2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Choudhary Law Office Nilesh Choudhary, 219425 Joel Rapaport, 248847 Mailing Address: 4010 Foothills Blvd. Suite 103 PMBox 221 Roseville, CA 95747 By: Office Address: 2377 Gold Meadow Way, 100 Gold River, CA 95670 P: 916.526.2770 F: 916.400.3848 e: jdrapaport(@,gmai 1.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mechelle Sherles, and Robyn Sherles

SLED/EMOORSEDI
A U G -1 2 0 1 2
B. SINGH
DEPury CLERK'

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MECHELLE SHERLES; and ROBYN SHERLES, Plaintiff
V.

Case No.: 34-2011-00114745 First Amended Complaint for Damages for: 1. Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code, §12940, subd. 0)) 2. Retaliation (Gov. Code, §12940) 3. Assault: 4. Battery; 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 6. Negligence; 7. Negligence Retention and Supervision; 8. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress' 9. Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 10. Violation ofCivil Code §51; 11. Violation ofCivil Code §52.4; 12. Violation ofCivil Code §1708.5; 13. Violation ofCivil Code §52.1; and 14. Loss of Consortium; and 15. Sexual Orientation Harassment (Gov. Code §12940). And Request for Jurj' Trial.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; RICH BOYD, an individual; MARIA PATTERSON, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants.

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

Plaintiffs Mechelle Sherles, an individual, and Robyn Sherles, an individual, allege as follows: I. Parties Mechelle Sherles ("Sherles") is, and at all times was, a resident of the State of California, County of Sacramento. Robyn Sherles ("Robyn Sherles") is Registered Domestic Partner ("RDP") to Plaintiff Mechelle Sherles, and at all times was, a resident of the State of California, County of Riverside. Defendant Service Employees International Union LOCAL 1000 ("LOCAL 1000") is, and at all times herein relevant was, a union organization, wilh its principal place of business in Sacramento, California. Defendant State Employees International Union ("SEIU") is an International Union of which Defendant LOCAL 1000 is a chapter. Thus, SEIU will be liable for claims

contained herein based on LOCAL 1000 acting as its agent at all times material to this complaint. Defendant, Rich Boyd is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the State ofCalifornia, County of Sacramento. Defendant, Maria Patterson is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the State ofCalifornia, County of San Joaquin. Sherles is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Sherles will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Sherles is informed and

believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occuiTences and events herein alleged and that Sherles' damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such acts and events. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, and

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 119. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. 10. 8. 7.

employee of the other, and in doing the acts hereinafter alleged was doing so within the scope of their authority as such agent, servant and employee and with the permission and consent of each other. II. Facts The LOCAL 1000 is an employer/unioin subject to the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Sherles is employed by the State of California ("State") as an executive assistant, in the role of a filing officer, department's liaison to the Fair Political practices Commission and ethics compliance coordinator. At all times relevant to this complaint she was a member of the Local 1000 and from approximately September 2009 to June 2011 she was a vice chair for bargaining unit ("BU") 4. While engaged in her role as an elected Union Member, she would

periodically leave her employment duties with the State to act al the exclusive direction and control ofthe LOCAL 1000. Sometimes this was considered "Union Leave" other times it was not. Al all times relevant to this complaint she was working under the exclusive direction and control of the Union. She reporied to Union agents and employees, including bul nol limited lo Fran Pass, Richard Boyd, and Yvonne Walker, and often was paid by the Union, while on Union Leave Ihrough dues of their members. These Union Agents and employees would tell her where to be, and what to do. Further, they would approve or disapprove of her expenses and expenditures while acting in her Union role. In other words, Sherles was cut off from her olher employer the Slate during these periods, and Local 1000 assumed the role ofher employer. As the vice chair for BU 4 of the LOCAL 1000, Sherles' duties were prescribed to her by the LOCAL lOOO's policy file. Sherles attended union meetings, general membership meetings, executive board meetings, council meetings, statewide bargaining advisory committee meetings, mixers, fundraisers and other special events. While vice chair for BU 4 LOCAL 1000, Sherles became the object of harassment and
3 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19. 18. 17. 16. 14. 15. 13. 12.

discriminaiion by Bargaining Director, Defendani Rich Boyd ("Boyd"). harassment began on or about June of 2010 and continued Ihrough August of 2010.

