ben galante (sbn 231394) galante law, inc.bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/appeal... · - 1 -...

- 1 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ben Galante (SBN 231394)

GALANTE LAW, INC.

2181 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 101

Pasadena, California 91107

T: (213) 785-1900

E: [email protected]

Rahul Sethi (SBN 238405)

SETHI LAW FIRM

811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1050

Los Angeles, California 90017

T: (213) 254-2454

E: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARTIN JOHN and WILLIAM MYERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN JOHN and WILLIAM MYERS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SUTTER, SUSAN REDFORD,

TONY HOBSON, and DOES 1 through 20,

Inclusive;

Defendants.

Case No.:

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

TRIAL FOR:

1. Gender Discrimination in Violation of 28

U.S.C. § 1983

2. Discriminatory Policy in Violation of 28

U.S.C. § 1983

3. Disability Discrimination in Violation of

Gov’t Code § 12940(a)

4. Failure to Provide Reasonable

Accommodation in Violation of Gov’t Code

§ 12940(m)

5. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process

in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(n)

6. Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code §

12940(h)

7. Failure to Investigate and Prevent

Discrimination in Violation of Gov’t Code §

12940(k)

8. Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of

Labor Code § 1102.5

9. Violation of Labor Code § 6310

10. Violation of Labor Code § 6311

Case 2:16-cv-02241-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 09/21/16 of 22

- 2 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs Martin John and William Myers hereby allege the following facts:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Martin John (“John”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, was an

individual residing in Sutter County.

2. Plaintiff William Myers (“Myers”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein,

was an individual residing in Sutter County.

3. Myers and John are collectively referred to hereinafter as “Plaintiffs.”

4. Defendant County of Sutter (“the County”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned

herein, was public entity duly organized and existing as such under California law.

5. Defendant Susan Redford (“Redford”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned

herein, was an employee of the County, and plaintiffs’ supervisor at the mental health clinic in

Yuba City. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege Redford is, and at all relevant

times mentioned herein, was a resident of Yuba County.

6. Defendant Tony Hobson (“Hobson”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein,

was an employee of the County, and plaintiffs’ director at the mental health clinic in Yuba City.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege Hobson is, and at all relevant times

mentioned herein, was a resident of Yuba County.

7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued as

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by those fictitious names.

Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities

when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each

of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the unlawful actions,

policies and practices alleged in this Complaint.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times

mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, partners,

joint-venturers, joint-employers or co-conspirators of each other defendant, and that each

defendant was acting within the course, scope and authority of such agency, employment,


- 3 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

partnership, joint venture or conspiracy, and that each defendant, directly or indirectly, authorized,

ratified and approved the acts of the remaining defendants, and each of them.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Plaintiffs’ causes of action for gender based discrimination in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

jurisdiction of this Court is based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

10. The adverse employment actions, events, and/or omissions that give rise to

Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Yuba and Sutter Counties. Venue is proper according to 28 U.S.C. §

1391.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11. The County operates and manages Sutter-Yuba-Bi-County Mental Health Services,

which provides mental health services to local residents in Sutter and Yuba Counties. The County

owns and operates a clinic in Yuba City (the “Clinic”).

12. Plaintiffs worked at the County’s Clinic in Yuba City. Plaintiffs have worked as

crisis counselors for the County for many years. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs

ably and adequately performed their job duties.

13. The primary purpose of the Clinic is to assist hospitals and public agencies in

determining psychological and mental condition of clients brought to the Clinic by the public, the

police, and those dumped by private hospitals.

14. The Clinic provides this assistance by having its staff of crisis counselors meet the

clients and determine their psychological and mental condition, determine whether there is the use

of illegal drugs, determine whether the client is in need of a 72 hour “5150” hold, prepare a short

term treatment plan for the client, and determine the appropriate public hospital or agency to refer

the client to. Making such determinations are the essential functions and job duties of the crisis

counselors.

15. Because the Clinic is supposed to be a short-term stop for clients, there are no

private rooms for the clients and no overnight accommodations. The Clinic is not a hospital,


- 4 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

stabilization or detention facility.

16. The Clinic often receives clients that already are or may become violent during the

counseling session. This is because many clients are suffering severe psychological conditions

and/or under the influence of hard drugs. On occasion, the clients will have weapons. The clients

are not required to undergo security measures prior to receiving counseling.

