emily gallup family court whistleblower lawsuit against nevada county superior court and court...

l �

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

Z7

28

M. Catherine Jones, California Bar No 133-939 Law Office of M. Catherine Jones Post Office Box 1128 Nevada City, California 95959 Telephone. (530) 478-1004 Fax: (530) 265-4004

Attorneys for Plaintiff Emily Gallup

FJLED .,._

APR 0 8 20U

Superior Court of �e State of Ca\iforma

Courm! of Nevada

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NEVADA

EMILY GALLUP, an individual,

Plaintiff

v

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEVADA

COUNTY, a public entlty, SEAN

METROK.A, an individual, THEA

P ALMIERE, an individual, CARMELLA

(SMITH) CELLINI, an indtvidual, and DOES

1 through 10

Defendants.

) Case No.

) 77382

)

)

)

) )

)

) )

)

)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 Violation of Fust Amendment and Due Process (42 U.S.C. §1983)

2. Retaliation for Blowing the Whistle I Labor Code § 1 102 S(b)

3. Retahatwn for Refusing to Engage m

Illegal Conduct I Labor Code § 1102.S(c)

4 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

_____________ ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Emtly Gallup ("Plamttff') alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

I. Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF NEVADA COUNTY ("Court") is a court of the

State of California and Plaintiffs former Employer.

2. Defendant CARMELLA CELLINI ("Celhm") was the Interim Director of Family Court


1 M CA 1 HERIN F. JONES

ATIORNEY AI LAW POSI OFFICEBOX 1128

NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (530) 478- 1004

Pat

SCFN-2014

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

Services ("FCS,') when the acts and omissions described herein took place and signed the "Nottce

of Intent to Dismiss from Employment" dated December 14, 2010.

3. Defendant SEAN METROKA ("Metroka") was at all relevant times the Court

Executive Officer for the Nevada County Courts.

4. Defendant THEA PALMIERE ("Palmtere) was at all relevant times the Human

Resources Director for the Nevada County Courts.

5. This is an action brought under Labor Code §1 102.5, 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Ftrst

Amendment and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which

provtdes that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of

law.

6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herem as DOES

I - 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names Plaintiff will

amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

7 Plaintiff is citizen of the United States and the state of California who currently resides

in Nevada City, Nevada County, California. Unless otherwise alleged, at all times material hereto,

Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant

8. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein occurred m Nevada County.

9. Plaintiff has timely filed a governmental tort claim, which was denied by letter dated

February 18, 20 1 1 A true and accurate copy of the denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

STATEMENT OF F ACTS

10. Plaintiff is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist who worked as a Mediator in the

Family Court Services Department of Nevada County ("FCS") from 2006 until December 2010.

1 1. Nevada County is what is known as a "recommending" county, because the Mediators

make written recommendations to the FCS Judge on the issues on whtch the parents cannot agree.

These recommendations are significant because they are usually ordered by the Judge

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M CATHERINEJONES

2 A 1TORNEY A I LAW POsr OFACE BOX 1128

NEVADA CITY, CA 959.59 (530) 478-1004

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

12. Plaintiff's employment as a FCS mediator began on an independent contractor basis in

August of 2006. She was hired by the Court as a regular employee in May 2008, continuing to

provide mediation services to litigants in family court with child custody and visitation issues.

13. Plaintiffs last physical day of employment at the Court was December 14, 2010, when

she received a "Notice oflntent to Terminate" signed by her supervisor, Carmella Smith Celhni,

the Interim Director of FCS. Plaintiff remained on administrative leave until December 21, 2010,

when a "Notice of Termination" was mailed to her from the Human Resources Director, Thea

Palmiere. Her termination was effective December 21, 2010.

14. Court mediators are governed, m part, by California Rules of Court ("CRC"), Rule

5.210, which "sets forth standards of practice and admimstration for court-connected child custody

mediation services that are consistent with the requirements of F amily Code sect1on 316 1. (In turn,

§316 1 provides that "The purposes of a mediation proceeding are as follows: (a) To reduce

acrimony that may exist between the parties. (b) To develop an agreement assunng the child close

and continuing contact with both parents that IS in the best interest of the child, consistent with

SectiOns 3011 and 3020. (c) To effect a settlement of the issue of visitation nghts of all parttes that

is in the best interest of the child.")

