Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 1 of 201
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`APR 11 2025
`
`AMMi
`
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`)) ))) )) )))))
`
`AMINA JOHNSON,
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`v.
`
`GENREAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
`TECHNOLOGY
`
`Defendant(s),
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Amina Johnson (“Johnson”), who respectfully submits this
`Third Amended Complaint against Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology
`(“Defendant”). With this submission, Johnson seeks to clarify her Second Amended Complaint
`[ECF 24], filed without leave of court, which renders Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss [ECF
`16] moot under the Ninth Circuit’s established precedent in Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino,
`No. 13-56602 (9th Cir. 2015).
`Through this Third Amended Complaint, Johnson presents concise and additional
`statements of her claims, now further substantiated by 163 pages of omitted evidence from
`Defendant (see attached evidence D0001-D0163). These newly outlined claims emphasize
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct, including intentional torts and unopposed pleading. Additionally,
`they reinforce her previously asserted claims of discriminatory practices based on her disability and
`retaliatory actions against her for exercising protected rights.
`Defendant’s consistent disregard for established precedent, coupled with its decision to
`submit a third motion to dismiss without addressing Johnson’s prior amended complaints filed
`without leave of court [ECF 8, ECF 24], which are not barred by the statute of limitations,
`underscores Johnson’s right to present these new claims in a Third Amended Complaint without
`requiring leave of court.
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 1 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 2 of 201
`
`In this submission, Johnson provides a clear and concise statement of her claims, addresses
`the Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) benefit letter retroactive to January 2023, and
`highlights Defendant's malicious intent. This Third Amended Complaint is submitted in pursuit of
`justice and to ensure that the Defendant is held accountable for its actions.
`As a result, Johnson respectfully requests that this Court award both compensatory and
`punitive damages. Specifically, Johnson seeks:
`Compensatory damages in the amount of $9,300,000 to account for the
`emotional distress, financial losses, and personal injuries suffered as a direct result of Defendant’s
`
`1.
`
`unlawful actions; and
`Punitive damages in the amount of $12,600,000 to serve as a deterrent, ensuring
`2.
`that Defendant and others refrain from engaging in similar harmful conduct in the future.
`In total, Johnson seeks $21,900,000.00 in damages, reflecting the gravity of harm endured
`and the need to prevent further violations of law and justice.
`II.
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`3.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff’s
`claims arise under federal law, including the ADA. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the events giving rise to this complaint occurred within this district, and
`Defendant conducts business within this jurisdiction.
`III. Parties and Declaration
`4.
`Johnson, is an individual residing in Las Vegas, Nevada. Johnson is a qualified
`individual with a disability, as defined by the ADA, and at all relevant times, was employed by
`Defendant.
`Defendant, General Dynamics Information Technology ("Defendant"), is a business
`5.
`group under General Dynamics Corporation ("GD"), operating within the governance and strategic
`framework set by GD. The Defendant aligns its operations with GD's broader objectives, and its
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 2 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 3 of 201
`
`executives ensure that the business group adheres strictly to GD's policies and strategic directives.
`The Defendant was served the original summons and complaint on June 13, 2024.
`6.
`I, Amina Johnson, declare that all statements contained herein are based on my
`personal knowledge and that I am competent to testify to the facts set forth herein and the
`circumstances described below. My statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I
`declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and
`correct. Executed on April 11, 2025.
`IV.
`Evidence
`7.
`Johnson supports her claims with attached evidence that underscores Defendant’s
`unlawful actions, including:
`
`D0001-D0163: Omitted pages of evidence concealed by Defendant,
`a.
`documenting relevant events, judicial admissions, timelines, and retaliatory actions against Johnson.
`P0001–P0019: Johnson’s evidence substantiating her arguments and stated
`b.
`claims, demonstrating her compliance with procedural requirements and the validity of her
`allegations in support of granting relief.
`These attachments are integral to this Third Amended Complaint and serve to substantiate
`Johnson’s allegations, including but not limited to Defendant’s discriminatory, retaliatory, and
`negligent conduct. By concealing critical evidence and disregarding Johnson’s presented
`documentation, Defendant undermined both the integrity of judicial proceedings and Johnson’s
`ability to assert her rights effectively.
`V.
`Counts
`8.
`These actions arise from the Defendant's conduct and the omission of 163 pages of
`critical evidence, which Johnson asserts have caused significant harm to herself and her family.
