Adam M.

Kent CA SBN: 270855

1
Law Offices of Adam M. Kent
2 4455 Morena Blvd., Suite 213
San Diego, CA 92117
3 T- (619) 892-8422
F - (888) 509-8232
4
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
8
9
10 JEFFREY A. THORNTON, an individual; ) Civil Case No.:
)
11
Plaintiffs, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
12 ) FOR JURY TRIAL
v. )
13 )
14 ENCORE GROUP (USA), LLC, a limited liability )
corporation and DOES 1-20 inclusive, )
15 )
Defendants. )
16 )
17
18 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19 Plaintiff hereby bring this Complaint for Damages for (1) Discrimination based on race (Cal. Gov.
20 Code §12940(a) and §12926(w) and (x), and; (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination (Cal. Gov. Code
21 §12940(k)). Plaintiff specifically invokes the Crown Act 1 which prohibits employers from withholding
22 employment based on discrimination against the protected applicant’s hairstyle.
23 The Crown Act defines racial discrimination as inclusive of discrimination based on traits historically
24 associated with race, including, but not limited to hair texture and protective hairstyles, such as braids, locks,
25 and twists. The Crown Act was passed, in part, because many grooming codes privilege Eurocentric images
26 of “Professionalism” and as such, they have a disparate impact on men and women of color who prefer
27 hairstyles rooted in other traditions.
28
1
Codified in Cal. Gov. Code §12926(w) and (x)

1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
2 1. Venue is proper in this Court, as events described in the Complaint are located within its
3 Jurisdiction.
4 PARTIES
5 2. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff, JEFFRY A. THORNTON (hereinafter referred to as
6 “Mr. Thornton” or “Plaintiff”) was and is an individual who, in November of 2021, was as an applicant for
7 an employment position with ENCORE GROUP (USA), LLC at its location in San Diego, San Diego
8 County, California.
9 3. ENCORE GROUP (USA), LLC (Hereinafter referred to as “Encore” or “Defendant”) is a
10 Delaware limited liability corporation and was and is a company doing business in the County of San Diego,
11 and is the company who failed to hire and/or place Plaintiff in the relevant position at times relevant herein.
12 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true identity and capacity of Defendants designated as DOES 1
13 through 20, but will amend the Complaint when their identities have been ascertained according to proof at
14 the time of trial. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief, however, that Defendants, and every DOE
15 Defendant is in some manner responsible for the acts, omissions, and conduct of Defendants, and were, and
16 are, responsible for the injuries, damages, and harm, incurred by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges on
17 information and belief that each such designated Defendant acted, and acts, as authorized agent,
18 representative, and associate of the Defendants in doing the things alleged herein.
19 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20 Related to All Claims
21 5. At all times relevant, Mr. Thornton was an applicant for Encore’s position of Technical
22 Supervisor at one of its San Diego locations.
23 6. Mr. Thornton’s hair is styled in the commonly known hairstyle described as locs, which he and
24 others associate with his race as black or African-American.
25 7. Prior to March of 2020, Mr. Thornton had held the same position with Encore for approximately
26 four years at a location in Florida.
27 8. In or about March of 2020, employees for Encore, including Mr. Thornton were furloughed due
28 to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 9. Mr. Thornton then moved to San Diego with the knowledge that Encore had a strong presence
2 in the community and with the intention of returning to his position once operations resumed.
3 10. On or about October 1, 2021, an email was sent inviting furloughed employees to contact Encore
4 in an effort to return to work.
5 11. At that time, Mr. Thornton’s locs had grown so that they would rest over his ears and eyebrows.
6 12. Mr. Thornton got in contact with management local to San Diego and requested an interview for
7 the position of Technical Supervisor.
8 13. On or about November 1, 2021, Mr. Thornton attended an interview for the position.
9 14. He was told by the hiring manager that he was fully qualified for the job and that if he wanted
10 it, he would just have to conform to certain dress and appearance policies.
11 15. These included restrictions on jewelry, tattoos and appearance of facial hair, to which Mr.
12 Thornton did not object.
13 16. However, Encore was also requiring that he cut his hair so that it was off the ears, eyes and
14 shoulders, and would not allow him to simply tie back his hair in order to do so.
15 17. The appearance guidelines also state that hair is to be “clean, neat and styled,” and that the “color
16 has a natural appearance.”
17 18. In order to take the job, Mr. Thornton would have to materially alter his hairstyle, and thus his
18 appearance, cultural identity and racial heritage.
19 19. As such, Mr. Thornton was denied the position for which he was qualified.
20 20. Mr. Thornton has filed a claim with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing,
21 which has issued a “Right to Sue” letter to Plaintiff, dated November 23, 2021 under Case Number 202111-
22 15476623. A true and correct copy of the “Right to Sue” letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
23 Exhibit “A.”
24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
25 AGAINST ENCORE GROUP (USA), LLC AND DOES 1-10
26 FOR DISCRIMINATION
27 21. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
28 and all subsequent paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 22. California’s legislature has determined that the Crown Act
a) Makes a series of findings and declarations that:
2
i) discrimination against “blackness” and its associated physical traits
3 is pervasive in society and permeates the societal
understanding of professionalism;
4 ii) this racist, Eurocentric outlook manifests itself in workplace dress
codes, grooming policies, and expectations that disparately
5
impact Black workers;
6 iii) the federal courts have failed to provide adequate protection
against such discrimination under federal civil rights laws;
7 iv) hair discrimination targeting hairstyles associated with race is racial
8 discrimination; and
v) continuing to enforce Eurocentric images of professionalism
9 through purportedly race-neutral grooming policies that
disparately impact Black individuals runs contrary to
10 constitutional values of equity and opportunity for all.
11
b) Clarifies that, for the purposes of determining unlawful practices under
12 the FEHA, the term “race” includes traits historically associated with
race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective
13 hairstyles.
14
c) Specifies that the phrase “protective hairstyles” includes, but is not
15 limited to, such hairstyles as braids, locks, and twists.2
16 23. The Crown Act was designed and intended to eliminate use of the “immutability doctrine”
17 used by Federal Courts such that the determination of disparate racial impact should not be made
18 simply on characteristics that are inherent or immutable, but instead, on characteristics that are
19 closely associated with one’s race.
20 24. It has further defined Protective Hairstyles as hairstyles that help keep hair healthy and
21 encourage hair growth by tucking away the hair ends, reducing the frequency and amount that the
22 hair must be manipulated to maintain the style. Braids, twists, and locks are all examples of protective
23 hairstyles.
24 25. Other versions of the Crown Act across the country describe the following hairstyles as
25 not to be subjected to discrimination: “natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as loss,
26 cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or
27 untrimmed state.” See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8107.
28
2
Senate Judiciary Committee Comments on SB188; hearing date March 26, 2019

4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 26. Mr. Thornton is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that enforcement of Encore’s
2 dress code and personal appearance policies, were motivated by its knowledge of Plaintiff’s protected
3 classes perceived or otherwise, including race, in violation of Government Code section 12940(a).
4 27. Encore’s dress code and personal appearance policies discriminates against hairstyles
5 associated with race and is therefore racial discrimination.
6 28. Encore’s dress code and personal appearance policies disparately impacts black
7 employees.
8 29. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that he suffered
9 discriminatory compensation, terms, conditions, and/or privileges of the employment on account of
10 his actual or perceived race in violation of Government Code section 12940(a).
11 30. Venue lies in the San Diego County Superior Court pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code. §
12 12965(b), in that the unlawful practices alleged were committed in the County of San Diego, and
13 Plaintiff would have continued performing her duties and responsibilities in said county, but for the
14 unlawful practices alleged.
15 31. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the unlawful conduct of Encore, as
16 alleged, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in income and benefits, all to
17 Plaintiff’s damage in an amount not yet ascertained.
18 32. The acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managing agents of Defendants and/or
19 with the ratification and approval of officers and/or managing agents of Defendants, in a malicious,
20 oppressive or fraudulent manner in order to harm Plaintiff, or with the willful and conscious disregard
21 for Plaintiff’s rights or the potential of causing her unjust hardship. Such conduct was despicable,
22 and justifies an award of punitive damages against Encore, in an amount sufficient to deter it from
23 engaging in such conduct again in the future.
24 33. Pursuant to Gov. Code. § 12965(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable
25 attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees, incurred in connection with this action.
26 //
27 //
28 //