This

Boyd was hired by the LOCAL 1000, as Executive Bargaining Director, on or around April 2009. Boyd is subject lo liability under FEHA as an employee of the LOCAL 1000 because Boyd was, at all limes relevant lo the facts alleged in this complaint, an individual under the direction and control, and providing services for the LOCAL 1000. He reported directly reported to Yvonne Walker, SEIU Local lOOO's president. Further, as the director of bargaining he also had SEIU staff and nine bargaining chairs that reported to him. He was given hotel suites and travel expenses paid for by SEIU. Boyd acted directly as an agent of the LOCAL 1000. On July 2, 2010, Boyd called Sherles to his hotel bedroom suite under the pretense of discussing Union matters, but instead he forced himself upon her on a couch and kissed her on the mouth. Sherles immediately stopped this, by pushing Boyd off of her, telling him "no" and running out of the room. Following this hotel room incident Boyd sent repeated text messages to Sherles of a sexual nature regarding his genitals, propositioning her for sexual relations, and discussing other things of a sexual and intimate nature and stalking her. Boyd specifically used what he had learned about Sherles on Friday July 2, 2010, and told her that he knew she was a diabetic and that he was willing to pick her up at night if she ever wanted to see him, because "he knew she could not see well at night". When Sherles refused his advances, Boyd began to dig more into Sherles' accommodations related to her diabetes. While Sherles was one of three of the eight bargaining members on the Unit 4 leam to receive reasonable accommodations, Sherles was singled oul and had her confidential medical history questioned both by Boyd and Margarita Maldonado ("Maldonado"), then BUI'S chair and currently Local lOOO's vice president of bargaining Maldonado in front of nine BU chairs and several SEIU staff Sherles, a past victim of domestic violence, attempted to deal with Boyd's conduct

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20.

internally, but by August she could not take it anymore. On Friday August 6, 2010 Sherles sent Boyd a text message stating that his advances were unwanted, unsolicited, and unprofessional, and that they needed to cease. Earlier Sherles was visibly upset and confided in Stacy Giacchino and showed her one of Boyd's sexually harassing text messages. It is stated on information and belief that Giacchino reported the conduct to the LOCAL 1000. On or about August 9, 2010, Sherles was called into an alleged investigatory meeting with Brian Schroder, Fluman Resources Director, of the LOCAL 1000 who wanted to talk to Sherles about Boyd's conduct. Sherles showed Schroder the texts to her from Boyd. Schroder referred to Boyd as a sexual predator based on his experience, and stated that Boyd's behavior was consistent with a sexual predator who uses their power of authority over women tiirough intimidation. On or about August 10, 2011, Yvonne Walker, LOCAL 1000 president met with Sherles to discuss the harassing conduct of Boyd. She referred to Boyd as a predator and stated that she knew he had two phones, which was consistent with the way Sherles was receiving text messages from Boyd. Walker further stated she was overseeing a multimillion dollar organization and it was her job to protect the organization. She made no mention of protecting Sherles, a state employee and a member of the organization. Sherles confided to Walker that she had been a victim of domestic violence in the past and a desire not to be in the spotlight was why she had not come forward sooner. It is stated on information and belief that Boyd, while conducting negotiations with the State of California, made inappropriate and offensive and harassing comments at the bargaining table with Department of Personnel Administration (DPA). Walker and

Local 1000 knew Boyd had a propensity to treat women in a lesser manner than their male counterparts. On or about August 13, Sherles was interviewed by representatives ofthe LOCAL 1000 including their Paul Harris, chief counsel, and Schroder. It is stated on information and belief that this "interview" was not a part of a greater

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31. 30. 29. 28. 27. 26.