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 3 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 4 of 201
`
` Specifically, Johnson alleges the following:
`Defendant engaged in discriminatory practices based on her disability, in violation
`•
`of federal and state laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
`Defendant retaliated against Johnson for asserting her protected rights under these
`•
`
`laws.
`
`Defendant committed intentional torts, including the infliction of emotional distress
`•
`through extreme and outrageous conduct, and retaliatory acts carried out with malicious intent.
`These actions have resulted in severe emotional distress, financial loss, and personal harm to
`Johnson and her family. Johnson alleges the following counts in support of her claims:
`Count I: Discrimination Under ADA
`9.
`Defendant discriminated against Johnson on the basis of her disability, in violation of
`the ADA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. This is substantiated by Defendant’s own judicial
`admission, as documented in the omitted evidence (see attached omitted evidence D0027–D0040).
`a.
`The elements of prima facie discrimination under the ADA are clearly met
`
`in this case:
`
`Protected Group: Johnson belongs to a protected group, as she stated
`•
`during intake that she experiences symptoms of long COVID.
`Adverse Action: Johnson was disciplined, as evidenced by Defendant's
`•
`final written warning issued on or around November 2022.
`Qualified for the Position: Johnson was qualified for her position and able
`•
`to perform her job duties, with or without reasonable accommodations, as required under the ADA.
`Others Treated Differently: Others not belonging to Johnson's protected
`•
`group were not disciplined or were not disciplined in the same manner, despite committing the same or similar
`infractions (citing "not met").
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 4 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 5 of 201
`
`Despite these elements being met, along with Defendant’s judicial admission and the
`
`intentional concealment of key evidence for over two years, the court recommended denial of all
`
`amended complaints until the motion to dismiss is resolved. This recommendation disregards the
`principles of justice and judicial estoppel, enabling Defendant to assert a defense that blatantly
`contradicts its own physical evidence and the well-established precedent set by the Ninth Circuit (see
`
`attached omitted evidence D0001, D0027–D0040).
`Count II: Retaliation Under ADA
`10.
`Defendant retaliated against Johnson for asserting her protected rights under the
`ADA and related federal and state laws, as substantiated by Defendant's omitted evidence (see
`attached omitted evidence D0027-D0040 and D0008).
`a.
`As of October 4, 2024, Defendant’s attorney became aware of Defendant’s
`judicial admission concerning Johnson's allegations of retaliatory actions, as disclosed under oath to
`the EEOC investigator (see attached omitted evidence D0033-D0034). Johnson argues that this
`admission serves as a pivotal element in establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA
`and reinforces the application of judicial estoppel.
`b.
`Specifically, Defendant’s judicial admission acknowledges the following
`elements for retaliation under the ADA:
`Protected Activity: Johnson engaged in a protected activity under the
`•
`statute by requesting assistance for reasonable accommodation on or about October 23, 2022.
`Defendant’s Knowledge: Defendant was fully aware of Johnson’s
`•
`involvement in a protected activity, as evidenced by Johnson formal request for accommodation
`due to her disability.
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 5 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 6 of 201
`
`Adverse Action: Defendant acted to deny Johnson a right, privilege, or
`•
`caused harm by issuing a written warning on November 11, 2022.
`Causal Connection: There was a causal connection between Johnson’s
`•
`protected activity and Defendant’s adverse action. Defendant contended that Johnson did not
`request a modification until November 28, 2022, a statement that directly contradicts their earlier
`response, thereby exposing the retaliatory motive.
`Lack of Non-Discriminatory Justification: Defendant cannot provide a
`•
`legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action taken against Johnson.
`Despite all elements of prima facie retaliation being met, along with Defendant’s admission
`of failing to provide a non-discriminatory reason and the concealment of key evidence for over two
`years, the court recommended denial of all amended complaints until the motion to dismiss is
`resolved. This recommendation disregards the principles of justice and judicial estoppel, enabling
`Defendant to assert a statute of limitations defense that directly contradicts their own physical
`evidence.
`Furthermore, this recommendation underscores the systemic racism embedded in the
`judicial system, which non-white individuals, particularly members of the Black community, are
`forced to navigate and endure in their pursuit of justice. Such systemic inequities amplify the harm
`caused to Johnson, hindering her ability to hold the Defendant accountable for their unlawful
`actions.
`Count III: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
`11.
