ZACHARY CROSNER, ESQ. (SBN 272285)
MICHAEL CROSNER, ESQ. (SBN 41299)
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
1800 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 438-5565| Facsimile (818) 700-9973
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TAMAR LORELL
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
TAMAR LORELL, Plaintiff, Vs. BIOSOTERIA, INC., A California Corporation; DOHMEN COMPANY, A Wisconsin Corporation; JUDY SMIH, An Individual; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive. Defendants. | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | Case No.: PLAINTIFF TAMAR LORELL’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
(CA GOV. CODE §12945.2);
(CA Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);
DISCRIMINATION (GOV. CODE § 12940(a));
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL |
COME NOW PLAINTIFF Tamar Lorell (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and alleges and complains against DEFENDANTS Biosoteria, Inc., Dohmen Company, and Judy Smith (hereinafter individually “Defendant”, collectively “Defendants”), and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because all of the claims alleged herein arose in Alameda County and all of the parties were and/or are residents of Alameda County or are doing or did business in Alameda County at all times relevant herein;
2. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs;
II. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
proceeding with her claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), codified at California Government Code, Section 12960, et seq., by timely filing administrative complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and receiving a Notice of Case Closure and a Right to Sue letter ("Right To Sue letter”). Plaintiff filed her administrative charges with the DFEH on ______________ within one year after her termination date of on or about December 13, 2012. Plaintiff further received her right-to-sue letters dated ________. Attached as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of Plaintiff’s DFEH Administrative Charges. Attached as Exhibit 2 are true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s DFEH Right-To-Sue Letters.
III. PARTIES
PLAINTIFF:
4. Plaintiff was at all relevant times hereto an employee of Biosoteria, Inc. and Dohmen Company, all of which were affiliated and parent or subsidiary companies (hereinafter “Defendant Employer”). Plaintiff started her employment with Defendant Employer in or about May 2012 as a temporary contract worker. At all times during her employment at Defendant Employer, Plaintiff performed her duties in an exemplary manner, receiving a promotion from temporary contract worker to full time employee as a Senior Manager Drug Safety and Risk Management within approximately one month of service, and receiving positive feedback from her supervisors and co-workers. At the time of her termination, Plaintiff held the title of Senior Manager Drug Safety and Risk Management. Still, Defendant Employer and each of them, wrongfully terminated Plaintiff on or about December 13, 2012. Plaintiff was a resident of Alameda County during the entire tenure of her employment at and is currently a resident of Alameda County.
DEFENDANT:
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Biosoteria, Inc. is and at all times mentioned in this complaint, was authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States Government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Alameda.
6. Plaintiff further believes and thereon alleges that Biosoteria, Inc.’s principal place of business is at 1900 Powell Street, Emeryville, California 94608, in the County of Alameda;
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Dohmen Company is and at all times mentioned in this complaint, was authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States Government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Alameda.
8. Plaintiff further believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Dohmen Company’s principal place of business is at 215 N. Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Judy Smith is and at all times mentioned in this Complaint, was an employee of the other named Defendant Employer and was at all times pertinent hereto a direct supervisor, manager or held other such similar capacity in connection with Plaintiff and/or was an officer or director of Defendant Employer.
10. Plaintiff further believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Judy Smith is a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
IV. DOE DEFENDANTS, AGENTS AND RATIFICATION
11. The true names or capacities, whether individual, associate or otherwise, of
Doe Defendants 1-100, 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 as Plaintiff’s employer or some other capacity unknown at this time;
12. Each of the individual Defendants is sued individually and in his or her capacity as an agent, representative, manager, supervisor, independent contractor and/or employee of Corporate Defendants;
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant herein, each and every Defendant, Defendant Employer, including the Doe Defendants, acted in concert and in furtherance of each other’s interest. The acts of the individually named Defendants, as described herein, were known to and ratified by all Defendants. The acts and conduct of each and every Defendant, as described herein, which were intentional and/or harassing and/or were not a normal part of Plaintiff’s employment and were not the result of a legitimate business necessity;
V. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTIONS
14. On or about May 2012, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Employer as a full time temporary consultant _Senior Manager of Drug Safety and Risk Management. In accepting the position, Plaintiff was caused to transplant her residence in Lansdale, Pennsylvania in order to move to the job location in Emeryville, California.
15. On or about July 2012, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Employer as a full time permanent employee as Senior Manager Drug Safety and Risk Management. Plaintiff worked for Defendant Employer for approximately 7 months before being wrongfully terminated on or around December 13, 2012. Notwithstanding her wrongful termination, Plaintiff had received a promotion from temporary to permanent employee, as well as great feedback about her work product from her supervisor(s) and co-worker(s).
16. In or around September 10, 2012, Plaintiff was caused to return to her native country, Georgia, due to the tragic death of her nephew. Company was informed of and permitted Plaintiff to miss work in order to attend her nephew’s funeral and spend time with her family in Georgia.
17. Notwithstanding this tragic death in her family, Plaintiff was committed to her position with Defendant Employer and was able to maintain a good work ethic and was diligent in that regard. Upon return to work in or around September 19, 2012, Plaintiff made numerous attempts, including formal and informal requests, to obtain the information and attend the meetings necessary and relevant to diligently perform her job duties.
18. Following her return to work in or around September 19, 2012, Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was purposely excluded by Judy Smith and other employees of Defendant Employer from certain emails, meetings and other communications that were relevant and necessary to the diligent performance of her job duties. Plaintiff was also removed by Judy Smith and other employees of Defendant Employer from certain job assignments and tasks.
19. Some of Plaintiff’s job assignments and/or tasks were granted to other, younger employee(s), including, (Hispanic)employee, Ms. Mena. While Ms. Mena was supposedly Plaintiff’s subordinate, she now was monitoring Plaintiff’s work product and reporting alleged defects in Plaintiff’s work to Judy Smith. On or about ______, Plaintiff was yelled and screamed at by Judy Smith when she questioned why she was being assigned Ms. Mena’s lower level job duties. Ms. Mena was promoted to a senior level Drug Safety Associate position on or around this period of time. Judy Smith informed Plaintiff that she certain jobs were taken away from her because of documented client dissatisfaction, but refused to provide any evidence of such client dissatisfaction upon Plaintiff’s request. Furthermore, Plaintiff was informed and believes that Mrs. Smith also informed Plaintiff’s co-worker(s) that she was taken off job assignment(s) because of her “non-native tongue.”
20. Plaintiff took a sick leave from work from on or about October 10, 2012 to October 19, 2012, for dizziness, hyperventilation and severe anxiety caused by job-related stress. Plaintiff provided all the necessary medical documentation from doctors explaining her condition and request for time away as the absences were approved.
21. On or about November 1, 2012, Plaintiff experienced a panic attack and nearly fainted while at work. She was sent home in a taxicab and hospitalized for 5 days for her severe physical and psychological medical conditions and disabilities, including dizziness, hyperventilation, stress and anxiety. Her physician noted that a cause of these disabilities was job-related stress.
22. Plaintiff provided Defendant Employer with all the necessary medical documentation from doctors explaining her condition and request for time away as the absences were approved. Plaintiff continuously and diligently communicated with Defendant during any and all time away from work, informing Defendant Employee via email and/or phone communications of updates in her medical conditions and provided a definite return to work date. Plaintiff requested and was provided Short Term Disability documentation from Defendant Employer during her time away.
23. Thereafter, despite all the necessary documentation being submitted with notice to Defendant Employer, on December 13, 2012, Plaintiff was “laid off and/or terminated.” Defendant Employer, Defendants and each of them, cited the reason for terminated as “restructuring” of Defendant Employer’s company and the elimination altogether of Plaintiff’s position.
24. Defendant Employer did not offer, nor attempt to offer, Plaintiff another position with its company, and Defendant Employer denied Plaintiff’s request to apply for another position with its company, citing the reason as the company currently being within a “hiring freeze.”
(Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, California Government Code §12940(a) –Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1-100)
25. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 24 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
26. At all times herein mentioned, the Fair Employment and Housing Act [“FEHA”], Government Code §§ 12940(a), was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. These statutes required Defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of an actual and/or perceived physical or mental disability;
27. During Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants through its agents engaged in actions intentionally that resulted in Plaintiff being treated less favorably because of her actual and/or perceived physical and mental disabilities. Plaintiff suffered from physical and mental disabilities, including dizziness, hyperventilation, stress, anxiety and depression, caused, at least in part, on the job and by the harassment, bullying and discrimination she underwent while working for Defendants. Plaintiff’s medical conditions were qualifying physical and mental disabilities which limited Plaintiff’s ability to perform major life activities. Plaintiff was not able to perform the essential functions of her job, and at her doctors’ recommendations, went into temporary disability status. Plaintiff made sure that Defendants was always informed of her physical and mental disabilities and continued to do so until the date of her termination. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that after Plaintiff informed Defendants of her physical and mental disabilities, Defendants discriminated against her by terminating her employment;
28. Plaintiff further believes and thereon alleges that because of her medical conditions, Defendants perceived her to be disabled and therefore terminated her employment;
29. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that her symptoms which manifested themselves in physical and mental disabilities were motivating and substantial factors in Defendants’ discrimination against her and termination of her employment;
30. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, she has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits;
31. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof;
32. Defendants, and each of them, have committed the acts herein alleged maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the assessment of punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of them;
33. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees in a sum according to proof;
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation, California Government Code §12940(m); Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 CA4th 245- Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1-100)
34. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 33 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
35. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code §12940(m), was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. These statutes required Defendants to provide reasonable accommodations that will allow an employee suffering from a physical or mental disability to perform the essential functions of her job. The California law also required Defendants to provide reasonable accommodation to an injured worker by granting the injured worker a definite leave of absence to recuperate from a medical condition in order to come back to work. The Government Code §12940(m) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodations for a known physical or mental disability of an employee;
36. Plaintiff suffered from both physical and mental disabilities and medical conditions during her employment at Defendants. Plaintiff’s symptoms manifested themselves in both physical and mental disabilities which were disclosed to Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that she requested reasonable accommodation from Defendants by asking it to permit her to extend her temporary disability status so that he could recuperate from her disabilities and return to work. Defendants did not grant Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodation. Defendants subsequently terminated Plaintiff’s employment;
37. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that her request for a reasonable accommodation of her actual and/or perceived physical and mental disabilities was a motivating and substantial factor in Defendants’ discrimination against her and termination of her employment;
38. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, by failing to provide her with the requested reasonable accommodation concerning her disabilities and medical condition, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits;
39. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, by failing to provide her with the requested reasonable accommodation concerning her physical and mental disabilities and medical condition, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damages in a sum according to proof;
40. Defendants, and each of them, have committed the acts herein alleged maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the assessment of punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of them;
41. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees in a sum according to proof;
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, Failure to Engage in Interactive Process, California Government Code §12940(n) –Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1-100)
42. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 41 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
43. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code §12940(n), was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. These statutes required Defendants to engage in an interactive process in assessing an employee’s disability in order to provide that employee with a reasonable accommodation. The Government Code §12940(n) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with an employee suffering from a physical or mental disability to determine the effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee with a known physical or mental disability;
44. Plaintiff suffered from physical and mental disabilities, including dizziness, hyperventilation, stress, anxiety and depression. Plaintiff was placed on temporary disability by her doctors to treat her physical and mental disabilities. Plaintiff’s symptoms manifested themselves in physical and mental disabilities which were disclosed to Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that she requested reasonable accommodation from Defendants. Plaintiff requested that she be allowed an extension for her temporary disability so that she could recuperate from her disabilities and return to work. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not engage in any interactive process with Plaintiff to determine the extent and nature of her disabilities and whether Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodation could be granted. Defendants subsequently terminated Plaintiff’s employment;
45. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, by failing to provide her with the requested reasonable accommodation concerning her actual and/or perceived physical and mental disabilities, and by failing to engage in a timely good faith interactive process, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits;
46. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, by failing to provide her with the requested reasonable accommodation concerning her actual and/or perceived disabilities, and by failing to engage in any interactive process, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damages in a sum according to proof;
47. Defendants, and each of them, have committed the acts herein alleged maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the assessment of punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of them;
48. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees in a sum according to proof;
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Termination and Discrimination in Violation of Public Policy Based on FEHA and Petermann vs. International Bd. (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 184 – Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1-100)
49. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 48 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
50. In violating FEHA’s prohibitions against terminating an employee based upon that employee’s actual and/or perceived disability, prohibitions against failing to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee with actual and/or perceived disability and prohibitions against failing to engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation for an employee with an actual and/or perceived disability, Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff was in violation of fundamental public policies for the benefit of the public. Specifically, the public policy behind those statutes was the prevention of disability discrimination. Defendants’ violated this public policy by terminating and or discriminating against Plaintiff in part on the basis of her actual and/or perceived disabilities;
51. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against and termination of Plaintiff based upon her actual and/or perceived physical disabilities in part, and her request for reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in a sum according to proof;
52. Defendants’ discrimination and termination of Plaintiff’s employment was intentionally done in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages;
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract Not to Terminate Without Good Cause – Guz v. Bechtel, (2000) 24 CAL. 4TH 317 – Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1-100)
53. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 52 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
54. Based upon Plaintiff’s work records with Defendants, positive review and the policies in Defendants’ industry of terminating employees only for good cause, and length of Plaintiff’s employment, an implied-in-fact contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant. This contract required that Defendants have good cause for terminating Plaintiff. Defendants terminated Plaintiff in breach of that contract and without any good cause;
55. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful breach of the implied-in-fact contract not to terminate without good cause, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer loss of earnings and benefits all to her damage in a sum according to proof;
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Termination and Discrimination in Violation of Public Policy; CFRA, Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2; Ely vs. Wal*Mart (C.D.Cal. 1995) 875 F.Supp. 1422 Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive)
55. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 55 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
56. The California Governmental Code § 12945.2, the California Family Rights Act, prohibits discrimination against an employee because of that employee’s request for leave of absence to treat his or her serious medical condition. Plaintiff believes and alleges that Defendants discriminated against her and terminated her employment in part on the basis of her leave to care for her own serious medical conditions. In doing so, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her medical leave in violation of the public policy behind Governmental Code § 12945.2;
57. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination and termination of Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, all to her damage in a sum according to proof;
58. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, and the termination of her employment, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits;
59. Defendants’ discrimination and termination of Plaintiff’s employment was intentionally done in a malicious and oppressive manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages;
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassment- Gov. Code § 12940, Et Seq. Against All Defendants)
60. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
61. As alleged herein and in violation of California Government Code § 12940, et seq., defendants, and each of them, harassed plaintiff on the basis of her disability. Defendants further violated plaintiff's rights to a work environment free from harassment by creating and allowing a hostile environment to exist for plaintiff, including unwelcome verbal abuse by Defendant SMITH, unreasonable restrictions placed on plaintiff that did not apply to her non-disabled counterparts, and ratifying/condoning the harassment of Defendant SMITH. Defendants also violated plaintiff's rights by failing to adequately investigate harassment and discrimination based on her disability by Defendant SMITH and failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent future harassment and discrimination from occurring as required by California Government Code § 12940(k).
62. Plaintiff was continually subjected to a hostile and intimidating work environment so severe that it unreasonably interfered with her performing job functions and caused her severe emotional distress.
63. By aforesaid acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained.
64. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe emotional and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature, duration, and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to plaintiff, but she is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
65. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants and their managers, officers, and/or directors committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice or oppression, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights. Moreover, defendants and their managers, officers, and/or directors authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct of their employees and/or are personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. As such, plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from defendants in an amount according to proof.
66. As a result of defendant's discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory acts as alleged herein, plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit as provided in Section 12965(b) of the California Government Code.
(Race/National Origin Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, California Government Code §12940(a) –Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1 through 100)
67. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 66 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
68. At all times herein mentioned, the Fair Employment and Housing Act [“FEHA”], Government Code §§ 12940(a), was in full force and effect and binding on Defendant. These statutes required Defendant to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of race and/or national origin;
69. During Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants through their agents engaged in actions intentionally that resulted in Plaintiff being treated less favorably because of his race and/or national origin. Plaintiff is Georgian. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Defendants discriminated against him by taking away her job duties, giving her job duties to a Caucasian, subordinate employee, by promoting a subordinate, denying her an opportunity to interview for a higher and/or similarly situated position, by promoting and/or hiring non-Georgian employee(s) to a similarly situated position, and by denying her reasonable accommodations that were due to her and by terminating her employment;
70. Plaintiff further believes and thereon alleges that because of his race and/or national origin, Defendant disparately applied its own company policies, harassed, retaliated against and ultimately terminated his employment;
71. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that his race and/or national origin were motivating and substantial factors in Defendant’s harassment, retaliation, and discrimination against him and termination of his employment;
72. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, he has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits;
73. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, he has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof;
74. Defendants, and each of them, have committed the acts herein alleged maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the assessment of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of it;
75. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees in a sum according to proof;
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Termination and Discrimination in Violation of Public Policy For Race/National Origin Based on FEHA and Petermann vs. International Bd. (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 184 – Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1 through 100)
76. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 33 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference;
77. In violating FEHA’s prohibitions against terminating an employee based upon that employee’s race and/or national origin, Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff was in violation of fundamental public policies for the benefit of the public. Specifically, the public policy behind those statutes was the prevention of race and/or national origin discrimination. Defendants violated this public policy by harassing, retaliating against, terminating and discriminating against Plaintiff in part on the basis of his race and/or national origin;
78. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harassment, retaliation, discrimination against and termination of Plaintiff based upon his race and/or national origin, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in a sum according to proof;
79. Defendants’ discrimination and termination of Plaintiff’s employment was intentionally done in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages;
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Age Discrimination, California Government Code §12941 et seq.; Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1 through 100)
80. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 79 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
81. Plaintiff was born on _14 Nov 1963_. Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was wrongfully terminated, in whole or in part, due to discrimination by Defendant based upon his age and/or age related characteristics.
82. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times
mentioned in this Complaint Defendants, and each of them, regularly employed 5 or more persons, bringing Defendants within the provisions of the Government Code Sections 12900 et. seq., which prohibits employers or their agents from various forms of discrimination, including age discrimination.
83. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, through their supervisors, directors, managers and employees have engaged in actions intentionally that resulted in him being treated less favorably because of his age. Specifically, Defendants took away her job duties and gave those duties a younger employee, promoted a younger employee and/or hired a younger employee to her position and/or a similarly situated position with similar job duties, and denied Plaintiff a promotion and/or a similarly situated position.
84. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants replaced him with individuals who were substantially younger and with far less experience and seniority than him following his termination.
85. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that his age was a substantial and motivating factor in Defendants’ discrimination against him including but not limited to failing to interview him for a higher position and termination.
86. Defendants and DOES 1-100, inclusive, have violated its policies and practices, and committed unlawful discriminatory acts including but not limited to the following:
(a) A pattern, policy and practice of age discrimination.
(b) A policy, practice and procedure of unfair and discriminatory selection, promotion, transfer and reassignment for persons over 40 years of age.
(c) The total ineffectiveness, insensitivity, bias, futility, unreasonableness of Defendant’s human resources department and their management, administrators, directors, officers and staff, as well as the quality of any meaningful, internal complaint or grievance procedures or reviews.
(d) Defendants’ failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring and to take measures that were reasonably calculated to end the discrimination against Plaintiff.
(e) Defendants’ failure to adequately train, discipline or monitor its
managers, employees or agents after it had knowledge and notice of their discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff.
87. By the use of such policies, practices and tactics against Plaintiff, Defendants and each of them, have violated the intent and goal of such equal employment opportunities program to eliminate discrimination against employees over the age of 40. Plaintiff was deprived of his employment and any promotional opportunities to advance within Defendant, or to maintain his position.
88. In performing the acts and omissions alleged hereinabove, the Defendants and each of them, have violated public policy and the guarantees and provisions of law embodied in California Government Code, §§12940, 12945 et seq.; California Labor Code §233; California Constitution, Article I, §8; relevant provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; and relevant provisions of the California Family Rights Act in that defendants, and each of them, have discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff on the basis of his age and/or age related characteristics.
89. The actions of Defendants’ agents, managers and/or directors in discriminating against Plaintiff based upon his age and/or age related characteristics were ratified and approved by Defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff was ultimately wrongfully and unlawfully harassed, discriminated against and terminated based, in part, upon such complaints concerning Defendant’s misconduct. The acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, in engaging in wrongful termination of Plaintiff were not based upon any legitimate employment reason or rationale.
