March 22, 2023

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Brian Hopwood
Precis Solar
36625 Kevin Rd, Suite 147
Wildomar, CA 92595
Phillip Jeremiah LLC
c/o Spiegel & Utrera, P.C.
8939 S Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 400
Los Angeles, CA 90045

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO 

EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 1119 ET SEQ. AND 1152

Re: Patrick William Wisdom v. Precis SolarPhillip Jeremiah LLC  

Dear Mr. HopwoodTo Whom It May Concern:

Please be advised that this office has been retained by Patrick William Wisdom (“Mr. Wisdom” or
“Claimant”) in connection with his employment claims against your business, Precis SolarPhillip Jeremiah
LLC. (“Employer”). We have determined that Employer violated California law concerning his
employment. Due to these violations, Employer owes Mr. Wisdom significant damages, civil penalties,
and attorney’s fees and costs, which Mr. Wisdom will seek if we have to file suit to enforce his rights.

Based on my preliminary investigation of Mr. Wisdom’s claims, I have recommended that he

commence and prosecute claims against Employer for (1) Age Discrimination in Violation of the Fair
Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in
Violation of the FEHA; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Wrongful Termination in
Violation of Public Policy. Mr. Wisdom will seek all statutory, civil, and court-authorized damages,
including attorney’s fees and costs, in proving his claims against Employer.

OUR HISTORY AS LITIGATORS

The public, media, judges, and jurors have increased their sensitivities toward rectifying the
devastating impacts that employer’s intentional violation of the law on their victims. Recently, our office
settled a race discrimination case for $3,500,000; a sexual harassment case for $1,600,000; a race
discrimination case for $400,000; a disability discrimination case for $400,000; and a sexual
orientation discrimination case for $350,000.  The facts of these claims are similar to those that led to
the aforementioned settlements. As you are also aware, defendants face significant risks of cost and
attorneys’ fees as a result of litigation, not only on your end, but to compensate Claimant. The
aforementioned settlements do not include attorneys’ fees and costs which Claimant would be awarded
should this matter go to trial. 

0. I BACKGROUND OF MR. WISDOM’S CLAIMS

Jake D. Finkel, Esq. 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 830 (213) 787-7411
jake@finkelfirm.com Los Angeles, California, 90010 www.finkelfirm.com
 On or around December 2018, Mr. Wisdom was hired by Employer as a Superintendent. The
history of discrimination began when Mr. Wisdom made a joke towardscomment about an employee of
Baja Construction, an independent contractor of the Employer, about coming in late. In response, the
employee retaliated by discriminating his age. Mr. Wisdom then broughtcomplained about the incident to
the knowledge of then Vice President Mr. Troy Matthews (“Mr. Matthews”). but to no avail since nothing
was done by the latterHowever, Mr. Matthews did not do anything to address the incident.

On or around February 2021, Mr. Wisdom began to hear discriminatingheard comments from his
co-workers about his age. His co-worker Mr. Fernando Doe (“Mr. Doe”) made fun of his age and called
him a “fag”. Mr. Wisdom complained again about the incident to Mr. Matthews and afterward a meeting
was held together with Mr. DoeFernando but unfortunately the latter quit the meeting.

In August 2022, the Employer sold the cCompany. Thereafter, Mr. Wisdom underwent received a
positive performance review with the pProject mManager of the Commercial Division, Mr. Brent Behringer
(“Mr. Behringer”). During the evaluation process, Mr. Wisdom received a positive oral review on
performance evaluations. However, he was notified that he would be demoted to foreman because Ian
Overstreet (“Mr. Overstreet”) would become the new operations manager. told thereafter that the boss’
nephew Mr. Ian Overstreet (“Mr. Overstreet”) was going to be the new Operations Manager and he will be
demoted to a “foreman”. Mr. Behringer specifically stated, “We are making a change, Ian is the future
of the company as he is younger and is going to be sticking around and since you are older and
won’t be around that long, you probably only have a few years left, if we get busy we will promote
you back to Superintendent.”. Mr. Wisdom felt was stunned by what he had just heard shocked and
blindsided and was not able to respond immediately other than saying “okay”.

After the incident, on or around October 2022, Mr. Wisdom noticed that his insurance was
charged out of his paycheck. He then went to Ms. Marcel Elias (“Ms. Elias”) of the Human Resource
dDepartment to inquire about the matter. Mr. Wisdom told Ms. Elias that the employees received a letter
after the Company was sold that all benefits will remain the same. However, Ms. Elias claimed that the
one who prepared the letter was the company before the buyout and there was nothing she could do
about it. Thus, though dismayed, Mr. Wisdom simply continued to pay his insurance out of his own
pocket.

The series of discriminatory acts continued even though Mr. Wisdom was demoted to foreman.
Mr. Wisdom was not contacted, even if as a foreman, he should have been contacted that deliveries were
coming in.

On another occasion, Mr. Wisdom was mocked by a younger employee Mr. Devlin Hernandez
(“Mr. Hernandez”). , the latterMr. Hernandez statedsaid to Mr. Wisdome, “Fuck off old man river…”
lLet’s go fight!”, after Mr. Wisdom gave an order to Mr. Hernandez to unscrew a bolt. After the incident,
Mr. Wisdom made an orala complaint to Mr. Overstreet but to no avail since no action was taken in
response to Mr. Wisdom’s with respect to this complaint.

On or around December 2022, Mr. Wisdom had the occasion to have a conversation with former
Human Resource person spoke to Ms. Brianna Duly (“Ms. Duly”) about his demotion. Accordingly, Ms.
Duly, a former Human Resource representative noted that it was not proper for the Employer to demote
Mr. Wisdom by reason ofdue to his age and she had warned the Employer that if the latter will continue to
target old employees they will get sued.

On January 12, 2023, Mr. Wisdom had a meeting received a phone call from Employer arranging
a 3:00 pm meeting with Mr. Matthews and Mr. Behringer. During the meeting, Mr. Wisdom received the
unfortunate news that he will bewas terminated from his employment. He was told given the pretextual
reason that the Employer terminated him due to a lack of available work but other employees with in the

Jake D. Finkel, Esq. 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 830 (213) 787-7411
jake@finkelfirm.com Los Angeles, California, 90010 www.finkelfirm.com
same position as Mr. Wisdom were not laid off. Mr. Wisdom was also given another pretextual reason for
his termination - told that he was terminated due to lack of funds and the Employer will undergo a
restructuring and willthat led to an elimination ofe his position. In additionAdditionally, Mr. Wisdom was
told that he was making too much money. and because of certain economic factors, the Employer cut his
position. Mr. Wisdom did not sign his release papers.

After the termination, Mr. Wisdom was not given the paperwork as required by Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). He then called Ms. Elias to ask a copy of the paperwork
but the lattershe told him that since he refused to sign his release papersthe termination paperwork, the
COBRA documents cannot could not be furnished.

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

1. Age Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA

Pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(a), it is an unlawful practice for an employer, because of
the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition,
marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status
of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading
to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment.

Here, it is clear that the determining factor of the termination of Mr. Wisdom was his age. The evidence
showed that although Mr. Wisdom was still productive, as proved by the positive review given by the Project
Manager, he was discriminated by the Employer solely because of his age.

2. Failure to Investigate and Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation

of the FEHA

Pursuant to California Govt. Code Section 12940 (k), it is an unlawful employment practice: For
an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program, or any training
program leading to employment to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination
and harassment from occurring.

In this light, Mr. Wisdom will prevail on this claim by showing the following:

1. That Employer was a covered entity under the FEHA;

2. That Mr. Wisdom was an employee of Employer;
3. That Mr. Wisdom was subjected to harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in the course
of his employment with Employer;
4. That Employer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment,
discrimination, or retaliation Mr. Wisdom was subject to in the course of his employment
with Employer;
5. That Mr. Wisdom was harmed; and
6. That Employer’s failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment,
discrimination, or retaliation was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Wisdom’s harm. 

Jake D. Finkel, Esq. 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 830 (213) 787-7411
jake@finkelfirm.com Los Angeles, California, 90010 www.finkelfirm.com
 Despite the Employer’s discriminatory conduct against Mr. Wisdom in the workplace that led to
his eventual termination, Employer did not take reasonable and appropriate steps to prevent them from
affecting Mr. Wisdom and his work. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Wisdom brought the matter
numerous times to the attention of the Employer but the samehis complaints fell on deaf ears.

See CACI No. 2527.

3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

“A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is (1) extreme
and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the
probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress;
and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’
A defendant’s conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually
tolerated in a civilized community.’ And the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or
engaged in with the realization that injury will result.” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051
[95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963])

Mr. Wisdom claims that Employer’s conduct caused him severe emotional distress due to their
discrimination and his wrongful termination reasonably.

To establish this claim, Mr. Wisdom will prove the following:

1. That Employer’s conduct was outrageous;

2. That Employer intended to cause Mr. Wisdom emotional distress;
3. That Mr. Wisdom suffered severe emotional distress; and
4. That Employer’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Wisdom severe
emotional distress.

See CACI 1600.

For this, Mr. Wisdom will seek recovery of his damages for Employer’s unlawful conduct in
terminating him in violation of public policy.

4. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

“[W]hile an at-will employee may be terminated for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational
reason, there can be no right to terminate for an unlawful reason or a purpose that contravenes
fundamental public policy. Any other conclusion would sanction lawlessness, which courts by their very
nature are bound to oppose.” (Casella v. SouthWest Dealer Services, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1127,
1138-1139 [69 Cal.Rptr.3d 445], internal citations omitted.)

Employer terminated Mr. Wisdom’s employment and violated various fundamental public policies
underlying state and federal law. Specifically, his employment was terminated solely because of his age.
This action violated FEHA and the California Labor Code. 

To prevail on this claim, Mr. Wisdom will show the following:

1. That Mr. Wisdom was employed by the Employer;

2. That Employer discharged Mr. Wisdom;
3. That Mr. Wisdom’s age is was the substantial motivating reason for his discharge;

Jake D. Finkel, Esq. 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 830 (213) 787-7411
jake@finkelfirm.com Los Angeles, California, 90010 www.finkelfirm.com
 4. That Mr. Wisdom was harmed; and
5. That the discharge was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Wisdom’s harm. 

See CACI 2430.

Here, it is undisputed that the most glaring reason for Mr. Wisdom’s termination was his age. The
reasons given by the employer to terminate Mr. Wisdom were just a subtle scheme to cover their truest
intention of terminating Mr. Wisdom. For this, Mr. Wisdom will seek recovery of his damages for
Employer’s unlawful conduct in terminating him in violation of public policy.

III. MR. WISDOM’S DEMANDS

By way of this letter, Claimant demands that Employer provide copies of any and all documents
Claimant signed per California Labor Code section 432 and copies of all payroll documents pursuant to
California Labor Code section 226 within 21 days of this demand.  Please also provide a copy of
Claimant’s complete personnel file according to California Labor Code section 1198.5 within 30 days of
this demand. Failure to promptly provide the requested documents will subject Employer to further civil
penalties, attorney fees, and costs.

By way of this letter, Claimant also demands the following:

1. That Employer has no further contact with Claimant concerning matters outlined in this
letter. Claimant is a represented party, and all communications concerning this matter
must be directed to this office;
2. That Employer take notice that all authorizations previously provided by Claimant are
hereby revoked (i.e., permission to check credit, perform background checks, etc.);
3. That Employer provides a copy of all applicable insurance cover (errors/omissions
coverage for the claims asserted); and
4. That Employer preserves all evidence related to or may be associated with Claimant’s
claims.  This includes written or electronic correspondence, which your company’s record
retention policy may routinely destroy, as the Court stated in Penn v. Prestige Stations
Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 336, 343, “the intentional destruction of evidence needed in
litigation is subject to severe sanctions….”  

IV. MR. WISDOM IS AMENABLE TO PRE-LITIGATION SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS AND/OR

MEDIATION

Claimant has authorized my office to engage in a pre-litigation settlement. Based on the strength
of the case and my experience handling these types of claims, this is a reasonable offer that avoids the
risk of a significant judgment against your company.

FEHA claims generally mandate the award of attorney’s fees in favor of employees who succeed
in proving any claim brought under those statutes. In these cases, where employees typically are
represented based on contingency fee agreements, the attorney’s fee award is calculated based on a

Jake D. Finkel, Esq. 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 830 (213) 787-7411
jake@finkelfirm.com Los Angeles, California, 90010 www.finkelfirm.com
“lodestar” analysis. The court calculates the lodestar by multiplying the hours spent times the hourly rate
of the person performing the work and then multiplies the lodestar by a reasonable multiplier. As such, all
fees incurred by Claimant’s attorneys on Claimant’s case will eventually be paid by you, and
consequently, the longer this case goes, the value of her case will increase significantly.

V. CONCLUSION

If you have an attorney or insurance carrier, I ask you to immediately tender this letter to them. 
Based on the facts presented and the applicable law, it should be readily apparent that Employer is
exposed to significant financial liability.  We are confident that a reasonable jury will find that Claimant is
entitled to damages for all harm Claimant was forced to endure as your employee.

Claimant has strong claims, and we intend to pursue them vigorously. Based on the credible
allegations presented, Employer has violated California employment law protecting employees from
harassment and discrimination in the workplace. My office implores you to immediately change
Employer’s business practices to comply with California law.

All communications regarding this matter should be directed to my office. If you want to discuss
this matter, you can reach me by phone at (213) 787-7411 or email at. 

Very Truly Yours,

THE FINKEL FIRM

Jake D. Finkel, Esq.

Jake D. Finkel, Esq. 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 830 (213) 787-7411
jake@finkelfirm.com Los Angeles, California, 90010 www.finkelfirm.com