`This action arises from Defendant’s continued extreme and outrageous conduct,
`including the omission of 163 pages of critical evidence. Defendant’s attorney further disregarded
`ethical obligations in a rush to seek dismissal, despite knowing that the omitted evidence directly
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 6 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 7 of 201
`
`contradicted Defendant’s claims. The court’s report and recommendation emboldened
`Defendant’s behavior by proposing a ruling based on a baseless and meritless defense of
`timeliness, while ignoring the contradictory nature of the omitted evidence.
`a.
`As of October 4, 2024, it became evident that Defendant’s attorney was
`aware of Defendant’s judicial admission, which had been withheld for over two years. Despite this
`knowledge, the attorney continued to argue that Johnson’s claim was barred by the statute of
`limitations—a position directly contradicted by the withheld judicial admission. Additionally, the
`attorney failed to comply with the 14-day deadline to plead following the denial of Defendant’s
`first motion to dismiss, as required by law (see attached omitted evidence D0001-D0163).
`b.
`Defendant’s attorney also became aware, as of October 4, 2024, of
`Defendant’s intent to withhold critical evidence and to rush toward obtaining dismissal under Rule
`12(b)(6), a strategy previously employed in Nevada courts. Despite this knowledge, the court
`recommended denial of the amended complaint, citing Rule 8(a) for dismissal: “A complaint
`having the factual elements of a cause of action scattered throughout the complaint and not
`
`organized into a ‘short and plain statement of the claim’ may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule
`8(a).” (Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)) (see attached
`omitted evidence D0001-D0163).
`c.
`Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct, coupled with its attorney’s
`disregard for ethical obligations and procedural requirements, inflicted severe emotional distress
`upon Johnson. This distress is further compounded by the court’s enabling behavior and the
`systemic inequities Johnson faced while attempting to seek justice.
`d.
`For two years, Defendant’s Executive Team had knowledge of Johnson’s
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 7 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 8 of 201
`
`protected activities as early as December 20, 2022, yet failed to take necessary steps to address or
`resolve the matter. This inaction, combined with the concealment of key evidence, demonstrates a
`blatant disregard for procedural rules, Johnson’s mental welfare, and egregious intent. Defendant’s
`systemic efforts to conceal Johnson’s constitutional rights exacerbated the harm caused and
`underscore the extreme and outrageous nature of their conduct (see attached omitted evidence
`D0043-D0051, D0063-D0067, D0135-D0137, D0149, D00162-D00163).
`e.
`For two years, Defendant’s Senior Leadership Team was aware of
`Johnson’s protected activities as early as October 24, 2022, yet failed to take meaningful steps to
`address or resolve the matter. This inaction, coupled with the deliberate concealment of evidence,
`reflects a flagrant disregard for procedural rules and Johnson’s mental welfare. The egregious intent
`to obscure the truth further compounded the harm caused by Defendant’s systemic cover-up of
`Johnson’s constitutional rights, amplifying her emotional and psychological distress (see attached
`omitted evidence D0043-D0051, D0063-D0067, D0135-D0137, D0149, D00162-D00163).
`f.
`Defendant’s Management Team was also fully aware of Johnson’s
`protected activities as early as October 24, 2022. Despite this awareness, Defendant failed to take
`any meaningful steps to address or resolve the matter. This deliberate inaction, combined with the
`concealment of critical evidence, underscores a calculated effort to obscure the truth, disregard
`procedural rules, and systematically violate Johnson’s constitutional rights. These actions directly
`exacerbated the harm caused to Johnson, further violating her legal protections and inflicting severe
`emotional distress (see attached omitted evidence D0043-D0044, D0063-D0067).
`Defendant’s failure to disclose key evidence, coupled with the court’s refusal to
`recommend a second amended complaint, underscores a troubling disparity in the application of
`the rule of law. Defendant’s continued disregard for legal principles, including Rule 15(a)(2), as
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 8 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 9 of 201
`
`emphasized in Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990), exemplifies
`systemic procedural and ethical failures. These failures not only enabled Defendant’s misconduct
`but also perpetuated systemic inequities, disproportionately harming marginalized individuals
`like Johnson.
`Count IV: Fraudulent Misrepresentation
`12. Defendant knowingly concealed or misrepresented material facts, including omitting
`163 pages of evidence and its judicial admission, with intent to mislead the court, undermine
`Johnson’s legal claims, and manipulate the facts to avoid accountability (see attached omitted
`evidence D0001-D00163).
`The following specific facts demonstrate a clear pattern of intent and emboldened behavior by
`Defendant, which successfully shifted blame and avoided accountability:
`a.