90. In performing the acts and omissions alleged hereinabove, the Defendants,
and each of them, have violated California public policy and the guarantees and provisions of law embodied in California Government Code, §12940 et seq., and other relevant law, in that defendants, and each of them, have discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff, in part, on the basis of his age.
91. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful and discriminatory actions
undertaken and performed by the defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff was caused to suffer, and continues to suffer severe emotional distress, embarrassment, shame, emotional pain and suffering, equal work conditions, equal employment privileges and/or job advancement, thereby causing Plaintiff to sustain general damage in an amount as yet unascertained but subject to proof.
92. As a further direct and proximate result of the unlawful and discriminatory
actions undertaken and performed by the defendants, and each of them, as set forth
hereinabove, Plaintiff suffered loss of earnings and earning capacity, all in an amount as yet unascertained but subject to proof.
93. As a further direct and proximate result of the unlawful and discriminatory
actions undertaken and performed by the Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff has become emotionally distressed, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount as yet unascertained but subject to proof.
94. As a further direct and proximate result of the unlawful and discriminatory
actions undertaken and performed by the Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff has been denied interest on the principal amounts of earnings to which he is due.
95. As a further direct and proximate result of the unlawful and discriminatory
actions undertaken and performed by the Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur reasonable attorney fees in prosecuting this action. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of all said attorney fees pursuant to Sections 12940 and 12965 of the California Government Code.
96. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendants acted against Plaintiff with intent to harm Plaintiff. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the misconduct of Defendant’s agents, managers and directors were approved and ratified by Defendant and its corporate officers/managing agents. The unlawful and discriminatory acts and omissions undertaken by the Defendants, and each of them, as alleged hereinabove, were done willfully, oppressively and maliciously and with the intent to injure and oppress Plaintiff and, by reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount as yet unascertained but sufficient to punish and make an example of Defendants, and each of them.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Age Harassment - California Government Code §12940(M) et seq.; Against All Named Defendants and DOES 1 through 100)
97. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 96 of this Complaint are re
alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
their position of authority to harass Plaintiff based upon his age. At the time of his termination, Defendants’ agents continued to harass Plaintiff, whose outrageous and discriminatory conduct, included but was not limited to calling Plaintiff names and making derogatory comments about his age.
incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth and plead within this Paragraph
100.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Against All Named Defendants
and DOES 1 through 100)
100. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 99 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
101. Because of the intentional and outrageous conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as described hereinabove, and as a legal result thereof, Plaintiff sustained severe emotional distress and mental suffering, all of which has caused, continues to cause, and will cause him great physical and mental pain and suffering, all to his damage in an amount as yet unascertained, but subject to proof. These damages have physically manifested in the form of physical illness, loss of sleep, anxiety, depression, hyperventilation, dizziness and other physical symptoms. Accordingly, Plaintiff will seek prejudgment interest, pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code.
102. The outrageous conduct of Defendants, and each of them, was intended to injure Plaintiff and to cause Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. The unlawful, malicious and oppressive actions of Defendants agents were ratified and approved by the remaining Defendants, and each of them.
103. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, as more fully set forth hereinabove, during which Defendants, and each of them, were engaged in those acts and omissions alleged, they intentionally acted with malice, oppression and fraud toward Plaintiff, and with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, and business, financial and personal interests, all thereby causing Plaintiff extreme emotional distress, anxiety, worry and financial loss, all in an amount as yet not fully ascertained, but subject to proof at trial.
104. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, was outrageous and done with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure or annoy Plaintiff.
105. Defendants’ conduct was such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice under Section 3294 of the California Civil Code, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendant. Such conduct will be proved by Plaintiff by clear and convincing evidence.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TAMAR LORELL prays for judgment against Defendants BIOSTOERIA, INC., DOHMEN COMPANY, JUDY SMITH, and DOES 1-100 as follows:
1. For back pay, front pay, and other special damages according to proof;
4. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded;
5. For reasonable attorney’s fees;
Date: Respectfully Submitted,
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
By: _______________________
ZACHARY CROSNER, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TAMAR LORELL
ADDITIONALLY, Plaintiff TAMAR LORELL demands a jury trial of the present case.
Date: Respectfully Submitted,
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
By: _______________________
ZACHARY CROSNER, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TAMAR LORELL
--
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES