V.

JAMES DESIMONE LAW

1
V. James DeSimone (SBN: 119668)
2 [email protected]
Carmen D. Sabater (SBN: 303546)
3 [email protected]
Emily C. Barbour (SBN: 337185) Of-Counsel
4
[email protected]
5 13160 Mindanao Way, Suite 280
Marina del Rey, California 90292
6 Telephone: 310.693.5561
7 Facsimile: 323.544.6880
Email: [email protected]
8
RONALD P. ACKERMAN (SBN 159692)
9 OSHEA V. ORCHID (SBN 298375)
10 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LEGAL, LLP
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 660
11 Los Angeles, California 90034
Phone: (310) 649-5300
12 Fax: (310) 649-4045
13 Email: [email protected]

14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
15 ELIZABETH HAYWOOD, ALEXANDREA HAYWOOD,
DUSTIN HAYWOOD, MICHAEL HAYWOOD, and JASON HAYWOOD
16
17 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
18 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
19 Case No.:
ELIZABETH HAYWOOD, DUSTIN
20 HAYWOOD, ALEXANDREA HAYWOOD, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
21 MICHAEL HAYWOOD JR., and JASON DAMAGES:
HAYWOOD, individually, and as successors
22 in interest to MICHAEL HAYWOOD, 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
(Cal. Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq)
23
Plaintiffs, 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
24 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
v. (Cal. Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq)
25 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, and DOES 1 FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS
26
through 50, inclusive, (Cal. Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq)
27 4. FAILURE TO PREVENT
Defendants. DISCRIMINATION
28 5. WRONGFUL DEATH FROM FEHA

1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 VIOLATIONS (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
1
377.60)
2 6. ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT
ACTION IN VIOLATION OF
3 PUBLIC POLICY
7. NEGLIGENCE RESULTING IN
4
PAIN, SUFFERING, AND
5 PHYSICAL INJURY
8. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
6 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
7 9. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

8
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9 CASE SUMMARY
10 The County of Riverside’s Flood Control District knew that its long-time Equipment
11 Service Supervisor, Michael Haywood, and his wife had disabilities that made them both uniquely
12 vulnerable to death and serious illness from COVID-19. Nevertheless, the County of Riverside
13 refused to engage in a good faith interactive process with Mr. Haywood regarding his requests
14 for accommodations, refused to implement and enforce basic COVID-19 safety precautions in
15 the office (i.e., screening, distancing, and masking), refused to allow the reasonable
16 accommodation of remote working and staggered scheduling, and failed to comply with the
17 COVID-19 safety rules and guidance adopted by the State of California, including the California
18 Department of Public Health, until after Mr. Haywood’s hospitalization.
19 As a result of the County’s policies, practices, and omissions, Mr. Haywood contracted
20 COVID-19 from a coworker at the office in December 2020. Although the County of Riverside
21 knew about Mrs. Haywood’s disabilities that made her uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19, the
22 County of Riverside took no steps to protect Mrs. Haywood from “take home” exposure to
23 COVID-19. On Christmas Day 2020, Mr. Haywood was hospitalized. Eleven days later,
24 Elizabeth also tested positive for COVID-19. Mrs. Haywood continues to suffer from long-haul,
25 debilitating symptoms as a result of her battle with COVID-19, including brain fog, shortness of
26 breath, headaches, vertigo, intense nausea, and heart palpitations. Mr. Haywood was forced to
27 retire prematurely while in the hospital, spent the last weeks of his life intubated, and died on
28 February 2, 2021.

2
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
2 1. This Complaint is brought by Elizabeth Haywood, Alexandrea Haywood, Dustin
3 Haywood, Michael Haywood Jr., and Jason Haywood, individually and as the heirs and
4 successors of interest of Mr. Haywood.
5 2. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Plaintiff Elizabeth Haywood, the wife of
6 decedent Michael Haywood, is and has been an individual residing in the home she shared with
7 Michael Haywood in San Bernardino County.
8 3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant County of Riverside did
9 business in the County of Riverside, California where the events at issue in this action occurred.
10 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
11 governmental or otherwise, of DEFENDANTS DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff
12 at this time, who therefore sues said DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will
13 amend this Complaint to show the true names, capacities, and/or relationships when the same
14 have been ascertained.
15 5. Plaintiff alleges all or some of said fictitiously-named Defendants were
16 the principals, agents, joint ventures, partners, co-conspirators, employers, employees,
17 contractors, predecessors in interest and/or successors in interest to said Defendants, and are
18 responsible for the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, as more fully set forth below, and
19 are residents of the State of California, are doing business in California and/or committed acts
20 pursuant to which they are under the jurisdiction of the State of California, and/or partners of each
21 and the other and as such are either joint tortfeasors and/or jointly and severally liable and legally
22 responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein, and proximately caused the
23 injuries and damages to Plaintiff as set forth herein.
24 6. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was an agent, servant,
25 partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator and/or joint venture of each of the other
26 Defendants herein and were at all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope
27 of said agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy and/or joint venture and rendered
28 substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants, knowing that their conduct

3
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 constituted a breach of duty owed to Plaintiff.
2 7. Plaintiff has complied with all applicable claims and statutes under the law of the
3 state of California, including Government Code §§ 910, 911.2 and 12960(d).
4 8. This is the Court of proper jurisdiction because the subject matter of this litigation
5 and some or all of the alleged torts and facts, conduct, breaches and/or omissions alleged in this
6 complaint occurred, transpired or were otherwise entered into in the County of Riverside, State
7 of California, and the residence and/or principal place of business of one or more of Defendants
8 is the County of Riverside.
9 FACTS PERTINENT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
10 9. On March 19, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order
11 N-33-20 directing all individuals living in the State of California to stay home or at their place of
12 residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical
13 infrastructure sectors in order to slow the rapid spread of COVID-19 within California.
14 10. On March 19, 2020, Michael Haywood (“Mr. Haywood”) was an Equipment
15 Service Supervisor in the Operations and Maintenance Division of the Flood Control District for
16 DEFENDANT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (the “DEFENDANT COUNTY”). Mr. Haywood had
17 worked for DEFENDANT COUNTY for more than 10 years.
18 11. Henry OLIVO and Miguel NEGRETE knew Mr. Haywood well because they had
19 worked with him for several years. Because they had worked closely for many years, OLIVO
20 and NEGRETE also knew that Mr. Haywood was married, and they knew that he had children.
21 12. Mr. Haywood was 60 years old when the State of California’s March 19, 2020
22 Stay at Home Order went into effect. He turned 61 on July 17, 2020.
23 13. Mr. Haywood had survived cancer twice, had hypertension, used an inhaler, and
24 suffered from other health conditions, including diabetes, that made him at heightened risk of
25 death or severe illness from COVID-19.
26 14. Mr. Haywood kept an inhaler in the desk at his office, and his colleagues observed
27 him use the inhaler while he was at work.
28 15. Mr. Haywood lived with his wife, Elizabeth, who turned 54 in July 2020. Mrs.