`On November 3, 2022, Johnson’s Project Manager, Mr. Sien, deliberately
`misrepresented facts presented to Senior Leadership, shifting blame onto Johnson to conceal mistakes
`made by a white team member. This act falsely portrayed Johnson as responsible rather than
`addressing discriminatory practices within the team (see attached P0007-P0010).
`Johnson contends that this conduct constitutes blatant racism and demonstrates a
`disregard for evidence supporting her claims (see attached P0007-P0010). Despite the existence of
`this supporting evidence, Defendant successfully convinced the Senior Leadership Team that Johnson
`was at fault, undermining her credibility and discriminatory behavior to escalate, compounding harm
`caused by Defendant’s actions.
`b.
`On December 21, 2022, Defendant once again manipulated facts by shifting
`blame to Johnson, claiming that her behavior required intervention as early as August 2022 (see
`attached D0033). This argument directly contradicted Defendant’s prior communication with
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 9 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 10 of 201
`
`Johnson, which specifically stated: "Hi Amina, Employee Relations (ER) request INV-22-08-102,
`opened 08.09.2022, has been reviewed and assigned to Steven Swint, Employee Relations Partner
`Senior. He will send you a meeting invite to discuss the concerns you brought forward..." among
`other details (see attached P0006).
`Despite the existence of evidence supporting Johnson’s position and Defendant’s
`judicial admission in its position statement, Defendant successfully delayed the release of the RTS
`notice until July 2024. This delay undermined Johnson’s ability to fully present her claims and seek
`justice, further illustrating Defendant’s intent to mislead and avoid accountability (see attached
`omitted evidence D0009-D0016).
`c.
`In January 2023, Defendant argued that Johnson could have contracted
`COVID-19 in Las Vegas, thereby establishing Nevada jurisdiction and securing a ruling in
`Defendant’s favor under the statute of limitations. However, Defendant deliberately concealed crucial
`evidence dated December 21, 2022, which directly corroborated Johnson’s claim. Specifically,
`Defendant’s own position statement acknowledged: "While in Puerto Rico, Ms. Johnson contracted
`COVID-19 and she ended up working the last five days of her trip from her hotel room before
`returning to her home in Nevada on September 27, 2022." (see attached omitted evidence D0029)
`Despite the existence of compelling evidence supporting Johnson’s position, the
`Defendant managed to secure a judgment in its favor through omissions and misrepresentations.
`These calculated actions significantly hindered Johnson’s opportunity to present her claims in their
`entirety, depriving her of a fair pursuit of justice. This outcome not only amplified the harm caused by
`the Defendant’s conduct but also underscores the need for accountability and integrity in the judicial
`process.
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 10 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 11 of 201
`
`In August 2023, Defendant argued that Johnson had not opened her claim
`d.
`until after January 4, 2023, the date of her termination. However, this argument ignored
`Defendant’s own judicial admission in the Commonwealth of Virginia courts, which clearly
`established that Johnson's claim had been opened on November 7, 2022. This earlier filing date
`was a result of an error by Defendant’s Management Team in failing to submit the claim in Puerto
`Rico (see attached P0011-P0013).
`Despite the presence of evidence supporting Johnson’s position, including
`Defendant's judicial admission, Defendant secured a judgment in its favor by relying on omissions
`and misrepresentations. This calculated strategy denied Johnson the opportunity to present her
`claims in full and pursue justice. Even now, Defendant continues to withhold this critical evidence
`from the court, perpetuating a scenario in which Johnson’s substantiated claims are overshadowed
`by Defendant’s arguments. Such an imbalance not only undermines the court's duty to apply the
`law equitably but also diminishes confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.
`e.
`In July 2024, Defendant argued that Johnson was an at-will employee to
`support its defense under the state's Rule 12(b)(5) for 'failure to state a claim.' However, Defendant
`knowingly withheld critical evidence that substantiated Johnson's claim of retaliation under 42 U.S.
`Code § 1981, further undermining her legal position (see attached P0014-P0019).
`Despite the protections provided by well-settled law and the Fourteenth Amendment,
`which strongly favored Johnson, the District Court of Nevada granted Defendant’s motion. This
`decision overlooked crucial evidence and legal precedent, raising significant concerns about the
`equitable application of justice and the integrity of the judicial process.
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 11 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 12 of 201
`
`Johnson now finds herself in a similar position, as this court recommends
`f.
