Fahim Rahman, Esq.

(SBN 336963)
LAW OFFICE OF FAHIM RAHMAN
21255 Burbank Blvd, Suite 120
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 305-9323
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[PLAINTIFF INFO FULL ...]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF [COURT INFO COUNTY FI...]

CENTRAL DISTRICT, UNLIMITED CIVIL

[Plaintiff Info Full ...], an individual CASE NO.

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL
vs.
WAGES DUE DURING
[DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...], a EMPLOYMENT;
[Defendant Info State] corporation, and 3. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES;
4. CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE;
5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES
Defendants. DUE UPON TERMINATION;
6. FAILURE TO ISSUE ACCURATE
WAGE STATEMENTS;
7. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
PERSONNEL FILE;
8. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;
and
9. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
10. PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION
(GOVT. CODE § 12940);
11. FAILURE TO REASONABLY
ACCOMMODATE PREGNANCY
(GOVT. CODE § 12945(a)(3)(A));
12. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN GOOD
FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS
(GOVT. CODE § 12845(a)(3)(A));
13. INTERFERENCE WITH
-1-
COMPLAINT
 PREGNANCY LEAVE RIGHTS
(GOVT. CODE § 12945);
14. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
(GOVT. CODE § 12940(a);
15. FAILURE TO REASONABLY
ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY
(GOVT. CODE § 12940(m));
16. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN GOOD
FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS
(GOVT. CODE § 12940(n));
17. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
FEHA (GOVT. CODE §12940(h);
18. RETALIATION FOR TAKING
LEAVE UNDER THE FAMILY
RIGHTS ACT (GOVT. CODE §
12945.2);
19. INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS
UNDER THE FAMILY RIGHTS ACT
(GOVT. CODE §12945.2(t));
20. FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION
(GOVT. CODE § 12940(k);
21. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
22. DISCRIMINATION: BASED ON
PROTECTED CLASS AND RACE;
23.[22.] FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT OR
RETALIATION;
24.[23.] HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
HARASSMENT
A. AIDING AND ABETTING
B. ASSAULT
C. BATTERY
D. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
25.[24.] BREACH OF CONTRACT
26.[25.] BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT
OF GOOD FAITH
27.[26.] NEGLIGENT HIRE, SUPERVISION,
OR RETENTION OF EMPLOYEE
28.[27.] RETALIATION
29.[28.] INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
30.[29.] DEFAMATION (LIBEL/SLANDER)

-2-
COMPLAINT
 31.[30.] FRAUD & DECEIT
32.[31.] UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

33.[32.] NEGLIGENCE
34.[33.] NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
35.[34.] PREMISES LIABILITY
36.[35.] WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE §1102.5;
37.[36.] WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE §232.5;
38.[37.] WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE §98.6;
39.[38.] FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST
BREAKS IN VIOLATION OF
LABOR CODE §226.7;
40.[39.] FAILURE TO PROVIDE
MEAL BREAKS IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE §226.7;
41.[40.] AGE DISCRIMINATION
(GOVT. CODE § 12940);
42.[41.] RACE DISCRIMINATION
(GOVT. CODE § 12940);
43.[42.] SEX DISCRIMINATION (GOVT.
CODE § 12940(a);
44.[43.]

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF INFO FULL ...] (hereinafter "Plaintiff") believes and thereon alleges
[DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...] [Defendant Info State]
against Defendants ,a corporation; and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive, (hereinafter “Defendants”), as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

-3-
COMPLAINT
 1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF INFO FULL ...] , an individual, at all times relevant herein was a

resident of the County of Los Angeles and was employed by Defendants in the County of Los Angeles

2. Defendants [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...] , a [Defendant Info State] corporation, at all

times relevant herein, were and are California residents conducting business in the State of California, in
[Court Info County Fi...]
the County of .

3. Venue is proper in this Court because the claims arose in [Court Info County Fi...]

County where Plaintiff worked for Defendants and where the causes of action alleged herein arose.

4. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $35,000.00, exclusive of

interest, costs, and fees.

II. PARTIES

5. At all times relevant herein Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in

[Court Info County Fi...]
County.

6. At all times relevant herein, Defendant [Defendant Info Full ...]was doing business in the
[Court Info County Fi...]
County of , by employing Plaintiff.

7. The true names or capacities, whether individual, associate or otherwise, of Doe Defendants

1 to 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff and, therefore, Plaintiff sues these Doe Defendants by such

fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege such names and

capacities as soon as they are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each

of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein,

and that Plaintiff’s injuries and damages as alleged and set forth herein were proximately caused by such

fictitiously named defendants.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant herein, each

-4-
COMPLAINT
and every one of the Defendants, including the Doe Defendants, acted in concert and in furtherance of

each other’s interest. The acts of any individual defendants, as described herein, were known to and

ratified by all Defendants.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times each of the

Defendants was the integrated enterprise, joint employer of Plaintiff and was engaged with some or all

the other Defendants in a joint enterprise for profit and bore such other relationships to some or all of the

other Defendants so as to be liable for the conduct of them. Plaintiff performed services for each and

every one of Defendants, and to the mutual benefit of all Defendants, and all Defendants shared control

of Plaintiff as employers, either directly or indirectly, and of the manner in which Defendants’ business

was conducted.

10. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that all Defendants acted

pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, that all Defendants knew or should

have known about, authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, aided and abetted the conduct of

all other Defendants; and that all Defendants acted pursuant to a conspiracy and agreement to do the

things alleged herein.

11. Plaintiff makes the allegations in this Complaint without any admission that, as to any

particular allegation, Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading, proof, or persuasion, and Plaintiff reserves all

of Plaintiff’s rights to plead in the alternative.

III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

12. Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and

received a right to sue and, thereby, exhausted their administrative remedies with regard to each cause of

action below requiring such exhaustion. Plaintiff, therefore, timely files this action.

-5-
COMPLAINT
 IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

13.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

15. Plaintiff entered into an oral employment agreement with Defendants, and each of them,

memorialized by written text messages.

16. Plaintiff’s duties were to promote the Concert by distributing the promotional materials

throughout Southern California Indian stores for $20 dollars an hour, with a $30 daily stipend for gas.

17. Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants and promises required on her part to be

performed.

18. Defendants breached their agreement with Plaintiff in that they failed to adequately
compensate her for the time that she spent performing mutually agreed upon duties.

19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure To Timely Pay All Wages Due During Employment

Cal. Labor Code § 204 and 210

-6-
COMPLAINT
 (AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

21. California Labor Code § 204 provides in pertinent part:

All wages . . . earned by any person in any employment are due
and payable twice during each calendar month, on days
designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays.
Labor performed between the 1st and 15th days, inclusive, of any
calendar month shall be paid for between the 16th and the 26th
day of the month during which the labor was performed, and labor
performed between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any
calendar month, shall be paid for between the 1st and 10th day of
the following month

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, all wages

earned for labor in excess of the normal work period shall be paid
no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period.

22. Plaintiff earned wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 204, including, but not limited

to, wages earned for labor during the normal work period.

23. Defendant failed to timely pay all wages that were owing to Plaintiff as required by

California Labor Code section 204.

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this failure by Defendants to

pay was willful and intentional.

25. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has been deprived of additional

wages in amounts to be proven at trial and is entitled to recover such amounts, plus interest and penalties

thereon, in addition to any other relief requested.

26. In addition, pursuant to California Labor Code section 210, this failure by Defendants is

subject to a statutory penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) for each initial failure to pay each employee

their earned and due wages; and a statutory penalty of two hundred dollars ($200), plus 25 percent of the

amount unlawfully withheld, for each failure to pay each employee for each subsequent violation, or any

willful or intentional violation.

-7-
COMPLAINT
 27. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 98, 98.3 and 210, the aforementioned

penalty(ies) shall be recovered by Plaintiff as a statutory penalty.

28. In addition, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal expenses and attorneys’

fees.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses

Cal. Labor Code § 2802

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

herein by reference.

30. California law requires employers to indemnify their employees for all necessary

expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in discharge of his or her duties or at the obedience of

the directions of the employer. Similarly, an employer is prohibited from passing the ordinary business

expenses and losses of the employer onto the employee. Cal. Lab. Code §2802.

31. In violation of Labor Code Section 2802, Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiff for

necessary expenditures Plaintiff incurred in the discharge of Plaintiff’s duties.

32. Because Defendants failed to properly indemnify Plaintiff for the necessary

expenditures incurred in the discharge of Plaintiff’s duties, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for monies to

compensate Plaintiff for the incurred expenses pursuant to Labor Code section 2802.

33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of Labor Code Section

2802, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm and monetary damages entitling Plaintiff to both injunctive

relief and restitution. Plaintiff seeks damages and all other relief allowable including indemnification for

-8-
COMPLAINT
all employment-related expenses and ordinary business expenses incurred by Defendants and passed

onto Plaintiff pursuant to Labor Code section 2802.

34. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 2802, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full

indemnification, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Constructive Discharge

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

herein by reference.

36. Plaintiff was subjected to working conditions that violated public policy, in that Plaintiff

was required to work without compensation.

37. Defendants intentionally or knowingly permitted these working conditions by refusing to

pay Plaintiff despite multiple and constant requests.

38. A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s shoes, faced with the conduct set forth in this complaint

would consider the working conditions intolerable and feel compelled to resign. Defendant refused to pay

Plaintiff and thus Plaintiff was constructively discharged. A reasonable person would have no reasonable

alternative but to resign from working for an employer that refused to compensate them.

39. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants' aforementioned actions against Plaintiff,

Plaintiff was constructively discharged in violation of public policy. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer harm, including without limitation, loss of employment, lost earnings, and other employment

benefits, in an amount in excess of this court's jurisdictional limits and subject to proof at trial.

-9-
COMPLAINT
 40. The aforementioned wrongful conduct of Defendants was done with oppression, fraud, or

malice, or with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights under, among other entitling Plaintiff to an award

of punitive damages to punish and deter Defendants from engaging in the aforementioned conduct.

41. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant herein,

Defendants' managing agents, officers, or directors, ratified or authorized the aforementioned wrongful acts,

and were themselves guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice toward Plaintiff or guilty of acting in conscious

disregard of Plaintiffs legal rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Provide Wages Upon Termination

Cal. Labor. Code § 201, 202, & 203

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

42. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this

Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

43. California Labor Code § 201 provides, in pertinent part: “If an employer discharges an

employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. . .”

44. California Labor Code § 202 provides, in pertinent part:

If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or
her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later
than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous
notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to
his or her wages at the time of quitting. Notwithstanding any other law, an
employee who quits without providing a 72-hour notice shall be entitled to
receive payment by mail if he or she so requests and designates a mailing
address. The date of the mailing shall constitute the date of payment for
purposes of the requirement to provide payment within 72 hours of the notice
of quitting.

45. California Labor Code § 203 provides, in pertinent part:

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in
accordance with Sections 201, 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202, and
- 10 -
COMPLAINT
 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of
the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same
rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not
continue for more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents
themselves to avoid payment to them, or who refuses to receive the payment
when fully tendered to them, including any penalty then accrued under this
section, is not entitled to any benefit under this section for the time during
which the employee so avoids payment.
Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the
statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.

46. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant terminated on or about late February 2022.

Despite said termination of employment, Plaintiff she did not receive compensation for wages owed
pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203.

47. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this failure by Defendants to

pay is willful and intentional.

48. In addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that since

Plaintiff’s termination from employment with Defendants, Defendants have continually failed to pay the

compensation that is due and owing, thereby entitling her to waiting time penalties for the unpaid wages

owed pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203.

49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff did not secret or

absent herself from Defendants, nor did she refuse to accept the earned and unpaid wages pursuant to

California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203.

50. In addition, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal expenses and

attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 218.5, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’

fees, expenses, and costs according to proof.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure To Issue Accurate Wage Statements

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...]

- 11 -
COMPLAINT
 51. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs as if the same was fully set forth herein.

52. Defendant is required to maintain accurate records of, among other things, wages earned at

each hourly rate and the accurate number of total hours worked by Plaintiff.

53. Defendants were required to furnish such records to Plaintiff semi-monthly or at time of

payment of wages and to properly itemize the paycheck as required by the California Labor Code, IWC

Order 4, and the California Code of Regulations, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code §226.

54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants failed to

accurately maintain and furnish records of the wages earned by Plaintiff.

55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to issue accurate, itemized wage

statements to Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered damage.

56. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 226 along with

interest on those penalties and attorneys’ fees, as required by Labor Code section 226. Plaintiff is entitled to

recover attorney's fees, expenses, and costs according to proof.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Provide Personnel File

Cal. Labor Code §226 & 1198.5

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

58. Plaintiff was, at all relevant times, an “employee” of Defendants as defined by the

California Government Code and California Labor Code, and therefore was and is a member of the group

- 12 -
COMPLAINT
that those statutes seek to protect.

59. Defendant was, at all relevant times, an “employer” as defined by California Government

Code and California Labor Code, and therefore is subject to the provisions of the California Government

Code and the California Labor Code.

60. Plaintiff has the right to inspect and receive a copy of her personnel records that

Defendant maintains relating to Plaintiff’s performance or to any grievance concerning Plaintiff.

61. Plaintiff asserted her right to inspect and receive a copy of her personnel records on or

about June 2022 in writing, via her representative, instant counsel.

62. Defendant did not make the personnel records available for inspection nor did Defendants
provide a copy of the personnel records within the statutorily imposed 21 and/or 30 calendar day deadline.

63. Defendant have not, as of the date of this filing, made the personnel records available for

inspection nor have they provided a copy of the personnel records to Plaintiff.

64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to make the personnel records

available for inspection or provide a copy of the personnel records to Plaintiff pursuant to California labor

Code 226, Plaintiff is entitled to recover a penalty of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) from Defendant.

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to make the personnel records

available for inspection or provide a copy of the personnel records to Plaintiff pursuant to California labor

Code 1198.5, Plaintiff is entitled to recover a penalty of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) from Defendant.

66. In addition, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal expenses and

attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 226 and 1198.5(1), Plaintiff is entitled to

recover attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs according to proof.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Unfair Business Practices

Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

- 13 -
COMPLAINT
 67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

herein by reference.

68. Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair business practices in California

by practicing, employing, and utilizing the employment policy of failing to pay Plaintiff employment

compensation as required by the California law cited herein above and by violating applicable provisions of

the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 226,

1194, 1194.2, 1197, 2802, and certain provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4

and/or any other applicable Wage Order, as alleged herein. Defendants’ utilization of such illegal and unfair
business practices constitutes unfair competition and provides Defendants with an unfair advantage over

Defendant’s competitors.

69. Plaintiff seeks on her own behalf, all employment compensation wrongfully withheld, as

necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired, and/or converted by

Defendants by means of the unfair and unlawful practices complained of herein. The restitution and

disgorgement requested includes all wages earned and unpaid, including interest thereon. The acts

complained of herein occurred, at least in part, within the last four (4) years preceding the filing of the

Complaint in this action and continue to the present.

70. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein

mentioned Defendants have engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices as proscribed by California

Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. by depriving Plaintiff of the minimum working conditions and

standards due to them under the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders as identified herein.

71. California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. prohibits acts of unfair

competition, which mean and include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practice. Under

California law, wages unlawfully withheld from an employee constitutes an unfair business act, entitled

Plaintiff to a restitution remedy authorized by California Business and Professions Code Section 17203.

Plaintiff and the general public are, therefore, entitled to the relief requested below.

- 14 -
COMPLAINT
 72. In addition, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal expenses and

attorneys’ fees.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

73. During the period complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them, engaged in an

intentional course of conduct which was calculated to cause, and which did cause Plaintiff extreme mental

distress.

74. The acts complained of were extreme and outrageous, and exceeded the bounds of those

usually tolerated in a civilized community. Specifically, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unlawful working

conditions by promising Plaintiff compensation for her services rendered, then refusing to pay her.

Moreover, Defendants falsely told Plaintiff that her money was deposited at multiple Indian stores, further

humiliating her when she asked the storekeepers about it, as they had no idea what she was talking about.

75. Defendants also tarnished Plaintiff’s reputation in the South Asian community by not

putting on the concert on the scheduled date. Plaintiff was unfairly blamed for the cancellation of the
Concert, and can no longer work in the South Asian entertainment community.

76. To the extent that Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiff, this

caused substantial injury and damage to Plaintiff including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, severe

mental anguish and emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of

earnings, past and future, and loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the industry in which Plaintiff has

worked, thus resulting in the loss or diminution of employment-related opportunities such as the opportunity

for promotion, other employment benefits, and job opportunities in an amount to be determined at trial

according to proof.

- 15 -
COMPLAINT
 77. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and unprivileged and done with the intention to

cause, and in reckless disregard of the probability of causing, Plaintiff emotional distress.

78. Defendant Park's actions towards Plaintiff was a foreseeable part of Plaintiffs employment

and occurred within the scope of Plaintiffs employment for Defendants.

79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts alleged above, Plaintiff was caused to

incur severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering, anguish, shock, nervousness, and anxiety.

Plaintiff continues to suffer these symptoms.

80. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in

the conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial.

81. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant herein,

Defendants' managing agents, officers, or directors, ratified or authorized the aforementioned wrongful

conduct, and were themselves guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice toward Plaintiff or guilty of acting in

conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the law.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Pregnancy Discrimination -Government Code §12926 et seq., 12940 et seq., 12945 et seq.

Cal. Gov. Code, § 12945.1 et seq.

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...]

1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2. Defendants are subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

Government Code Section 12900, et seq. (“FEHA”), in that it regularly employs five or more persons and is

an employer within the meaning of Government Code section 12926.

3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Government

Code section 12926 and was therefore entitled to protection under FEHA.
- 16 -
COMPLAINT
 4. California Government Code section 12940(a) prohibits discriminating against or

discharging an employee because of the employee’s sex. Government Code section 12926(q) defines

“sex” to include not only a “person’s gender” but also “pregnancy or medical conditions related to

pregnancy” and “childbirth or medical conditions related to childbirth.”

5. As described in the conduct above, by terminating her employment, Defendants

discriminated against Plaintiff because of her pregnancy and the leave she took as a result of her pregnancy,

in violation of Government Code sections 12940 et seq. and 12945 et seq., which prevent pregnancy

discrimination and interference with pregnancy leave rights.

6. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

7. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

8. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

- 17 -
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Pregnancy – Violation of Code §12945(a)(3)(A)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...]

9. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

10. FEHA requires employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant employees.

11. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy

and related health conditions in violation of FEHA by forcing Plaintiff to work while in the late stages of

her pregnancy against the advice of her healthcare providers, and by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff

because of her disability, including pregnancy and related conditions and perceived disabilities, the

accommodations requested, and the leave she took as a result of her pregnancy and pregnancy-related

conditions on the advice of her healthcare provider.

12. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

14. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

- 18 -
COMPLAINT
because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

15. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process – Violation of Code §12945(a)(3)(A)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...]

16. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

herein by reference.

17. FEHA requires an employer to engage in a timely good-faith interactive process to determine

whether a reasonable accommodation can be made for a pregnant employee do that the employee would be

able to perform the essential job requirements.

18. Plaintiff was willing to participate, and did do her part in participating, in an interactive

process to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made so that she could perform her

essential job requirements.

19. Defendants failed to engage in a timely good-faith interactive process with Plaintiff to

- 19 -
COMPLAINT
determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made in violation of FEHA.

20. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

22. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

23. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Interference with Pregnancy Disability Leave Rights – Violation of Code §12945 et seq.

- 20 -
COMPLAINT
 (AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph, as if fully set forth

herein.

25. Under Government Code Section 12945(a), an employer may not interfere with, restrain or

deny the exercise of or attempt to exercise any rights under FEHA.

26. As described in the conduct above, Defendants ignored the advice of Plaintiff’s healthcare

provider that Plaintiff take time off of work prior to giving birth due to her high-risk pregnancy, which

directly interfered with her rights under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law. Defendants further

discriminated against Plaintiff because of her pregnancy and the leave she took as a result of her pregnancy,

in violation of Government Code sections 12940 et seq. and 12945 et seq., which prevent pregnancy

discrimination and interference with pregnancy leave rights.

27. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

29. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

- 21 -
COMPLAINT
accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

30. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Disability Dsicrimination – Violation of Government Code §12940(a)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

32. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Government

Code section 12926 and entitled to protection under FEHA, which prohibits employers from discharging,

expelling, or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee because of the employee’s

disability, including pregnancy and related conditions. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11047; Sanchez v.

Swissport, Inc., 213 Cal. App.4th 1331 (2013).

33. Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s disabilities, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her

disabilities, and terminated Plaintiff and failed to provide Plaintiff with reasonable accommodation because

of her known disabilities in violation of FEHA. Additionally, Defendant regarded Plaintiff as having

disabilities, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of it regarding her as having disabilities,

discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff requesting reasonable accommodations,

discriminated against Plaintiff because of her record and history of disabilities, and terminated plaintiff
- 22 -
COMPLAINT
because it regarded her as having disabilities, and its perception that Plaintiff’s known and/or perceived

disabilities would cause need for future reasonable leave or accommodation, in violation of FEHA.

34. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

36. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

37. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

- 23 -
COMPLAINT
 CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Disability – Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

39. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Government

Code section 12926 and entitled to protection under FEHA, which requires employers to accommodate the

known or perceived physical or mental disabilities of employees and prohibits employers from discharging,

expelling, or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee because of the employee’s known

or perceived physical or mental disabilities or because of an employee taking leave requested as a result of

known or perceived physical or mental disabilities or because the employer believes the employee may

potentially be disabled or need an accommodation in the future.

40. FEHA further requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees with known

disabilities, including pregnancy and related conditions. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11047; Sanchez v.

Swissport, Inc., 213 Cal.App.4th 1331 (2013).

41. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her known or

perceived disabilities, including pregnancy and related conditions, by disciplining and terminating Plaintiff

because of her need for and request for accommodations, including taking maternity leave, and Plaintiff’s

request for additional medical leave as an accommodation to recover from her pregnancy. Defendants also

failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for what it regarded as Plaintiff’s disabilities, in

violation of FEHA, by terminating Plaintiff because of her need for and request for accommodations,

including taking maternity leave, Plaintiff’s request for additional medical leave as an accommodation to

treat her known disabilities, including additional medical leave to recover from her pregnancy.

42. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
- 24 -
COMPLAINT
continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

44. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

45. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process – Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(n)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

- 25 -
COMPLAINT
 47. FEHA requires an employer to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to

determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be made for an employee with known or perceived

physical or mental disabilities, or with what the employer regards as physical or mental disabilities, so that

the employee may perform the essential job functions.

48. Plaintiff was willing to participate, and di do her part in participating, in an interactive

process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made so that she could perform her

essential job requirements.

49. Defendants failed to engage in a timely good-faith interactive process with Plaintiff to

determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made in violation of FEHA.

50. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

52. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

- 26 -
COMPLAINT
and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

53. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation – Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

54. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

forth herein.

55. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA, which

prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee for opposing any practices forbidden under

FEHA. FEHA further prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee because of the employee's

requests for accommodation for a known disability, including pregnancy and related conditions.

Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, violates California Government Code Sections 12940(h), (1)(4) and

(m)(2).

56. Plaintiff reported what she reasonably believed in good faith to be violations of FEHA,

including FEHA’s prohibitions on pregnancy discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation for

requesting accommodations, and retaliation for requesting maternity leave. Defendants retaliated against

Plaintiff, in violation of FEHA, by terminating her employment because of her protected complaints about

being made to work through her pregnancy and while having COVID-19 symptoms.

57. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

- 27 -
COMPLAINT
continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

59. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

60. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation for Taking Leave Under the CFRA – Government Code § 12945.2

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

61. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

- 28 -
COMPLAINT
forth herein.

62. Defendants are subject to suit under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), which is

part of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code sections 12900 and 12945, et seq.

(“FEHA”), as it met all requirements set forth in Government Code section 12945.2(c)(2).

63. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Government

Code section 12926 and was therefore entitled to protection under FEHA. Plaintiff met all requirement s to

be eligible for leave under the CFRA (the requirements found in Government Code section 12945.2(a)),

including but not limited to having worked more than 1,250 hours in the prior year, having worked for

Defendants for more than a year, and having a baby, which triggered eligibility for leave. As of March 16,

2022, Plaintiff had twelve weeks of CFRA leave available to her to bond with her child.

64. Under the CFRA, an employer may not retaliate against, or discharge an employee for

exercising any right under the CFRA. The CFRA entitled Plaintiff to twelve weeks of leave to bond with

her baby. This leave was in addition to any leave for pregnancy disability (which is presumed for the first

six weeks after birth).

65. Plaintiff requested leave under CFRA to bond with her child, as described above. Defendant

retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising her rights under the CFRA by taking the adverse employment

actions described above, including terminating her employment.

66. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

- 29 -
COMPLAINT
 68. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

69. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Interference with Rights under the CFRA – Government Code §12945.2(t)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

70. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

forth herein.

71. Under 2 C.C.R. § 11094(b), the CFRA’s prohibition against “interference” prohibits an

employer from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having

- 30 -
COMPLAINT
exercised or attempts to exercise CFRA rights.

72. An employer also cannot use the taking or requesting of CFRA leave as a negative factor in

employment actions, such as hiring, promotions or disciplinary actions. See 2 C.C.R. § 11094(b).

73. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s right to leave under the CFRA by terminating her for

requesting protected leave to bond with her child under the CFRA.

74. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

76. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

77. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

- 31 -
COMPLAINT
suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation – Government Code § 12940(k)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

78. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

forth herein.

79. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

81. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

- 32 -
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

82. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks costs of

suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

83. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the conduct described in the

paragraphs above. Defendants failed to comply with its statutory duty pursuant to Government Code section

12940(k) to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate discrimination and retaliation from the

workplace and to prevent it from occurring in the future.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

84. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if fully set

forth herein.

85. Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of her pregnancy, because of her pregnancy-related

disabilities, because of her known or perceived disabilities, because of her need for, and request for,

accommodations for her pregnancy, pregnancy-related disablities, because Defendants failed to engage in an

interactive process regarding accomodating Plaintiff’s pregnancy, pregnancy-related dsiabilities, because

Plaintiff exercised her right to take leave as a reasonable accomodation under FEHA, because Defendant

believed that Plaintiff’s known or perceived disabilities would cause need for future reasonable leave or

accomodation, and because Plaintiff excercisted her right to request leave under the CFRA to bond with her

child, all in violation of public policy.

86. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff’s employment violates fundamental public policies of

- 33 -
COMPLAINT
the State of California, including, but not limited to FEHA, which prohibits terminaiton based on pregnancy,

pregnancy-related disablilites, known or perceived mental or physical disabilities, and terminations resulting

from a failure to engage in an interactive process regarding accomdating a known or perceived disablility.

Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff because she exercised her right to request and take leave under CFRA

further violates fundamental public policies of the State of California.

87. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which include, but are not

limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and other

non-pecuniary losses.

89. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants were

well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be discriminated against

because of her pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably accommodate her

pregnancy and related disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the right

not to be retaliated against because of her pregnancy and related disabilities or her request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to her pregnancy and related disabilities, perceived

disabilities, or requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents,

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of

Defendants to the community.

CAUSE OF ACTION

- 34 -
COMPLAINT
 Discrimination: Based on Protected Class and Race

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

90. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though

fully set forth herein.

91. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, which is an “Employer” under the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 12926, et seq.

92. Plaintiff applied for Production Associate Position and got selected.

93. Plaintiff was able to perform all job duties of his position.

94. As alleged herein, Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff based on

his race and protected class, African American, over forty, cisgender.

95. For example, Plaintiff was told on many occasions that he would be to eat

excrement. Also, objects like bolts and screws were thrown at him.

96. Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee)

unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personal characteristics associated

with race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color discrimination

involves treating someone unfavorably because of skin color complexion.)

97. Tesla changed aspects of Plaintiff’s including ignoring his requests to be

transferred away from his harasser, failing to give him safe job assignments, training, and fringe

benefits it provided to Latino employees such as admission to the group Latino at Tesla,

collectively, these discriminatory actions changed the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s

employment.

- 35 -
COMPLAINT
 98. Defendant’s wrongful acts were in violation of the Public Policy of the State of

California as put forward in the Fair Employment Housing Act, the California Constitution, and

other statutes and provisions, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress and

other non-economic damages including but not limited to shock, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and

loss of self-worth, and has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses for treatment by

health care professionals, and for other incidental medical expenses. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to

general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff is also entitled to

attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to statute.

100. The conduct of Defendant’s officers, directors, and managing agents in

discriminating and harassing Plaintiff’s employment was done intentionally, and with full

knowledge of and in conscious disregard for the harm it would cause Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks an

award of exemplary damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to make an example of

and to punish Defendant.

101. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

102. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though

fully set forth herein.

103. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, which is an “employer” under the California

Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 12926, et seq.

- 36 -
COMPLAINT
 104. Plaintiff was able to perform the job duties of his position. However, Ahmad

Khalil, a coworker harassed Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race and multiple treats to harm

Plaintiff.

105. Specifically, Khalil: told plaintiff to eat excrement, and threw objects like bolts

and screws at him.

106. With respect to Arturo Puente, although he was not a supervisor, he told plaintiff

that he could not address nor correct a safety hazard that was posing as an immediate threat to the

safety of plaintiff and others.

107. Puente came over from A side to C side and screamed, (not yelled) plaintiff’s

name, three times, in a barking type of manner. The scream was so loud that plaintiff was startled

to the point that he badly injured his knee and finger, at station 510 front.

108. Puente gave no explanation, answer nor apology for doing so.

109. He singled plaintiff out and blatantly disrespect him in front of everyone, including

other supervisors and leads, because he did not speak Spanish but was in an area with a heavy

concentration of Spanish speakers.

110. On March 29, 2022, Puente approached plaintiff and told him to go and sweep up

the area that was by the totes. 42. When plaintiff asked him why he was singling him out to clean

up when plaintiff was the main person who always cleans and conducts 5s in that area.

111. Puente responded that if he sees plaintiff’s stuff over there that he was going to

throw away my personal belongings. Again, this area is dominated by female Spanish speaking

contractors.

112. Plaintiff was passed over for jobs, because of his race and national origin which

means his inability to speak Spanish was used against him.

- 37 -
COMPLAINT
 113. Specifically, the hostile work environment that was encouraged and allowed via

the harassment's that plaintiff was subjected to along with the intentional discrimination blocked

him from internal advancement.

114. In one instance, IE Kathy the supervisor blocked plaintiff from having an

interview for a lead position for internal job advancement.

115. The only way he can legally and lawfully defend himself against Tesla is to bring

forth a lawsuit to remedy the wrongs perpetrated against him because of Tesla’s lack of equal

opportunity for people of his race, nationality and origin.

116. In addition to the harassment outlined above, plaintiff was sexually harassed,

including multiple acts of sexual harassment, physical threats of bodily harm as well as multiple

threats of sexual assault.

117. This was done because plaintiff is African American.

118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress and

other non-economic damages including but not limited to shock, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and

loss of self-worth. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts

to be proven at trial.

119. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously,

fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and

evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

120. The acts alleged herein were known to, authorized, and ratified by Defendants.

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants and each of them, in

an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

- 38 -
COMPLAINT
 121. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore

entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and

costs, incurred in bringing the within action. As a result of Defendants and each of their actions,

Plaintiff sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendants and

each of their actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, resulting in damages to be proven at

trial.

122. The conduct of Defendants and of their agents and/or employees as described

herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for

Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendant and their

agents and/or employees or supervisors authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct

against Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants.

123. In doing the acts described herein, Defendant, Tesla, Inc., deprived plaintiff of

prospective career and employment opportunities, as well as other benefits, by failing to perform

its duties to administer and apply all state, and local laws, procedures, and regulations.

124. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Hostile Work Environment Harassment Aiding and Abetting; b. Assault; c. Battery; d.

Sexual Harassment

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

125. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though

fully set forth herein.

126. Plaintiff was an employee providing services under an employment contract.

- 39 -
COMPLAINT
 127. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because he held the

protected status of a class. They would remind Plaintiff of his race and made disparaging

remarks; moreover, objects like bolts and screws were thrown at Plaintiff.

128. The harassing conduct was severe and/or pervasive.

129. A reasonable employee in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the

work environment to be hostile or abusive.

130. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive.

131. Plaintiff was harmed.

132. The conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

133. Plaintiff seeks damages thereto in an amount to be proven at trial.

134. The conduct of Defendants and of their agents and/or employees as described

herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for

Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendant and their

agents and/or employees or supervisors authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct

against Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants.

135. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

136. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though

fully set forth herein.

137. Plaintiff entered in an oral contract with Defendant that it would not allow

employees, in this case plaintiff, to work in an environment that discriminated against him on the
- 40 -
COMPLAINT
basis of age, race, sex, religion, disability, etc. The existence of the employment contract was

evidenced by the companies promises contained in Tesla’ personnel handbook.

138. Plaintiff has at all times performed the terms of the contract which in essence

required that he provide his labor in return for the promise that he would be free from harassment.

139. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 2016, consistently and received

positive feedback.

140. The terms of the employment contract included, but were not limited to, the

following: Defendant would not demote, discharge, or cause Plaintiff to lose any of his benefits

without good cause and fair warning, based on objective reasonable job evaluations of Plaintiff.

141. Plaintiff at all times fulfilled his duties and conditions under the contract and has

been ready, willing, and able to continue performing them in a competent and satisfactory

manner.

142. Notwithstanding the implied promise to not violate the law, Defendant violated the

law because Plaintiff, a senior employee was harassed because of his race, color and national

origin or “inability to speak Spanish” whereas his employee counterparts were allowed to perform

substantially equal work in the same establishment and under different nondiscriminatory

working conditions.

143. Substantially equal work does not require identical job titles; rather it is interpreted

as work requiring substantially equal levels of skill, effort, and responsibility.

144. Defendant’s failure and refusal to perform its obligation under the contract has

damaged Plaintiff in the following manner, he was deprived of the benefit of his bargain.

145. As a proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the employment contract, Plaintiff

has suffered and continues to suffer losses in earnings and other employment benefits, to his

- 41 -
COMPLAINT
damage in an amount to be established at trial. 78. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth

below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

146. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though

fully set forth herein.

147. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an employment contract.

148. Plaintiff did all, or substantially all of the significant things that the contract

required him to do as a Production Associate.

149. Plaintiff at all times fulfilled her duties and conditions under the contract and has

been ready, willing, and able to continue performing them in a competent and satisfactory

manner.

150. That all conditions required for Defendant’s performance had occurred.

151. That Defendant did not provide the safe working environment that Plaintiff claims

prevented him from receiving the benefits that he was entitled to have received under the

contract.

152. By doing so, Defendant did not act fairly and in good faith; and

153. As a proximate result of Defendant’s breach of implied covenant, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer losses in earnings and other employment benefits, to his damage

in an amount to be established at trial.

154. The conduct of Defendants and of their agents and/or employees as described

herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for

- 42 -
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendant and their

agents and/or employees or supervisors authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct

against Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants.

155. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Hire, Supervision, or Retention of Employee

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

156. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

157. Defendant hired, Ahmad Khalil and Arturo Puente who were unfit and/or

incompetent to perform the work for which he hired.

158. The Defendant knew or should have known that said employees were unfit and/or

incompetent to work as a fellow employee.

159. The employees’ unfitness and/or incompetence harmed Plaintiff, Mr. Butler. 93.

Defendant’s negligence in hiring, supervising, or retaining the employees was a substantial factor

in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

160. The conduct of Defendants and of their agents and/or employees as described

herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for

Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendant and their

agents and/or employees or supervisors authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct

against Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants.

161. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.

- 43 -
COMPLAINT
 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

162. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set

forth in this Complaint.

163. Plaintiff’s harassment from his employment with Defendant was based upon

Defendant’s violation of the Public Policy of the State of California as put forward in the Fair

Employment Housing Act, the California Constitution, and other statutes and provisions,

specifically his national origin/Race (African american) and Age (Over 40) in violation of law.

164. In violation of California Government Code § 12940 et seq. and Labor Code

1102.5, Defendants retaliated against plaintiff “for disclosing information … to a person with

authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover,

or correct the violation or noncompliance.”

165. Namely, after Plaintiff reported that incidents relating to harassment and

discrimination, he was subjected to a hostile work environment. This was a health and safety

violation of OSHA that required mandatory reporting. Once this was reported to Defendant’s

upper management, Plaintiff was subjected to disparaging remarks about his race, and multiple

threats to physically harm him.

166. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore

entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and

costs, incurred in bringing the within action. As a result of Defendants and each of their actions,

Plaintiff sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of defendants and

- 44 -
COMPLAINT
each of their actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, resulting in damages to be proven at

trial.

167. As a proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred and has suffered and continues to suffer

emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

168. 102.Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously,

fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and

evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. The acts alleged

herein were known to, authorized, and ratified by Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to

recover punitive damages from Defendants and each of them, in an amount according to proof at

the time of trial. 103.Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set for the below.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

169. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set

forth in this Complaint.

170. From his date of hire until now, Plaintiff did not have any trouble performing his

duties and responsibilities.

171. Plaintiff have been subjected to a hostile work environment by being harassed for

years and after many complaints to management nothing was done.

172. Plaintiff was subjected to disparaging remarks about his race and multiple threats

to physically harm him.

- 45 -
COMPLAINT
 173. On many occasions Plaintiff was told that, he would eat excrement. Objects like

bolts and screws were thrown at him.

174. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with Depression, and experiences mood changes,

anxiety, sadness, resentment, confusion, and emotional distress.

175. Defendants failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly

correct the problems despite repeated requests by Plaintiff

176. Here plaintiff’s claim for emotional and psychological damage, arising out of

employment, is not barred where the distress is engendered by an employer’s illegal

discriminatory practices. 112. Courts have held that where claimant’s cause of action for

emotional distress relates to the same set of facts as alleged in the claim of discrimination.

177. The discrimination claims are based upon allegations of actions outside the normal

part of plaintiff’s employment environment. Therefore, the claim for IIED is not barred by the

exclusivity provisions of workers’ compensation law.

178. 114. In committing the acts described above, Defendants caused, or recklessly

disregarded the probability of causing, severe emotional distress to plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered

insomnia, depression, could not eat, had to seek professional counseling and was ashamed.

179. As a proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer losses and other employment benefits, to his damage in an amount to be

established at trial.

180. Defendants’ acts as described above renders it guilty of oppression, fraud, or

malice. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

181. Wherefore, Plaintiff request relief as set for the below.

- 46 -
COMPLAINT
 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION

(Libel/Slander)

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...]

182. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set

forth in this Complaint.

183. Plaintiff was subjected to disparaging remarks about his race and multiple threats

to harm him.

184. Plaintiff was told that he would be made to eat excrement on multiple occasions.

185. Defendant’s employee Ahmad Khalil made a statement that he will make Plaintiff

let him piss in his mouth.

186. These statements were harmful to plaintiff’s profession as well as reputation.

187. The conduct of defendants and of their agents and/or employees as described

herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for

plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of defendants’ actions. Defendant and their

agents and/or employees or supervisors authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct

against plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against defendants.

188. Wherefore, plaintiff request relief as set for the below.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud & Deceit

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

189. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set

forth in this Complaint.

- 47 -
COMPLAINT
 190. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, which is an “employer” under the California

Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 12926, et seq.

191. Plaintiff was able to perform the job duties of his position.

192. According to CCP section 338(d), the statute of limitation for fraud is 3 years

which is within the time when Plaintiff filed the complaint.

193. As alleged herein Plaintiff informed Defendant regarding harassment and

discrimination, they told Mr. Butler that, they have had other complaints about Ahmad Khalil. \

130.The Defendant never took any steps to improve the situation.

194. This statement constituted fraudulent deceit, which occurs when one willfully

deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for

any damage which he thereby suffers.

195. Deceit includes:

196. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it

to be true; 136. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person

making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;

197. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the

fact;

198. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,

199. Defendant knew that the facts relating to its decision that not to take proper action

to improve the situation, which aggravated plaintiff’s position.

200. This misrepresentation relating to Plaintiff’s circumstances substantially

influenced his emotional well-being and as a mandatory consequence of seeking professional

help.

- 48 -
COMPLAINT
 201. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress and

other non-economic damages including but not limited to shock, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and

loss of self-worth. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts

to be proven at trial.

202. Wherefore, Plaintiff request relief as set for the below.

ELEVNTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unruh
Civil Rights Act

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...]

203. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set

forth in this Complaint.

204. Defendants harassed and discriminated against plaintiff.

205. Defendants harassed plaintiff on the basis of race which violated Cal. Civ. Code §

51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

206. Defendants acted intentionally to discriminate in public accommodations in

violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code § 51 by denying plaintiff, an African

American, equal rights as an employee.

207. Plaintiff lost money, reputation, and respect from the discrimination.

208. By reason of the wrongful and illegal acts of Defendants, plaintiff has suffered

special damages according to proof.

209. By reason of the wrongful and illegal acts of Defendants, plaintiff has suffered and

continue to suffer general damages specifically including, but not limited to, damages for

- 49 -
COMPLAINT
emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, nervousness, physical and psychological pain and

suffering, and other damages according to proof.

210. Defendants’ violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act entitles Plaintiff to

recover statutory damages of a maximum of three times the amount of actual damages or

a minimum of $4,000.00. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.

211. Wherefore, Plaintiff request relief as set for the below.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Unruh Civil Rights Act

(AGAINST DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...]

CAUSE OF ACTION

Whistleblower Retaliation - Violation of Government Code §1102.5 et seq.,

(Plaintiff Against Defendant [ [DEFENDANT INFO FULL ...])

212. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

213. At all relevant times herein, California Labor Code § 1102.5 was in full

force and effect and was binding on Defendant. Section 1102.5(b), in pertinent part,

provides:

[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not
retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the
employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to
a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the
employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover,
or correct the violation or noncompliance…if the employee has reasonable
cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal
statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or
regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the
employee’s job duties.

- 50 -
COMPLAINT
 214. As alleged herein, Plaintiff complained to Defendant on numerous

occasions about Defendant’s failure to provide a safe and sanitary environment for the

elderly patients. Plaintiff had (and has) reasonable cause to believe that Defendant’s

workplace standards violated local or state rules or regulations. In response thereto,

Defendant’s wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

215. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, practices,

and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial.

Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon

pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision

providing for prejudgment interest.

216. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, practices,

and omissions, and inasmuch as Defendant is a corporations and/or a limited liability

company, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties against Defendant pursuant to California Labor

Code § 1102.5(e), which provides in pertinent part: “[i]n addition to other penalties, an

employer that is a corporation or limited liability company is liable for a civil penalty

not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this section.”

Plaintiff further seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(j).

217. By engaging in the aforementioned unlawful acts, practices, omissions,

and by condoning and ratifying such acts, Defendant intended to cause injury to

Plaintiff. Defendant’s intentional and injurious conduct toward Plaintiff was reckless,

malicious, and despicable, and was carried out with a conscious and willful disregard of

the rights and safety of others. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages,

sufficient to punish Defendant and to serve as an example to deter it from similar

- 51 -
COMPLAINT
 conduct in the future. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with

prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or

any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest..

CAUSE OF ACTION

Whistleblower Retaliation - Violation of Government Code §232.5 et seq.,

(Plaintiff Against Defendant)

218. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set

forth herein.

219. At all relevant times herein, California Labor Code § 232.5 was in full

force and effect and was binding on Defendants, which, in pertinent part, provides: that

“[n]o employer may…[d]ischarge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate

against an employee who discloses information about the employer’s working

conditions.”

220. As alleged herein, Plaintiff disclosed information about Defendant’s

working conditions, including but not limited to the health and safety risks and issues

associated with caring for elderly patients with severe levels of being understaffed. In

response thereto, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated.

221. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, practices,

and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial.

Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon

pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision

providing for prejudgment interest.

- 52 -
COMPLAINT
 222. By engaging in the aforementioned unlawful acts, practices, omissions,

and by condoning and ratifying such acts, Defendants intended to cause injury to

Plaintiff. Defendants’ intentional and injurious conduct toward Plaintiff was reckless,

malicious, and despicable, and was carried out with a conscious and willful disregard of

the rights and safety of others. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages,

sufficient to punish Defendants and to serve as an example to deter them from similar

conduct in the future. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with

prejudgment interest.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Whistleblower Retaliation - Violation of Government Code §98.6 et seq.,

(Plaintiff Against Defendant)

223. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph

above as if fully set herein by reference.

224. At all relevant times herein, California Labor Code § 98.6 was in full

force and effect and was binding on Defendants. Section 98.6(a), in pertinent part,

provides:

A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner

discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse action against any employee
or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant
engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the
conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the
employee or applicant for employment has filed a bona fide complaint
or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or
relating to his or her rights that are under the jurisdiction of the Labor
Commissioner, made a written or oral complaint that he or she is owed
unpaid wages, or because the employee has initiated any action or

- 53 -
COMPLAINT
notice pursuant to Section 2699, or has testified or is about to testify in
a proceeding pursuant to that section, or because of the exercise by the
employee or applicant for employment on behalf of himself, herself, or
others of any rights afforded him or her.

225. As alleged herein, Plaintiff complained about Defendant’s workplace

and the health and safety risks and issues attendant with the severe levels of

understaffing in caring for elderly patients, as well as sanitary concerns. In response

thereto, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated.

226. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, practices,

and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial.

Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon

pursuant to California Civil Code §§3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision

providing for prejudgment interest.

227. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, practices,

and omissions, and inasmuch as Defendant’s are corporations and/or limited liability

companies, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties against Defendant’s pursuant to California

Labor Code § 1102.5(e), which provides in pertinent part: “[i]n addition to other

penalties, an employer that is a corporation or limited liability company is liable for a

civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this

section.”

By engaging in the aforementioned unlawful acts, practices, omissions, and by condoning

and ratifying such acts, Defendant’s intended to cause injury to Plaintiff. Defendant’s

intentional and injurious conduct toward Plaintiff was reckless, malicious, and despicable,

and was carried out with a conscious and willful disregard of the rights and safety of

others. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages, sufficient to punish

- 54 -
COMPLAINT
 Defendant and to serve as an example to deter them from similar conduct in the future.

Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon

pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision

providing for prejudgment interest.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Provide Rest Breaks – Violation of Labor Code §226.7 et seq.

(Plaintiff Against Defendant)

228. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph, as

if fully set forth herein.

229. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a non-exempt

employee of Defendant in California and covered by California Labor Code sections

226.7 and 512, and Wage Order 5.

230. Labor Code Section 226.7, subdivision (a) provides, "No employer shall

require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable

order of the Industrial Welfare Commission."

231. Section 12(A) of Wage Order 5 provides, in relevant part: "Every

employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as

practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time

shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time

per four hours or major fraction thereof… Authorized rest period time shall be counted

as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages."

232. Under California law, "[e]mployees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for

shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than

- 55 -
COMPLAINT
six hours up to 10 hours. 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and

so on." (Brinker vs. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1029; Lab. Code §226.7;

Wage Order, subd. 12.) Rest periods must be in the middle of each work period. (Wage

Order 5, subd. 12.)

233. Section 12(B) of Wage Order 5 provides, in relevant part: "If an

employer fails to provide an employee with a rest period in accordance with the

applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee on one hour of

pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period

is not provided.

234. As alleged herein, Defendant failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to

take rest breaks and/or the requisite number of rest breaks. Defendant did not hire

enough caregivers, so Plaintiff could not take any breaks due to a lack of coverage.

235. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at her regular rate of compensation for

each workday that she was denied a rest break or the requisite number of rest breaks.

236. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful action, Plaintiff

was deprived of rest breaks and/or requisite number of rest breaks, and is entitled to

recovery under Labor Code Section 226.7, subdivision (b) in the amount of one

additional hour of pay at her regular rate of compensation for each workday that she was

denied a timely rest break and/or requisite number of rest breaks.

237. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful and improper

acts, practices, and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to

proof at trial.

CAUSE OF ACTION

- 56 -
COMPLAINT
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks – Violation of Labor Code §226.7 et seq.

(Plaintiff Against Defendant)

238. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph, as

if fully set forth herein.

239. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a non-exempt

employee of Defendant in California and covered by California Labor Code sections

226.7 and 512, and Wage Order 5.

240. Labor Code Section 226.7, subdivision (a) provides, "No employer shall

require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable

order of the Industrial Welfare Commission."

241. Labor Code Section 512, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: "An

employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per

day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes,

except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours,

the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.

An employer must not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per

day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30

minutes, except if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal

period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the

first meal period was not waived."

242. At all times, Plaintiff regularly worked sufficient hours in a workday that

entitled her to one or two duty-free meal breaks.

243. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant failed to authorize and permit

- 57 -
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff to take a timely thirty-minute, duty-free meal break and/or the requisite number

of meal breaks. Plaintiff routinely worked without a timely meal break and/or requisite

number of breaks at the direction of Defendant and/or with Defendant's knowledge and

acquiescence.

244. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at her regular rate of compensation for

each workday that she was denied a timely meal break or the requisite number of meal

breaks.

245. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff was deprived of

timely off-duty meal breaks and/or the requisite number of meal breaks, and is entitled

to recover under Labor Code Section 226.7, subdivision (b) and Wage Order 5, in the

amount of one additional hour of pay at her regular rate of compensation for each

workday that she was deprived of a timely thirty-minute, duty-free meal break or the

requisite number of meal breaks.

246. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful and improper

acts, practices, and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to

proof at trial.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Age Discrimination

Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(a)

(Against All Defendants)

247. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set

forth herein.

248. Defendants and Does 1-10 are “employers” within the meaning of, and

are subject to, the FEHA as employers of five or more employees. (Govt. Code. §12926,

- 58 -
COMPLAINT
subd. (d).)

249. Plaintiff was continuously employed by Defendants and Does 1-10,

inclusive, at all times herein.

250. Government Code §12940 provides that it is an unlawful employment

practice “[f]or an employer, because of the […] age […] of any person […] to discharge

the person from employment.” (Govt. Code. §12940, subd. (a).)

251. Government Code §12926, subdivision (a), defines “age” as “the

chronological age of any individual who has reached a 40th birthday.”

252. The California Legislature has reaffirmed and declared its intent that the
courts interpret California’s statutes prohibiting age discrimination in employment, i.e.,

Government Code § 12926 and 12940, and the accompanying regulations, “broadly and

vigorously, in manner comparable to prohibitions against sex and race discrimination,

and with the goal of not only protecting older workers as individuals, but also of

protecting older workers as a group, since they face unique obstacles in the later phases

of their careers.” (Govt. Code § 12941)

253. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was fifty-nine years old.

254. As such, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class pursuant to

Government Code § 12940 et seq. At all relevant times, Plaintiff competently performed

his job duties with Defendants, and, at the time of his termination, was working fulltime

hours and received benefits.

255. As specified above, and incorporated herein by reference, in the months

leading up to Plaintiff’s wrongful termination by Company, management at the

Company began to make ageist remarks regarding Plaintiff’s age. Within earshot of

Plaintiff, Gittleson stated “maybe it’s time for us to get rid of our older salesman as

well.” Soon after these comments, Defendant hired Roger Beach, a younger salesman,

when there was no need for additional salesmen at Morgan Fabrics. Almost immediately

- 59 -
COMPLAINT
after hiring Beach, Plaintiff was terminated for a pretextual reason. Plaintiff is informed

and believes that Gittleson unfairly targeted him for disciplinary action based on pretext

and scrutinized his work performance because he was motivated to ‘get rid of the older

salesmen.”

256. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that he was

subject to differential treatment by Defendants based on his age.

257. The foregoing conduct by Defendants was not consented to and was

substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s age. Such conduct was sufficiently severe and

pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment.

258. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as

alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, including

great anxiety, depression, embarrassment, anger and loss of enjoyment of life, the

precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

259. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

aforementioned harm.

260. The conduct of which Plaintiff complains was carried out by Defendants

willfully, intentionally, and with oppression, malice, and fraud and was carried out with

conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of

exemplary damages according to proof. The aforementioned conduct on which punitive

damages is alleged was done with the advance knowledge of an officer, director, and/or

managing agent of Defendants. The alleged conduct on which punitive damages are

alleged was authorized, ratified, and/pr committed by an officer, director, and/or

managing agent of the Defendants.

261. Under the FEHA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’

fees and costs.

- 60 -
COMPLAINT
 CAUSE OF ACTION

Race Discrimination

Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(a)

(Against All Defendants)

262. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully set

forth herein.

263. Plaintiff was at all times hereto an “employee” as defined by California

Government Code §§ 12926(c) and within the meaning of California Government Code
§§1940(a) and (c) which prohibit race discrimination in employment. Race

discrimination within the meaning of those sections includes harassment and failure to

take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination or harassment on the basis

of race as set forth in California Government Code § 12940.

264. Defendants were at all material times an “employer” as defined by

California Government Code §§ 12940(a) and (c) and, as such, was barred from

discriminating against employees on the basis of race as set forth in California

Government Code § 12940.

265. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of race in

violation of California Government Code §§ 12940(a) and (c), Article I of the California

Constitution and related statues, by engaging in the course of conduct more fully set

forth in the allegations above.

266. As a result of Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer (a) substantial humiliation, serious mental anguish, and

emotional and physical distress; and (b) loss of past and future earnings, and

employment benefits and opportunities, all on account of which Plaintiff is entitled to

compensatory damages. The exact amount and nature of such damages exceed the

- 61 -
COMPLAINT
 jurisdictional limits of this court, but are presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will either

seek leave to amend this Complaint upon ascertaining such information or will prove the

same at the time of trial.

As more fully set forth above, the race discrimination by Defendants was done
intentionally, maliciously, wantonly, oppressively, and fraudulently with a conscious
disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure, punish and annoy Plaintiff
so as to cause the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, within the meaning of California Civil
Code § 3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in an amount
sufficient to punish and make an example out of Defendants.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation – Government Code § 12940(k)

(Against All Defendants)

267. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above

as if fully set forth herein.

268. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial and which

include, but are not limited to, backpay, lost benefits and front pay.

269. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,

mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses.

270. Defendant’s aforementioned actions were done with malice, fraud or oppression,

and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring his.

Defendants were well aware of the rights FEHA afforded to Plaintiff, including the right not to be

- 62 -
COMPLAINT
discriminated against because of his disabilities, the right to have Defendants reasonably

accommodate his disabilities, the right to engage in the interactive process with Defendants, the

right not to be retaliated against because of his disabilities or his request for reasonable

accommodation, and the right not to be terminated due to his disabilities, perceived disabilities, or

requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant, though its officers, managing agents, and/or

supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an

example of Defendants to the community.

271. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks

costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b).

Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the conduct described in the

paragraphs above. Defendants failed to comply with its statutory duty pursuant to

Government Code section 12940(k) to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate

discrimination and retaliation from the workplace and to prevent it from occurring in the

future.

RELIEF

272. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, TESLA, INC. as

follows:

- 63 -
COMPLAINT
 273. For compensatory damages according to proof, including lost earnings and other

employee benefits, costs of seeking other employment, and damages for emotional distress,

humiliation and mental anguish;

274. For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish defendant and deter

others from engaging in similar misconduct;

275. For reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Plaintiff;

276. For costs of suit incurred by Plaintiff; and any other remedies that the court deems

appropriate.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

1. 1For general damages and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof,

together with prejudgment interest;

2. For special damages;

3. For compensatory damages according to proof, including past and future lost earnings and

other employment benefits, costs of seeking other employment and for damages for emotional distress,

humiliation and mental anguish;

4. For interest at the legal rate from the date of injury or pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

section 3287;

5. For all damages available for violation of the California Labor Code;

6. For an award of attorney’s fees pursuant applicable provisions of California statutory or

common law;

7. For costs of suit incurred;

- 64 -
COMPLAINT
 8. For punitive and exemplary damages, according to proof; and

9. For any other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Date: October 19, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF FAHIM RAHMAN

/s/ Fahim Rahman__________

Fahim Rahman, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff
[Plaintiff Info Full ...]

- 65 -
COMPLAINT