4
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 Haywood had multiple autoimmune diseases that put her at heightened risk of death or severe
2 illness from COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, Mrs. Haywood’s doctor took her off work
3 because he did not think she would survive if she contracted COVID-19.
4 16. Mr. Haywood had four children: Dustin Haywood (“Dustin”); Alexandrea
5 Haywood (“Alexandrea”); Jason Haywood (“Jason”), and Michael Haywood Jr. (“Michael Jr.”).
6 Dustin and Alexandrea are also the children of Mrs. Haywood.
7 17. When the State’s stay at home order took effect, Mr. Haywood was fully set up to
8 work from home and his job functions could easily be performed remotely.
9 18. After the COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020, DEFENDANT COUNTY
10 permitted some of its employees, including two of Mr. Haywood’s supervisors, Jason Uhley and
11 Bob Collen, to work from home for at least part of each week. However, DEFENDANT
12 COUNTY did not permit Mr. Haywood to regularly work from home even though he, like Uhley
13 and Collen, had primarily administrative job functions.
14 19. Instead, DEFENDANT COUNTY forced Mr. Haywood to come into work every
15 day, where he shared an office with no windows and poor ventilation with a colleague, Carlos
16 Villegas, and was in close proximity to other employees who shared common areas, such as the
17 breakroom, but did not regularly wear face masks over their mouth and nose.
18 20. Mr. Haywood communicated to his immediate supervisors, OLIVO and
19 NEGRETE, that both he and his wife had health conditions that made them uniquely vulnerable
20 to death or serious illness from COVID-19. Accordingly, DEFENDANT COUNTY, through its
21 supervisors OLIVO, and NEGRETE, knew that Mr. Haywood had disabilities and understood
22 that, if Mr. Haywood was exposed to COVID-19 in the workplace, it would likely result in his
23 death or serious illness as well as the death and/or serious illness of his wife.
24 21. Mr. Haywood asked OLIVO and NEGRETE to accommodate his disabilities by
25 permitting him to work remotely until he was vaccinated against COVID-19. OLIVO and
26 NEGRETE refused.
27 22. Mr. Haywood also complained to OLIVO and NEGRETE about being forced to
28 share an office during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Haywood asked that DEFENDANT

5
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 COUNTY impose staggered work schedules for him and Mr. Villegas as an accommodation for
2 Mr. Haywood’s disabilities.
3 23. OLIVO and NEGRETE refused Mr. Haywood’s request for staggered work
4 schedules.
5 24. OLIVO and NEGRETE also refused to engage in a dialogue about what other
6 safety precautions DEFENDANT COUNTY could implement or enforce to protect Mr. Haywood
7 and his wife and to reasonably accommodate Mr. Haywood’s disabilities during the COVID-19
8 pandemic.
9 25. On June 18, 2020, Governor Newsom issued an order requiring all Californians to
10 wear face masks while in public.
11 26. Mr. Haywood spoke with Brian Tieg, DEFENDANT COUNTY’s Senior Safety
12 Coordinator.
13 27. Mr. Haywood told Mr. Tieg that DEFENDANT COUNTY was not following
14 safety protocols for COVID-19. In particular, Mr. Haywood complained to Mr. Tieg that
15 DEFENDANT COUNTY was not screening employees for possible COVID-19 exposure or
16 symptoms, requiring physical distancing, or requiring that employees wear masks in the
17 workplace.
18 28. Mr. Tieg told Mr. Haywood that he too was trying to implement COVID-19
19 precautions in the office but that upper management with DEFENDANT COUNTY was
20 preventing him from doing so.
21 29. Between March 19, 2020, and December 14, 2020, Mr. Haywood attended
22 multiple meetings with OLIVO and NEGRETE where he verbally expressed his concerns about
23 his and his wife’s disabilities and about the lack of COVID-19 safety precautions in the
24 workplace. Neither OLIVO nor NEGRETE took any steps to accommodate Mr. Haywood’s
25 disabilities or to protect him and/or his wife from COVID-19 in response to Mr. Haywood’s
26 complaints.
27 30. In verbal conversations with his colleagues, Mr. Haywood conveyed his
28 frustration about DEFENDANT COUNTY’s failure to implement and enforce basic COVID-19

6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 safety protocols given the threat it posed to Mr. Haywood and his wife and about the lack of a
2 meaningful response from OLIVO and NEGRETE to his requests for accommodations.
3 31. In or around October 2020, Mr. Haywood attended an in-person indoor meeting at
4 the office with NEGRETE. No one in the meeting wore a mask. After the meeting, he learned
5 that NEGRETE had tested positive for COVID-19.
6 32. Following that exposure, DEFENDANT COUNTY permitted Mr. Haywood to
7 work from home for two weeks in order to quarantine. During that two-week period, Mr.
8 Haywood performed his job duties remotely, underscoring both the appropriateness of his
9 continued requests to work remotely and Mr. Haywood’s ability to perform his job remotely.
10 33. However, DEFENDANT COUNTY required Mr. Haywood to return to work in
11 person after the two-week quarantine period ended.
12 34. Following his return to the office, Mr. Haywood again requested permission to
13 work remotely or have other reasonable accommodations to protect him from COVID-19, but
14 OLIVO, NEGRETE, and DEFENDANT COUNTY continued to refuse to permit Mr. Haywood
15 to work remotely or to discuss other reasonable accommodations for his disabilities.
16 35. DEFENDANT COUNTY also did not take any meaningful steps to improve
17 COVID-19 safety at the workplace following NEGRETE’s exposure of multiple employees in
18 Mr. Haywood’s office to COVID-19 in October 2020. Instead, DEFENDANT COUNTY
19 continued to refuse to implement and enforce COVID-19 safety rules and recommendations
20 promulgated by the State of California, including the California Department of Public Health
21 (“CDPH”).
22 36. Mr. Haywood again made complaints to his supervisors, OLIVO and NEGRETE,
23 as well as to Mr. Tieg about DEFENDANT COUNTY’s failure to implement and enforce basic
24 COVID-19 safety measures in the workplace. He also tried to enforce safety measures on his
25 own.
26 37. DEFENDANT COUNTY refused to take any action in response to Mr. Haywood’s
27 requests and complaints. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S COVID safety guidance to employees in
28 Mr. Haywood’s office remained minimal. Specifically, DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and