15. CRC Rule 5.210(d)(2)(A) requires each court-connected mediator to "(m)aintain an

overriding concern to integrate the child's best interest within the family context."

16 On Apnl 22, 2010, pursuant to §8.2 the Court's Personnel Policies and Procedures

Manual ("Personnel Manual"), Plaintiff filed a grievance against her employer, Defendant Court of

Nevada County, alleging that she was the victim of retaliation and harassment Christopher D

Burdick was selected by the parties from a list supphed by the California State ConciliatiOn and

Mediation Service ("CSMCS") to arbitrate the dispute. Under the Court' s grievance procedures,

the Arbitrator's award is final and binding. (Personal Manual at §8.2.3).

17. The hearing on the merits took place on September 22, 23, 24, and 28, 2010, after pre-


3 M CATHERINEJONES

ATJORNEY AI LAW POSl OFFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA C!l Y, CA 95959 (530) 478-1004

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

Z1

28

arbitration briefing and the arbitrator's dec1s10n concerning the scope of the gnevance. The parties

were allowed full opportunity to call and examine and cross-examme witnesses, to introduce

evidence, and to present their positions. The proceedings were transcribed by a Court Reporter.

The parties' wntten briefs were submitted on December 1, 2010. The Arbitrator thereafter

requested further briefing, which was submitted on or before December 27, 2010. The Arbitrator's

Award on the Grievance was issued electronically on February 6, 2011 and served by mail the

following day.

18 In his February 6, 2011 Arbitration Award (the "Arb. Award"), the Arbitrator found

that "Grievant Emily Gallup had reasonable cause to believe that Court's Family Court Services

department had violated or not complied with state statutes and rules of court in regards to

mediations reqmred by the Family Law Code and the California Rules of Court" and that "the �

Court took reprisal actiOns against Gallup for her repeatedly raising and discussing these Issues ... "

(Arb. Award at page 53-54).

19. The Arbitrator found that the "Court violated its own the "Open Door Policy", Section

8.1 of the Personnel Manual, by takmg reprisal actions against Gnevant when she complamed to

the Court's Facilitator and Commissioner and the Administrative Office of the Courts that the

Superior Court had violated or not complied with state statutes and rules of court in regards to the

mediations required by the Famtly Law Code and tlie Californta Rules of Court " (Arb. Award at

page 54)

20. The Arbitrator found that the "Court had also violated Sect10n 8 2.1 of the Policy

Manual, Grievance Procedures, (which promises employees that "(t)he Court will not take punit1ve

action against any employee for using the gnevance procedure") by taking reprisal actions against

Grievant for filing her Grievance, a Gnevance whtch complained to the Court's Facilitator and

Commissioner and the Administrative Office of the Courts that the Superior Court had violated or

not comphed with state statutes and rules of court in regards to the medtations reqmred by the

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M CAIHERINEJONES

4 A'l1 ORNEY A I LAW

POST OFFICE 'BOX ll'28

NEVADA CITY. CA 95959 (530) 478-1004

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

Family Law Code and the California Rules of Court." (Arb Award at page 54)

21. The Arbitrator found that the rules contamed in the Personnel Manual "were Imposed

on [Ms. Gallup] and are an implied-m-law ctvil service-type contract of adhesiOn." (Arb. Award at

page 52).

22. The Arbitrator found that the "Grievant at all times acted withm the "Code of Ethics for

Court Employees of California, Appendix A to the Court's Personnel Manual" and that she "acted

at all times within the parameters of the duties and responsibilities set forth m the Court's Job

Description for 'Family Court Mediator."' (Arb. Award at page 54).

23. A Performance Evaluation of the Plaintiff dated June 30, 2010 was descnbed by the

Arbitrator as "totally adverse," in sharp contrast to the excellent evaluat10n she had received just

four months pnor. Coupled with this negative evaluatiOn, Plaintiff lost her ment pay increase. She

also became subject to a "Performance Improvement Plan," or "PIP," in which she was told that if

her performance did not improve in certain md1cated areas she might lose her job. The Court's

major complaints against appear to be that ( 1) she did not get enough agreements and (2) she

exceeded the 60 to 90 minute lim1t placed on each mediation session.

24. The Arbitrator found the "June [201 0] Evaluat10n, 1ts resultmg loss of a merit increase

and the PIP" to be reprisal actions against the Plaintiff for usmg the grievance procedure, which

was held to be in violation of §8.2.1 of the Court's Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual

25. After filing her grievance in April, Plaintiff continued to work until July 2, 2010, when

she was placed on medical leave. She was released by her doctor to return to work prior to the

arbitration hearing, but the Court did not allow her to return until September 29, 2010, after the

arbitration hearing had concluded.

26 Plaintiff is a passionate advocate and supporter of children involved in the FCS

mediation process. Starting in late 2009, Plaintiff raised concerns about FCS's failure to follow

applicable legal and ethtcal mandates. The Arbitrator found that after she raised these concerns,


5

M CATHERINEJONES

AnORNEY AI LAW

POS1 OFFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA CII Y, CA 95959 (530) 478-t 004

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

Z7

28

she was retaliated against by her superiors. (Arb. Award at page 53-54). Both before and after her

return to work in late September, 2010, Plaintiff was subJect to excessive criticism and accusations

of behaving unethically, unprofessionally, of being ineffective (e.g not reaching enough

agreements), and of taking too long on cases. After she returned to work after the Arbitratton

hearing, her work continued to be constantly challenged by her supervisors and frequently

reasstgned to another mediator to re-do.

27. The Arbitrator found that the Court's delivery of a March 12, 2010 written reprimand

on the afternoon of Friday, April 2, 2010 just before Plaintiffs departure on a pre-planned foretgn

vacation was "conscious and intentional, a bad faith ef(ort to pressure Grievant" and that Mr.

Metroka's refusal to allow a few extra day for her response was "a bad fatth act calculated to .

pressure Grievant into comphance wtth the Court's approach and philosophy." (Arb. Award at

page 29).

28. The Arbitrator found that Ms Palmiere's and Mr. Metroka's "grievance investigations

were madequate, incomplete, not conducted thoroughly nor does it appear to have been impartial."

(Arb Award at page 53) In dtscussmg Mr. Metroka's "Step 2" review of Ms. Palmtere's tmtlal

denial of the gnevance, the Arbitrator was "compelled to conclude that thts perfunctory, superfic1al

review and pro forma rejection were done in bad faith - the PIP threatened Gnevant with

terminatiOn but Metroka could not bring himself to spend a few minutes to actually talk to her, in

private, and face-to-face, before affirming Ms. Palmiere's decision." (Arb. A�ard at page 38).

29. After her return to work in late September 2010, both Palmiere and Metroka contmued

to take punitive action against the Plaintiff because she had uttlized the grievance procedure and

because she continued, although to lesser extent, to challenge "the Court' s approach and its

philosophy" because she continued to beheve that FCS was not following applicable legal and

ethtcal mandates regarding court-connected child custody services and child custody medtatwn

30. During the first eight days of employment after her return from medical leave, Plaintiff


6 ATIORNEY Al LAW POsr OFI-lCE BOX 1128

NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (530) 4'18-1004

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

' 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

'M

ZJ

28

received 3 write-ups from Ms. Cellini criticizing her work performance under the PIP. A fourth

one was received three weeks later. The first write-up, dated October 5, 201 0 reprimanded

Plainttff for engaging in allegedly inappropriate "ex parte commumcation." Two more write-ups

dated October 8, 201 0 concerned "Professional Work Habits/Time Management" and "Core Job

Work Skills/Following Court Procedures." The fourth written PIP repnmand, dated October 28,

201 0, criticized Plaintiffs "Specific Job Skills" and her ability to "Effectively analyze problems

and make soumd [sic] recommendations."