17. The Crisis Counselor’s job duties do not require crisis counselors to go “hands on”,

which is the act of physically engaging and attempting to restrain a violent client. This is because

the primary purpose of the Clinic, as stated above, is to determine the psychological conditions,

determine treatment plans and refer the clients to other locations. The purpose of the Clinic is not

to subdue a violent and psychotic client.

18. The Clinic has never had a clear set of policies and procedures relating to “hands

on” and what little policies and procedures there have been have been contradictory and/or

completely disregarded by management.

19. Plaintiffs were two of only three full-time male crisis counselors at the Clinic.

There were approximately seven or eight full-time female crisis counselors. Over the past few

years, because of a de facto policy, Plaintiffs have been required to go “hands on” with violent

clients. The de facto policy is that only male crisis counselors go “hands on” with violent clients.

As a result of this policy, Plaintiffs have suffered physical injuries and emotional trauma. For

example, Plaintiffs have, among other things, had chairs thrown at them, been punched, been

kicked in the scrotum, and have had to wrestle with several clients to subdue them. Plaintiffs have

also been under the threat of violence because clients have threatened to punch them, attack them,

and have pulled knives on them. There have also been incidents where unstable clients were in

possession of guns in the Clinic.

20. Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result of the dangerous and

unsafe work conditions.

21. Myers suffered a torn meniscus and back and neck injuries, which limit major life

activities including performing manual tasks, walking, standing, lifting, and bending.


- 5 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. John suffered injuries to his neck, shoulder, hands, and/or wrists, which limit major

life activities including performing manual tasks and lifting.

23. Both Plaintiffs suffer from anxiety, depression, and PTSD, which limit major life

activities including eating, sleeping, concentrating, thinking, and communicating.

24. The Clinic is not a crisis stabilization center, it does not have the capability to hold

psychotic and dangerous clients for up to 72 hours as contemplated by 5150. However, despite

the lack of resources or capability, clients have often been held in makeshift rooms at the Clinic

for days, sometimes beyond 72 hours. The holding of clients in these conditions constitute a

danger to clients and to staff.

25. Beginning in 2014 Plaintiffs complained to supervisors that the de facto “hands on”

policy was a gender discriminatory policy. Plaintiffs also complained on an ongoing basis that the

workplace was unsafe and they sought security measures to address violent clients, and the

improper lengthy detention of clients.

26. Plaintiffs complained to their managers, to their supervisor (Redford), and to the

Director of Mental Health (Hobson) about gender discrimination, unsafe work conditions, and

improper detentions.

27. The County did not respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints about gender discrimination

or workplace safety. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant

times mentioned herein, their supervisors, including Redford, were aware they were suffering

from physical and psychological injuries from going “hands on” with violent clients.

28. Plaintiffs explicitly made their managers, their supervisor (Redford), and the

Director of Mental Health (Hobson) aware of physical and emotional injuries from going “hands

on” with violent clients.

29. On or about October 2015, Myers told a manager of his intention to file workers

compensation claim. The manager discouraged Myers from filing a workers compensation claim,

telling him that the County would file an action for fraud if he filed a workers compensation

claim.


- 6 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. For the next several months, Redford harassed and criticized Plaintiffs over minor

and trivial issues.

31. On or about November 2015, Myers and John made complaints to Cal-OSHA,

which subsequently investigated the Clinic. Cal-OSHA lacked the jurisdiction and/or power to

change the County’s workplace guidelines for the circumstances and accordingly, found no

violations, however Cal-OSHA made several recommendations for workplace safety, none of

which were adopted by the County.

32. By the end of December 2015, the County still had not adopted safety and security

measures to prevent violence from occurring in the workplace. The County still required Plaintiffs

to go “hands on” with violent clients.

33. On or about October 15, 2015 and December 22, 2015, Plaintiffs complained to the

Clinic’s director, Hobson, that workplace conditions were unsafe, that the “hands on” policy

constituted gender discrimination, and that Redford had been harassing Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also

recommended that all clients on a 5150 should be taken to Rideout Memorial Hospital (“Rideout”)

and be assessed and/or dis-positioned at Rideout for stabilization.

34. On or about December 26, 2015, a client was laying on a couch having seizures.

John objected to the conditions as not being adequate to provide medical attention and

recommended the client be sent to Rideout. The Clinic staff accused plaintiffs of lacking

professionalism for this incident. John wrote a formal complaint a few days later. The Clinic

changed its written policy regarding the treatment of 5150 clients following the letter, but in

reality, continued to treat 5150 clients as they had before.

35. Redford continued to harass and criticize Plaintiffs. On or about January 19, 2016,

Plaintiffs complained to Hobson that Redford continued to harass them which they felt was in

retaliation for their complaints about gender discrimination and the Cal-OSHA complaint. John

complained the policies and procedures were in contradiction and that Plaintiffs continued to be

subjected to physical violence by clients.

36. As a result of Myers’ complaints, Redford also changed Myers’ work schedule to


- 7 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

harass him.

37. On or about February 22, 2016, Hobson held a meeting with plaintiffs regarding

their complaints, including the purported results of his investigation of harassment by Redford.

However, rather than addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ complaints, Hobson threatened to

continue down a path of discipline, up to termination, unless Plaintiffs changed their attitude.

38. Plaintiffs were simultaneously written up by Redford on February 22, 2016, the day

they met with Hobson.

39. On or about February 22, 2016, Plaintiffs were constructively discharged by the

County. Plaintiffs subjectively believed the working conditions to be intolerable: nothing had

been done in practice about safety and security in the workplace such that they continued to face

threats of violence and felt unsafe, the Clinic’s de facto “hands on” policy was still in place such

that they would have to subject themselves to physical altercations with violent clients, and the

Clinic was needlessly disciplining them and threatening them because they had complained about

workplace conditions and the “hands on” policy. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon

allege that objectively, a reasonable employee in their circumstances would have had no choice

but to be forced to stop working.

40. Plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies by timely filing a complaints of

discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment & Housing and obtaining a Right-to-Sue

letters.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Gender Discrimination in Violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983

(Plaintiffs against all Defendants)

41. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation of the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

42. In doing the acts described herein, including, but not limited to, enforcing the

“hands on” policy, Redford, Hobson, and the County acted under the color of law.

43. The acts of Redford, Hobson, and the County deprived plaintiffs of their rights

under the United States Constitution, in particular, the right to be free of gender discrimination.


- 8 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Redford and Hobson did so with the intent to discriminate on the basis of gender.

44. As a direct and proximate result, plaintiffs were harmed; they have been

humiliated, suffered emotional pain and distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and

have suffered economic damages.

45. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages from Redford, Hobson, and the County in an

amount to be proven at trial. Redford and Hobson acted intentionally, knowingly and willfully,

with malice, oppression and conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ rights. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek

an award of punitive damages against Redford and Hobson in an amount to be proven at trial.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Discriminatory Policy in Violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983

(Plaintiffs against all Defendants)



47. In doing the acts described herein, including, but not limited to, enforcing the

“hands on” policy, Redford, Hobson, and the County acted under the color of law.

48. The acts of Redford, Hobson, and the County deprived plaintiffs of their rights

under the United States Constitution, in particular, the right to be free of gender discrimination.

The “hands on” policy was intended to be discriminatory or alternatively, it had a disparate impact

on males.

49. Redford’s and Hobson’s enforcement of the “hands on” policy was pursuant to a

long-standing practice or custom of Defendants.

50. As a direct and proximate result, plaintiffs were harmed; they have been

humiliated, suffered emotional pain and distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and

have suffered economic damages.

51. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages from Redford, Hobson, and the County in an

amount to be proven at trial. Redford, Hobson, and the County acted intentionally, knowingly and

willfully, with malice, oppression and conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ rights. Accordingly,


- 9 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages against Redford and Hobson in an amount to be

proven at trial. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Disability Discrimination in Violation of Government Code § 12940(a)

(Plaintiffs against County of Sutter)



53. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code § 12940(a),

prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of an actual and/or

perceived physical disability.

54. At all times relevant herein, Myers was a qualified individual with actual and/or

perceived past and future physical disabilities including, but not limited to, a torn meniscus and

back and neck injuries. Despite his disabilities and/or perceived disabilities, Myers was able to

perform the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodations.

55. At all times relevant herein, John was a qualified individual with actual and/or

perceived past and future physical disabilities including, but not limited to, injuries to his neck,

shoulder, hands, and/or wrists. Despite his disabilities and/or perceived disabilities, John was able

to perform the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodations.

56. Both Plaintiffs suffer from psychological disabilities, including anxiety, depression,

and PTSD, which limit major life activities including eating, sleeping, concentrating, thinking, and

communicating.

57. At all times relevant herein, the County was aware of Plaintiffs’ disabilities and/or

perceived them as disabled and knew that, despite their actual and/or perceived disabilities,

Plaintiffs could perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable

accommodations.

58. The County violated Government Code § 12940(a) by, among other things,

threatening to prosecute Myers for fraud if he reported his injuries through the workers’

compensation system, continually subjecting Plaintiffs to dangerous and unsafe work conditions,


- 10 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

harassing Plaintiffs over minor and trivial issues at work, writing Plaintiffs up, changing Myers’s

work schedule, threatening to terminate Plaintiffs’ employment, and ultimately constructively

terminating Plaintiffs’ employment. Had the County complied with its legal duties under the

Government Code, it would not have constructively terminated Plaintiffs or engaged in the

aforementioned activities.

59. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleges that the aforepled conduct,

including but not limited to, constructively terminating Plaintiff’s employment, was motivated by

Plaintiff’s actual and/or perceived disabilities. The aforepled conduct of the County constitutes

discrimination based on Plaintiffs’ actual and/or perceived disabilities and accordingly violates

Government Code § 12940(a) and other provisions of FEHA.

60. As a proximate result, Plaintiffs have suffered general damages including mental

anguish and emotional suffering in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of the court

and according to proof.

61. As a further proximate result, Plaintiffs have suffered special damages including a

loss of tangible employment benefits including lost wages and benefits in an amount in excess of

the minimum jurisdiction of the court and according to proof.

62. As a result of the County’s conduct, Plaintiffs have been required to retain the

services of counsel. Pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), they are entitled to an award of

attorney’s fees and costs.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of Government Code § 12940(m)




64. Government Code § 12940(m) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer to fail to make a reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental

disabilities of an employee.



- 11 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28










communicating.




accommodations.

69. Plaintiffs requested reasonable accommodations from the County which would not

produce undue hardship on its operations, and which would protect the safety of Plaintiffs and

prevent further injury to them, including that the County cease to enforce its unwritten “hands on”

policy requiring male crisis counselors to physically restrain and engage violent clients; that the

County create clear written policies and procedures for dealing with violent and dangerous clients

in a manner that does not pose unreasonable risk to clients and staff; that the County create clear

written policies and procedures delineating clearly the circumstances under which a medically

compromised individual should go directly to emergency care versus being left in the care of the

Clinic; that the County create clear written policies and procedures specific to the Clinic that detail

when Crisis Counselors can go outside the Clinic; that there be visible cameras in main office area

of the Clinic and all cameras in the vicinity of the Clinic have recording features; that the Clinic

implement security measures; that the Clinic implement and enforce a policy that no clients and/or

medically compromised clients may be detained or sleep in the waiting room, main room, outside


- 12 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

lawn, and waiting room.

70. The County failed to provide any of the aforementioned requests for

accommodation and failed to take any measures to protect Plaintiffs from exacerbating their

current physical and psychological disabilities and/or from incurring further physical and

psychological injuries.










FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Engage in a Timely Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code §

12940(n)




75. At all times relevant herein, pursuant to Government Code § 12940(n), the County

had a mandatory duty to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with Plaintiffs to

determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to Plaintiffs’ requests for

reasonable accommodations.






- 13 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







communicating.




accommodations.

80. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were willing to participate in an interactive process

to determine whether reasonable accommodations could be made so that they would be able to

perform the essential job requirements, but the County failed to participate in a timely good faith

interactive process with Plaintiffs to determine whether reasonable accommodations could be

made.











- 14 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940(h)




85. Pursuant to Government Code § 12940(h), it is unlawful for an employer to

discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against an employee because that employee engaged in

protected activity under FEHA, including reporting hazardous working conditions and

complaining about retaliatory, harassing and discriminatory management conduct.

86. Plaintiffs were subjected to discrimination on the basis of their gender and

disabilities and complained to Redford, Hobson, and the County on several occasions regarding

the illegal treatment they experienced. Plaintiffs’ complaints to constitute protected activity under

FEHA.

87. Following their complaints, the County engaged in adverse employment actions

toward Plaintiffs, including without limitation threatening to prosecute Myers for fraud if he

reported his injuries through the workers’ compensation system, continually subjecting Plaintiffs

to dangerous and unsafe work conditions, harassing Plaintiffs over minor and trivial issues at

work, writing Plaintiffs up, changing Myers’s work schedule, threatening to terminate Plaintiffs’

employment, and ultimately constructively terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.

88. Plaintiffs’ aforementioned complaints were a motivating factor in the County’s

decision to engage in the aforementioned adverse employment actions.









- 15 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Investigate and Prevent Discrimination in Violation of Government Code § 12940(k)




93. Pursuant to Government Code § 12940(k), it is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination,

harassment, and retaliation from occurring.

94. The County failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination and

retaliation against Plaintiffs from occurring, in violation of FEHA.










EIGTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5




99. Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits an employer, or any person acting on behalf of the

employer, from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an

employee from disclosing information to a person with authority over the employee, or to another


- 16 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance if

the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or

federal statute, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job

duties.

100. Labor Code § 1102.5 further prohibits an employer, or any person acting on behalf

of the employer, from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information, or because the

employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a person with

authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or

correct the violation or noncompliance, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the

information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance

with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is

part of the employee's job duties.

101. Labor Code § 1102.5 further prohibits an employer, or any person acting on behalf

of the employer, from retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that

would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a

local, state, or federal rule or regulation.

102. Beginning on or about March 2015, Plaintiffs complained to their managers, to

their supervisor (Redford), and to the Director of Mental Health (Hobson) about gender

discrimination, unsafe work conditions, and the improper detention of clients at the Clinic.


which subsequently investigated the Clinic.








- 17 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


recommended the client be sent to Rideout.

106. On or about January 19, 2016, Plaintiffs complained to Hobson that Redford

continued to harass them which they felt was in retaliation for their complaints about gender

discrimination and the Cal-OSHA complaint. John complained the policies and procedures were

in contradiction and that Plaintiffs continued to be subjected to physical violence by clients.

107. After Plaintiffs reported the foregoing illegal conduct, and as a result of Plaintiffs

reporting the illegal conduct and/or refusing to go along with it, the County, among other things,

threatened to prosecute Myers for fraud if he reported his injuries through the workers’

compensation system, continually subjected Plaintiffs to dangerous and unsafe work conditions,

harassed and criticized Plaintiffs over minor and trivial issues at work, wrote Plaintiffs up,

changed Myers’s work schedule, threatened to terminate Plaintiffs’ employment, and ultimately

constructively terminated Plaintiffs’ employment.

108. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to civil penalties pursuant to

Labor Code § 1102.5.







NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 6310




112. Labor Code § 6310 makes it unlawful for an employer to, among other things,

discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has made


- 18 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory

responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her

employer, or his or her representative.

113. Labor Code § 6310 further provides that any employee who is discharged,

threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in

the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has made a

bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory

responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her

employer, or his or her representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or

her employment or place of employment, or has participated in an employer-employee

occupational health and safety committee, shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for

lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.

















- 19 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
















TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 6311




123. Labor Code § 6311 provides that no employee shall be laid off or discharged for

refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, including Section 6400, any

occupational safety or health standard or any safety order of the division or standards board will

be violated, where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or his or

her fellow employees.

124. Labor Code § 6311 further providesthatany employee who is laid off or

discharged in violation of this section or is otherwise not paid because he or she refused to

perform work in the performance of which this code, any occupational safety or health standard or


- 20 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated and where the violation would

create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or his or her fellow employees shall have a right

of action for wages for the time the employee is without work as a result of the layoff or

discharge.

























- 21 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28








PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. For compensatory damages, including prejudgment interest, in an amount to be

proven at trial.

2. For punitive damages against Redford and Hobson.

3. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5.

4. For statutory attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1988.

5. For statutory attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b).

6. For declaratory relief that Defendant violated California’s Fair Employment and

Housing Act.

7. For injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate California’s

Fair Employment and Housing Act.

///

///

///

///


- 22 -

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. Any other relief or damages allowed by law, or statutes not set out above and such

further relief as the Court deems just and proper at conclusion of trial.

Dated: September 21, 2016

GALANTE LAW, INC. SETHI LAW FIRM

By: Ben J. Galante Rahul Sethi

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARTIN JOHN and WILLIAM MYERS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Martin John and William Myers hereby demand trial by jury.

Dated: September 21, 2016

GALANTE LAW, INC. SETHI LAW FIRM

By: Ben J. Galante Rahul Sethi

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARTIN JOHN and WILLIAM MYERS


ben galante (sbn 231394) galante law, inc.bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/appeal... · - 1 -...

Documents