`denial of her second amended complaint, citing her disability and the requirement of an oral hearing
`now that her disability has been formally recognized by SSDI in March 2025. Meanwhile, the
`court is simultaneously rushing to resolve the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. This approach
`disregards Johnson’s constitutional rights and compounds the harm caused by Defendant’s actions
`(see attached P0001-P0005).
`Faced with these challenges, Johnson is compelled to submit a Motion for Reconsideration
`to this court, along with a Second Amended Complaint without leave of court, as a final effort to
`move forward and hold Defendant accountable for its systemic misconduct and persistent disregard
`for procedural justice (Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, No. 13-56602 (9th Cir. 2015)).
`Defendant’s ongoing failure to disclose key evidence, coupled with the court's refusal to
`recommend the second amended complaint as a matter of law, highlights a deeply troubling
`disparity in the application of justice. This disparity underscores the systemic barriers that
`marginalized groups, particularly those in the Black community, must navigate within a judicial
`system that often produces disproportionate outcomes.
`By disregarding Johnson’s constitutional rights and failing to address Defendant’s
`egregious conduct, the judicial system perpetuates inequity and exacerbates the harm inflicted upon
`Johnson. This failure to hold Defendant accountable reflects broader systemic challenges faced by
`marginalized individuals seeking justice, as they are forced to confront a legal system that
`frequently overlooks their rights and voices."
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 12 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 13 of 201
`
`Count V: Negligence
`13. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in handling Johnson’s protected
`activities, disability accommodations, and legal claims, resulting in significant harm. Johnson suffered
`emotional distress, financial loss, and undue barriers to asserting her rights under both federal and state
`laws.
`
`Defendant neglected to address or resolve Johnson’s protected activities
`a.
`adequately, despite direct knowledge of her disability-related challenges and their adverse impact on
`her ability to perform her duties effectively.
`b.
`Defendant failed to establish and enforce proper policies and procedures to
`accommodate Johnson’s disabilities and ensure fair treatment under applicable laws. This negligence
`exacerbated the harm Johnson experienced.
`c.
`Through its actions and omissions, Defendant deprived Johnson of equal
`access to the resources, support, and accommodations critical to her professional success, leading to
`irreparable harm to her reputation and well-being.
`d.
`Defendant’s failure to act responsibly and transparently demonstrated a
`disregard for its legal obligations, amplifying the negative impact on Johnson’s rights and livelihood.
`e.
`On November 3, 2022, Johnson reported discriminatory practices within her
`team to Defendant’s Senior Leadership. She explicitly stated, “This is an example of gaslighting that
`is still occurring by members of the team. I was accused by two members of my team, prior to
`researching the issue in front of the customer, of breaking the Dev and Test Environment.” Despite
`being made aware of this incident, Defendant failed to investigate or take reasonable measures to
`address these practices, allowing further harm to Johnson to continue unchecked (see attached
`P0009, D0050, D0068, D0143-D0144).
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 13 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 14 of 201
`
`Johnson contends that Defendant’s Senior Leadership has repeatedly failed
`f.
`to take meaningful and appropriate action to address and resolve persistent issues of discrimination
`within the team. This inaction fostered an environment where misconduct was concealed and
`perpetuated, ultimately enabling the Project Manager to shift blame unjustly onto Johnson, a Black
`woman, in order to cover up the error of a white team member. This deliberate act portrayed
`Johnson as the source of the issue.
`Such conduct reflects not only blatant racism but also a systemic failure by
`Defendant to uphold its duty of care toward Johnson. By allowing these practices to continue
`unchecked, Defendant magnified the harm inflicted on Johnson, causing emotional distress,
`professional setbacks, and significant financial loss.
`g.
`On October 4, 2024, Defendant’s attorney became aware that Johnson had
`formally contacted the Defendant’s Executive Team on November 13, 2022, to raise concerns
`regarding unresolved issues of race and, later, disability. Johnson had explicitly reported that these
`ongoing discriminatory practices were actively hindering her medical treatment and recovery
`efforts.
`
`Despite receiving this formal notification, Defendant failed to take meaningful steps
`to address these concerns. This sustained inaction exemplifies Defendant’s lack of reasonable care
`and a disregard for Johnson’s well-being, compounding the harm caused by its negligence.
`Johnson asserts that the Defendant’s Executive Team’s continued failure to
`h.