5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 AGAINST ENCORE GROUP (USA), LLC AND DOES 11-20
3 FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
4 34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding and all
5 subsequent paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
6 35. In its capacity as an employer, Encore is required to assure that its managers, supervisors, and
7 human resources personnel are knowledgeable of the laws that relate to racial discrimination, as described
8 in Government Code § 12940 et seq.
9 36. As set forth above, that Plaintiff was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her
10 employment indicates that defendant had not instituted reasonable policies and procedures, within its
11 respective departments, to assure that employees of Encore would be afforded their full rights under all
12 applicable state employment laws and anti-discrimination laws.
13 37. As a direct and proximate result of Encore’s actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and
14 continues to suffer physical and emotional distress, financial hardship, wage losses, humiliation, mental
15 anguish, mental and physical pain, and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
16 38. The acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managing agents of Encore and/or with the
17 ratification and approval of officers and/or managing agents of Encore, in a malicious, oppressive or
18 fraudulent manner in order to harm Plaintiff, or with the willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.
19 Such conduct was despicable, and justifies an award of punitive damages against Encore, in an amount
20 sufficient to deter it from engaging in such conduct again in the future.
21 39. As a further direct and proximate result of defendants' and each of their actions alleged herein,
22 Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs, and other expenses in the prosecution of this
23 matter.
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //

6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS AS
2 FOLLOWS:
3 1. For declaratory relief
4 2. For injunctive relief requiring Defendant to eliminate any dress code or personal appearance
5 policy that violates, or tends to violate the Crown Act, in particular, or the Fair Employment and
6 Housing Act, in general.
7 3. For compensatory damages;
8 4. For incidental and consequential damages;
9 5. For general damages;
10 6. For punitive damages;
11 7. For all applicable statutory damages and penalties including interest on wages;
12 8. For Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and costs of suit as provided by law;
13 9. For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law;
14 10. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
15 11. For such other and further relief as is just and proper
16
17 11/29/2021
Dated:____________ LAW OFFICES OF ADAM M. KENT
18
19 ______________________________
ADAM M. KENT
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21
22 Demand for Jury Trial

23 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in the above-captioned action.

24
11/29/2021
Dated:_____________ LAW OFFICES OF ADAM M. KENT
25
26
27 ______________________________
ADAM M. KENT
28 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 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

EXHIBIT “A”
27
28

9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov

November 23, 2021

Jeffrey Thornton
6768 Brooklyn Ave
San Diego, CA 92114

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

DFEH Matter Number: 202111-15476623
Right to Sue: Thornton / Encore Group (USA), LLC

Dear Jeffrey Thornton:

This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Department of
Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective November 23, 2021
because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested.

This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.

This matter may qualify for DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation pilot
program. Under this program, established under Government Code section 12945.21, a
small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation of the California Family
Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the right to participate in DFEH’s
free voluntary mediation service. Under this program both the employee requesting an
immediate right to sue and the employer charged with the violation may request that all
parties participate in DFEH’s free voluntary mediation service. A request for mediation
must be submitted to the DFEH within 30 days of receipt of the Notice of Case Closure
and Right to Sue. If mediation is requested, the employee is prohibited from filing a civil
action until mediation is complete. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil
action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled from
DFEH’s receipt of a mediation request under section 12945.21 until mediation is
complete. To request DFEH Small Employer Family Leave Mediation, email
DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the DFEH matter number indicated on
the Right to Sue notice.

To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.

Sincerely,

DFEH-ENF 80 RS
 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DFEH-ENF 80 RS