investigation into Boyd's conduct, but an opportunity to intimidate Sherles into not bringing a civil action. Harris, during an extensive period of time during the interview engaged in a series of intimidating practices designed to thwart Sherles efforts to bring her complaints forward including preventing Sherles from leaving the room after a period of several hours of intense interrogation, despite Sherles pleas that she was a diabetic and her blood sugar was crashing. Thereafter, over the course of the next several month Sherles began to receive further harassment and retaliation by Local 1000 leaders. Specifically, Maria Patterson began to verbally abuse, intimidate, and bully Sherles for coming forward and making a complaint of sexual harassment. Patterson also discussed Sherles sexual orientation and questioned her gender choice in conversations with Local 1000 leaders. It is stated on information and belief that the Union questioned Sherles relationship with Robyn Sherles. Further, Patterson took a picture of Robyn Sherles "Pride at Work" form, which contained confidential home address information, and forwarded this confidential form via her iphone. Walker was notified of this incident and the concern that Sherles felt for her families' privacy and safety due to her address being shared with other individuals. On another occasion, an agent of SEIU left a document containing Shereles personal address information out and visible for public viewing at the SEIU building located on or near 14"' street in Sacramento, CA. Sherles and Robyn Sherles are especially sensitive to their home address information remaining confidential due to Robyn Sherles employment with CDCR, which places her in direct contact with California State inmates, parolees, and crime offenders. On November 30, 2010, Sherles filed claims of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against the LOCAL 1000, SEIU, and Boyd. Sherles received Notices and Right-To-Sue from the DFEH dated December 2, 2010. Sherles served these notices via certified mail on the relevant parties

Complaint

1 2 32. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 34. 17 18 19 20 21 22 35. 23 24 25 26 27 28

care of Local 1000. On November 17, 2011, Sherles filed Supplemental and Amended claims of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against the LOCAL 1000 and SEIU. She filed a claim for discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing against Maria Patterson. Sherles received Notices and Right-To-Sue from the DFEH dated November 23, 2011. Sherles served these notices via certified mail on the relevant parties care of Local 1000. Thus, Sherles has standing to bring this action. III. LEGAL CLAIMS First Cause of Action Sexual Harassment in Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j) (Against All Defendants) 33. Sherles alleges as against all Defendants as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint. Government Code section 12940, subdivision Q)(\), makes it unlawful for an employer or any other person "... because of sex ... to harass an employee...." Furthermore, section 12904, subdivision holds an employer "responsible for the acts of

nonemployees, with respect to sexual hai'assment of employees ... where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." As stated supra. Sherles at all times relevant acted at the exclusive direction and control ofthe Local 1000 and it's agents. She reported to them, and they instructed her on her activities. During these periods of time, she was prevented from communicating with the State (her regular employer), because she was engaged in Union bargaining activities with the State. Further, during these times she was often paid by the Union through Union Dues for her services and time, and was always reimbursed for expenses she incurred on behalf of the Union from the Union.

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

36.

Boyd maintained a management position while acting in his role as an employee of LOCAL 1000.

37.

It is stated on information and belief that LOCAL 1000 knew that Boyd was a threat to female members of LOCAL 1000.

38.

LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a "Labor Organization" under Government Code Section 12926(g).

39.

Boyd engaged in the actions set forth in this Complaint, including making inappropriate and harassing sexual comments to Sherles while in private and in the company of others, and by forcibly kissing Sherles' lips and pushing against her in his hotel room under the guise of wanting to discuss business with her.

40.

Boyd made several comments to Sherles essentially informing her that he had the power and resources and could do whatever he wanted. He stated SEIU needed him more than he needed them, and that Boyd had the power to control Sherles as well as Robyn Sherles' union leave and to deny their expense claims, wliich could affect their ability to represent 22,000 bargaining unit 4 and 4700 bargaining unit 15 members respectively.

41.

When Sherles complained to the LOCAL 1000 about Boyd's harassment, the LOCAL 1000 retaliated against her for making the complaints.

42.