3 1 In early November, 2010, Plaintiff, through her attorney, sought help from the Court's

counsel as she was in the midst of the grievance and arbitration process and felt that she was not

bemg treated fairly. After these discussions, the write-ups under the PIP ceased and all criticisms

(whtch did not cease) became verbal. Moreover, Plamtiffwas frequently chastised in the presence

of co-workers

32. On November 9, 20 10, Plamtiff was called into a disciplinary meeting with Ms. Cellini

(her supervisor) and Ms. Palmtere (the Human Resources Director) to discuss her performance

Ms. Cellini told her that the FCS Judge thinks that her gnevance was "a b1g waste of time." When

Plaintiff commented that the Judge had been openly hostile towards her, Ms. Cellim responded

wtth words to the effect of, "Well, I can't believe that you wouldn't expect fall-out because of all

the lies at the [arbitrat10n] hearing." When Plaintiff complained about the PIP being "such a

negative process" and asked about receivmg some positive feedback once and awhile, Ms. Celhni

responded that she couldn't expect any positive feedback because "1t takes all the energy I have

just to be civil to you after all the lies and accusations at the [arbitration] hearing."

33. On December 7, 20 1 0, Plaintiff received a formal written reprimand (her 5th write-up

since the Arbitration hearing) "for violatmg this Court's pohcy on the appropriate conduct of

mediation on November 30, 20 1 0." She was warned that failure to follow all procedures and

policies of this court "will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination."


7 A'rlORNEY All..AW POS r OFFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA Cll Y. CA 95959 (530) 478· \004

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

34. On Wednesday, December 8, 2010, Plaintiff found a 10-page document embedded in

other work, including hers, left on the office pnnter used by other mediators. The document was

later described by the Court as "confidential Journal entries wntten by Carmella Smith [Cellini] "

Plamtiff inadvertently made a copy of this document along with her own papers. Glancing at the

document, she quickly realized that 1t was all about her, and that it appeared to be part of an effort

to discredit her work performance. Plamtiffs name, "Emily," and often just the initial "E,"

appeared dozens of times She returned the origmal to the printer and took the copy home that

evening to read it.

35. On December 9, 2010, she brought the copy of the document to her attorney's office.

As a result of this meeting, she brought the copy back to her office and returned it to Ms. Cellim.

36. On December 10, 2010, Plaintiff was called into a disciplinary meeting with Ms.

Cellini, CEO Sean Metroka and HR Director Thea Palmiere. She was accused of violating the

confidentiality of the parties because she had shared Ms. Cellini's JOurnal entries about her with her

attorney. Mr. Metroka told Plaintiff that she had "no sense of right and wrong." Ms Palmiere told

her to expect "severe repercussions."

37. On December 14, 2010, Plaintiff received a "Nottce oflntent to Dtsmiss from

Employment." The Court claimed that the document Plamtiff shared w1th her attorney "contained

case specific confidential information." The reasons given for the dismissal were Plamtiff s

alleged violation of §§6 l(v) and 6.9 2 of the Court's Personnel Policies and Proced�res Manual

and violation of Tenet 4 of the Code of Ethics for Court Employees of California. §6 l(v) states

that the "disclosure of confidential information" is "unprofessiOnal and unacceptable " §6.9.2,

concerning Confidential Information, states, in part, that "Employees are expected to keep

confidential information secure from the public and from all persons who do not have a right to see

or use such informatton " Tenet 4 of the Code of Ethics sets forth a commitment to "Safeguard

confidential mformation, both written and oral, unless disclosure is authorized by the Court,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M CA1HER1NEJONES

8 ATTORNEY AI' LAW POS 1 OFFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA Cl rY. CA 95959 (530) 478-1004

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

'1:1

28

refusing ever to use such information for personal advantage, and abstain at all times from public

comment about pending Court proceedings, except for strictly procedural matters."

38. Plaintiff's attorney had a "right to see" the document wntten about her client, as the

parties were m the midst of the gnevance process, havmg submitted the matter to the Arbitrator

and awaiting the wntten Award. Many other documents with litiganfs names had previously been

submitted by the Court as evidence in the Arbitration and shared openly with Plaintiffs counsel

39. The "Notice of Intent to Dismiss" was delivered to Plamtiff at approximately 2 00 in

the afternoon on December 14th, after she had conducted a mediation in the morning and taught an

Orientation Class at 1 :00 pm to FCS litigants. Both Cellini and Palmi ere were at the termination

meeting, in which Plaintiff was told to gather up her personal belongings and leave the premises.

When she mentioned to Ms. Cellini that she hadn't had the chance to write up a status report from

the morning's mediation session, Ms. Cellini asked her how long that would take her to complete.

Ms. Palmiere suggested that mstead, Plaintiff could give a summary to Ms. Cellim so Ms. Cellini

could prepare the report.

40. Before she left on December 14, 2010, Ms. Celhm asked Plaintiff to hand over a legal

pad on which Plaintiff had been keeping personal notes about her work Despite the fact that

Plamtiff had been writmg the personal notes on her own time, usually after work or on her lunch

break, she was told that it was "Court property" and because it contained "confidential"

information about litigants she could not remove it from the courthouse. Plaintiffs request for a

redacted copy of her personal notes was refused by Ms. Cellini, who stated words to the effect of.

"now you know how it feels,'' presumably referring to Plaintiff's obtaining a copy of Ms. Cellini's

work journal (and showing it to her attorney, resultmg m her termination)

41. During the termination meeting on December 14, 2010, Plaintiff was also asked to

return her copies of the FCS's weekly calendar, on which she had wrttten notes about the time she

spent on each case and its disposition. These calendaring documents were for the time period after


9 ATrORNEY AI LAW

POST OFFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA CIIY, CA 95959 (530) 478-1004

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Zl

28

her return to work after the Arbitration hearing (m late September 2010) up to her termination. She

gave the calendars to Ms. Cellini and was escorted out of the building by Ms. Palmtere. Despite

offers made by both Plaintiff and her counsel to accept redacted copies of the calendars, they have

not been returned.

42. Similar calendaring documents were introduced by Plaintiff at the Arbitratton hearing

m September 20 I 0. The Arbitrator, noting that the "major complaint" agamst Ms Gallup was

"spending too much time on cases," held that this complaint "was not supported by any meaningful

analysis or data [from the Court], whereas Gallup tracked her cases, accounted for her face-to-face

and administrative/preparation time, and produced data [from her notes on the calendars] whtch is

rational, sensible, based over a lengthy period of time (as opposed to the Court's 'snapshot' of 8

random days, one of which was a Sunday) and shows a trend of steadily 'improving' results in the

tlme she spent." (Arb. Award at page 51)

43. The Court's failure to return Plaintiffs personal notes and calendars to her has

compromised her abihty to detail each and every fact underlymg her causes of action smce much of

the informatiOn contamed in those documents ts relevant to the pending lawsuit. Plaintiff reserves

the right to amend thts lawsuit when such facts have been ascertained.

DAMAGES '

44. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plamtiff has lost

back pay, front pay and other employment benefits including retirement, employment and career

opportunities, deprivation of a career opportunity and has suffered other economic loss in an

amount that exceeds $75,000.00, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

45 As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has

incurred legal costs, attorneys fees and costs of suit, the precise amount of which will be proven at

trial.

46. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has


10 M CATHERINEJONES

A ITORNEY A 1 LAW


NEVADA CIIY, CA 95959 (530) 478·1 004

1

2 suffered great anxiety, insomnia, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, loss of enjoyment of life, and

3 emotional distress in an amount which exceeds $75,000.00, the precise amount of which will be

4 proven at trial.

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

'12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2S

26

27

28

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Federal Due Process Law (42 U.S.C. §1983)

(As Against Defendants METROKA, P ALMIERE, and CELLINI)

4 7. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the

allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, above

48. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides· "Every person who,

under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other

person within the JUnsdiction thereof to the depnvation of any rights, privileges, or Immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.,

49. The Ftrst Amendment of the United States Constitution gives all citizens the right of

free speech.

50. Plaintiff has exercised her free speech rights by speakmg out about the legal and

ethical obligations of the Family Court Services department of the Superior Court of Nevada

County.

5 1 As a result of the exercise of her free speech rights, Plaintiff has been subject to a

hostile, oppressive and intimidating work environment, retaliation and termination from her job, all

in vtolation of the First Amendment to the United States ConstitutiOn.

52 The Fourteenth Amendment of the Umted States ConstitutiOn makes 1t illegal for any

state to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

53. Plaintiffs personal notes on the legal pad confiscated from her when she was

terminated from employment is her own personal property, as were the notes she had written on

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M CA lHE.RINEJONES

1 1 A nORNEY A 1 LA W


NEVADA CIIY. CA 95959 (530) 478.)004

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

1:1

28

her weekly calendars that were also confiscated. Any potential confidentiality ISsues could have

been resolved with her offer to accept redacted copies, but no such offer was required since the

names of the htigants are pubhc record. The confiscation of these notes and calendars was in

violat10n of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, and each of them, Plaintiff has

suffered damages as set forth herein.

55. Pursuant to Section 1988, subdivision (b) of Title 42 of the United States Code,

Plaintiff is entttled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation for Whistleblowing

Labor Code §1102.5(b) (As Against COURT)

56 Plamtiff realleges and mcorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the

allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 4 7, inclusive, above

57. Labor Code §1102 S(b) provides that" "An employer may not retahate against an

employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the

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

federal statute."

58. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she complained to her supervisor and

other court management that Family Court Services was not providing services m compliance with

court rules, regulations or policies and m compliance with Family Code statutes.

59 Plamtlff is informed and beheves, and thereon alleges, that acts of which she

complained were a contnbuting factor in the Court's decision to retaliate against her by terminating

her employment.

60 As a direct and proximate result of the Court's unlawful employment practices,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M CA rHE.RlNEJONES

12 ATtORNEY AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA Cl1 Y, CA 95959 (.530) 4'78-1004

1

2 Plaintiff suffered damages as set forth herein.

3 61. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021 5, Plamtiff is entitled to recover attorneys'

4 fees from Defendant Court.

5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as hereinafter set forth.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tl

Retaliation for Refusing to Engage in Illegal Conduct Labor Code §1102.5(c) (As Against COURT)

62. Plamttff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the

allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, above.

63 Labor Code§ 11 02.5(c) provides states that "(a)n employer may not retaliate agamst an

employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result m a violation of state or federal

statute, or a violation or noncompliance w1th a state or federal rule or regulation "

64. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she was retaliated against

because she refused to participate in the FCS Mediation practices promulgated by the Nevada

County Court because they were not being conducted in accordance with the Family Law Code and

the California Rules of Court.

65. As a direct and proximate result of the Court's unlawful employment practices,

Plaintiff suffered damages as set forth herein

66. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, Plainttff is entitled to recover attorneys'

fees from Defendant Court

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as hereinafter set forth.

28 //


13 M CA I HcRINE JONES

ATIORNEY Al LAW POS I OfFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA Cl l Y. CA 95959 (530) 478·1004

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

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(As Against All Defendants)

67. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the

allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, above

68 By its harassment, intimidation and differential treatment of Plamtiff, Defendants have

acted outrageously and wrth reckless disregard of the foreseeable consequences to Plamt1ff.

69 The conduct of Defendants was mtentionally and unreasonably or maliciously engaged

in for the purposes of intimidating Plamtiff and was further done to cause Plaintiff humrhation,

frustration, fear, emotional injury and distress.

70 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer shock, anger, mental anguish, frustration, humiliation and

emotional distress. All of Plaintiffs damages are in an amount to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as hereinafter

set forth.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff requests the JUdgment of this court against Defendants as follows:

a. For back pay, front pay, lost benefits including medical insurance, retirement and other

special damages according to proof;

b. For general damages in an amount according to proof;

c. For other and further damages against Defendant, including compensatory damages for

Plaintiffs emotional distress, in an amount accordmg to proof;

d. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred, including expert witness fees,

e For costs of suit;

f. For any allowable mterest, includmg prejudgment mterest, at the legal rate and on all

amounts clmmed; and


14 M CA fHERlNE JONES

AlTORNEY AI LAW POS1 OFFICE BOX 1128

NEVADA CITY. CA 95959 (530) 478-1004

1

2 g For any other further relief that this Court considers just and proper

3 April 7, 2011 Law Office of M. Catherine Jones

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

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M CA1HERINEJONES

15 A ITORNEY A 1 I.A W

POS r OFACE BOX 1128 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959

(530) 478-1004

Pat

SFCN-2014-Full

emily gallup family court whistleblower lawsuit against nevada county superior court and court...

Documents