7
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 through its supervisory employees, directed employees to alternate their lunch and snack breaks
2 so that they were not all eating in the same vicinity at the same time. OLIVO and NEGRETE,
3 DEFENDANT COUNTY’S supervisory employees, did not issue or require masks or screen
4 employees for possible or suspected COVID-19.
5 38. Between the October 2020 incident resulting in Mr. Haywood’s quarantine and
6 December 14, 2020, when Mr. Haywood first developed COVID-19 symptoms, DEFENDANT
7 COUNTY continued to permit its employees to congregate in the office and breakroom without
8 masks and continued to have its employees to come to work without implementing any COVID-
9 19 screening procedures, such as temperature checks and symptom questionnaires.
10 39. On November 19, 2020, citing “an unprecedented rate of rise in increase in
11 COVID-19 cases across California,” the State of California issued a second, albeit more limited,
12 stay at home order to take effect on November 21, 2020.
13 40. On December 3, 2020, the State of California issued a Regional Stay at Home
14 Order based on the alarming increase of COVID-19 case rates and plummeting Intensive Care
15 Unit (ICU) capacity in Southern California specifically. The Order required Southern
16 Californians to stay home as much as possible, closed operations for certain sectors, and required
17 100 percent masking and physical distancing in sectors that remained open.
18 41. On December 9, 2020, the public health department for DEFENDANT COUNTY
19 released data showing an unprecedented surge in daily COVID-19 cases within the County of
20 Riverside from less than 2,000 daily reported cases before December to more than 10,000 cases
21 reported on a single day in early December 2020.
22 42. On December 10, 2020, DEFENDANT COUNTY conducted a training at Mr.
23 Haywood’s office—led in part by Mr. Haywood himself—directing employees to wear masks
24 when in the garage. DEFENDANT COUNTY took no additional steps in response to the State
25 of California’s Orders, or the alarming trends identified by its own Department of Public Health.
26 It did not act to protect Mr. Haywood from exposure to COVID-19 in the office or implement a
27 process for protecting vulnerable individuals living in its employees’ homes, including Mrs.
28 Haywood, from exposure to “take home” COVID-19 infections.

8
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 43. DEFENDANT COUNTY employees continued not wearing masks in Mr.
2 Haywood’s office, there were no screening protocols put in place, and physical distancing was
3 neither required nor enforced.
4 44. Mr. Haywood had become scared to go to work. He was afraid he would become
5 sick, he was afraid that he would bring COVID-19 home to his wife, and he was afraid that one
6 or both of them would die.
7 45. Mrs. Haywood also lived in fear every day. She was afraid that Mr. Haywood
8 would become infected at his office, bring COVID-19 home to her, and one or both of them would
9 die.
10 46. Mr. Haywood’s children, Plaintiffs Alexandrea, Dustin, Michael, and Jason
11 Haywood, also lived in daily fear during this time that their father would become seriously ill.
12 For Dustin and Alexandrea, the fear was heightened because they knew their mother, Mrs.
13 Haywood, was also at serious risk of serious illness or death through “take home” exposure from
14 Mr. Haywood.
15 47. The family’s worst fears were realized. In December 2020, one of Mr. Haywood’s
16 colleagues came to work sick. DEFENDANT COUNTY did not send this employee home even
17 though he was visibly ill.
18 48. On December 14, 2020, Mr. Haywood started having symptoms of COVID-19.
19 He called in sick but was able to work from home. Mr. Villegas also had symptoms.
20 49. Contact tracing completed on December 17, 2020, determined that Mr. Haywood
21 had been exposed to COVID-19 at his office through a coworker.
22 50. Multiple employees in Mr. Haywood’s office were quarantined. However,
23 DEFENDANT COUNTY did not report Mr. Haywood’s illness to Cal-OSHA as a workplace
24 exposure until December 28, 2021.
25 51. OLIVO, NEGRETE, and DEFENDANT COUNTY also did not take any steps to
26 protect Mrs. Haywood from “take home” exposure via Mr. Haywood.
27 52. DEFENDANT COUNTY permitted Mr. Haywood to telecommute on December
28 14, 15, and 16, underscoring the appropriateness of his prior requests to work remotely.

9
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 53. On December 17, 2020, Mr. Haywood took a COVID-19 test, which was positive.
2 54. After December 16, 2020, Mr. Haywood elected to use sick leave instead of
3 telecommuting, but he continued to email and text his colleagues to ensure that tasks were
4 completed.
5 55. On December 22, 2020, Mr. Haywood told NEGRETE via text that he had a fever
6 of 101.5 and was struggling to breathe. He stated that he was too sick to continue providing
7 direction to his supervisees from home. Mr. Haywood suggested setting up another quarantined
8 colleague, Kevin Tietsort, for telecommuting so that Kevin could order parts in Mr. Haywood’s
9 absence.
10 56. On Christmas Day, Mr. Haywood was hospitalized for COVID-19. He was one of
11 approximately three employees in his office that required hospitalization for COVID-19 at or
12 around the same time.
13 57. On January 5, 2021, Mrs. Haywood also received a positive COVID-19 test.
14 58. As a result of contracting COVID-19 because of DEFENDANT COUNTY’s
15 negligence and unlawful employment practices described above, Mrs. Haywood now suffers
16 long-term debilitating physical and psychological symptoms. These symptoms include brain fog,
17 shortness of breath, panic attacks, headaches, intense nausea with vomiting, vertigo, and heart
18 palpitations.
19 59. As a result of contracting COVID-19 because of DEFENDANT COUNTY’s
20 negligence and unlawful employment practices described above, Mr. Haywood never came home
21 from the hospital. Due to the severity of his illness, he was compelled to retire on January 3,
22 2021, and, not long afterwards, he was intubated. Mr. Haywood died on February 2, 2021.
23 60. Michael Haywood’s untimely death and Elizabeth’s debilitating illness with long-
24 term effects were direct and foreseeable consequences of DEFENDANT COUNTY’s negligence
25 and unlawful employment practices.
26 61. As a result of DEFENDANT COUNTY’s actions and omissions, the Haywood
27 family has lost: past and future wages; the full value of Mr. Haywood’s pension; medical and
28 funeral expenses; employment benefits; an inheritance; and the value of goods and services that

10
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 Mr. Haywood would have provided for his family.
2 62. Additionally, both Mr. and Mrs. Haywood suffered mental anguish, physical
3 injury, pain, and suffering. In addition to her lingering physical symptoms, Mrs. Haywood
4 continues to suffer from anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, flashbacks, and nightmares.
5 63. Mrs. Haywood and Mr. Haywood’s surviving children also suffered mental
6 anguish and the loss of Mr. Haywood’s care, protection, guidance, advice, training and nurturing,
7 love, society, and companionship.
8 64. Finally, Mrs. Haywood suffered the loss of consortium and continues to suffer
9 from physical and severe psychological issues that hinder her ability to care for herself and to
10 maintain gainful employment.
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, VIOLATION OF §§12940 ET SEQ
13 (All Plaintiffs Against the County of Riverside)
14 65. PLAINTIFFS re-allege the information set forth in the preceding paragraphs and
15 incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
16 66. At all times relevant to this matter, the Fair Employment and Housing Act and
17 Government Code section 12940 were in full force and effect and binding on Defendant.
18 Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a), reads: “It is an unlawful employment practice...
19 [f]or an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
20 disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender,
21 gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation of any person, to refuse to hire or
22 employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment,
23 or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to
24 employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or
25 privileges of employment.”
26 67. Mr. Haywood suffered from a “physical disability”, as defined by Government
27 Code section 12926, subdivision (k). In spite of his disability, Mr. Haywood was able to perform
28 the essential functions of his position as defined by Government Code section 12926, subdivision