`take timely and meaningful action on unresolved issues related to race, and more recently disability,
`has further enabled and perpetuated discriminatory behavior within the organization. This persistent
`inaction sends a troubling message—that such practices are tolerated and may continue unchecked.
`This fosters an environment of systemic inequity that not only harms individuals like Johnson but
`undermines the broader principles of fairness and justice.
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 14 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 15 of 201
`
`Count VI: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
`14. Defendant breached its fiduciary duty by failing to act in Johnson’s best interests,
`instead shifting blame onto Johnson, a Black woman, and portraying her as the cause of the issue.
`Johnson asserts that this conduct reflects not only blatant racism but also a systemic failure by
`Defendant to uphold its duty of care, further compounding the harm caused to her.
`a.
`As of October 4, 2024, Defendant’s attorney became aware that the EEOC
`RTS notice should have been mailed to Johnson from the Commonwealth of Virginia no later than
`February 2023. However, the matter was deferred to the EEOC in Las Vegas, where the EEOC
`disregarded Defendant's position statement and requested a new one (see attached omitted evidence
`D0001-D0040). Johnson contends that she can file a second amended complaint without leave of
`court as a matter of law, which would moot Defendant's second Motion to Dismiss under Rule 15(a)
`(2).
`
`Defendant’s attorney now argues a baseless defense, citing the 90-day statute of
`limitations, despite the Ninth Circuit’s clarification that courts may consider equitable tolling.
`Johnson argues that the EEOC’s failure to address the Commonwealth of Virginia’s findings and
`mail the RTS in January 2023 has unnecessarily complicated this case
`b.
`As of October 4, 2024, Defendant’s attorney became aware that the EEOC
`RTS notice does not constitute a valid defense. Instead of fulfilling their ethical obligations, the
`attorney has become complicit in a conspiracy to cover up Johnson’s civil rights violations. Johnson
`asserts that she can file a second amended complaint without leave of court as a matter of law, which
`would resolve Defendant’s motion to dismiss in accordance with this court’s recommendation (Id.).
`c.
`As of October 4, 2024, Defendant’s attorney became aware that Johnson had
`formally contacted Defendant’s Executive Team on November 13, 2022, to raise concerns about
`unresolved issues related to race and, later, disability. Johnson specifically reported that these
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 15 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 16 of 201
`
`ongoing discriminatory practices were actively hindering her medical treatment and recovery efforts.
`Johnson contends that she can file a second amended complaint without leave of court as a matter of
`law.
`VI. Legal Standing
`15.
`Johnson respectfully submits this Third Amended Complaint, which incorporates
`new claims addressing Defendant’s intentional torts, offers Defendant an additional opportunity to
`meet its ethical obligations, and seeks to moot Defendant’s third Motion to Dismiss [ECF 25] in
`alignment with the court’s recommendation. This submission is firmly supported by the Ninth
`Circuit’s well-established precedent in Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, No. 13-56602 (9th
`Cir. 2015). The ruling confirms that amendments made as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)
`do not necessitate leave of court. Notably, this rule operates independently of procedural timelines
`and effectively moots pending motions to dismiss where no responsive pleading is filed within 14
`days of the initial motion to dismiss, as mandated by law.
`The Third Amended Complaint represents Johnson's final submission, providing clarity
`and resolution to the procedural delays intentionally caused by Defendant. By presenting these
`claims and firmly adhering to well-established legal precedent, Johnson strives to ensure that justice
`is achieved and that Defendant is held accountable for its ongoing disregard of legal and ethical
`responsibilities.
`VII. Relief Requested
`16.
`Johnson seeks:
`Compensatory damages to address financial losses, emotional distress, and
`a.
`harm to her professional reputation caused by Defendant’s unlawful and negligent conduct.
`b.
`Punitive damages to serve as a deterrent, ensuring that Defendant and others
`refrain from engaging in similar breaches of fiduciary duty and unlawful actions in the future.
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:24-cv-02033-APG-EJY
`
`Page 16 of 201
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY Document 58 Filed 04/11/25 Page 17 of 201
`
`VIII. Prayer for Relief
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Amina Johnson respectfully prays for judgment in her favor and
`against Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, as follows:
`Compensatory damages iin the amount of $9,300,000.00, to be proven at trial, for
`1.
`financial losses, emotional distress, harm to Johnson’s professional reputation, and irreparable harm
`in obtaining another Secret Clearance.
`Punitive damages in the amount of $12,600,000.00, sufficient to deter Defendant’s
`2.
`malicious and egregious behavi