37-2013-00030263-CU-OE-CTL_roa1_01-16-13_Complaint

Document Sample
37-2013-00030263-CU-OE-CTL_roa1_01-16-13_Complaint Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                 `, I ,V
                                                                       ;I


 I DAVIT) P. STRAUSS (SBN 96874)
   LAW OFFICE OF DAVID P. STRAUSS                                   13          15         l2: 7
 2
   1 I I I Sixth AvellUe, Suite 404
 3 San Diego, CA 92101
   (619) 237-5300
 4
     TIMOTHY M. KEEGAN (SBN 251085)
 5 GREG A. KLAWI'I-1'1;R (SRN 222746)
   CEARTAS LEGAL LLP
 6 111 I Sixth Avenue, Suite 404
                                                                        F 1 L E D
                                                                         Clerk of the Superior Court
   San Diego, CA 92101
 7
   (619) 819-5120                                                            JAN 16 2013
 8
   Attorneys for Plaintiff,                                                                    Deputy
 9 KARINNA TOPETE                                                     By..

10                       SUPERIOR COURT OF THE S'l'ATE OF CALIFORNIA
11                          IN AND FOR TI IF COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
12

13
     KARINNA TOPE I'L', an individual,          Case No.                      B
                                                      37-201 3-00030263-C U-O E-C T L
                                                                                             FAX
           Plaintiff,                             [EXCEEDS $25,000]
14
           vs.                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15
   DFVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., an Illinois            1)EMAIND FOR JURY TRIAL
16 corporation; JAMES RODISCH, an individual;
   and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
17
           Defendants.
18

19

20

21

22

23
24

25

26

27
28


     COMPLAINT 1' OR DAMAGES
           COMES NOW, plaintiff KARINNA TOPETE (hereinafter "plaintiff'), who alleges against

   defendants, and each of them, as follows:

                                       GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

           1.     Plaintiff is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual residing in the

   County of San Diego in the state of California.

           2.     Defendant, DEVRY UNIVERSITY INC., ("DEVRY"), is at all times relevant hereto

   a corporate entity duly licensed to do business, and doing business, within the state of California,

8 and at all times hereinafter mentioned, is an employer whose employees are engaged throughout

   this county and the state of California.

          3.      Defendant, JAMES RODISCH ("RODISCH") is, and at all times herein mentioned

   was, an individual residing in the County of San Diego in the State of California.

          4.      Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEVRY and the

   DOE defendants are an "integrated enterprise" and share an interrelation of operations, common

   management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership or financial control. As

   such, they are a single employer, joint employer and/or integrated enterprise. These defendants and

   DOES I through 10, inclusive (collectively referred to herein as "employer defendants") are, and at

   all times herein mentioned were, joint employers and/or an integrated enterprise employing plaintiff

   and all of plaintiff's supervisors and managers, and all individuals named in the complaint.

          5.      Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as

   DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names,

   plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
   Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants
   is responsible as hereinafter shown for the occurrences and injuries to plaintiff as herein alleged.

          6.      Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that, at all times herein mentioned,

   defendants, and each of them, were the agents of each of the other defendants, and in doing the

   things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such agency and with the

   permission and consent of their co-defendants.



                                                     -1-
   COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 I           7.      Plaintiff began working for the employer defendants in or around August 2007 as the

 2 manager for local accounts. In or around November 2011 plaintiff was promoted to manager of

 3 community outreach.

 4           8.      At all times during her employment plaintiff received satisfactory performance

 5 evaluations. Indeed, plaintiff received promotions during her employment.

 6           9.      At all times mentioned herein, defendant Rodisch was an Academic Specialist, and

 7 served in a managerial and/or supervisory capacity for the employer defendants. In this position,

 8 Rodisch proposed, and engaged in (or coerced others to engage in) various recruiting practices and

 9 other business strategies, the legality of which concerned plaintiff. Plaintiff believed these practices

10 violated internal DeVry policies as well as state and federal laws and regulations, including without
11   limitation, Title IV of the Higher Education Act Amendments.