11
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 (f), and California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (e), and was otherwise
2 able to perform his job had DEFENDANT COUNTY provided the reasonable accommodation
3 required by Government Code section 12926, subdivision (p), and California Code of
4 Regulations, title 2, section 11068, subdivision (a).
5 68. DEFENDANT’S conduct violated Government Code section 12940, subdivision
6 (a), consistent with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11066. Specifically,
7 DEFENDANT COUNTY and its supervisors, including NEGRETE and OLIVO, were aware of
8 Mr. Haywood’s physical disabilities that limited major life activities. In spite of his disabilities,
9 Mr. Haywood was able to perform the essential functions of his position with reasonable
10 accommodation.
11 69. As set forth above, DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory
12 employees, including NEGRETE and OLIVO, unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Haywood
13 because of his disability by denying him reasonable accommodations, including remote work,
14 staggered work schedules, and/or a workplace where basic COVID-19 safety precautions were
15 implemented and enforced. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees,
16 including NEGRETE and OLIVO, condoned an environment that, among other things, tolerated
17 and encouraged discrimination based on disability that materially and negatively impacted the
18 terms and conditions of Mr. Haywood’s employment.
19 70. DEFENDANT COUNTY violated FEHA through its decision to deny Mr.
20 Haywood reasonable accommodations and failure to engage in the interactive process.
21 71. DEFENDANT COUNTY’s conduct, as manifested through the conduct of its
22 supervisory employees, including NEGRETE and OLIVO, was a substantial factor in causing Mr.
23 Haywood to contract and become seriously ill with COVID-19 and, ultimately, die.
24 72. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFFS,
25 as the successors in interest of Mr. Haywood, have been damaged in an amount according to
26 proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. PLAINTIFFS also seek
27 “affirmative relief” or “prospective relief” as defined by Government Code section 12926,
28 subdivision (a), including reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and any such other relief

12
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 that this Court deems proper.
2 73. As an actual and proximate result of DEFENDANT COUNTY’s willful and
3 intentional discrimination against Mr. Haywood because of his disability, PLAINTIFFS, as the
4 successors in interest of Mr. Haywood, have lost Mr. Haywood’s past and future wages,
5 employment benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
6 74. PLAINTIFFS filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair
7 Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On December 2, 2021, PLAINTIFFS received a “Right-
8 to-Sue” Letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
9 75. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the outrageous conduct of
10 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, Mr. Haywood suffered
11 physical injury, sickness, pain, emotional distress, including fear, stress, anxiety, anger, mental
12 pain and suffering, hospitalization, and, ultimately, death. PLAINTIFFS, as Mr. Haywood’s
13 surviving spouse and children, lost Mr. Haywood’s care, protection, guidance, advice, training
14 and nurturing, love, society, and companionship, medical and funeral expenses, Mr. Haywood’s
15 past and future wages, employment benefits, and the full value of his pension. All of these losses
16 constitute damages to PLAINTIFFS in a sum within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, to
17 be ascertained according to proof.
18 76. PLAINTIFFS also seek wrongful death damages and all other damages and
19 remedies available under state law.
20 77. PLAINTIFFS also plead for attorney fees and costs as allowed by California
21 Government Code § 12965(b).
22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS IN VIOLATION OF
24 GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ
25 (All Plaintiffs Against the County of Riverside)
26 78. PLAINTIFFS re-allege the information set forth in the preceding paragraphs and
27 incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
28 79. At all times relevant to this matter, the Fair Employment and Housing Act,

13
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 Government Code section 12940, was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. Section
2 12940, subdivision (m), reads: “It is an unlawful employment practice . . . [f]or an employer or
3 other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical
4 or mental disability of an applicant or employee. Nothing in this subdivision or in paragraph (1)
5 or (2) of subdivision (a) shall be construed to require an accommodation that is demonstrated by
6 the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined in Section 12926(t),
7 to its operation.”
8 80. At all times relevant to this matter, Mr. Haywood suffered from a “physical
9 disability” as defined by Government Code section 12926, subdivision (k), and the California
10 Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (d)(1. In spite of his disability, Mr.
11 Haywood was able to perform the essential functions of his position as defined by Government
12 Code section 12926, subdivision (f), and the California Code of Regulations, title 2, section
13 11065, subdivision (e), and was otherwise able to perform his job had DEFENDANT COUNTY
14 provided the reasonable accommodation required by Government Code section 12926,
15 subdivision (p), and the California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068, subdivision (a).
16 81. Mr. Haywood provided notice relating to his disabilities and requested potential
17 accommodations. Despite Mr. Haywood’s disabilities, he was able to perform the essential duties
18 of his position with reasonable accommodations. However, DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and
19 through its supervisory employees, repeatedly refused to accommodate Mr. Haywood regardless
20 of the type of accommodation he requested. DEFENDANT COUNTY cannot establish that
21 allowing Mr. Haywood’s reasonable accommodation was an “undue hardship” as defined by
22 Government Code section 12926, subdivision (t), and the California Code of Regulations, title 2,
23 section 11068. Accordingly, DEFENDANT COUNTY’S conduct violated Government Code
24 section 12940, subdivision (m).
25 82. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S failure to provide reasonable accommodation was a
26 substantial factor in causing harm to Mr. Haywood and his heirs and successors in interest.
27 83. As an actual and proximate result of DEFENDANT’S willful and intentional
28 failure to reasonably accommodate, PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in an amount according to

14
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. PLAINTIFFS also seek
2 “affirmative relief” or “prospective relief” as defined by Government Code section 12926,
3 subdivision (a), including reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and any such other relief
4 that this Court deems proper.
5 84. As an actual and proximate result of DEFENDANT’S willful and intentional
6 failure to reasonably accommodate Mr. Haywood’s disabilities, PLAINTIFFS, as the successors
7 in interest to Mr. Haywood, lost Mr. Haywood’s past and future wages, employment benefits, and
8 other out-of-pocket expenses.
9 85. PLAINTIFFS filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair
10 Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On December 2, 2021, PLAINTIFFS received a “Right-to-
11 Sue” Letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
12 86. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the outrageous conduct of
13 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, Mr. Haywood suffered
14 physical injury, sickness, pain, emotional distress, including fear, stress, anxiety, anger, mental
15 pain and suffering, hospitalization, and, ultimately, death. PLAINTIFFS, as Mr. Haywood’s
16 surviving spouse and children, lost Mr. Haywood’s care, protection, guidance, advice, training
17 and nurturing, love, society, and companionship, medical and funeral expenses, Mr. Haywood’s
18 past and future wages, employment benefits, and the full value of his pension. All of these losses
19 constitute damages to PLAINTIFFS in a sum within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, to
20 be ascertained according to proof.
21 87. PLAINTIFFS also seek wrongful death damages and all other damages and
22 remedies available under state law.
23 88. PLAINTIFFS also plead for attorney fees and costs as allowed by California
24 Government Code § 12965(b).
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28