Boyd's harassment was so severe and pervasive as to affect the terms and conditions of Sherles' representation as a bargaining representative for her members.

43.

The LOCAL 1000 engaged in the actions set forth in this Complaint, including having knowledge that Boyd was engaging in harassing conduct, and failing to take appropriate and prompt remedial action.

44.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been damaged and has incurred attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable pursuant to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b).

45.

The acts of Boyd and the LOCAL 1000 were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established

Complaint

at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [54. 53. 52. 51. 50. 49. 48. 47. Sherles alleges as against the LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 of this Complaint. On July 2, 2010 Sherles was sexually assaulted by Boyd, who it is believed had a known history of sexual harassment towards women. After Boyd's July 2"'' assault, Sherles complained to the LOCAL 1000 that Boyd had sexually assaulted her, was harassing her and that she felt unsafe around him and did not want to have any contact with him. After making her complaint, Sherles was subjected to defaming remarks about her character and veracity. She was berated by LOCAL 1000 counsel about coming Second Cause of Action Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h) (Against the LOCAL 1000, SEIU, and DOES 1-100) 46. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgnient against Defendants as more fully set forth below.

forward, and not making this into a public matter. Sherles was subjected to retaliatory conduct after her complaints and the LOCAL lOOO's "investigation" of Boyd's conduct. She was further harassed by Maria Patterson who it is believed was acting under the direct control of Union President Yvonne Walker, and as a result of Sherles claims of being sexually harassed. LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a "Labor Organization" under Government Code Section 12926(g). As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been damaged and has incurred attorneys' fees and costs in an aniount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable pursuant to Govemnient Code section 12965, subdivision (b). The acts of the Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, and justify an award of exemplary and punitive daniages in an amount to be established at trial and

Complaint

1 2 55. 3 4 , 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2J 24 61. 60. 59. 58. 57.

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgnient against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Third Cause of Action Assault (Against Boyd and LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100) 56. Sherles alleges as against Boyd, LOCAL 1000, and SEIU as follows and realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Complaint. On July 2, 2010, Boyd forcefully kissed Sherles and grabbed her while she was on his hotel couch, with the intent of intimidating her and causing her apprehension of immediate injury. At the time of this incident, Boyd was acting as an agent of LOCAL 1000. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered special damages in an aniount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered general daniages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. The acts of Boyd were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an aniount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgnient against Defendant as more fully set forth below. Fourth Cause of Action Battery (Against SEIU; LOCAL 100, and Boyd and DOES 1-100) 62. Sherles alleges as against SEIU, Boyd, and LOCAL 1000 as follows and realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint.

26 63. 27 hotel couch, with the intent of harming or offending Sherles. At the time of this incident, 28
Complaint

On July 2, 2010. Boyd forcefully kissed Sherles and grabbed her while she was on his

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 56. 9 10 11 57. 12 1^ 65. 64.

Boyd was acting as an agent of LOCAL 1000. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered special damages in an aniount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered general daniages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. The acts of Boyd were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendant as more fully set forth below. Fifth Cause of Action Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against all Defendants) 68. Sherles alleges as against all Defendants as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 of this Complaint. 69. The acts of Boyd and the LOCAL 1000 employees as described above were unlawful, outrageous and malicious. The LOCAL 1000 employees were acting within the scope of employment at the time ofthe acts, and such actions were ratified by the LOCAL 1000. 70. Boyd, Patterson and the LOCAL 1000 employees and/or agents wrongfully acted with the intent to cause Sherles severe emotional distress, or so acted when the LOCAL 1000 employees knew or should have known that the conduct would cause or be likely to cause severe emotional distress. 71. As a proximate result of the aforementioned outrageous acts of Boyd and the LOCAL 1000 employees and ratified by the LOCAL 1000, Sherles has suffered severe emotional distress which has manifested itself in physical symptoms. 72. As a proximate result of the aforementioned outrageous acts of Boyd and the LOCAL
II Complaint