12           10.     As but one example of illegal activities, Rodisch proposed "working around" the

     compliance standards set by DeVry and federal regulations by having one employee from

     admissions and one academic employee or faculty member attend community college/transfer fair

     events so that the faculty member could coerce targets to enroll even though the targets were still

     enrolled in a community college. In this manner, Rodisch and DeVry were able to evade the

     regulations and policies preventing admissions personnel from pressuring potential targets to enroll

     in for-profit universities.

             11.     Rodisch would also bribe students (providing, for example, gift cards) in exchange

     for positive reviews from the students as to the DeVry faculty performance.

             12.     Rodisch also exclaimed in meetings that the San Diego campus would do whatever
     was necessary - including violating internal DeVry policies and federal laws and regulations - to

     maximize enrollment. As one example of this disregard for federal and internal regulations,

     plaintiff alleges on information and belief, DeVry's San Diego campus leadership would pay

     admissions counselors bonuses and/or commissions for exceeding quota.

             13.     Plaintiff believed the foregoing conduct violated DeVry policies and government
     guidelines, regulations and laws regarding for-profit universities, including Title IV of the Higher

     Education Amendments of 1992 (20 U.S.C. § 1070). On several occasions during her employment,

                                                      -2-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
     plaintiff reported her concerns regarding the foregoing conduct. In so doing, she implicitly refused

     to participate in the perceived illegal conduct and/or objected to the perceived illegal conduct.

             14.       On another occasion, plaintiff reported another perceived policy and government

     regulatory violation involving a demand by the Director of Admissions that plaintiff not provide

     DeVry informational materials or referrals to persons of Iraqi national origin or Middle-Eastern

     appearance.

             15.       Beginning in or around December 2010, Rodisch began harassing plaintiff.

     Rodisch's harassment of plaintiff was persistent, severe and continued unabated until plaintiff's

 9 termination, Rodisch's harassment created a hostile work environment for plaintiff.

             16.       Among other acts of sexual and other harassment committed by Rodisch, he:

                   •   Flirted with and leered suggestively at plaintiff;

                   •   Stared unabashedly at plaintiff's breasts;

                   •   Suggested plaintiff "bring booze" to work;

                   •   Criticized one of plaintiff's coworkers for being pregnant, and stated that instead of

                       discussing pregnancy at a meeting perhaps everyone should discuss "sperm whales";

                   •   In a meeting with plaintiff and DeVry's campus president, Rodisch talked openly of

                       sexual massages;

                   •   Instructed plaintiff to attend an event because DeVry needed a "hot bodied chick" at

                       the event;

                   •   Discussed with other employees his sexual conquests; and

                   •   Winked suggestively at plaintiff during meetings.

             17.       The foregoing conduct by Rodisch distressed and disturbed plaintiff greatly, created

23 a hostile work environment, caused her stress and anxiety, and caused her to fear for her safety and

24 to fear losing her job. Plaintiff in no way consented to such conduct and it was unwelcome.

25          18.        On or about December 5, 2011, plaintiff went to Pam Daly, the campus president,

26 and reported her concerns about Rodisch. Daly responded by trivializing plaintiff's concerns,

27 stating that "oh that's the way Jim is...", or words to that effect.

28

                                                         -3-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
             19.    In or around January 2012, plaintiff again met with Daly, and again reported her

     concerns and fears pertaining to Rodisch. Again plaintiffs concerns were trivialized, with Daly

     excusing Rodisch's conduct as merely his "East Coast" mannerisms.

             20.    Because DeVry's campus president couldn't have cared less about plaintiffs fears

 5   and concerns about Rodisch, in or around March 2012 plaintiff contacted a member of DeVry's

 6 human resources department and reported Rodisch's inappropriate and unwelcome conduct.
     Remarkably, even before plaintiff advised the human resources functionary that it was Rodisch who

     was harassing her, the human resources functionary exclaimed, "let me guess, this was Jim

     Rodisch." However, plaintiff was told to contact Bridgette Ruiz, another human resources

     functionary in San Diego. That very same day, plaintiff called Ruiz and left a message asking for

     help.