15
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN
3 VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE §§12940 ET SEQ
4 (All Plaintiffs Against the County of Riverside)
5 89. PLAINTIFFS re-allege the information set forth in the preceding paragraphs and
6 incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
7 90. At all times relevant to this matter, the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
8 Government Code section 12940, was in full force and effect and binding on DEFENDANT
9 COUNTY. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n), reads: “It is an unlawful
10 employment practice . . . [f]or an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to engage
11 in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective
12 reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an
13 employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.”
14 91. At all times relevant to this matter, Mr. Haywood suffered from a “physical
15 disability” as defined by Government Code section 12926, subdivision (k), and the California
16 Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (d)(1). In spite of his disability, Mr.
17 Haywood was able to perform the essential functions of his position as defined by Government
18 Code section 12926, subdivision (f), and the California Code of Regulations, title 2, section
19 11065, subdivision (e), and was otherwise able to perform his job without being at risk of severe
20 illness and death had DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees,
21 provided the reasonable accommodation required by Government Code section 12926,
22 subdivision (p), and the California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068, subdivision (a).
23 92. Although Mr. Haywood provided notice to DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and
24 through its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, regarding his physical
25 disability, DEFENDANT COUNTY failed to accommodate Mr. Haywood’s disabilities as set
26 forth above. Mr. Haywood was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine
27 whether reasonable accommodation could be made so that he would be able to perform the
28 essential job requirements and, to that end, he proposed multiple different accommodations

16
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 between March and December 2020.
2 93. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
3 OLIVO and NEGRETE, failed to approach Mr. Haywood to discuss the possible accommodation
4 of his physical disabilities in good faith. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S obligation to engage in the
5 interactive process of accommodation was not excused or waived by Mr. Haywood. Because
6 DEFENDANT COUNTY failed to engage in the important interactive process between employee
7 and employer in determining reasonable accommodation, DEFENDANT COUNTY’S conduct
8 violated Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n).
9 94. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process
10 was a substantial factor in causing harm to Mr. Haywood and PLAINTIFFS, his successors in
11 interest.
12 95. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFFS,
13 as Mr. Haywood’s successors in interest, has been harmed in an amount according to proof, but
14 in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. PLAINTIFFS also seek “affirmative
15 relief” or “prospective relief” as defined by Government Code section 12926, subdivision (a),
16 including reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and any such other relief that this Court
17 deems proper.
18 96. As an actual and proximate result of DEFENDANT COUNTY’S willful and
19 intentional failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process, PLAINTIFFS, as Mr. Haywood’s
20 successors in interest, lost Mr. Haywood’s past and future wages, employment benefits, and other
21 out-of-pocket expenses.
22 97. PLAINTIFFS filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair
23 Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On December 2, 2021, PLAINTIFFS received a “Right-
24 to-Sue” Letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
25 98. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the outrageous conduct of
26 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, Mr. Haywood suffered
27 physical injury, sickness, pain, emotional distress, including fear, stress, anxiety, anger, mental
28 pain and suffering, hospitalization, and, ultimately, death. PLAINTIFFS, as Mr. Haywood’s

17
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 surviving spouse and children, lost Mr. Haywood’s care, protection, guidance, advice, training
2 and nurturing, love, society, and companionship, medical and funeral expenses, Mr. Haywood’s
3 past and future wages, employment benefits, and the full value of his pension. All of these losses
4 constitute damages to PLAINTIFFS in a sum within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, to
5 be ascertained according to proof.
6 99. PLAINTIFFS also seek wrongful death damages and all other damages and
7 remedies available under state law.
8 100. PLAINTIFFS also plead for attorney fees and costs as allowed by California
9 Government Code § 12965(b).
10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
12 (All Plaintiffs Against the County of Riverside)
13 101. PLAINTIFFS re-allege the information set forth in the preceding paragraphs and
14 incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
15 102. As an employer, pursuant to Government Code section 12926, subdivision (d),
16 DEFENDANT COUNTY has a duty to prevent unlawful harassment and discrimination.
17 DEFENDANT COUNTY knew or should have known about the discrimination based on Mr.
18 Haywood’s disability as set forth above. DEFENDANT COUNTY failed to implement adequate
19 training, policies, or instructions that would have prevented the aforementioned discrimination of
20 Mr. Haywood. DEFENDANT COUNTY breached its duty to prevent the discrimination of Mr.
21 Haywood. Accordingly, DEFENDANT COUNTY violated Government Code section 12940,
22 subdivision (k), and The California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11019, subdivision (b)(3).
23 103. Mr. Haywood was subjected to discrimination in the course of his employment
24 with DEFENDANT COUNTY described above.
25 104. DEFENDANT COUNTY failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent
26 discrimination and, instead, purposely adopted policies and practices that discriminated against
27 employees whose disabilities made them vulnerable to death or serious illness from COVID-19.
28 105. DEFENDANT COUNTY’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to

18
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 Mr. Haywood and his successors in interest.
2 106. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFFS,
3 as the successors in interest to Michael Haywood, have been harmed in an amount according to
4 proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. PLAINTIFFS also seek
5 “affirmative relief” or “prospective relief” as defined by Government Code section 12926,
6 subdivision (a), including reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and any such other relief
7 that this Court deems proper.
8 107. As an actual and proximate result of DEFENDANT COUNTY’s willful and
9 intentional discrimination, PLAINTIFFS, as the successors in interest to Michael Haywood, lost
10 Mr. Haywood’s past and future wages, employment benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
11 108. PLAINTIFFS filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair
12 Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On December 2, 2021, PLAINTIFFS received a “Right-
13 to-Sue” Letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
14 109. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the outrageous conduct of
15 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, Mr. Haywood suffered
16 physical injury, sickness, pain, emotional distress, including fear, stress, anxiety, anger, mental
17 pain and suffering, hospitalization, and, ultimately, death. PLAINTIFFS, as Mr. Haywood’s
18 surviving spouse and children, lost Mr. Haywood’s care, protection, guidance, advice, training
19 and nurturing, love, society, and companionship, medical and funeral expenses, Mr. Haywood’s
20 past and future wages, employment benefits, and the full value of his pension. All of these losses
21 constitute damages to PLAINTIFFS in a sum within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, to
22 be ascertained according to proof.
23 110. PLAINTIFFS also seek wrongful death damages and all other damages and
24 remedies available under state law.
25 111. PLAINTIFFS also plead for attorney fees and costs as allowed by California
26 Government Code § 12965(b).
27 ///
28 ///

19
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Wrongful Death (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.60)
3 (All Plaintiffs Against the County of Riverside)
4 112. PLAINTIFFS re-allege the information set forth in the preceding paragraphs and
5 incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
6 113. PLAINTIFFS Elizabeth, Dustin, Alexandrea, Michael Jr., and Jason Haywood, the
7 surviving spouse and children of Mr. Haywood, the decedent, assert a wrongful death action
8 against all DEFENDANTS pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 377.60 et seq. This claim is based upon the fact
9 that DEFENDANT COUNTY’S intentional, negligent, reckless, and wrongful acts and omissions
10 in response to Mr. Haywood’s requests for reasonable accommodations based on his disability,
11 and violations of FEHA as described above, were a direct and legal cause of Mr. Haywood’s
12 death and the resulting damages to PLAINTIFFS Elizabeth, Dustin, Alexandrea, Michael Jr., and
13 Jason Haywood. As a result of its conduct by and through its supervisory employees, including
14 OLIVO and NEGRETE, DEFENDANT COUNTY is liable for PLAINTIFFS’ injuries, either
15 because it was an integral participant in the wrongful conduct, or because it failed to intervene to
16 prevent these violations.
17 114. As Mr. Haywood’s employer, DEFENDANT COUNTY and its supervisory
18 employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, owed a duty to use due care in responding to Mr.
19 Haywood’s requests for accommodations for his disability, including a statutory duty to engage
20 in a good-faith interactive dialogue with him.
21 115. Mr. Haywood repeatedly informed DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its
22 supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, that he had health conditions that
23 placed him at heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 and needed appropriate
24 accommodations, such as remote work.
25 116. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
26 OLIVO and NEGRETE, breached their duty of care ignoring and declining Mr. Haywood’s
27 requests despite his risk level.
28 117. In choosing to ignore Mr. Haywood’s requests for accommodations,