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1000 employees as ratified by the LOCAL 1000, Sherles has suffered general daniages 2 3 73. 4 5 6 74. 7 ^ ^ 75. and special damages. The acts of the Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive daniages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, Wherefore. Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Sixth Cause of Action Negligence (Against the All Defendants) Sherles alleges as against all Defendatns that Boyd, Patterson, and LOCAL 1000 and by extension SEIU had a duty to protect her, a union member from dangerous II ^2 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 82. 81. 80. 79. Sherles alleges as to Boyd that Boyd had a duty to act as a reasonable person with sound mind with respect to his interactions with Sherles. Sherles alleges that Boyd breached this duty and failed to act as a reasonable person of sound mind in sending Sherles sexually explicit text messages. Sherles alleges that Boyd breached this duty and failed to act as a reasonable person of sound mind in forcibly kissing Sherles' and grabbing her. Sherles alleges as a result of Boyd's breach(es), Sherles was damaged in ainount to be 78. 77. 76. conditions and individuals on the LOCAL lOOO's premises and at the LOCAL 1000's functions, which Sherles was obligated to attend Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 that LOCAL 1000 breached this duty by failing to prevent Boyd from interacting with Sherles. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 that LOCAL 1000 breached this duty by failing to prevent Patterson from interacting with Sherles Sherles alleges that as a result of LOCAL lOOO's breach that Sherles was damaged in amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court

Complaint

established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 83. Sherles alleges as to Patterson that Patterson had a duty to act as a reasonable person with sound mind with respect lo his interactions with Sherles. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, and for Patterson to have the interactions with Plaintiff she did including 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 91. 92. 90. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment againsi Defendants as more fully sel forth below. Eighth Cause of Action Negligence Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) Sherles Restates facts alleged at Paragraphs 75 lo Paragraph 90 of this Complaint. Sherles alleges as lo LOCAL 1000, SEIU, Patterson, and Boyd lhat as a result of
13 Complaint

84.

Sherles alleges that Patterson breached this duty and failed to act as a reasonable person with respect to the hostile and absusive comments she made to Sherles.

85.

Sherles alleges as a result of Patterson's breach(es), Sherles was damaged in aniount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

86.

Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgnient against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Seventh Cause of Action Negligence Retention and Supervision (Against the LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100) 87. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 and SEIU that LOCAL 1000 and SEIU had a duty to protect her, a union member from Union employees and/or agents they knew or should have known posed a threat to union members.

88.

Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 that LOCAL 1000 breached this duty by maintaining Boyd's employment and/or Patterson's employment and/or status as a Union member with authority, thereby allowing Boyd to sexually assault, batter, and harass

treating Shereles wilh aggression. 89. Sherles alleges lhat as a result of LOCAL lOOO's breach lhal Sherles was damaged in amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ^ 9 10 11 ^2 13 14 15 16 17 8 9 20 95. 94. 93.

the Negligence identified in the Sixth Cause of Aclion and Seventh Cause of Action that she suffered significant emolional distress in aniount to be established al trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgmenl againsi Defendants as more fully sel forth below Ninth Cause of Action Violation ofCalifornia Labor Code § 1102.5 (Against the LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100) Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 Ihrough 88 of this Complaint. Sherles disclosed lo her employer. The Stale of California, that Boyd had sexually assaulted and battered her, which constitutes a disclosure to a law enforcement agency under California Labor Code § 1102.5(e) 96. The content of her report dealt wilh conduct, which may have violated Civ. Code § 1708.5(a); Civ. Code §51; Civ. Code §52.4; Pen. Code §240; and Pen. Code §242, which states in relevant part: a. "A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following: (I) Acts wilh the intent lo cause a harmful or offensive contact wilh an intimate part of another, and a sexually offensive contact wilh that person directly or

21 indirectly results...." Civ Code §1708.5 22 23 24 "•^ 26 27 28 b. "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are enlitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Civ Code §5
14 Complaint

c. "Any person who has been subjected to gender violence may bring a civil 2 3 4 5 6 y 8 ^ 10 person of anolher." Penal Code §242 11 j2 13 14 ^^ 16 98. 17 g 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28
15 Complaint

action fbr daniages againsi any responsible party. The plaintiff may seek actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive daniages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any olher appropriate relief A prevailing plaintiff may also be awarded attorney's fees and costs" Civ Code §52.4 d. "An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled wilh a present ability, lo commit a violent injury on the person of anolher." Penal Code §240 e. "A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the

97.

Subsequent lo this reporting, the LOCAL 1000 and its agents began lo retaliate againsi Sherles, by disparaging her character, and making threats regai-ding her ability lo lake what had happened public, and generally making it difficult to perform her elected duties This Caused Sherles damages in an amount to be shown according lo proof. The LOCAL lOOO's conduct was the result of Plaintiff s disclosures lo a governing agency. This is retaliation against public policy and in violalion of California Statutory law.

99.

100.

Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully sel forth below. Tenth Cause of Action Violation of Civil Code §51 and §52 - UNRUH (Against the Boyd and LOCAL 1000; SEIU; and DOES 1-100)

101. Sherles alleges as againsi LOCAL 1000; SEIU and Boyd as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I ihrough 95 of this Complaint.

102. Sherles, as a female is a protected individual under the UNRUH act in that she is entitled nol to be harassed and/or discriminated againsi based on her sex. 103. Boyd did in fact discriminate and harass Sherles as a result of her sex and her

4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
106.

complaints aboul being sexually assaulted and battered by Boyd. At all times relevant lo this harassment/discrimination based on her sex Boyd was acting as an agent of the LOCAL 1000. 104. This Caused Sherles damages in an amount lo be shown according to proof 105. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment including daniages associated under Civi Code §52 against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Eleventh Cause of Action Violation ofCivil Code §52.4 (Against the Boyd and DOES 1-100) Sherles alleges as against Boyd and LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 Ihrough 100 of this Complaint, 107. Boyd's conduct in assaulting and battering Sherles are gender violence as defined under California Civil Code §52.4. At all limes relevant to this harassment/discrimination based on her sex Boyd was acting as an agent ofthe LOCAL 1000. 108. This Caused Sherles daniages in an amount to be shown according lo proof 109. The acts ofthe Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established al trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 110. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully sel forth below. Twelfth Cause of Action Violation ofCivil Code §1708.5 (Against the Boyd and LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100)
16 Complaint

111. Sherles alleges as againsi Boyd, LOCAL 1000, and SEIU as follows and re-alleges 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 114. 12 13 ^4 15 16 17 116. LOCAL lOOO's conduct in intimidating Sherles and threatening Sherles not to go public with her claim of sexual harassment constitutes coercion under Civil Code 19
90

and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 Ihrough 105 of this Complaini 112. Boyd intended to cause harmful and offensive contact lo Sherles' body when he attempted to kiss her and grab her. At all times relevant to this

harassment/discrimination based on her sex Boyd was acting as an agent of the LOCAL 1000. 113. Harmful and offensive contacl did in fact occur when Boyd touched and kissed Sherles' body Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgmenl againsi Defendants as more fully sel forth below. Thirteenth Cause of Action Violation ofCivil Code §52.1 (Against LOCAL 1000; SEIU, and DOES 1-100) 115. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 113 of this Complaint.

§52.1 as this conduct infringed upon Sherles' first amendment right to pelilion, as well as complaini aboul sexual harassment protected by California Law and

21 constitution. 22 23 24 25 after all the questions had been asked, and her blood sugar had fallen due lo her diabetes, and she was on the verge of severe sickness. Plaintiff feared for her safety and her heallh as a result of Mr. Harris' conduct and fell based on his 27 position as chief counsel for the Defendani lhal he was in a position to carry out 28
17 Complaint

Specifically. Mr. Harris conduct during his alleged interview

amounted to Mr. Harris preventing. Plaintiff from leaving the interview room.

his llirealening behavior 2 3 4 5 6 y 8 9 '0 established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 119. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgmenl againsi Defendants as more fully sel forth below Fourteenth Cause of Action Loss of Consortium (Against All Defendants) 120. Robyn Sherles alleges as against all Defendants as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 Ihrough 118 of this Complaint. 121. Robyn Sherles is RDP to Plaintiff Mechelle Sherles 122. The incidents as described above have caused harm lo the marital relationship of Mechelle Sherles and Robyn Sherles. And Thus, Robyn Sherles, as a direct result of the Defendants, and each of their conduct, has been damaged in an amounl lo be shown according to proof Fifteenth Cause of Action Sexual Orientation Harassment in Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j) (Against LOCAL 1000, SEIU, Maria Patterson, and Does 1-100) 117. This Caused Sherles daniages in an amounl lo be shown according lo proof 118. The acts ofthe Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount lo be

12 13 14 15 16 Iy 18 '9 20 ^^ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 123.

Sherles alleges as againsi Local 1000, SEIU, and Patterson as follows and realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 120 of this Complaint.

124. Government Code seclion 12940, subdivision Q){\), makes it unlawful for an employer or any other person "... because of sexual orientation ... to harass an employee...." Furthermore, seclion 12904, subdivision (i)(l), holds an employer "responsible for the

Complaint

1 2

acts of nonemployees, wilh respect lo sexual harassment of employees ... where the employer, or ils agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective aclion."

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

125. Patterson maintained an elected position while acting in her role as an agent of Local 1000, and to the extent she was nol a manager, she was acting as a direct agent of President Yvonne Walker. 126. It is slated on information and belief that LOCAL 1000 knew that Patterson was a threat lo Sherles. 127. LOCAL 1000 is subjeci lo liability for FEHA as a "Labor Organization" under Government Code Seclion 12926(g). 128. Patterson engaged in the actions set forth in this Complaint, including making inappropriate and harassing comments lo Sherles while in private cuid in the company of olhers. 129. Wlien Sherles complained lo the LOCAL 1000 about Patterson's harassment, the LOCAL 1000 retaliated againsi her for making the complaints. 130. Patterson's harassment was so severe and pervasive as to affect the terms and conditions of Sherles' representation as a bargaining representative for her members. 131. The LOCAL 1000 engaged in the actions set forth in this Complaini, including having knowledge lhal Patterson was engaging in harassing conduct, and failing lo lake appropriate and prompi remedial aclion. 132. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been damaged and has incurred attorneys' fees and costs in an aniount lo be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable pursuant to Government Code seclion 12965, subdivision (b). 133. The acts of Patterson and the LOCAL 1000 were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amounl lo be established al trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limils of this Court. 134. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment againsi Defendants as more fully set forth below.

19 Complaint

Prayer As to the First Cause of Action - Sexual Harassment: 1. For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Governmenl Code seclion 12965,

4 subdivision (b); 5 6 7 8
2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special daniages according lo proof; For punitive damages; For cosls of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

9 As to the Second Cause of Action - Retaliation:
10 11 12 13 14 15
(b); 2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special daniages according lo proof; For punitive damages; For cosls of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the courl deems proper. For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant lo Governmenl Code seclion 12965, subdivision

16 As to the Third Cause of Action - Assault: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1. 2. 3. 4. For general and special damages according lo proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the courl deems proper.

As to the Fourth Cause of Action - Battery: 1. 2. 3. 4. For general and special daniages according to proof; For punitive daniages; For cosls of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

26 As to the Fifth Cause of Action - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: 27 28
1. 2. For general and special damages according lo proof; For punitive damages;
20

Complaint

1 2

3. 4 .

