Chase v. Ambulnz - LA County - Case No. 19STCV36675 - Wrongful Termination

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/11/2019 02:20 PM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk

19STCV36675
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Michael Linfield
1 ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP

Tracy L. Fehr (SBN 239005)
2
David Ramirez-Galvez (SBN 313544)
3 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90067
4 T: 310 394 0888 | F: 310 394 0811
E: tfehr@akgllp.com
5
E: drg@akgllp.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 EMILY CHASE
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
EMILY CHASE, an individual Case No.
11
12 Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
13 vs. OTHER RELIEF
14
AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC, a California Limited 1) Failure to Pay All Wages Earned &
15 Liability Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Minimum Wage Violations (Labor
Code §§ 1194, 1194.2)
16 2) Failure to Pay Overtime (Labor
Defendants. Code § 1194)
17
3) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest
18 Breaks in Violation of Labor Code
§§ 226.7, 512
19 4) Failure to Timely Pay Wages
Upon Termination (Labor Code §§
20 201, 203)
5) Failure to Provide Accurate
21 Itemized Statements (Labor Code
§ 226)
22
6) Failure to Pay Business Expenses
23 (Labor Code § 2802)
7) Retaliation in Violation of Labor
24 Code § 1102.5
25 8) Retaliation in Violation of Labor
Code § 6310
26 9) Violation of Civil Code § 51.7
27 10) Invasion of Privacy
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF

11) Wrongful Termination In Violation
1 Of Public Policy
2 12) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. &
Prof. Code §17200, et seq.)
3
4 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
1 Plaintiff Emily Chase, an individual, alleges:
2 INTRODUCTION
3 1. Plaintiff EMILY CHASE (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Defendant AMBULNZ
4 HEALTH, LLC, (“AMBULNZ”) as an Emergency Medical Technician from approximately
5 January 2017 to her unlawful termination on approximately October 19, 2017.
6 Defendants did not pay Plaintiff properly and did not provide meal or rest breaks.
7 Defendants also forced Plaintiff to pay for her own uniform and did not provide proper
8 medical equipment for patient care. When Plaintiff complained about Defendants’
9 numerous unlawful practices and policies, Defendants took no corrective action. In

10 October 2017, Plaintiff’s ambulance was in a minor accident. Though she was not driving
11 and was not injured, Defendants ordered Plaintiff to submit to a full physical and
12 gynecological examination with Defendant’s chosen clinic doctor. When Plaintiff
13 protested the forced examination of her vagina, Defendants terminated her.
14 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
15 2. The Plaintiff. EMILY CHASE is the Plaintiff in this action. Plaintiff is, and at
16 all relevant times was, an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of
17 California. Plaintiff is female and was employed by Defendant AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC.
18 3. The Defendant. Defendant AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC is a Limited Liability
19 Company with its principal place of business in Carson, California, in Los Angeles
20 County. AMBULNZ was, at all relevant times, doing business in the County of Los
21 Angeles. AMBULNZ employed Plaintiff in Los Angeles County.
22 4. Doe Allegations. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the
23 defendants sued as "Does 1 through 20 inclusive" and therefore sues these defendants
24 by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and
25 capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis
26 alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for
27 the occurrences alleged in this Complaint and that Plaintiff's damages as alleged were
28
1
1 legally caused by such defendants. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all
2 times mentioned, each of such defendants was the agent, servant, employee,
3 representative, joint employer, joint venture, alter ego, and/or affiliate of each of the
4 remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the scope of such agency,
5 employment, or capacity unless otherwise specified.
6 5. Agency Allegations. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis
7 alleges, that each of the named defendants was the agent, servant, employee,
8 representative, joint employer, joint venture, alter ego, and/or affiliate of his, her, or its co-
9 defendants and each of them, and in doing the things here alleged was acting in the
10 scope of such defendant's authority as such the agent, servant, employee,
11 representative, joint employer, joint venture, alter ego, and/or affiliate and with the
12 permission and consent of said co-defendants. At the same time, each named defendant
13 was acting in that defendant's own individual capacity and for that defendant's own
14 individual benefit.
15 6. Venue and Jurisdiction. The acts and omissions which are the subject of
16 this Complaint occurred primarily in the County of Los Angeles, California, and
17 Defendants employed Plaintiff in Los Angeles County. The jurisdiction of this Court is
18 proper for the relief sought herein, and the amount demanded by Plaintiff exceeds
19 $25,000.
20 COMMON ALLEGATIONS
21 7. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants on or about January 2017.
22 AMBULNZ is an “on demand ambulance services provider.” Plaintiff worked full-time for
23 Defendant as an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”). Plaintiff performed patient
24 care and, after the first month or her employment, never drove an ambulance. Plaintiff
25 performed her job well.
26 8. Defendant forced Plaintiff to work off the clock for trainings, required
27 paperwork, uniform sizing and pickup, mandatory discussions with supervisors, and
28
2
1 similar tasks. Defendant always instructed Plaintiff to perform and complete these tasks
2 before clocking in. Plaintiff was never paid for this time.
3 9. Defendant required Plaintiff and others to wear specific company jackets but
4 did not provide them. Plaintiff was forced to purchase a uniform jacket and pants at her
5 own expense, and Defendant did not reimburse her.
6 10. Plaintiff typically worked shifts of twelve (12) hours or more, sometimes
7 working as many as twenty-two (22) hours in a row. Defendants purported to have a
8 valid alternative workweek agreement allowing them to pay overtime rates after ten hours
9 of work per day instead of after eight hours.
10 11. Defendant rarely provided breaks. Plaintiff was not permitted to take rest
11 breaks, even on shifts of twelve or more hours. Defendants did not provide lunch breaks
12 for the majority of Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant automatically paid for one missed
13 meal break on most shifts without attempting to provide a meal break. Defendants did
14 not provide a second meal break on shifts longer than twelve hours and did not pay
15 Plaintiff for the second missed lunch break. As a result, Plaintiff often worked twelve
16 hours or more with no breaks.
17 12. Plaintiff did not sign a 24-hour work agreement. Regardless, she was
18 routinely forced to work additional overtime and not permitted to go home or rest at the
19 end of a 12-hour shift. Though she worked up to twenty-two (22) hours straight,
20 Defendant provided no dormitory, shower or other facilities for rest and recovery.
21 13. Once, when Plaintiff objected to working additional overtime at the end of a
22 twelve-hour shift during which she had had no meal or rest breaks, Defendant threatened
23 to leave her by the side of the road in downtown Los Angeles in the middle of the night.
24 When she complained and suggested that she could be mugged or raped or kidnapped,
25 Defendant sarcastically said they would send a helicopter to pick her up if she felt she
26 was in danger. When Plaintiff said she was unaware that Defendant had a helicopter,
27 Defendant replied that the helicopter was in New York. Plaintiff then understood that
28 Defendant had been mocking her fears of being attacked if left alone in the dark on the
3
1 street. She understood that she must agree to extend her shift and continue working
2 without a break to avoid placing herself in danger. When she complained to a supervisor
3 the next day regarding this unsafe practice, the supervisor laughed. Nothing was done.
4 14. On another occasion, a male coworker threatened to rape her. That same
5 day, she complained to her supervisor about the violent threat to her safety. Her
6 supervisor told her she should “tell somebody” and took no action.
7 15. Defendant neglected both employee safety and patient safety. Defendant
8 failed to stock necessary life-saving EMT tools and equipment. Plaintiff was aware that
9 Defendant frequently failed County inspections. Plaintiff complained about the failed
10 inspections and lack of attention to patient care and safety, but nothing was done.
11 Plaintiff was determined to provide quality care and purchased several items of life-
12 saving equipment at her own expense. Defendant failed to reimburse her. Plaintiff
13 complained about the lack of crucial equipment, but nothing was done. Plaintiff later
14 learned that Defendant had had multiple patient deaths.
15 16. Defendant had certain “model rigs.” EMTs assigned to these rigs were paid
16 by the call rather than by the hour. When Plaintiff was assigned to a model rig, her shift
17 partners constantly demanded that she hurry through vitals and patient care so that they
18 could take more calls and make more money. She refused to compromise patient care,
19 telling her partners that one cannot rush taking vitals. When she complained about the
20 danger to patient safety, she was no longer assigned to model rigs.
21 17. Two weeks before her termination, Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff for sick
22 days she had taken, though her benefits included paid sick days, and she had not used
23 up all of her paid sick days. Plaintiff complained about the violation and insisted on being
24 paid her wages. When she asked to see the handbook to prove the sick pay policy,
25 Defendant could not or would not tell her how to access the online handbook.
26 18. In October 2017, Plaintiff was caring for a patient in the back of an ambulance
27 when her shift partner Filiberto Vasquez, who was driving the ambulance, informed her
28 that he had bumped another vehicle. The accident was so minor that Plaintiff did not
4
1 realize the ambulance had contacted another vehicle until Mr. Vasquez informed her. No
2 one, including Plaintiff, was injured in the accident. The ambulance was not damaged.
3 19. As required by Defendant’s policies, Mr. Vasquez and Plaintiff called their
4 supervisor Mr. Camacho and informed him about the minor accident. Mr. Camacho
5 instructed them to finish transporting their patient, and stated that Mr. Vasquez must
6 submit to drug testing because he was driving at the time of the accident.
7 20. When Plaintiff and Mr. Vasquez returned to the station, Mr. Camacho and
8 another supervisor stated that Plaintiff must go to the medical clinic for an examination.
9 When Plaintiff asked why she must be examined since she was not injured and was not
10 driving, the two supervisors said that Human Resources (“HR”) had insisted on the
11 examination. When Plaintiff continued to protest that she was uninjured and did not need
12 to be examined, a Human Resources representative pulled her aside to further insist
13 upon the exam. Plaintiff stated that Defendants had previously chastised her for
14 submitting to an unnecessary drug test, and she did not want to get in trouble for taking
15 an unnecessary drug test again. The HR representative said that Plaintiff would not be
16 drug tested, but that Defendants needed to physically inspect Plaintiff for injuries.
17 21. Mr. Camacho drove Mr. Vasquez and Plaintiff to the medical clinic. Upon
18 arrival, a clinic nurse gave Ms. Chase a multi-page intake questionnaire that asked
19 invasive questions about Plaintiff’s entire health and medical history. Plaintiff understood
20 that Defendants required her to fill out the questionnaire. Most questions were unrelated
21 to the accident or any injuries Plaintiff may have received. Invasive questions included
22 gynecological questions such as “Have you ever been pregnant?,” “Have you ever had a
23 painful or irregular period?,” and similar questions about highly private aspects of
24 Plaintiff’s health. Plaintiff answered honestly, answered “yes” to at least one of the
25 gynecological questions, and turned in the questionnaire.
26 22. The clinic nurse informed Plaintiff that her “yes” answer to a gynecological
27 question required a pelvic and vaginal examination. Plaintiff asked whether the clinic had
28 a female doctor to perform the vaginal examination. The clinic had only a male doctor.
5
1 Plaintiff told the nurse and Mr. Camacho that she objected to the vaginal examination and
2 did not want Defendant to force her to have her vagina examined, especially by a man.
3 23. Mr. Camacho said he understood and called HR. Two HR personnel spoke
4 with Plaintiff. They stated that Plaintiff did not have the right to refuse the vaginal
5 examination, did not have the right to a female doctor, and did not have the right to see
6 her own doctor. At the beginning of her employment, Plaintiff had submitted a form to
7 Defendant entitling her to see her own primary care physician for any work-related
8 issues. HR said they could not locate the form. Plaintiff objected that Defendant had no
9 right to force her to submit to a vaginal exam, particularly by Defendant’s chosen male
10 doctor.
11 24. After Plaintiff continued to refuse the vaginal examination, Defendant stated
12 that Plaintiff would now be required to take a drug test due to her refusal. Plaintiff again
13 objected, stating that the drug test was against company policy and was only ordered as
14 punishment for her refusal to allow Defendant to examine her vagina. Defendant
15 suspended Plaintiff for refusing the vaginal examination.
16 25. Defendants ordered Plaintiff to meet with them two days later, and Plaintiff did.
17 Plaintiff met in person with two HR representatives, and another HR representative
18 participated by phone. Defendant terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff protested, again
19 complaining that Defendant had no right to violate her and examine her vagina. The
20 three HR representatives ignored Plaintiff’s complaints and instead pressured Plaintiff to
21 sign a waiver of claims against Defendant. Plaintiff refused to sign the waiver. When
22 Plaintiff refused to sign the waiver, Defendant refused to give Plaintiff her final paycheck
23 for all of her wages owed.
24 ///
25 ///
26
27
28
6
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PAY FOR ALL HOURS WORKED
3 AND MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS
4 (Labor Code § 1194, 1194.2)
5 (Against All Defendants, and Does 1-20)
6 26. Plaintiff hereby repeats, realleges, and reincorporates herein by reference, as
7 though fully set forth at length in this cause of action, each, every, and all allegations
8 contained within the previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
9 27. Plaintiff brings this action to recover unpaid compensation for all hours
10 worked, defined by the applicable IWC Wage Order as the time during which an
11 employee is subject to the control of the employer, including all time the employee is
12 suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.
13 28. Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked. Defendants'
14 conduct violated Labor Code sections 1194 and 1194.2. California law states that it is an
15 automatic minimum wage violation when an employee works but is not compensated for
16 each and every hour worked.
17 29. Among other violations, Defendant required Plaintiff to work off the clock on
18 numerous occasions and did not compensate Plaintiff for this time.
19 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant’s
20 failure to fully compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked was willful, purposeful, and
21 unlawful and done in accordance with policies and practices of Defendant’s operations.
22 Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff was working these hours.
23 31. As a proximate cause of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiff has been
24 damaged in an amount according to proof at trial, but in an amount in excess of the
25 jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the unpaid balance of
26 wages owed, plus interest on that amount, liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code
27 section 1194.2, and penalties. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and
28 costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, et seq.
7
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION
3 (Labor Code §1194)
4 (Against All Defendants and Does 1-20)
8 33. Defendant required Plaintiff to work more than ten hours per day and more
9 than forty hours per week. Defendants often required Plaintiff to work more than twelve
10 hours per day.
11 34. Defendant failed to fully compensate Plaintiff for all wages earned, including
12 overtime wages. Plaintiff regularly worked more than ten hours per day and more than
13 forty hours per week, which required applicable overtime payments that Defendant did
14 not always make. In addition, required off the clock work time for which Plaintiff was not
15 paid was subject to overtime wages because Plaintiff worked shifts of 12 hours or more.
16 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant’s
17 failure to fully compensate Plaintiff for overtime work was willful, purposeful, and unlawful
18 and done in accordance with the policies and practices of Defendants' operations.
19 36. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiff has been
20 damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the
21 unpaid balance of wages owed, interest, penalties, and reasonable attorney fees and
22 costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, et seq.
23 ///
24 ///
25
26
27
28
8
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND REST BREAKS IN VIOLATION OF
3 CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 AND 512
4 (Against All Defendants and Does 1-20)
8 38. At all times herein mentioned, California Labor Code sections 226.7 and
9 510(a) Wage Order No. 5 were in full force and effect and were binding on Defendant.
10 California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that no employer shall require an employee
11 to work during rest periods mandated pursuant to an order of the California Industrial
12 Welfare Commission ("IWC"). IWC Wage Order No. 5 provides that "every employer
13 shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which in so far as
14 practicable shall be in the middle of each work period" and that the "rest period time shall
15 be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per
16 four (4) hours or major fractions thereof" unless the total daily work time is less than three
17 and one-half (3 ½) hours.
18 39. California Labor Code section 512(a) and IWC Wage Order No. 5 further
19 provide that an employer may not require, cause, or permit an employee to work for a
20 period of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with an
21 uninterrupted meal period or not less than thirty (30) minutes, unless the total work period
22 per day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours.
23 40. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant did not authorize or permit Plaintiff to
24 take a ten (10) minute rest period for every four (4) hours worked. In addition, Defendant
25 scheduled Plaintiff to work shifts of 12 hours or more without providing any meal periods.
26 Defendant did not always pay Plaintiff for one missed meal period and did not pay
27 Plaintiff for additional missed meal periods.
28
9
1 41. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants willfully required Plaintiff to work
2 during rest periods, in violations of California Labor Code section 226.7, 512, and the
3 applicable IWC Wage Order.
4 42. Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants one (1) additional hour of pay at her
5 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period was not provided, and
6 one additional hour of pay for each work day that the meal period was not provided,
7 pursuant to the applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 226.7(b)
8 and 558.1, and reasonable costs and attorney fees, where applicable.
9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES UPON TERMINATION
11 AND WAITING TIME PENALTIES
12 (Labor Code §§ 201, 203)
13 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20)
17 44. Pursuant to Labor Code section 201, earned and unpaid wages are due
18 immediately upon the termination of an employee. Defendant willfully failed to pay
19 Plaintiff her earned wages upon termination. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff her
20 earned wages upon termination was a violation of Labor Code section 201.
21 45. Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay
22 wages owed in accordance with section 201, then the wages of the employee shall
23 continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same rate until paid or until an action
24 is commenced, but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (30) days.
25 46. Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants the statutory penalty wages for
26 each day she was not paid, at her regular hourly rate of pay including overtime
27 compensation, up to a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor Code section
28 203, and penalties, reasonable attorney fees, and costs..
10
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED STATEMENTS
4 (Against all Defendants, and Does 1-20)
8 48. At all times herein mentioned, California Labor Code section 226 was in full
9 force and effect and was binding on Defendants. Under California Labor Code section
10 226(a) an employer must furnish each of his or her employees an accurate itemized
11 wage statement in writing showing nine items of information, including total hours worked
12 by the employee, applicable hourly rates and total hours worked at each rate by the
13 employee, the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, and the name
14 and address of the legal entity that is the employer.
15 49. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant intentionally and willfully failed to
16 provide Plaintiff with accurate itemized statements.
17 50. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e), Plaintiff was injured as a result of
18 Defendant’s knowing and intentional failure to comply with Labor Code section 226(a).
19 Plaintiff was unable to discern how many hours she worked per pay period, her hourly
20 rate, or her overtime hours worked, among other injuries. Plaintiff will be required to
21 spend more time and greater expense reconstructing her hours worked to determine the
22 wages owed.
23 51. As a result of Plaintiff's injuries, she is entitled to recover the greater of her
24 actual damages or $50 for the initial pay period and $100 for each subsequent violative
25 pay period, to a maximum of $4,000, pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e)(1). Plaintiff
26 is also entitled to costs and attorney fees pursuant to section 226(e)(1).
27 ///
28 ///
11
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PAY BUSINESS EXPENSES
8 53. Labor Code section 2802 requires an employer to indemnify employees for all
9 necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employees in direct consequence of
10 the discharge of their duties or in following the employer's directions. Labor Code section
11 2802 required Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for expenses incurred in the performance
12 of her job duties and in carrying out Defendant’s instructions.
13 54. Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff for the required company jacket and
14 pants, necessary lifesaving EMT tools and equipment, and other things.
15 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been
16 damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.
17 56. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2802, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full
18 amount of expenses and losses incurred, plus interest, reasonable attorney fees,
19 penalties, and costs of suit.
20 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5
26 58. Plaintiff was lawfully Defendants' employee when she reported and refused to
27 participate in various unlawful activities. These unlawful activities include, but are not
28 limited to, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse Plaintiff
12
1 for business expenses, threatening to abandon Plaintiff alone at night in an unsafe
2 neighborhood, threatening to rape Plaintiff, failing to provide required EMT patient care
3 tools and equipment, unsafe and dangerous patient care practices, failure to pay Plaintiff
4 wages for paid sick days, requiring Plaintiff to submit to an unnecessary physical
5 examination, requiring Plaintiff to submit to an unnecessary and invasive vaginal
6 examination, requiring Plaintiff to submit to a retaliatory drug test, withholding Plaintiff’s
7 final check because she refused to sign a waiver of her legal claims, and other things.
8 59. Plaintiff reported and/or refused to participate in Defendants' multiple
9 violations of the California Labor Code and other California laws. These reports and/or
10 refusals were a contributing factor in Defendants' decision to terminate Plaintiff.
11 60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
12 and continues to suffer economic, non-economic, general, and special damages in a sum
13 according to proof, in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of this Court. In
14 addition, Defendants, and each of them, are responsible for interest, penalties, costs, and
15 attorney fees related to this cause of action.
16 61. Because these wrongful acts were carried out by Defendant acting with
17 malice, oppression or fraud, or were deliberate, willful, and in conscious disregard of the
18 probability of causing injury to Plaintiff, as reflected by the actions as described earlier in
19 this complaint, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendants, and each of them, in
20 order to deter them from similar conduct in the future.
21 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 6310
27 63. Defendants willfully terminated Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s good faith reports and
28 complaints of unsafe working conditions and work practices, including but not limited to,
13
1 forcing employees to work shifts of twelve hours or more with no breaks, threatening to
2 abandon Plaintiff alone at night in an unsafe neighborhood, and threatening to rape
3 Plaintiff.
14 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE § 51.7
16 (A gainst all Defendants and Does 1-20)
20 67. California Civil Code section 51.7 provides, in relevant part, that “All persons
21 within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or
22 intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of
23 political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b)
24 or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives
25 them to have one or more of those characteristics.”
26 68. Defendant’s supervisors, Human Resources officers, and others, acting as
27 agents in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant, intentionally
28 committed or threatened to commit an act of violence against Plaintiff because of her sex.
14
1 A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have believed that she was required to
2 submit to forcible penetration and touching of her vagina and vaginal cavity, tantamount
3 to rape, against her will as a condition of her employment and would have been
4 intimidated by this conduct. In addition, Defendant ratified a threat of violent rape by one
5 of Plaintiff’s co-workers.
6 69. Defendants failed to provide a workplace free from violence and bodily harm,
7 by failing to act on Plaintiff’s complaints of threats of rape and threats to leave Plaintiff
8 alone on the street at night subjecting her to a risk of rape or other violent crime, and
9 forcing Plaintiff to submit to a vaginal examination, and by terminating Plaintiff for
10 reporting these violations. By failing to address Plaintiff’s reports as to this conduct,
11 Defendants aided, incited, or conspired in the denial of Plaintiff’s rights under Civil Code
12 §51.7.
16 addition, Defendants, and each of them, are responsible for statutory damages, interest,
17 penalties, costs, and attorney fees related to this cause of action.
23 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 INVASION OF PRIVACY
15
1 73. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical history,
2 gynecological history, and vagina and vaginal cavity. Defendant intentionally intruded
3 upon Plaintiff’s privacy by unnecessarily forcing her to visit a medical clinic and
4 transporting her to the clinic, forcing her to fill out an invasive and unnecessary
5 questionnaire regarding her medical, sexual, and gynecological history, and forcing her to
6 submit to an examination of her vagina and vaginal cavity. Defendant’s intrusion would
7 have been highly offensive to a reasonable person.
11 addition, Defendants, and each of them, are responsible for statutory damages, interest,
12 penalties, costs, and attorney fees related to this cause of action.
18 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
24 77. By their conduct as set forth above, Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s
25 employment in violation of fundamental public policies against unlawful pay practices,
26 violations of patient safety, unsafe workplaces, threats of violence and sexual violence,
27 retaliation, Plaintiff’s right to medical and gynecological privacy and privacy of her body,
28
16
1 among others. Those public policies are embodied in California Constitution, Labor
2 Code, Civil Code, Health and Safety Code, among others.
3 78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
8 79. Because these wrongful acts were carried out, authorized, or ratified by
9 Defendants’ directors, officers and/or managing agents, acting with malice, oppression or
10 fraud, or were deliberate, willful, and in conscious disregard of the probability of causing
11 injury to Plaintiff, as reflected by the actions as described earlier in this Complaint,
12 Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendants in order to deter them from similar
13 conduct in the future.
14 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Unfair Business Practices
16 (Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq)
21 81. Defendants are “persons” as defined under Business and Professions Code
22 section 17200 et seq.
23 82. Defendants’ violations of California law as discussed above, including
24 Defendants’ failure to pay all earned wages, including but not limited to minimum wages,
25 overtime wages, and premium-pay wages; failure to pay all wages due at termination of
26 employment; failure to provide accurate earnings statements; and other violations of the
27 California Labor Code and applicable wage-and-hour laws and regulations constitutes
28
17
1 unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200
2 et seq.
3 83. Defendants have similarly reaped an unlawful financial gain by exploiting
4 Plaintiff by taking her labor without lawful compensation.
5 84. As a result of Defendants’ unfair business practices, Defendants have reaped
6 unfair benefit, illegal competitive advantage, and illegal profit at the expense of Plaintiff,
7 competitors, and the general public. Defendants should be made to disgorge their ill-
8 gotten gains and restore such monies to Plaintiff as restitution.
9 85. Defendants’ unfair business practices entitle Plaintiff to seek preliminary and
10 permanent injunctive relief, including but not limited to orders that Defendants account
11 for, disgorge, and restore to Plaintiff all compensation unlawfully withheld.
12 86. Plaintiff further requests that a receiver be appointed to control and monitor all
13 of the business affairs of Defendants, and each of them, to ensure compliance with
14 applicable wage-and hour-laws of the State of California and to ensure that full restitution
15 is made to Plaintiff of her owed and unpaid compensation.
16 87. Plaintiff further request that the Court issue a preliminary injunction against
17 Defendants, and each of them, to prevent them from committing further violations of the
18 Labor Code and the unfair business practices alleged herein.
19 88. Plaintiff acts in the public interest by exposing Defendants’ unfair business
20 practices and seeking injunctive relief to remedy those practices. Plaintiff asks for an
21 award of attorneys’ fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
22
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
25 1. For economic, non-economic, general and compensatory damages, including
26 lost wages and employment benefits and other special damages according to
27 proof;
28 2. For mental and emotional distress damages;
18
1 3. For restitution of all monies due to Plaintiff and disgorgement of profits from
2 the unlawful business practices of Defendant;
3 4. For waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203;
4 5. For penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226, 226.7, 558 and all
5 other applicable Labor Code and/or employment laws and regulations;
6 6. For all other applicable penalties provided by law;
7 7. For liquidated and statutory damages where applicable;
8 8. For reinstatement;
9 9. For equitable remedies including injunctive relief and declaratory relief;
10 10. For punitive and exemplary damages, where applicable;
11 11. For an award of interest, including pre-judgment interest, at the legal rate;
12 12. For costs of suit, including expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees,
13 where applicable and as provided by law;
14 13. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
15
16
17 Dated: October 11, 2019 ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
18
19 By: __s/ Tracy L. Fehr _____

20 Tracy L. Fehr
David Ramirez-Galvez
21 Attorneys for Plaintiff
EMILY CHASE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
1
2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3 Plaintiff Emily Chase hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action.
5
Dated: October 11, 2019 ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
6
7
By: __s/ Tracy L. Fehr _____
8 Tracy L. Fehr
David Ramirez-Galvez
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 EMILY CHASE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20

Chase v. Ambulnz - LA County - Case No. 19STCV36675 - Wrongful Termination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Chase v. Ambulnz - LA County - Case No. 19STCV36675 - Wrongful Termination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/11/2019 02:20 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk

1 ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF

4 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

3 1. Plaintiff EMILY CHASE (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Defendant AMBULNZ

4 HEALTH, LLC, (“AMBULNZ”) as an Emergency Medical Technician from approximately

5 January 2017 to her unlawful termination on approximately October 19, 2017.

9 numerous unlawful practices and policies, Defendants took no corrective action. In

12 gynecological examination with Defendant’s chosen clinic doctor. When Plaintiff

13 protested the forced examination of her vagina, Defendants terminated her.

14 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

18 3. The Defendant. Defendant AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC is a Limited Liability

23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17 Dated: October 11, 2019 ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP

19 By: s/ Tracy L. Fehr ___

2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

You might also like