20
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including OLIVO, and
2 NEGRETE, acted in a manner that was an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful
3 person would do under the circumstances given Mr. Haywood’s the high risk of severe illness
4 and death is his disability was not properly accommodated.
5 118. DEFENDANT COUNTY’s breach of its duty of due care towards Mr. Haywood,
6 its employee and supervisee, caused Mr. Haywood to be exposed to, and contract, COVID-19
7 through a coworker at his office.
8 119. Mr. Haywood’s exposure to COVID-19 through a coworker at his office was both
9 a foreseeable and highly probable consequence of DEFENDANT COUNTY’S failure to properly
10 consider Mr. Haywood’s requests for accommodations such as telework.
11 120. Further, Mr. Haywood had repeatedly informed DEFENDANT COUNTY,
12 through its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, about his health conditions
13 that made him uniquely vulnerable to death and/or serious illness from COVID-19. It also was
14 widely known, reported, and understood during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and, certainly
15 by December 2020, that hospitalization, intubation, and death were foreseeable results of COVID-
16 19—particularly for older individuals, like Mr. Haywood, with pre-existing conditions, including
17 respiratory conditions, diabetes, and a history of cancer. Accordingly, DEFENDANT COUNTY,
18 and its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, should have known and
19 foreseen that Mr. Haywood would require hospitalization and intubation and would ultimately
20 die because of their negligent failure to respond appropriately to Mr. Haywood’s requests for
21 disability accommodations.
22 121. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANT COUNTY’S acts and omissions,
23 PLAINTIFFS Elizabeth, Dustin, Alexandrea, Michael Jr., and Jason Haywood, suffered damages,
24 including, without limitation, the loss of financial support and benefits, loss of enjoyment of life,
25 emotional distress, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit,
26 other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained, the loss of Mr. Haywood’s love, affection, society, and
27 companionship, and, for Elizabeth Haywood, the loss of consortium.
28 122. PLAINTIFFS Elizabeth, Dustin, Alexandrea, Michael Jr., and Jason Haywood

21
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 seek both survival and wrongful death damages and all other damages and remedies available
2 under state law.
3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
5 (All Plaintiffs Against the County of Riverside)
6 123. PLAINTIFFS re-allege the information set forth in the preceding paragraphs and
7 incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
8 124. Mr. Haywood was subjected to a course or pattern of conduct by DEFENDANT
9 COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, that, taken as a whole, materially and
10 adversely affected the terms, conditions, or privileges of his employment that impaired his ability
11 to work and eliminated his prospects for future advancement, pay raises, or promotion.
12 Specifically, DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
13 OLIVO and NEGRETE, compelled Mr. Haywood to work in conditions that it knew were highly
14 dangerous to his health and safety and in violation of State orders, rules, and regulations, including
15 but not limited to Labor Code Section 6401 which states: “Every employer shall furnish and use
16 safety devices and safeguards, and shall adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and
17 processes which are reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment
18 safe and healthful. Every employer shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the
19 life, safety, and health of employees.” These conditions of employment sickened Mr. Haywood,
20 put him in a hospital for more than a month, and, ultimately, killed him.
21 125. It is a violation of public policy to compel an employee to work in unsafe and
22 potentially deadly conditions because of his disability.
23 126. Mr. Haywood’s refusal to acquiesce to unsafe working conditions in his office and
24 his insistence that he receive reasonable accommodations for his disability were both substantial
25 motivating reasons for DEFENDANT COUNTY’S decision to compel him to come to work in
26 person in person in unsafe conditions despite the fact that others with similar job duties were able
27 to work remotely.
28 127. Contrary to the public policy underlying Government Code section 12940,

22
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, compelled Mr. Haywood
2 to work in unsafe conditions because he requested reasonable accommodations and complained
3 about the lack of COVID-19 safety protocols at the office.
4 128. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S conduct, by and through its supervisory employees,
5 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS’ harm.
6 129. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations and
7 DEFENDANT COUNTY’S willful and intentional wrongful adverse actions, PLAINTIFFS, as
8 the successors of interest to Mr. Haywood, lost Mr. Haywood’s past and future wages,
9 employment benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses and have been harmed in an amount
10 according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
11 130. PLAINTIFFS also seek “affirmative relief” or “prospective relief” as defined by
12 Government Code section 12926, subdivision (a), including reimbursement of out-of-pocket
13 expenses, and any such other relief that this Court deems proper.
14 131. PLAINTIFFS filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair
15 Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On December 2, 2021, PLAINTIFFS received a “Right-
16 to-Sue” Letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
17 132. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the outrageous conduct of
18 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, Mr. Haywood suffered
19 physical injury, sickness, pain, emotional distress, including fear, stress, anxiety, anger, mental
20 pain and suffering, hospitalization, and, ultimately, death. PLAINTIFFS, as Mr. Haywood’s
21 surviving spouse and children, lost Mr. Haywood’s care, protection, guidance, advice, training
22 and nurturing, love, society, and companionship, medical and funeral expenses, Mr. Haywood’s
23 past and future wages, employment benefits, and the full value of his pension. All of these losses
24 constitute damages to PLAINTIFFS in a sum within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, to
25 be ascertained according to proof.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