For cosls of suit herein incurred; and For such olher and further relief as the courl deems proper, th Cause of Action - Negligence: For general and special daniages according lo proof; For cosls of suit herein incurred; and For such olher and further relief as the court deems proper, enth Cause of Action - NegUgent Retention and Supervisic For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive daniages; For cosls of suit herein incurred;

3 As to the 4 5 6 7 As to the 8 9 10 1 1 4 . 1 . 2. 1 . 2.

For such other and further relief as the court deems proper. ;hth Cause of Action - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Di For general and special daniages according to proof; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper, ith Cause of Action - Violation of Labor Code §1102.5: For general and special damages according lo proof; For punitive daniages; For costs of suit herein incurred; For Attorney's Fees; and For such olher and fiuther relief as the court deems proper; for ith Cause of Action - Violation of Cal Civil §51 and §52 -1 For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For cosls of suit herein incurred; For Attomey's Fees; For Daniages associated with Civil Code § 52; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper; for
21

12 As to the 13 14 15 1 . 2. 3.

16 As to the 17 1 8 19 20 21 1 . 2. 3. 4 . 5.

22 As to the 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6 .

Complaint

As to the Eleventh Cause of Action - Violation of Cal Civil §52.4: 1. 2. For general and special daniages according lo proof; For punitive damages; For cosls of suit herein incurred; For Attorney's Fees; and For such olher and further relief as the courl deems proper.

4 5 6

3. 4. 5.

7 As to the Twelfth Cause of Action - Violation of Cal Civil §1708.5: 8 9
10 11
1. 2. 3. 4. For general and special daniages according lo proof; For punitive daniages; For cosls of suit herein incurred; For such olher and further relief as the courl deems proper.

12 As to the Thirteenth Cause of Action - Violation of Civil Code §52.1: 13 14 15 16 17
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special daniages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; For Attorney's Fees; and For such olher and further relief as the court deems proper.

18 As to the Fourteenth Cause of Action - Loss of Consortium: 19 20 21 22 23 24
1. 2. 3. 5. For general and special daniages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such olher and further relief as the courl deems proper.

As to the Fifteenth Cause of Action - Sexual Orientation Harassment: 1. For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant lo Govemment Code section 12965,

25 subdivision (b); 26 27 28
2. 3. 4. For general and special damages according lo proof; For punitive damages; For cosls of suit herein incurred; and
^ 2 2 Complaint

5.

For such olher and further relief as the court deems proper.

Dated: July 31, 2012. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By:

Respectfully submitted, CHOUDHARY LAW OFFICE

Joel Rapaport (No. 248847) Attorney for Plaintiff Mechelle Sherles and Robyn Sherles

23

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Shereles v. SEIU, et. a l Sacramento Superior Court.: 34-2011-00114745 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a c i t i z e n of the United States and a resident of the County of Sacramento. over the age o f eighteen (18) years and not a party t o the above-entitled business address i s 1909 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100, On the dated stated below, I served: I am My

action.

Sacramento, C a l i f o r n i a 95811.

First Amended Complaint for Damages
on a l l pariiies l i s t e d below. BY MAIL by placing a true copy thereof i n a sealed envelope, addressed as set f o r t h below, with the postage prepaid, i n a designated area f o r outgoing mail. I am r e a d i l y f a m i l i a r with the business practice a t my place of business f o r c o l l e c t i o n and processing of correspondence f o r mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed i s deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day i n the ordinary course of business. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY on the following p a r t y ( i e s ) i n said action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed i n a sealed envelope, with d e l i v e r y fees paid or provided f o r , i n a designated area f o r outgoing overnight mail, addressed as set f o r below. BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION to the following p a r t y ( i e s ) a t the facsimile number(s) indicated below. XX BY HAND DELIVERY to the following Party(ies) BY EMAIL t o the following Party(ies)
Attorney For Pliiintiff PAUL E. HARRIS SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000 1808 14th Street Sacramento, California 95811

I

d e c l a r e under p e n a l t y o f p e r j u r y t h a t t h a t the f o r e g o i n g i s t r u e and c o r r e c t .

24
Executed on August 1, 2012 i n R o s e v i l l e , C a l i f o r n i a .

25 26 27 28
PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Joel Rapaport

RECEIVED IH DROPBOX 12 AUG-I P M 3: 36
GOSSC COURTHOUSE 'SUPERIOR COURT O F CALIFORN'iA COUNTY OF SACRAMiiifro

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful