`
`recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.
`
`80.
`
`In connection with this cause of action, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees, costs, and expert fees pursuant to California Government Code section
`
`12965(b).
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(By Plaintiff Against Defendants)
`Failure to Prevent Discrimination And Retaliation In Violation Of The FEHA
`
`81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`82. Pursuant to California Government Code section 12940(k), it is an unlawful
`
`- 14 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`employment practice for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent workplace
`
`discrimination and retaliation from occurring.
`
`83. On information and belief, Defendants did not take all reasonable steps to prevent
`
`discrimination and retaliation from occurring. On information and belief, at all relevant times,
`
`Defendants did not have appropriate policies, procedures, practices, guidelines, rules, and/or
`
`trainings regarding the prevention of race and age discrimination and retaliation in the
`
`workplace. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein constitutes a violation of Section 12940(k).
`
`84. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses in earnings and other employment benefits
`
`and has incurred other economic losses.
`
`85. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment, all
`
`to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
`
`86. Defendants committed the action herein maliciously, fraudulently, and
`
`oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
`
`amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to
`
`recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.
`
`87.
`
`In connection with this cause of action, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees, costs, and expert fees pursuant to California Government Code section
`
`12965(b).
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff the
`
`- 15 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 16 of 17
`
`following forms of relief:
`
`a) An award of all general and special damages that are established at trial;
`b) An award of back pay and front pay for his lost wages and benefits;
`c)
`Instatement of Plaintiff to the Director of Transportation position;
`d) An award of compensatory damages for emotional harm, and/or physical injury;
`e) An award of punitive damages for Defendants’ malicious and/or recklessly
`indifferent violation of his civil rights;
`f) An award of actual and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and litigation
`expenses as provided by law, including 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k), Cal. Gov’t Code
`§ 12965(b);
`g) Pre-judgment interest on all amounts awarded as allowed by law;
`h) Post judgment interest;
`i) A supplemental award to cover any adverse tax consequences of the judgment;
`j) An award and entry of injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants, and each of them,
`from engaging in discriminatory employment practices and requiring Defendants
`to undertake training and other efforts to eradicate unlawful discrimination in the
`workplace; and
`k) Such other equitable, legal, or additional relief as may be appropriate and just.
`
`Dated: November 25, 2020
`
`OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
`
`By:______________________________
`/s/ Katharine Chao
` Katharine Chao
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff LARRY HOUSTON
`
`- 16 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08345-SK Document 1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 17 of 17
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby requests a jury
`trial on all claims so triable.
`
`OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
`
`Dated: November 25, 2020
`
`/s/ Katharine Chao
`By:______________________________
` Katharine Chao
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff LARRY HOUSTON
`
`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
`
`- 17 -
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
`
`