23
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE RESULTING IN INJURY TO ELIZABETH HAYWOOD
2
(Plaintiff Elizabeth Haywood Against the County of Riverside)
3
133. PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH HAYWOOD re-alleges the information set forth in the
4
preceding paragraphs and incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
5
134. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
6
OLIVO and NEGRETE, knew that Mrs. Haywood had multiple health conditions that made her
7
highly vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19. Mr. Haywood had repeatedly
8
informed DEFENDANT COUNTY and its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and
9
NEGRETE, that he needed to work from home, full or part time, and/or to work in a COVID-safe
10
workplace because of his wife’s conditions.
11
135. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
12
OLIVO and NEGRETE, owed a duty to Mr. Haywood’s spouse, Mrs. Haywood, to use due care
13
to ensure that she did not become seriously ill through “take home” exposure to COVID-19
14
contracted at Mr. Haywood’s workplace.
15
136. This duty encompassed but was not limited to following the rules and guidance
16
concerning COVID-19 safety in offices and public places that were issued in 2020 by the State
17
of California, including the Governor and CDPH. It also required DEFENDANT COUNTY,
18
through its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, to take additional steps to
19
protect Mrs. Haywood from “take home” exposure in the event that Mr. Haywood was exposed
20
to COVID-19 at the workplace.
21
137. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
22
OLIVO and NEGRETE, breached this duty in all of the following ways: failing to implement
23
and enforce basic COVID-19 safety measures in his office, including masking, screening, and
24
physical distancing; failing to take action in response to Mr. Haywood’s complaints concerning
25
the failure to implement and enforce these measures and/or to permit him to work remotely so as
26
to protect his wife given her unique vulnerability to serious illness and death from COVID-19;
27
failing to abide by the Regional Stay at Home Order issued in early December 2020 and other
28
applicable state rules and regulations concerning COVID-19 safety; forcing Mr. Haywood to
24
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 come to work in person and share a small windowless office space with Mr. Villegas, who was
2 also required to come to work in person, without also requiring and enforcing 100% masking;
3 denying Mr. Haywood’s request that he and Mr. Villegas have staggered work schedules so that
4 they were not forced to share the poorly ventilated office space at the same time; failing to
5 implement a policy to protect family members from exposure to COVID-19 contracted in the
6 workplace; and failing to take steps with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Haywood specifically after
7 learning about Mr. Haywood’s likely exposure to COVID-positive coworkers at the office.
8 138. Indeed, DEFENDANT COUNTY’S noncompliance with the applicable
9 workplace safety standards following the December 3, 2020 Regional Stay at Home Order
10 constituted an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same
11 circumstances to prevent harm to Mrs. Haywood and vulnerable members of other employees’
12 households.
13 139. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
14 OLIVO and NEGRETE, breached their duty of due care towards Mrs. Haywood, the spouse of
15 its employee, thereby causing Mrs. Haywood to contract COVID-19 through her husband.
16 140. Mrs. Haywood sustained her own injuries and damages, independent from those
17 suffered by Mr. Haywood, from her exposure to the COVID-19 virus that Mr. Haywood brought
18 home from his office. As a result of her own bout with COVID-19, Mrs. Haywood now suffers
19 from long-term physical and psychological symptoms, including brain fog, shortness of breath,
20 panic attacks, nausea/vomiting, vertigo, and heart palpitations. These lingering effects of her
21 COVID-19 illness hinder her ability to care for herself and maintain gainful employment.
22 141. Although she contracted COVID-19 from contact with and proximity to Mr.
23 Haywood, Mrs. Haywood’s illness and injuries are independent of her husband’s, who was merely
24 a conduit of the virus. She could have suffered the same or similar injuries even if Mr. Haywood
25 had not become ill with COVID-19. Indeed, one of Mr. Haywood’s worst fears, which he
26 repeatedly conveyed to DEFENDANT COUNTY, through its supervisory employees, including
27 OLIVO and NEGRETE, was that he would be a source of “take home” exposure for his extremely
28 vulnerable wife without becoming seriously ill himself.

25
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 142. Had DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees,
2 including OLIVO and NEGRETE, not breached its duty of acting with due care for Mrs.
3 Haywood, she would not have been exposed to the COVID-19 virus through contact with and
4 proximity to her husband.
5 143. Further, Mrs. Haywood’s illness and long-term symptoms from being exposed to
6 COVID-19 through contact with and proximity to her husband following his exposure to a
7 symptomatic individual with COVID-19 in his office was not only a foreseeable consequence but
8 also a highly probable consequence of DEFENDANT COUNTY’S breach of its duty of due care
9 for Mrs. Haywood.
10 144. Further, Mr. Haywood had repeatedly informed DEFENDANT COUNTY,
11 through its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, about his wife’s health
12 conditions that made her uniquely vulnerable to death and/or serious illness from COVID-19. It
13 was widely known, reported, and understood during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and,
14 certainly by December 2020, that severe illness and “long COVID” was a foreseeable result of
15 COVID-19—particularly for individuals, like Mrs. Haywood, with multiple autoimmune
16 conditions. Accordingly, DEFENDANT COUNTY, through its supervisory employees,
17 including OLIVO and NEGRETE, should have known and foreseen that Mrs. Haywood would
18 become severely ill and develop debilitating long-term symptoms as a result of its breach of its
19 duty of due care towards her.
20 145. The negligence of DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory
21 employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, caused Mrs. Haywood to endure severe pain and
22 suffering during her bout with and recovery from COVID-19, cost Mrs. Haywood medical
23 expenses and her ability to maintain gainful employment, and left Mrs. Haywood with permanent
24 and severe physical symptoms, including brain fog, shortness of breath, panic attacks, headaches,
25 intense nausea with vomiting, vertigo, and heart palpitations, and psychological symptoms,
26 including anxiety, nightmares, and depression, that, cumulatively, hinder her ability to care for
27 herself.
28 146. PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH HAYWOOD brings this claim against DEFENDANT

26
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 COUNTY seeking all damages available under state law, including punitive damages, and
2 reasonable attorneys’ fees.
3 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
5 (Plaintiff Elizabeth Haywood Against All Defendants)
6 147. PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH HAYWOOD re-alleges the information set forth in the
7 preceding paragraphs and incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
8 148. DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, including
9 OLIVO and NEGRETE, knew that both Mr. and Mrs. Haywood had health conditions that made
10 them highly vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19 because Mr. Haywood
11 repeatedly informed them about these health conditions and his and his wife’s risk level.
12 149. DEFENDANT COUNTY, as Mr. Haywood’s employer, owed a duty to his
13 spouse, to use due care to ensure that she did not unnecessarily experience severe emotional
14 distress as a result of the actions of DEFENDANT COUNTY and its supervisory employees,
15 including OLIVO and NEGRETE.
16 150. This duty encompassed but was not limited to following the rules and guidance
17 concerning COVID-19 safety in offices and public places that were issued in 2020 by the State
18 of California, including the Governor and CDPH. It also required DEFENDANT COUNTY and
19 its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, to take additional steps to protect
20 Mrs. Haywood in the event that Mr. Haywood was exposed to COVID-19 at the workplace.
21 151. DEFENDANT COUNTY breached this duty in all of the following ways: failing
22 to implement and enforce basic COVID-19 safety measures in his office, including masking,
23 screening, and physical distancing; failing to take action in response to Mr. Haywood’s
24 complaints concerning the failure to implement and enforce these measures and/or to permit him
25 to work remotely so as to protect his wife given her unique vulnerability to serious illness and
26 death from COVID-19; failing to abide by the December 3, 2020 Regional Stay at Home Order
27 and other applicable state rules and regulations concerning COVID-19 safety; forcing Mr.
28 Haywood to come to work in person and share a small windowless office space with Mr. Villegas,

27
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 who was also required to come to work in person, without also requiring and enforcing 100%
2 masking; denying Mr. Haywood’s request that he and Mr. Villegas have staggered work
3 schedules so that they were not forced to share the poorly ventilated office space at the same time;
4 failing to implement a policy to protect family members from exposure to COVID-19 contracted
5 in the workplace; and failing to take steps with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Haywood specifically
6 after learning about Mr. Haywood’s likely exposure to COVID-positive coworkers at the office.
7 152. Indeed, DEFENDANT COUNTY’S noncompliance with the applicable
8 workplace safety standards following the December 3, 2020 Regional Stay at Home Order
9 constituted an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same
10 circumstances to prevent Mrs. Haywood from experiencing severe emotional distress.
11 153. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S breach of its duty of due care towards Mrs. Haywood
12 caused her to live in fear for Mr. Haywood and Mrs. Haywood for many months between the start
13 of the COVID-19 pandemic and Mr. and Mrs. Haywood’s illness, always worried that Mr. and/or
14 Mrs. Haywood would become seriously ill or die as a result of DEFENDANT’S intentional
15 refusal to protect Mr. and Mrs. Haywood’s wellbeing. It also caused her to endure the trauma of
16 watching their husband become sick, hospitalized, and intubated coupled. The trauma is and was
17 heightened because Mr. Haywood’s hospitalization and the onset of Mrs. Haywood’s symptoms
18 both occurred over Christmas and New Years 2020.
19 154. Mrs. Haywood’s severe emotional distress inflicted through DEFENDANT
20 COUNTY’S carelessness and negligence, and the carelessness and negligence of its supervisory
21 employees, was and is independent from the physical injuries and emotional distress suffered by
22 Mr. Haywood. She experienced emotional distress every day knowing that her husband was being
23 forced to work in conditions that were not merely unsafe but, in fact, deadly to both her and to
24 her him, even before Mr. Haywood became ill with COVID-19. This emotional distress was
25 heightened into actual trauma when her husband was hospitalized for COVID-19 on Christmas
26 Day 2020 and she fell ill shortly thereafter.
27 155. The long-term psychological effects of the trauma Mrs. Haywood endured because
28 of DEFENDANT COUNTY’S carelessness and negligence may be permanent and hinder her

28
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 ability to care for herself and maintain gainful employment.
2 156. For Mrs. Haywood, Christmas and New Years, when everyone else is celebrating
3 around her, will always be time of pain and grief because of what she endured as a result of the
4 recklessness of DEFENDANT COUNTY and its supervisory employees. She must go through
5 life knowing that her husband died an unnecessary and untimely death, and, but for the extreme
6 carelessness of DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees, he most
7 likely would have lived to enjoy significant moments in their life, such as the birth of their newest
8 grandchild and their son’s graduation, and the retirement they had been looking forward to and
9 carefully planning together.
10 157. Had DEFENDANT COUNTY, by and through its supervisory employees,
11 including OLIVO and NEGRETE, not breached its duty of acting with due care for Mrs.
12 Haywood, she would not have lived with near constant fear and anxiety for more than nine
13 months, been hospitalized, and watched the love of her life and the rock of her family die.
14 158. Further, Mrs. Haywood’s fear, emotional distress, and trauma was not only a
15 foreseeable consequence but also a highly probable consequence of DEFENDANT COUNTY’S
16 breach of their duty of due care for Mrs. Haywood. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S conduct as
17 described above was done in a careless or negligent manner, without consideration for the effect
18 of such conduct upon Plaintiff Elizabeth Haywood’s emotional well-being.
19 159. As a result of its conduct, DEFENDANT COUNTY is liable for the negligent
20 infliction of emotional distress on Mrs. Haywood because it was, by and through its supervisory
21 employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE, an integral participant in compelling Mr. Haywood
22 to work in conditions that posed a known and constant threat to both Mr. and Mrs. Haywood,
23 because it failed to intervene to prevent or remedy these unsafe conditions, and/or pursuant to the
24 doctrine of respondeat superior.
25 160. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the
26 DEFENDANT COUNTY, by engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in authorizing and/or
27 ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct,
28 and acted with willful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare, and safety of PLAINTIFFS

29
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 thereby justifying the award of exemplary damages and punitive damages only against
2 DEFENDANT COUNTY in an amount to be determined at trial.
3 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
5 (Plaintiff Elizabeth Haywood Against the County of Riverside)
6 161. PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH HAYWOOD re-alleges the information set forth in the
7 preceding paragraphs and incorporates it into this cause of action as if it was fully alleged herein.
8 162. This cause of action is alleged against Defendant County of Riverside, which acted
9 by and through its supervisory employees, including OLIVO and NEGRETE.
10 163. Elizabeth Haywood was at all times relevant to this action defined as the wife of
11 the decedent, Mr. Haywood.
12 164. As a spouse of the decedent, Mrs. Haywood can recover her losses through a
13 consortium cause of action because her injuries arise out of Mr. Haywood’s death as a result of
14 the unlawful employment actions of Defendant County of Riverside.
15 165. But for Defendant County’s refusal to accommodate Mr. Haywood’s disability and
16 engage in a good faith interactive dialogue with Mr. Haywood about reasonable accommodations
17 for his disability, Mr. Haywood would not have died, and Mrs. Haywood would not have lost her
18 husband.
19 166. Mrs. Haywood’s trauma stemming from Defendant County’s needless, reckless,
20 and unlawful violations of FEHA has rendered her unable to work or perform normal daily
21 activities. Further, Mrs. Haywood has lost Mr. Haywood’s care, protection, guidance, advice,
22 training and nurturing, love, society, and companionship, medical and funeral expenses, Mr.
23 Haywood’s past and future wages, employment benefits, and the full value of his pension.
24 167. Mrs. Haywood continues to suffer severe emotional distress due to her own
25 inability to work and to provide and care for herself and her family.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

30
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray that Judgment be entered in their favor and against
3 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as follows, for:
4 1. All special damages, according to proof;
5 2. General damages for emotional distress and mental anguish in a sum according to
6 proof;
7 3. Exemplary and punitive damages in a sum appropriate to punish Defendants and
8 set an example for others;
9 4. Injunctive relief regarding policies and practices affecting accommodations, and
10 requests for accommodations, by employees with disabilities that place them at a heightened risk
11 of death or severe illness due to COVID-19;
12 5. For prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;
13 6. Attorney's fees and costs as permitted based on above causes of action; and
14 7. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
15
16 Date: January 7, 2022 V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW
17
18 By:
V. JAMES DESIMONE, ESQ.
19
CARMEN D. SABATER
20 EMILY C. BARBOUR

21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

ELIZABETH HAYWOOD, DUSTIN
22
HAYWOOD, ALEXANDREA
23 HAYWOOD, MICHAEL
HAYWOOD JR., and JASON
24 HAYWOOD
25
26
27
28

31
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP
 1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
Plaintiffs ELIZABETH HAYWOOD, DUSTIN HAYWOOD, ALEXANDREA
3
HAYWOOD, MICHAEL HAYWOOD JR., and JASON HAYWOOD hereby demand a trial by
4
jury on all claims.
5
6
Date: January 7, 2022 V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW
7
8
By:
9
V. JAMES DESIMONE, ESQ.
10 CARMEN D. SABATER
EMILY C. BARBOUR
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
12
ELIZABETH HAYWOOD, DUSTIN
13 HAYWOOD, ALEXANDREA
HAYWOOD, MICHAEL
14 HAYWOOD JR., and JASON
15 HAYWOOD

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

32
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Elizabeth Haywood et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. V. James DeSimone Law
Case No.: Public Employees Legal, LLP