CA State Employment Harassment Complaint

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
1 SOLOMON E. GRESEN [SBN: 164783]

RGLAWYERS.COM
2 16255 Ventura Blvd., Suite 940
Encino, California 91436
3 Telephone: (818) 815-2727
Facsimile: (818) 815-2737
4
5
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANDREA LOVE
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10 ANDREA LOVE, an individual, ) CASE NO.:
)
11 Plaintiff, )
)
12 vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR:
)
13 ) 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT;
ELLEN STONE, an individual; and DOES 1 )
14 through 25, inclusive, ) 2. WRONGFUL TERMINATION
) (GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 (a) (d) (j)
15 Defendants. ) and (k).);
)
16 ) 3. WRONGFUL RETALIATION
) (GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 (h)
17 ) and (k).);
)
18 ) 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE
) ACCOMMODATION (GOVERNMENT
19 ) CODE § 12940 (m).); and
)
20 ) 5. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE
) PROCESS (GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940
21 ) (N).)
)
22 )
)
23 )
______________________________________ ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24 )
)
25 )
26
27 //
28 //
1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, ANDREA LOVE, ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
2 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
3 1. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff, ANDREA LOVE (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)
4 was, and remains, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. At all relevant times
5 mentioned herein, Plaintiff was employed in California by Defendant ELLEN STONE (hereinafter
6 “Defendant”) a California citizen and a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
7 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned,
8 Defendant was a her private employer and supervisor and subject to suit under the California Fair
9 Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code Section 12900 et seq.). At all times herein
10 mentioned, the unlawful acts complained of herein took place in the County of Los Angeles, State of
11 California.
12 2. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
13 of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 25 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues
14 said Defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges,
15 that each of said DOE Defendants is negligently or otherwise responsible in some manner for the
16 events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently or otherwise caused injuries and damages
17 proximately thereby to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint to substitute the
18 specific names of said DOES 1 through 25 and to specify their said negligent acts as they become
19 known to Plaintiff.
20 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned
21 herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the officers, directors, brokers, agents, contractors,
22 advisors, servants, partners, joint venturers, employees, and/or co-conspirators of their Co-
23 Defendants, and were acting within the scope of their authority as such agents, contractors, advisors,
24 servants, partners, joint venturers, and employees with the permission and consent of their Co-
25 Defendants. Each of the Defendants, as aforesaid, was acting as a principal, and was involved in the
26 selection, consultation, and or hiring of each and every other participant in the relevant events
27 mentioned herein.
28 ///
2
1 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
2 4. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for over 6 years, from June, 2016, through
3 September 26, 2022. She was hired as a personal assistant. Plaintiff always performed her job in a
4 capable, competent and professional manner.
5 5. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was assured
6 that she would not be terminated arbitrarily or without good cause. Based thereon, there existed an
7 implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, which included, by way of example and not by
8 way of limitation, that Plaintiff would be employed by Defendant, as long as her performance was
9 satisfactory, and that, would not discharge Plaintiff without good cause and fair warning based upon
10 objective and reasonable job evaluations of Plaintiff’s performance.
11 6. Plaintiff’s professional duties included but were not limited to prepare financial
12 documents, handle the bookkeeping and payments to vendors and employees, manage Defendant’s
13 calendar, emails, shipments, mail, and strategize and implement procedures to ensure that
14 Defendant’s estate was well managed. For example, Plaintiff was tasked with managing up to nine
15 employees including housekeepers, gardeners, and the handyman as well as facilitating pet care, and
16 car washes.
17 7. Plaintiff’s professional responsibilities had an additional dimension in that Plaintiff
18 was charged with healthcare management for Defendant which included: collaborating with medical
19 professionals to obtain medical referrals, medication management, coordinating doctor’s
20 appointment, transportation to medical appointments, and assembling results from those
21 appointments.
22 8. Defendant’s behavior from the start of Plaintiff’s employment was abusive, which
23 exacerbated over time.
24 9. For example, Defendant made negative racial criticisms about her ethnicity and skin
25 color. Defendant told her for example that she’s smart, for a black girl.
26 10. Defendant would express that she was surprised that Plaintiff does not sound like
27 she’s black.
28 11. Throughout the course of her employment, Defendant repeatedly made derogatory
3
1 comments about black people both directly to Plaintiff and indirectly in front of Plaintiff.
2 12. Defendant also made comments about Plaintiff’s weight and accused Plaintiff over
3 and over again of being anorexic, and aggressively told her that she’s too skinny, both in public and
4 in front of other employees.
5 13. Defendant would often say damaging comments regarding Plaintiff’s appearance and
6 the way she dressed.
7 14. Defendant had also made negative comments about Plaintiff’s parents on many
8 occasions. For example, in front of other estate employees, Defendant would habitually refer to
9 Plaintiff’s mother as being fat with vivid details to add insult to injury. On one such occasion,
10 Defendant would ask Plaintiff “is your father upset at your mom? I would be surprised if he’s not.
11 He’s a doctor and I’m sure that he’s not OK with [her being fat].”
12 15. Defendant would also pressure Plaintiff every time she would ask to take time off to
13 care for her ill mother.
14 16. Plaintiff begged Defendant to take time off for a required follow-up ultrasound and
15 biopsy that was mandated by her doctor after a mammogram was performed on Plaintiff and the
16 results were inconclusive. Defendant refused.
17 17. Defendant would treat her white employees superior to her black and brown
18 employees, hurling more reprimanding and demeaning comments at her black and brown employees.
19 Defendant would not provide her black and brown employees wage increases as often as the white
20 employees and even when such wage increases were granted to black or brown employees they
21 would not take effect for months, whereas any wage increases for white employees were
22 immediately effective.
23 18. Plaintiff was married on May 14, 2022. Plaintiff was advised by Defendant’s
24 employees that she would suffer the wrath of Defendant if she were to share the news that she was
25 married with Defendant because Defendant was very vocal about hating when her employees were
26 married.
27 19. Plaintiff chose to be transparent and disclosed to Defendant that she had gotten
28 married. As warned - Defendant’s overall abuse became worse. Defendant would frequently ask
4
1 Plaintiff prying questions like, “what’s next, a baby? . . .I hope not.”
2 20. Defendant chose to bring a sick dog into the estate that Plaintiff managed. Defendant
3 demanded that Plaintiff take care of the diseased dog. Plaintiff was tasked with bathing, walking,
4 and veterinarian appointments despite the disgusting fleas the dog carried on top of other diseases.
5 Defendant told Plaintiff “If you’re not going to help with [the dog I’m going to fire you].” Plaintiff
6 needed her job and therefore, she would care for the dog.
7 21. While on the walks, the sick dog attacked people. Plaintiff told Defendant that the
8 dog was hyper aggressive, and that she could not handle him. In response, Defendant told Plaintiff
9 that Plaintiff needed to gain weight and put on muscle because she was too skinny.
10 22. Defendant would leave handwritten notes around the estate for Plaintiff with
11 demeaning and disturbing language regarding Plaintiff.
12 23. Plaintiff was never paid overtime or allowed lunches and breaks. Plaintiff notified
13 Defendant of this in February 2020, but nothing was done.
14 24. Plaintiff discovered, because of the paperwork she conducted for Defendant, that
15 Defendant had contacted an employment lawyer in February 2022 and that the attorney advised
16 Defendant that Defendant must provide lunches and overtime pay to her employees. However,
17 Defendant never provided lunch breaks or overtime pay.
18 25. Defendant would pay the majority of her staff with cash; yet Plaintiff became aware
19 of deductions being taken out of her paychecks without ever seeing any paperwork corresponding to
20 the deductions, especially as her paychecks were cash wires to her checking account.
21 26. Defendant forced Plaintiff to manage her calendar and make phone calls while
22 driving her to appointments despite Plaintiff’s protests that this was fatally unsafe.
23 27. Plaintiff developed gastrointestinal problems due to working in such a high pressure,
24 discriminatory, and hostile environment.
25 28. Plaintiff visited Gastroenterology Associates of Beverly Hills where she went through
26 a series of treatments which included prescription medication for her gastrointestinal issues.
27 29. On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Department of
28 Fair Employment And Housing (hereinafter “DFEH”), for discrimination, among other things.
5
1
30. On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff received a Right To Sue Letter from the DFEH.
2
(Attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct
3
copy of Plaintiff’s Right To Sue Letter.) Therefore Plaintiff had exhausted her administrative
4
remedies prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
5
6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Contract Against Defendant,
7 and Does 1 through 25, inclusive)
31. Plaintiff repeats and realleges by this reference each and every allegation contained in
8
paragraphs 1 through 30, and incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth herein.
9
32. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant and Does 1 through 25,
10
and each of them, Plaintiff was assured on numerous occasions that she would not be terminated
11
arbitrarily or without good cause, and she relied upon Defendant’s promise. Based thereon, there
12
existed an implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant which included, by way of example and
13
not by way of limitation, that Plaintiff would be employed by Defendant, as long as her performance
14
was satisfactory, and that Defendant, would not discharge Plaintiff without good cause and fair
15
warning based upon objective and reasonable job evaluations of Plaintiff’s performance (the
16
“Contract”).
17
33. While working for Defendant and Does 1 through 25, and each of them, Plaintiff
18
performed her job in a capable, competent, and professional manner.
19
34. Defendant and Does 1 through 25, and each of them, breached the Contract by
20
terminating Plaintiff without good cause and fair warning based upon objective and reasonable job
21
evaluations of Plaintiff.
22
35. Plaintiff has performed all conditions, covenants and promises under the Contract, on
23
Plaintiff’s part to be performed including, without limitation, Plaintiff was ready, willing and able to
24
continue to work for Defendant and Does 1 through 25, and each of them, at the time of her
25
termination.
26
36. As a proximate result of the Defendant and Does 1 through 25, and each of their
27
28
6
1 breach of the Contract and the facts herein alleged, Plaintiff was damaged in a sum according to
2 proof, with interest thereon at the legal rate allowed, and Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
3 suffer severe and extreme emotional and psychological damages and future loss of earning capacity
4 in an amount to be determined at trial.
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassment And Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy And California
6 Government Code Section 12940 (a) (d) (j) and (k) Against Defendant and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive)
7
8
paragraphs 1 through 36, and incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth herein.
9
38. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for over 6 years, from June, 2016, through
10
September 26, 2022. She was hired as a personal assistant and bona fide estate manager. Plaintiff
11
always performed her job in a capable, competent and professional manner.
12
39. While working for Defendant, and as more fully described above, Plaintiff was
13
subject to discrimination due to her race, perceived medical condition (Defendant repeatedly
14
accused her of being ill with anorexia), actual medical issues (her gastrointestinal problems and
15
critical medical procedures [e.g. a biopsy]) and marital status, (which led to her being harassed and
16
discriminated against and her termination including, by way of example and not by way of
17
limitation): (A) abuse regarding her race, and inferior treatment due to her race (B) failing to provide
18
Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her medical condition; (C) abuse treatment regarding
19
Plaintiff’s marital status; (D) failing to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine an
20
accommodation for Plaintiff’s medical conditions; and (E) terminating Plaintiff because of her race,
21
marital status, and medical condition and/or for pursuing a reasonable accommodation as set forth
22
above. Moreover, Defendant knew or should have known of this conduct, and failed to take
23
immediate and appropriate corrective action. Defendant also failed to take any reasonable steps to
24
prevent the aforementioned discrimination and retaliation from occurring.
25
40. Government Code section 12940(a) (d) (j) and (k) embodies fundamental, substantial,
26
and well-established public policies of the State of California. Defendant violated the fundamental,
27
substantial, and well-established public policies embodied in Government Code section 12940(a)(d)
28
(j) and (k), by harassing, discriminating and ultimately discharging Plaintiff because of her race,
7
1 marital status and medical condition and/or for pursuing a reasonable accommodation as set forth
2 above.
3 41. Government Code section 12940 embodies fundamental, substantial, and well-
4 established public policies of the State of California. By failing to take all reasonable steps necessary
5 to prevent discrimination based on physical disability/medical condition from occurring with respect
6 to Plaintiff’s discharge, as herein described, Defendant violated the fundamental, substantial, and
7 well-established public policies embodied in Government Code section 12940.
8 42. Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges that in addition to the
9 practices enumerated above, Defendant has engaged in other practices in violation of the Fair
10 Employment and Housing Act, including Government Code section 12940 et seq., which are not yet
11 fully known. At such time as said practices become known to his, Plaintiff will seek leave of Court
12 to amend this Complaint in that regard.
13 43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s willful, knowing, and intentional
14 violations of public policy by discriminating against Plaintiff based on medical condition and
15 retaliating against her for requesting an accommodation, and by using discrimination and retaliation
16 as a wrongful basis for termination, and their failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
17 discrimination and retaliation as hereinabove alleged, Plaintiff lost her job and was damaged thereby
18 in a sum according to proof with interest thereon at the legal rate allowed.
19 44. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants and each of their willful,
20 knowing, and intentional violations of public policy, wrongful termination and failure to take all
21 reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination based on race, marital status, and physical
22 disability and retaliation for requesting an accommodation for said disability as herein described,
23 Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, extreme and severe mental anguish and
24 emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses, as well as
25 other incidental expenses. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of earnings and other
26 employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory
27 damages in amounts according to proof.
28 45. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants and each of their violations of
8
1 Government Code section 12940, subsections (a) (d) (j) and (k), as more fully described above,
2 Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of legal counsel in an effort to enforce the terms
3 and conditions of the employment relationship with Defendant, and has thereby incurred, and will
4 continue to incur, legal fees and costs, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to
5 Plaintiff, who therefore will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard when the
6 same shall become known to his. Plaintiff requests that attorney and expert witness fees be awarded
7 pursuant to Government Code section 12965.
8 46. Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges that the outrageous conduct of
9 Defendants, and each of them, as described herein, was done with fraud, oppression and malice and
10 with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring
11 her. Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant, through her officers,
12 managing agents and/or their supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct.
13 By reason thereof, Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive or exemplary damages from Defendant in
14 a sum according to proof.
15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy and Government Code
16 Section 12940(h) Against Defendants and Does 1 through 25, inclusive)
17 47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges by this reference each and every allegation contained in
18 paragraphs 1 through 46, and incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth.
19 48. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for over 6 years, from June, 2016, through
20 September 26, 2022. She was hired as a personal assistant and bona fide estate manager. Plaintiff
21 always performed her job in a capable, competent and professional manner.
22 49. While working for Defendant, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by, among other
23 things, (A) failing to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her medical condition;
24 (B) failing to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine an accommodation; and (C)
25 terminating Plaintiff because of her medical condition and/or for pursuing a reasonable
26 accommodation as set forth above.
27 50. Government Code section 12940(h) embodies fundamental, substantial, and well-
28 established public policies of the State of California. Defendant violated the fundamental,
9
1 substantial, and well-established public policies embodied in Government Code section 12940(h), by
2 retaliating against Plaintiff because she opposed the afore-mentioned acts of discrimination based on
3 medical condition forbidden under Government Code section 12940, subsections (a) and (h).
4 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that in addition to the
5 practices enumerated above, Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in other practices in
6 violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, including Government Code section 12940,
7 which are not yet fully known. At such time as said practices become known to his, Plaintiff will
8 seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard.
9 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of public policy, retaliation
10 and failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent retaliation as hereinabove alleged,
11 Plaintiff was terminated and she was damaged thereby in a sum according to proof with interest
12 thereon at the legal rate allowed, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
13 53. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant’s willful, knowing and
14 intentional violation of public policy, retaliation and failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to
15 prevent retaliation as hereinabove described, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain
16 and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress; she has incurred, and will continue to
17 incur medical expenses for treatment by psychotherapists and other health professionals, and for
18 other incidental expenses; and she has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and
19 other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and
20 compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
21 54. As a further and direct and proximate result of Defendants, and each of their
22 violations of Government Code section 12940, subsection (h), as more fully described above,
23 Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an effort to enforce the terms and
24 conditions of the employment relationship with Defendants, and has thereby incurred, and will
27 same shall be fully and finally ascertained. Plaintiff requests that attorneys’ fees and expert witness
28 fees be awarded pursuant to Government Code section 12965.
10
1 55. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the outrageous
2 conduct of Defendants, and each of them, described above was done with fraud, oppression and
3 malice and with a conscious disregard for his rights, and with the intent, design and purpose of
4 injuring his. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendant, through her officers,
5 managing agents and/or its supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct.
6 By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages from Defendant in a sum
7 according to proof at time of trial.
8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of Public Policy and
9 Government Code Section 12940(m) Against Defendant;
and Does 1 through 25, inclusive)
10
11
paragraphs 1 through 55, and incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth.
12
13
14
15
58. While working for Defendant, as more fully described above, Defendant, by way of
16
example and not by way of limitation: (A) failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable
17
accommodation for her medical condition; (B) placed Plaintiff on medical leave instead of providing
18
an accommodation for her medical condition; (C) failed to engage in a good faith interactive process
19
to determine an accommodation; and (D) terminating Plaintiff because of her medical condition
20
and/or for pursuing a reasonable accommodation as set forth above.
21
59. Government Code section 12940(m) embodies fundamental, substantial, and well-
22
established public policies of the State of California. Defendant violated the fundamental,
23
substantial, and well-established public policies embodied in Government Code section 12940(m),
24
by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s medical condition as set forth
25
above.
26
60. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that in addition to the practices
27
enumerated above, Defendant, and each of them, have engaged in other practices in violation of the
28
11
1 Fair Employment and Housing Act, including Government Code section 12940 et seq., which are not
2 yet fully known. At such time as said practices become known to his, Plaintiff will seek leave of
3 Court to amend this Complaint in that regard.
4 61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide reasonable
5 accommodation and the facts herein alleged, Plaintiff was placed on leave and thereafter terminated
6 and was damaged thereby in a sum according to proof with interest thereon at the legal rate allowed.
7 62. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants and each of their willful,
8 knowing and intentional violations of public policy and failure to provide reasonable
9 accommodation, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe
10 mental anguish and emotional distress. She has incurred, and will continue to incur medical
11 expenses for treatment by psychotherapists and other health professionals, and for other incidental
12 expenses. She has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment
13 benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in
14 amounts to be proved at trial.
16 violations of Government Code section 12940, subsection (m) as more fully described herein,
21 same shall become known to his. Plaintiff requests that attorney fees and expert witness fees be
22 awarded pursuant to Government Code section 12965.
23 64. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that the outrageous conduct of
24 Defendant, and each of them, as described above was done with fraud, oppression and malice and
25 with a conscious disregard for his rights, and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her.
26 Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant through her officers,
28 By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in a sum according to proof.
12
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Public Policy and
2 Government Code Section 12940(n) Against Defendant;
and Does 1 through 25, inclusive)
3
4
5
6
7
8
67. While working for Defendant, as more fully described above, Defendant, by way of
9
example and not by way of limitation: (A) failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable
10
accommodation for her medical condition; (B) placed Plaintiff on medical leave instead of providing
11
an accommodation for her medical condition; (C) failed to engage in a good faith interactive process
12
to determine an accommodation; and (D) terminating Plaintiff because of her medical condition
13
and/or for pursuing a reasonable accommodation as set forth above.
14
68. Government Code section 12940(n) embodies fundamental, substantial, and well-
15
established public policies of the State of California. Defendant violated the fundamental,
16
substantial, and well-established public policies embodied in Government Code section 12940(), by
17
failing to engage in a good faith interactive process.
18
69. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that in addition to the practices
19
enumerated above, and each of them, have engaged in other practices in violation of the Fair
20
Employment and Housing Act, including Government Code section 12940 et seq., which are not yet
21
fully known. At such time as said practices become known to his, Plaintiff will seek leave of Court
22
to amend this Complaint in that regard.
23
70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to engage in a good faith
24
interactive process and the facts herein alleged, Plaintiff was placed on leave and thereafter
25
terminated, and was damaged thereby in a sum according to proof with interest thereon at the legal
26
rate allowed.
27
71. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants and each of their willful,
28
13
1 knowing and intentional violations of public policy, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
2 pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. She has incurred, and will
3 continue to incur medical expenses for treatment by psychotherapists and other health professionals,
4 and for other incidental expenses. She has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and
5 other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and
6 compensatory damages in amounts to be proved at trial.
8 violations of Government Code section 12940, subsection (n) as more fully described herein,
13 same shall become known to his. Plaintiff requests that attorney fees and expert witness fees be
14 awarded pursuant to Government Code section 12965.
15 73. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that the outrageous conduct of
16 Defendants, and each of them, as described above was done with fraud, oppression and malice and
17 with a conscious disregard for his rights, and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her.
18 Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant through her officers,
20 By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in a sum according to proof.
21 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of Public Policy and
Labor Code §§ 226.7(a), 512 Against Defendant;
24
25
26
75. Under Section 11 of Industrial Welfare Commission Order 15, codified by California
27
Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11010, Defendant was required to offer her employees and
28
14
1 Plaintiff a thirty (30) minute meal period for shifts worked over five hours in a day, and a second
2 thirty (30) minute meal period for any shift of more than ten (10) hours. Labor Code § 512 codifies
3 this requirement regarding meal periods.
4 76. Labor Code § 226.7, subdivision (a), provides: “No employer shall require any
5 employee to work during any meal or rest periods mandated by applicable order of the Industrial
6 Welfare Commission.”
7 77. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs were entitled to the protections of the
8 Industrial Welfare Commission Orders, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11010 and
9 Labor Code §§ 512 et seq. and 226.7.
10 78. During the course of Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants failed to offer Plaintiffs
11 with mandated meal periods, rest periods and required Plaintiffs to work during mandated meal and
12 rest periods, in violation of the Industrial Welfare Commission Orders mentioned herein, Labor
13 Code Section 226.7, subdivision (a), and Labor Code section 512.
14 79. Pursuant to Section 11 (D) of Industrial Welfare Commission Order 1- 2001,
15 California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11010, Defendants were required to pay Plaintiffs
16 one additional hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal
17 period was not offered to Plaintiffs, in addition to paying Plaintiffs compensation for the time
18 worked during the missed meal period.
19 80. Defendants willfully refuse and continue to refuse to pay Plaintiffs compensation for
20 missed meal and rest periods as required by the aforementioned statutes and regulations.
21 81. Under Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable IWC Wage Orders, plaintiff is
22 entitled to an award of all unpaid premium pay for missed breaks.
23
24 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of Public Policy and
Labor Code §§ 226.7(a), 512 Against Defendant;
27
28
15
2 83. Defendant is required to offer Plaintiff a ten (10) minute minimum rest period per
3 four (4) hours worked, or major fraction thereof, to be taken, as far as practicable, in the middle of
4 the work period.
5 84. Labor Code § 226.7, subdivision (a), provides: “No employer shall require any
6 employee to work during any meal or rest periods mandated by applicable order of the Industrial
7 Welfare Commission.”
8 85. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was entitled to the protections of Labor Code
9 §§ 512 et seq. and 226.7.
10 86. During the course of Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants failed to offer Plaintiffs
11 with mandated meal periods, rest periods and required Plaintiffs to work during mandated meal and
12 rest periods, in violation of the Industrial Welfare Commission Orders mentioned herein, Labor
13 Code Section 226.7, subdivision (a), and Labor Code section 512.
14 87. Defendant was required to pay Plaintiffs one additional hour of pay at Plaintiffs’
15 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal period was not offered to Plaintiffs, in
16 addition to paying Plaintiffs compensation for the time worked during the missed meal period.
17 88. Defendants willfully refuse and continue to refuse to pay Plaintiffs compensation for
18 missed meal and rest periods as required by the aforementioned statutes and regulations.
19 89. Under Labor Code section 226.7 plaintiff is entitled to an award of all unpaid
20 premium pay for missed breaks.
21
22 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 Against Defendant;
25
28 91. Pursuant to Labor Code § 510, Defendant was required to compensate its employees
16
1 at a rate of no less than one and one-half their hourly rate for work in excess of eight (8) hours daily,
2 forty (40) hours a week, and the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day. Furthermore, Labor
3 Code § 510 expressly states that “in addition, any work in excess of eight hours on the seventh day
4 of a workweek shall be compensated at no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee.”
5 92. Labor Code § 1194 also establishes the fundamental public policy of paying the
6 proper legal overtime rate: “notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee
7 receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the
8 employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this
9 minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys’ fees and
10 costs of suit.”
11 93. Plaintiff was non-exempt hourly employees entitled to the protections of the
12 Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
13 94. Defendant’s conduct described herein, namely, requiring Plaintiffs to work seven
14 days per week without double time pay for hours worked on the seventh day, and requiring Plaintiffs
15 to work off the clock hours per week without paying any wages whatsoever, is a violation of the
16 California overtime laws. Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 510, and 1194, Plaintiffs are entitled to
17 recover unpaid overtime wages for the nonpayment of overtime hours worked, penalties, costs plus
18 reasonable attorneys’ fees.
19 95. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194.6, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of interest
20 on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in Civil Code section 3289, subdivision
21 (b), in this action for the nonpayment of the legal overtime compensation and including costs of suit.
22
23 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Failure to Issue Accurate Itemized Wage Statements Labor Code § 226 et seq. Against
Defendant;
26
17
1 97. California Labor Code § 226(a) requires that employers, when paying their
2 non-exempt employees wages, include an “itemized statement in writing showing” the “total hours
3 worked by the employee,” and “all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
4 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate.”
5 98. Defendant’s implemented an employment practice whereby it failed to provide
6 Plaintiff with accurate wage statement and records, including but not limited to pay stubs recording
7 all hours worked, paychecks representing all wages earned, wage statements or itemized stubs
8 showing hourly wage, (or piece meal rate), tips, overtime, bonus, vacation, as well as and
9 employment deductions for all hours worked.
10 99. Defendant’s have willfully and intentionally violated California Labor Code § 226(a)
11 by failing to show the total hours worked, failing to show the applicable overtime rates paid or
12 owed, failing to record overtime hours worked, and failing to pay overtime rates which resulted in
13 more hours worked and more wages earned then what was actually reported by the Defendants.
14 100. Plaintiff was injured by the Defendant’s failure to maintain an accurate record of
15 hours worked and wages earned because Defendant falsely accounted for wages, and thereby only
16 compensated the Plaintiff for false wages reported rather than paying the Plaintiff for actual hours
17 worked. Plaintiff are owed additional wages for actual hours not paid.
18 101. As a result of Defendant’s violation of Labor Code § 226, Plaintiff is owed the
19 greater of actual wages earned or are entitled to a maximum penalty of $4,000.00 based on $50.00
20 for each pay period in which there is an initial violation of Section 226 and $100.00 for each
21 subsequent pay period in which there is a further violation.
22 102. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under Labor Code § 226 in the form of an order from
23 the Court ordering Defendant to properly state the wages earned, the proper hours worked and the
24 proper overtime wages paid – and to furnish accurate wage statements to each Plaintiffs herein as
25 well as other similarly situated employees of Defendant.
26 103. Plaintiff alleges that she is due the greater of actual wages or maximum penalties, for
27 each Plaintiffs, as non-taxed penalties and restitution, plus cost and attorneys’ fees, for pay periods
28 in which Defendant has failed to comply with Labor Code § 226 and for up to one year from the date
18
1 of filing this action.
2
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendant,
4 and each of them, as follows:
5 1. For general and special damages according to proof, with interest thereon at the legal rate
6 from the date of the damages,
7 2. For incidental and coincidental damages according to proof,
8 3. For nominal damages;
9 4. For compensatory damages;
10 5. For interest accrued to date of judgment;
11 6. For costs of suit and expenses incurred herein pursuant to Government Code section
12 12965;
13 7. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965;
14 8. For punitive and exemplary damages; and
15 9. For all such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
16 For injunctive relief as justice requires, including an accounting of all hours worked, all wages paid and
17 any financial records relating to Plaintiff employment, restitution and other equitable relief as justice
18 requires.
19 10. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and
20 applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by failing to provide rest periods and failing
21 to pay premium wages for missed rest periods.
22
23 Dated: February 21, 2023 RGLAWYERS, LLP
24
25 By: ______________________________
SOLOMON E. GRESEN
26 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ANDREA LOVE
27
28
19
1 JURY DEMAND
2
3 Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, respectfully requests a trial by jury in this
4 matter.
5 Dated: February 21, 2023 RGLAWYERS, LLP
6
7 By: ______________________________
SOLOMON E. GRESEN
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ANDREA LOVE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
EXHIBIT A
S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
November 3, 2022
Solomon Gresen
16200 Ventura Blvd., Suite 216
Encino, CA 91436
RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

CRD Matter Number: 202211-18776003
Right to Sue: Love / Slone
Dear Solomon Gresen:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case
Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, CRD will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the CRD does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)


November 3, 2022
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Civil
Rights Department (CRD)) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This
constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The
complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A copy of the Notice of
Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
This matter may qualify for CRD’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 CRD’s free mediation program. 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 CRD’s free mediation
program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s Dispute
Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate whether
they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a civil
action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time period
specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. 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 the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. You may
contact CRD’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by
emailing DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the CRD matter number
indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to CRD is requested or required.
Sincerely,




November 3, 2022
Andrea Love
c/o RG Lawyers LLG
16200 Ventura Blvd. #216
Encino, CA 91436
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Andrea Love:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) has been closed effective November 3, 2022 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 CRD’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 CRD’s free mediation program. 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 CRD’s free mediation
program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s Dispute
Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate whether
they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a civil
action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time period
specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. 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 the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. Contact
CRD’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing


DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the CRD 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
CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,

1 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 Civil Rights Department
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5 Andrea Love CRD No. 202211-18776003
6 Complainant,
vs.
7
Ellen Slone
8
843 South Genesee Avenue
9 Los Angeles, CA 90036
10 Respondents
11
12
1. Respondent Ellen Slone is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair
13 Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
14
15 2. Complainant Andrea Love, resides in the City of Encino, State of CA.
16
3. Complainant alleges that on or about September 26, 2022, respondent took the
17 following adverse actions:
18 Complainant was harassed because of complainant's race, ancestry, color, age (40 and
over), marital status, other, family care or medical leave (cfra).
19
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, ancestry, color,
20
age (40 and over), marital status, other, family care or medical leave (cfra) and as a result of
21 the discrimination was terminated, reprimanded, denied any employment benefit or
privilege, other, denied family care or medical leave (cfra).
22
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
23 of discrimination or harassment, requested or used family care or medical leave (cfra) and
as a result was terminated, reprimanded, denied any employment benefit or privilege, other,
24 denied family care or medical leave (cfra).
25
26 -1-
Complaint – CRD No. 202211-18776003
27
Date Filed: November 3, 2022
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
1 Additional Complaint Details: See Attached
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 -2-
27
28
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Andrea Love, am the Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have read
the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own
3
knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and
4 belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
5 On November 3, 2022, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6
7 Los Angeles, California
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 -3-
27
28

CA State Employment Harassment Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CA State Employment Harassment Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)

1 SOLOMON E. GRESEN [SBN: 164783]

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

Dear Solomon Gresen:

Civil Rights Department

CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

No response to CRD is requested or required.

CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

Civil Rights Department

CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Andrea Love:

CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the CRD matter number indicated

Civil Rights Department

CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)

You might also like