             21.    Several days later, plaintiff informed campus president Daly that she had reported

     Rodisch's conduct to human resources. Upon learning that, Daly became upset and exclaimed that

     plaintiff was overreacting. Several days later, on or around March 23, 2012, Daly confronted

     plaintiff and accused her of "badgering" Rodisch which, according to Daly, had caused Rodisch to

     harass and intimidate plaintiff.

             22.    Plaintiff was shocked at Daly's confrontational behavior and her implicit excusing of

     Rodisch's conduct, and on or around March 26, 2012, plaintiff again called Ruiz. Plaintiff reported

     Daly's conduct of the previous day and again reported the various and severe incidents of -

20 harassment by Rodisch. Ruiz confirmed to plaintiff that Daly's conduct, as well as Rodisch's
21   actions, were inappropriate. Ruiz told plaintiff an investigation would be conducted.

22           23.    On or around March 31, 2012, plaintiff and Daly were at a DeVry off-campus event.
23 Daly was hostile to plaintiff and at one point exclaimed to plaintiff: "can you tell me why Jim and I

24 were sent what looks like an investigation ... Is there something I missed because I thought I
25 handled the situation." Again, plaintiff was taken aback by Daly's hostility towards her for simply

26 reporting unlawful conduct.

27           24.    After reporting the foregoing unlawful conduct by Rodisch and Daly, plaintiff

28   suffered a campaign of retributive and vengeful conduct by Daly and Rodisch. Among other things,

                                                     -4-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1   Rodisch curtailed plaintiff's involvement in interviews and ignored plaintiffs emails pertaining to

     work. For her part, Daly shunned plaintiff in the office, demanded weekly meetings with plaintiff

     (plaintiff was the only subordinate whom Daly required to meet with weekly), and refused to

     approve plaintiffs funding requests for events and began, for the first time, to question plaintiff s

     professional judgment.

 6          25.       On or about April 23, 2012, plaintiff was driving home from an off-campus event. A

     car driving at her in the opposite direction began blaring its horn at her and caused her to almost

     swerve off the road. The car then turned around and began following plaintiff, while continuing to

     blare its horn. Subsequently, plaintiffs cell phone rang. Plaintiff answered her phone and Rodisch

     began yelling at her about the event she was leaving - and plaintiff realized that it was Rodisch who

     was in the car that was blaring its horn at her. Immediately, plaintiff began experiencing major

     chest pain and shortness of breath and drove to a nearby urgent care. Urgent care recommended

     plaintiff check in to a hospital. Plaintiff drove home to take care of her children, and then drove

     herself to the Emergency room, where she stayed overnight. She was released the next day and

     diagnosed with acute and extreme anxiety. She was prescribed medication and advised to take a

     leave of absence from work.

            26.     The next day plaintiff provided the necessary documentation from her doctor to take

     a medical leave of absence. She also completed the necessary internal paperwork for a medical

19 leave of absence. Plaintiffs initial leave of absence was to last 60-days. DeVry granted plaintiffs
     request for a medical leave of absence and characterized it as a protected leave under the Family

     and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and/or California Family Rights Act ("CFRA").

            27.     In or around June 2012 plaintiffs doctor extended her medical leave for an

     additional 30 days. Again, plaintiff promptly notified DeVry and provided the requisite

     documentation.

            28.     Thereafter, plaintiffs doctor twice extended her leave of absence for an additional 30

     days. With each extension plaintiff and/or her doctor notified DeVry and provided the requisite
     documentation regarding the leave extensions to human resources.



                                                      -5-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
             29.     On or around August 30, 2012, plaintiff received a letter from DeVry informing her

     that her FMLA leave had expired in July and that DeVry was granting her unpaid and unprotected

     leave until October 4, 2012.
             30.     On or around September 23, 2012, plaintiff received a letter notifying her that she

     had been terminated.

                                        VENUE AND JURISDICTION
             31.    Jurisdiction and venue is proper under Government Code Section 12965(b) and Code

     of Civil Procedure Section 395 in that plaintiffs injuries were incurred within this jurisdiction, and

     the actions that give rise to plaintiffs complaint arose within this jurisdiction and venire.

                            EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

             32.    Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a complaint against each of
12 the named defendants herein with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

     (hereinafter "DFEH") within one year from the date of defendants' last adverse employment action,

     and thereafter receiving "Right-to-Sue" letters from the DFEH.
                                         FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

                         TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

                                             (Employer Defendants)
            33.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.
            34.     The above-described conduct by defendants, and each of them, was against the
21   public policy of the State of California as evidenced by the enactment of the Fair Employment and
22 Housing Act (Government Code 12900, et seq.), the Family and Medical Leave Act ("r-MLA") and

23 the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA").

24          35.     By terminating plaintiffs employment and retaliating against plaintiff because she

25   exercised her rights under the CFRA, FMLA and the FEHA, defendants, and each of them,

26 terminated plaintiff in violation of public policy.
27          36.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

28   alleged above, plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other

                                                         -6-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
    economic damages, and has necessarily expended sums in the treatment of emotional and mental

    injuries, in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

            37.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

    alleged above, plaintiff will necessarily continue to expend sums in the future for the treatment of

    the emotional and mental injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of said defendants' acts in an

    amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

7           38.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

    alleged above, plaintiff has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, anxiety, and nervousness and

    has been generally damaged in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

            39.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of the, as alleged

    above, plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees in this action pursuant to California Code of

    Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

           40.     The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, intentional

    and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrant the imposition

    of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants and to deter

    others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and each of

    them, were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/or managing agent.

                                       SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
                                VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5(c)

                                            (Employer Defendants)

           41.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

    the preceding paragraphs.

           42.     As set forth herein, the employer defendants retaliated against plaintiff for reporting,

    protesting, and refusing to participate in conduct she believed was unlawful and that violated state

    and federal laws and/or regulations, including without limitation, Title IV of the Higher Education

    Amendments of 1992 (20 U.S.C. § 1070) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and for refusing to

    participate in the unlawful conduct.



                                                       -7-
    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1           43.     As a consequence of her oppositional activities with regard to the perceived illegal

 2 conduct as alleged herein, plaintiff was fired from herjob.

             44.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

     alleged above, plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other

     economic damages, and has necessarily expended sums in the treatment of mental and emotional

     injuries, in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

             45.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

     alleged above, plaintiff will necessarily continue to expend sums in the future for the treatment of

     the emotional and mental injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of said defendants' acts in an

     amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

             46.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, as alleged above, plaintiff

     has necessarily incurred and will continue to incur attorney's fees and costs in an amount to be

     proven at the time of trial. Pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code section 1102.5, plaintiff is

     entitled to the reasonable value of such attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover

     attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

             47.     The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, intentional

17 and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrant the imposition
     of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants and to deter
     others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and each of

     them, were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/or managing agent.
                                         THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

                     DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE 12940(a)

                                              (Employer Defendants)

            48.      Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.

            49.      Defendants are employers as defined by Government Code section 12940, el. seq.



28

                                                        -8-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
             50.     At all relevant times herein, plaintiff was employed by defendants and was an

     individual with a disability as defined by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

     (hereinafter "FEHA").
             51.     At all relevant times herein, plaintiff was perceived by defendants, and each of them,

     as having a disability as defined by FEHA and from April 2012 until her termination plaintiff was

     on a medical leave.

             52.     For the duration of her employment, plaintiff was able to perform the essential

     functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodations.

             53.     As a result of her disability, plaintiff was in need of a reasonable accommodation,

     including without limitation, reasonable time off work to recuperate and heal from the symptoms

     associated with her disability.

             54.     The FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discharge an employee

     from employment because of the employee's disability or to discriminate against the person in

     compensation or in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

15           55.     In violation of the FEFIA, defendants terminated plaintiff because of her disability,

     need for accommodation and her statutory medical leave.
             56.    As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as
     alleged above, plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other

     economic damages, and has necessarily expended sums in the treatment of physical and mental

     injuries, in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

            57.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

     alleged above, plaintiff will necessarily continue to expend sums in the future for the treatment of

23 the emotional and mental injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of said defendants' acts in an

24 amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.
25          58.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

26 alleged above, plaintiff has suffered humiliation, mental and emotional distress, anxiety, and

27 nervousness and has been generally damaged in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.
28

                                                        -9-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
             59.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, as alleged above, plaintiff

     has necessarily incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be

     proven at the time of trial. Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 12965

     (b), plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of such attorneys' fees and costs.
             60.     The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, intentional

     and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrant the imposition

     of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants and to deter

     others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and each of

     them, were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/or managing agent.

                                        FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

                                   VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE 12940(m)

                                              (Employer Defendants)
            61.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.
            62.     Defendants, and each of them, are employers within the meaning of and subject to

     California Government Code § 12940, el seg. and employed plaintiff.
            63.     At all relevant times herein, plaintiff was an individual with a disability as defined by
18   the FEHA.

            64.     At all relevant times herein, plaintiff was perceived by defendants, and each of them,

     as having a disability as defined by the FEHA and from April 2012 until her termination plaintiff

     was on a medical leave.

            65.     The FEHA requires an employer to make reasonable accommodations for the
     disability of employees to enable them to perform a position's essential functions, unless doing so

24 would produce undue hardship to the employer's operations.
25          66.     As a result of her disability, plaintiff was in need of a reasonable accommodation,

26 including without limitation, reasonable time off work to recuperate and heal from the symptoms

27 associated with her disability.
28

                                                       -10-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
             67.     Prior to her termination, plaintiff notified defendants that she was suffering from

     symptoms associated with her disability and was in need of reasonable accommodations.

             68.     Defendants, and each of them, failed and refused to grant reasonable

     accommodations, as required by law, to plaintiff, and instead terminated her employment.

             69.     From the date plaintiff was hired through her date of termination, she was able to

     perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation, and she

     performed competently and capably.

             70.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

 9 alleged above, plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other
10 economic damages, and has necessarily expended sums in the treatment of emotional and mental
11   injuries, in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.
12           71.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

13 alleged above, plaintiff will necessarily continue to expend sums in the future for the treatment of
14 the emotional and mental injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of said defendants' acts in an

     amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.
             72.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as
     alleged above, plaintiff has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, anxiety, and nervousness and

     has been generally damaged in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

             73.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, as alleged above, plaintiff

     has necessarily incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be

     proven at the time of trial. Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 12965

     (b), plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of such attorneys' fees and costs.
             74.     The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, intentional

     and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrant the imposition

     of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants and to deter

     others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and each of

27 them, were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/or managing agent.
28

                                                        -11-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                                        FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

                      FAILURE; TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS

                                            (Employer Defendants)

            75.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.

            76.     Defendants, and each of them, are employers within the meaning of and subject to

     California Gov. Code § 12940, et seq., and employed plaintiff.

            77.     At all relevant times, plaintiff was an individual with a disability as defined by

     Government Code § 12940, et seq.

            78.     At all relevant times herein defendants perceived plaintiff as an individual with a

     disability and from April 2012 until her termination plaintiff was on a medical leave.

            79.     Pursuant to Gov. Code § 12940(n), an employer must engage in a "timely, good faith

     interactive process" in response to a request for a reasonable accommodation by an employee with a

     known disability or known medical condition.

            80.     Cal. Government Code § 12940(n), requires employers to engage in a timely, good

     faith, interactive process with an employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations if an

     employee with a known disability so requests. The interactive process is the key mechanism for

     facilitating the integration of disabled employees in the workplace and liability may be imposed on

     the employer for failing to engage in this process

            81.     Plaintiff gave notice to defendants that she had a disability and required reasonable

21   accommodations, including without limitation an extended leave of absence.

22          82.     Despite having notice of plaintiffs disability and her need for accommodation,

23   defendants, and each of them, by and through their agents and employees, engaged in an unlawful

24 employment practice when they failed and refused to engage in the interactive process, in violation

25   of the FEHA.

26          83.     Rather than engage in the interactive process to ascertain reasonable

27 accommodations to enable plaintiff to return to work, defendants terminated her employment.

28

                                                      -12-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1           84.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

     alleged above, plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other

     economic damages, and has necessarily expended sums in the treatment of emotional distress, in an

     amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

             85.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

 6 alleged above, plaintiff will necessarily continue to expend sums in the future for the treatment of

 7 the emotional injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of said defendants' acts in an amount to be
 8 ascertained at the time of trial.

 9           86.    As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, as alleged above, plaintiff

10 has necessarily incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be

11   proven at the time of trial. Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 12965

     (b), plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of such attorneys' fees and costs.

             87.    The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, intentional

     and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrant the imposition
     of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants and to deter

     others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them,

     were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/or managing agent.

                                         SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

                                             FEHA RETALIATION

                                              (Employer Defendants)
            88.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.

            89.     In California, an employer and/or any person may not interfere with or retaliate

     against an employee for exercising any right under the FEHA.

            90.     Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known, that plaintiff engaged in

     protected conduct, including but not limited to, complaining to human resources and the campus

     president about Rodisch's harassment of her and taking a medical leave of absence.



                                                       -13-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
            91.       After plaintiff engaged in the legally protected activity of protesting what she

     perceived to be unlawful conduct, plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including without

     limitation, unwarranted performance criticism, shunning, and termination.

            92.       As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as
     alleged above, plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other

     economic damages.

            93.       As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

     alleged above, plaintiff has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, loss of dignity, anxiety, and

     nervousness and has been generally damaged in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

            94.       As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, as alleged above, plaintiff

     has necessarily incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be

     proven at the time of trial. Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code section

     12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of such attorneys' fees and costs.

            95.       The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, intentional
15   and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrants the

     imposition of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants

     and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and

     each of them, were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/ or managing agent

     of defendants.
                                       SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

                                             FEHA IIARASSMENT

                                                 (All Defendants)

            96.       Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.

            97.       The conduct alleged herein created an intimidating, hostile and offensive work
     environment for plaintiff. The foregoing conduct was nonconsensual and based on plaintiffs sex.

     The foregoing conduct created an intimidating and hostile work environment in violation of
     Government Code section 12940 (h) and other provisions of the FEHA. The harassment was

                                                       -14-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
     sufficiently pervasive and severe as to alter conditions of employment and to create a hostile or

     abusive work environment.

             98.      The employer defendants are strictly liable for said conduct because the unlawful
     harassment was committed by defendant Rodisch, a managerial/supervisory employee.

             99.      Alternatively, the employer defendants are liable because they knew or should have

     known of the sexual harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

     Said conduct violated Government Code section 12940(j)(1) and other provisions of the FEIIA.
             100.     Defendants are also independently liable because they failed to take all reasonable

     steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. Such conduct violates Government Code
     section 12940(k) and other provisions of the FEHA.
             101.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

     alleged above, plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other

13   economic damages.

             102.     As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, as

     alleged above, plaintiff has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, anxiety, and nervousness and
     has been generally damaged in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.
            103.      As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, as alleged above, plaintiff

     has necessarily incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be

     proven at the time of trial. Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code section

     12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of such attorneys' fees and costs.
            104.      The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, intentional

     and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrants the

     imposition of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants

     and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and
     each of them, were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/ or managing agent

     of defendants.




                                                       -15-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 I                                       EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
 2                            VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE SECTION 12940(k)

                                              (Employer Defendants)
               105.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.

               106.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in

     the preceding paragraphs.

               107.   In violation of Government Code section 12940(k), defendants failed to take all

     reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination and retaliation suffered by plaintiff, and

     failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to address, reduce and cure such conduct

     as alleged herein.
12             108.   Defendants failed to take effective steps to prevent harassment, discrimination and

13 retaliation, and failed to effectively investigate plaintiff's claims of harassment and retaliation. Any

     policy of defendants that purported to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation was

     ineffectively implemented and enforced, causing plaintiff to suffer the adverse conduct as alleged

     herein.

               109.   During the material time alleged herein, defendants had no adequate response to

     harassment and retaliation that occurred within its workplace, and thereby established a policy,

     custom, practice or usage that condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, ratified, and approved

     of harassing, retaliatory and discriminatory conduct.

               110.   During the material time alleged herein, defendants failed to provide adequate
22 training, education, and information to its personnel and most particularly to its officers, managing

23   agents and directors, and supervisors to address, reduce or eliminate unlawful employment conduct.

24             111.   As a result of the foregoing acts and omissions by defendants, plaintiff suffered a

25 pattern and practice of retaliation and experienced a hostile, offensive, oppressive and intimidating

26 work environment. The acts and omissions set forth herein interfered with plaintiffs ability to

27 perform her job duties, caused plaintiff humiliation and distress, disrupted plaintiff's emotional
28

                                                       -16-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 I   tranquility in the work place, affected her ability to perform job duties, caused her to miss
     promotional opportunities, and undermined her personal sense of well-being.

             112.     As a proximate result of the conduct alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and

     continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits she would have

 5 received but for the unlawfiil conduct.

 6           113.     As a proximate result of the conduct alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and

 7 continues to suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress.

 8           114.     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct alleged herein, plaintiff has

 9 necessarily incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be proven
10 at the time of trial. Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code section 12965(b),

     plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of such attorneys' fees and costs.
             115.     The above-described acts of defendants, and each of them, were willfiil, intentional

     and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff and warrants the

     imposition of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish said defendants

     and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The above-described acts of defendants, and

     each of them, were authorized, ratified, or committed by an officer, director and/ or managing agent

     of defendants.

                                         NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

                              VIOLATION Or GOV. CODE SECTION 12945.2

                                                 (All Defendants)
21           116.     The laws of the State of California prohibit an employer from interfering with an

     employee's exercise of her right to take medical leave and/or retaliating against an employee for

     exercising her right to take medical leave, under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA").

            117.      At all relevant times herein mentioned plaintiff was eligible for CFRA leave. In fact,

     defendants approved a CFRA leave of absence for plaintiff. However, defendants retaliated against

     plaintiff in violation of the CFRA by terminating her employment after she took her CFRA leave,

27 Defendants' conduct thereby constituted retaliation for, and violation of, plaintiffs right to take
28   CFRA leave to which sire was lawfully entitled.

                                                       -17-
     COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
           118.   As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of defendants' wrongful acts, plaintiff

   has suffered special and general damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this
   court, according to proof.

           119.   Defendants' acts as herein before described were committed maliciously,

   fraudulently or oppressively with the intent of injuring plaintiff, and/or with a willful and conscious

   disregard of plaintiffs right to work in an environment free from unlawful harassment and
7 retaliation. Because these acts were carried out by defendants' managerial employees in a

8 despicable, deliberate and intentional manner, plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in a

9 sum sufficient to punish and deter such future conduct.

           120.   Plaintiff further requests an award of attorneys' fees against defendants, and each of
   them, as provided under Government Code section 12940, el seq.

   WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against all defendants as follows:
           I.     For nominal, actual and compensatory damages;
           2.     For special and/or non-economic damages in an amount according to proof;
           3.     For punitive and exemplary damages;
          4.      For interest accrued to date;
           5.     For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and expenses;
          6.      For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.



   DATED: January 1 1 , 2013                 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID P. STRAUSS

                                             CEARTAS LEGAL LLP



                                             By:     DAVID'R-S-T-KAUS
                                                     GREG A. KLAWITTER
                                                     TIMOTHY M. KEEGAN
                                                     Attorneys for Plaintiff,
                                                     KARINNA TOPETE




                                                    -18-
   COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:374
posted:1/29/2013
language:Unknown
pages:19