theida salazar sbn: 295547 law offices of...

Case 4:19-cv-01394 Document 1 Filed 03/14/19 of 26

1 THEIDA SALAZAR SBN: 295547 LAW OFFICES OF THEIDA SALAZAR

2 2140 North Hollywood Way #7 192 Burbank, CA 91510

3 Telephone: (818) 433-7290

4 Facsimile: (818) 436-4009 salazarlawgroup@ gmail.com

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff, HOW ARD HOLT 6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOW ARD HOLT, an individual,

Plaintiff,

V.

CITY OF OAKLAND, a government entity; OAKLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT, a government entity; DARREN WHITE in his official and individual capacities; and Does 1 through 50,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. Negligence; 2. Breach of Contract; 3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good

Faith and Fair Dealing; 4. Race and Age Discrimination, Cal.

Gov. Code§ 12940 (a) et seq.; 5. Retaliation, Cal. Gov. Code§ 12940

(a) et seq.; 6. Failure to prevent Discrimination,

Cal. Gov. Code§ 12940 (a) et seq.; 7. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Racial

Discrimination; 8. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Retaliation; 9. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Racial

Discrimination; 10. Violationof42 U.S.C. § 1981

Retaliation; 11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress; and 12. Tortious Interference with Economic

Advantage

REQUEST FOR PUNITICE DAMAGES PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


Plaintiff Howard Holt ("plaintiff Holt" or "Captain Holt") by and through his

2 attorneys allege as follows:

3

4

5 INTRODUCTION

6 1. PlaintiffHOLT HAS BEEN SERVING the city of Oakland, California as a

7 firefighter for 27 years. In 2000 he was promoted to Lieutenant and in 2003 he

8

9 was promoted to Captain. Captain Holt served in multiple capacities during his

10 27-year tenure including but not limited to defendant OFD's Bart Committee,

11 CZ::~ <-~~o 12 < >;;; ~<; Vl 3: <

13 <oz: :: 0 CZ:: woo ::: ~ ... 14 I- -.... ..l ..l 0 ..:ii:) Vl 0 • 15 l<I :i: ::.i::

High Rise Committee, and its Open House Project as well as mentored local

youth via the OFD/YMCA mentoring program.

2. Outside of serving the citizens of Oakland for over a quarter of a century in an

esteemed and professional regard, Plaintiff is a 58-year old loving father and a u z - ::c < .... I- CQ

16 .... CZ:: a: 0 0 ;:J

?;: ~ CQ <.,,. 17 ..l -N

husband of 29 years. Plaintiff has a daughter who is a professional athlete in

Switzerland and a son who was convicted of arson in December 2017, which is 18

the subject of this complaint. 19

20 JURISDICITON AND VENUE

21 3. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. §§ 198l(A), 2000 AND 1983. Plaintiff Holt

22 invokes jurisdiction over his federal claim pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 23

§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The acts and practices that are the subject of this 24

25 complaint, occurred in the County of Alameda, California, within this judicial

26 district.

27 4. Jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §

28 1367. The state law claims are related to the claims brought pursuant to the

- I -COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


original jurisdiction of the court and form part of the same case and controversy

2 under Article III of the United States Constitution.

3

4 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants as the legal violations

5 occurred in Alameda County, and the defendants conduct business in Alameda

6 County, which is located within this judicial district.

7

8 6. Assignment to the San Francisco Division of the United States District Court for

9 the Northern District of California is appropriate pursuant to Northern District

10 Local Rule 3-2(d).

11 ci:: ~ <: -N~c 12 <;;..iii ~ < ;:: (./) ?: <:

13 <:Q-e o ii IOI 0 0 :c ~"'" 14 !- .... ::3 "'" .... <: 0 .... u (./) 0 . 15 IOI: ;:,i:: u z - :c <: "'"I-= 16 "'"ci:: ci:: 0 0 :i ~~= <: ..,. 17 .... -M

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Holt is a United States Citizen. Plaintiff Holt is an African American

male. Plaintiff Holt has worked for defendants City of Oakland and OFD for 27

years. Plaintiff Holt has exhausted all administrative remedies. Plaintiff Holt filed

a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

18 ("DFEH") on or about June 14, 2018. Plaintiffs right to sue letter was issued by

19 the DFEH on November 7, 2018 and Plaintiff Holt assigned and closed DFEH

20 Case Number 201806-02644319.

21 8. Defendant City of Oakland ("City") is and at all times mentioned herein, a public

22

23 entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

24 9. Defendant Oakland Fire Department ("OFD") is now and at all times mentioned

25 herein, a department within the city of Oakland."

26 10. Defendant Darren White ("Defendant White") is an employee and agent of

27

28 Defendant City of Oakland. Defendant Darren White is the Fire Chief of the OFD

- 2 -COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


and was plaintiff Holt's supervisor at times material to this complaint. Defendant

2 Darren White acted within the scope of his employment and agency with the

3

4 Defendant City of Oakland and Defendant OFD at all times. Plaintiff Holt sues

5 defendant Darren White in his official and individual capacity.

6 11 . The true names and capacities of defendants named as DOES 1 through 50,

7 inclusive, are presently unknown to plaintiff, who therefore sues said individual

8

9 and corporate entity defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this

10 Complaint when that information is discovered. Plaintiff is informed and

I I a:~ <-N ~:: 12 < >- "' ~ < ;: "" ::: < 13 <o;z = 0 a: woo ::i: ~ t... 14 ..... -t... ...l ...l 0 ...l <5 ""0 . 15 w :: ::.::

believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the fictitious defendants has

participated in the acts alleged herein.

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant

times, each defendant, whether named or fictitious, was the agent or employee of u .,. ;z ii:!==< t... a:= 16 0 0 a:

z ::> ~ = ~~ 17 - ....

each of the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged to have been done in

the complaint, acted within the scope of such agency or employment, or ratified 18

the acts of the others and each of the fictitious defendants participated as alleged 19

20 herein.

21

22 FACTS 23

13. Defendant OFD MOU Section 4.4.2.4 provides Bargaining unit members with th 24

25 greatest department seniority who have (1) attained a fully effective of better

26 overall performance appraisal (2) completed the course work to be eligible for

27 testing to the promoted rank, (3) attained the applicable and effective Department

28



certification denied Fire Department policy, and ( 4) are eligible to take the

2 promotional exam shall be assigned to an acting higher rank position.

3

4 14. Maria Sabatini was Acting Assistant Fire Marshall (hereinafter "AAFM") from

5 January 2017-December 2017 when she retired from defendant City.

6 15.Accordingly, the AAFM position is then offered in order-based upon a list of

7 qualified members in order of seniority (A true and correct copy of the list is

8

9 attached (Exhibit I)).

10 16.As Captain Lawrence Hom, was next on the list, based on seniority, he was

11 et:~ < -~ !;t ~ 12 <;;..I/') ...l < -< - °' (/) ~<

13 <Q-QOZ - 0 et: t.J ~ 0 ::c: ~ ~ 14 ......... :s ~ ..J < o ..J u Cl) 0 . 15 t.J = ::.i::

offered the AAFM position. Captain Hom declined the appointment and called

Plaintiff Holt and informed him he was not accepting the position and that by

way of seniority and hierarchy, as well as Defendant OFD's appointment

protocol, Plaintiff would be offered the position. u -z --< ~ ..... cc

16 ~et: et: 0 0 ::> :s: ~ cc <~ 17 ...l -N

17. Plaintiff Holt has been an employee of defendant City for twenty-seven years,

serving in numerous positions with its Fire Department, working his way up the 18

ranks from firefighter to Captain. 19

20 18. On or about December 9, 201 7 Plaintiff Holt's son was convicted of arson in

21 Napa County Superior Court.

22 19. On or about December 15, 2017, Eric Logan (Battalion Chief) called Plaintiff

23 Holt and offered him the position of Acting Assistant Fire Marshall, which he

24

25 accepted.

26 20. On or about January 2, 2018 Plaintiff HOLT was informed by Battalion Chief

27 Logan that defendant City was rescinding its December 15, 2017 offer. Plaintiff

28 was in Puerto Vallarto, Mexico, with his wife on vacation and requested to



address this matter upon his return. Nevertheless, Battalion Chief Logan told

2 Captain Holt, he would not be offered the AAFM position because of "what is

3

4 going on with your son" .

5 21. On or about January 8, 2018 Communication #01-18 was issued to all staff by

6 defendant OFD stating "the current operation and Support Services

7 Administration Officer, Firefighter-Paramedic Emmanuel Watson will be serving

8

9 as Acting Assistant Fire Marshall.

10 22. On or about January 15, 2018 defendant Darren White was at a Firefighter Union

11 a: ~ <-N~c= 12 <;;..;;; ~ <;; Vl ~ <

13 <o-:: 0 ~ t.l 0 0 :i: ~"" 14 !- -""...l ...l 0 ...l ('5 Vl 0 • 15 i;ol = ~

sponsored basketball tournament at Merit College and approached by Plaintiff

Holt who inquired why he rescinded the position. Defendant White stated,

"because of what's going on with your son", he would not be allow in the

position. u :i: z ;:- !- < ~ a: = 16 0 0 f5 :::: ~ = <..,, 17 ...l -N

23. Captain Holt then inquired "do you even know what happened", "he was

framed". Captain Holt then stated, "I wish you would have talked to me and got 18

the facts before making a decision like that". Defendant White then rebuffed "I 19

20 know how it is, my father went to prison".

21 24.PlaintiffHolt walked away from defendant White and was approached by Union

22 Steward, Jim Whitty and Plaintiff discussed the conversation he had with 23

defendant White and Whitty stated "he can't do that", in reference to the actions 24

25 of defendant White.

26 25 . Later that day at the basketball tournament, Local 55 President Don Robertson

27 and Plaintiff were discussing the Assistant Fire Marshall Position and what

28 defendant White stated. President Robertson stated Defendant White could not



offer the position to someone else and asked Plaintiff if he wanted him to talk

2 with defendant White; Plaintiff responded "yes, because I want the position" .

3

4 26. On or about January 16, 2018 Plaintiff and President Robertson had a follow up

5 discussion with Plaintiff and informed him that "Chief White said he is not

6 putting you into that position and if you push it, he will change the process and

7 just leave the position open until they give a test".

8

9 27. On or about January 22, 2018 Plaintiff took the written test for Battalion Chief.

10 28. On or about January 23, 2018 Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the Acting

11 a::~ <-N~~ 12 < > an ...l < -< > C\ <n ... <.

13 <. Q z e o a:: '-l 0 0 ::: ~"" 14 f- .... :i ~ ..J < 0 ...l u <n 0 ':!l 15 '-l =

Assistant Fire Marshall Position ("AAFM") not being given to him, when it

should have based upon Defendant OFD protocol, guidelines and standards. The

grievance was also filed based upon the statements of Defendant White.

29. On or about February 2, 2018, defendant White did change the process to be u..,. :z - - <. "" f- a:i 16 ""a:: a: 0 0 ::;) ~ ! a:i <. ...,. 17 ...l -N

AAFM, as he stated he would to President Robertson just two weeks prior.

Defendant OFD issued communication # 12-18 was issued announcing Defendant 18

OFD would be making a provisional appointment for the Assistant Fire Marshall, 19

20 (Sworn) assignment until completion of the recruitment for the position and

21 invited interested members must apply for the provisional opportunity with a

22 deadline of February 16, 2018 (Exhibit II). 23

30. On or about February 6, 2018 Defendant White denied the Plaintiff's grievance. 24

25 31. On or about February 15, 2018 Captain Holt applied for the Assistant Fire

26 Marshall (Sworn) assignment.

27 32. On or about February 22, 2018 a Step 3 meeting was held with Charles Garcia

28 IAFF, Plaintiff Holt, and Janelle Smith of Employee Relations and it was



confirmed that there was "no reason stated" as to why Plaintiff was denied the

2 opportunity to Act Higher Rank.

3

4 33. On or about February 25, 2018 Defendant OFD issued a Communications

5 specifying Emmanuel Watson would not be serving in the capacity of AAFM.

6 34. Captain Holt consistently received favorable employee evaluations and

7 consistently received favorable reports of performance and was never adversely

8

9 rated in evaluations. Moreover, his work ethic was continuously identified as

10 exceptional.

II CZ::~ <-N t- .: 12 <,.. -...l >.,. < < ;: Cl)~~

13 <Q-QOZ -oci:: t.l - 0 :r:: .... '"' 14 ~ > ::::s '"'...l < 0 ...l u Cll 0 • 15 lol = ~ u .... z - ;- < ""' .... cc 16 ""'CZ:: e::: 0 0 ::i ~ ~ cc < ... 17 ...l -N

35. Lieutenant Felicia Bryant was "appointed" AAFM April 2018.

36. On or about June 8, 2018 Battalion Chief ("B.C.") Logan offered the AAFM

position to Captain Holt and stated, "you won your grievance" and you "start

Monday June 11, 2018". Captain Holt inquired "what did I win" as the position

was designated for him in December 2017. B.C. Logan responded, "you have to

call your Union Rep" (Lieutenant Chuck Garcia) and ask him. 18

37. Immediately after the call, Plaintiff called Lieutenant Garcia and informed him of 19

20 the conversation with B.C. Logan. Lieutenant Garcia was unaware of the offer

21 and called the City Attorney's Office, who stated Plaintiff could start the position

22 June 11, 2018 ifhe would release the Defendants, and each of them, from any 23

liability. 24

25 38.However, due to his morals, values, and the fact he was the only African-

26 American Male on the list of qualified members in order of seniority, Captain

27 Holt believed it wrong if he accepted the offer, after the fact.

28



39. On or about June 14, 2018 Captain Holt filed a claim with CA Department of Fai

2 Employment and Housing (Case# 201806-02644319) and the EEOC (#27A-

3

4 2019-00102-C).

5 40. This situation created by defendants, and each of them created a Hostile Work

6 Environment for Plaintiff, as he was denied promotional opportunities (due to his

7 race and or age), retaliated against, and made a mockery of- after 27 years of

8 excellent service.

9

10 41. Defendants White and OFD tainted defendant City's administration and called

11 0:: ~ <-j~= 12 .. ->"' < ~;: rJ'J::: < 13 <c-coz - 0 0:: "" ~ 0 :::c ... "'" 14 E-'.>-"'"...l ...l 0 ...l ~ Cl) 0 • 15 "" =::.::

into question the integrity of Captain Holt, his ability to lead, and usurped his

authority before his peers and subordinates.

42. Defendant White abused his position and Defendant's City and OFD put Captain

Holt in a position where he will not be able to participate as a regular member of u ... z --< "'"E- = 16 to. 0:: 0:: 0 0 ;:i ::: ~ = < "<t' 17 ...l -N

defendant OFD in the future.

43. Moreover, Defendant White' s willful disregard of Captain Holt's designation of 18

the position by seniority, consistent with MOU provision 4.4.2.4 was an action to 19

20 deny a promotion to a properly qualified African American which is

21 discriminatory, unlawful, wrong, and worthy of imposition of punitive damages.

22

23

24 CAUSES OF ACTION

25

26 FIRSTCAUSE OF ACTION

27 (Negligence Against All Defendants)

28



44. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the

2 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

3

4 45. Defendants City and OFD, had a duty to use ordinary care in ensuring that

5 Captain Holt was not harmed in their employ. 6

46. Defendants and each of them breached their duty to Captain Holt and as a result, 7

8 he was harmed and suffered damages.

9 4 7. Defendants City and OFD breached their duty to comply with the Bargaining

10 Agreement entered into between Defendants COO and OFD as Plaintiff Holt was

11 a: ~ <( -N ~ :: 12 < >.,., ..l < -< >"' en .. <

13 <c;z e Oo::: ""Oo ?= ~::: 14 I"" ..l '"'..l < 0 ..l u gJ ~ ~ 15 u-z ii:;"'< '"'ii= 16 0 0 e: ~ :z; <~ 17 ..l-

"'

a third-party beneficiary to which a duty was owed as he was privy to the

agreement.

48. Defendants City and OFD breached their duty to properly supervise Defendant

White and prevent him discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff Holt and

acting in a manner to cause harm to Plaintiff.

18 49. Defendants City, OFD, and White breached a duty owed to Plaintiff to fully and

19 fairly investigate all grievances, including but not limited to Plaintiff Holt's

20 grievance, which was denied on February 6, 2018.

21 50. Defendants, and each of them, breached the above duties by failing or refusing to

22

23 adequately or properly investigate the grievance made by Plaintiff, by denying

24 such grievance, and by failing to Protect Plaintiff from Discrimination and

25 Retaliation.

26 51. Defendant White also breached its duty to Captain Holt by failing to promote him

27

28 accordingly, consistent with M.0.U. 4.4.2.4.



52. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants negligence, and each

2 of them, Plaintiff Holt has suffered special and compensatory damages, great

3

4 mental anguish and physical distress including emotional distress, discomfort,

5 anxiety, annoyance, and inconvenience. Accordingly, Plaintiff Holt seeks genera

6 and special damages against Defendants in an amount according to proof at trial.

7

8

9

10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

11 IX ~ <: -N~= 12 < >.,, ~<~ (/) ::: <:

13 <o-ooz - 0 IX ll;l - 0 = ~'"" 14 f- -'""..J ~ 0 ..Ju (/) 0 • 15 '-l = ::.i:: u ... z ... - < '""f- = 16 '"" IX IX 0 0 ::J

~!= <..,. 17 ..J -....

(Breach of Contract Against All Defendants)

5 3. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the

preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.

54. Defendant OFD offered the AAFM position to Plaintiff, which he accepted, then

Defendant rescinded the offer and placed a lesser qualified individual in the

18 position (Emmanuel Watson).

19 55 . Defendants offer and Plaintiffs acceptance constituted a contract that was

20 breached. This breach proximately caused the harm incurred by Captain Holt.

21

22 56.PlaintiffHolt is also a third-party beneficiary of Defendants City and the

23 International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 55 entering into a

24 Collective Bargaining Agreement ("Agreement") regarding Plaintiff Holt's

25

26 position, benefits, and services.

27 57. Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendants City and OFD had a duty to use

28 ordinary care in complying with the Agreement. The Agreement also provides



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 a: ~ <-N~Q 12 < >;;; ~ < ;: <I) ::"; <

13 <Q-Qo~ ~90 ~ ~ :: 14 ... ..J ..J 0 ..J <5 <I) 0 . 15 ~ = ::.i: u-z - ..... < ... !- = 16 ... a: a: 00~ ~~= <..,. 17 ..J -M

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that Defendants City and OFD will fully and fairly investigate all grievances in

accordance with the agreement.

58. The Agreement also provides for zero liability protection for discriminatory

practices and unauthorized discretions.

59. Plaintiff Holt has performed and continues to perform all his obligations in an

impeccable manner, except those obligations that have been excused, of which

performance was impossible, or that have been prevented by Defendants.

60. Defendants City and OFD breached the Agreement by failing to adequately or

properly investigate the January 23, 2018 grievance made by Plaintiff Holt, by

denying such grievance, and by failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of

the Agreement.

61. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants breach of the

Agreement, Plaintiff has incurred compensatory damages in an amount to be

proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against All Defendants)

62. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as fully set forth herein.

63. Defendant OFD breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by

offering Plaintiff the AAFM position which was then rescinded as alleged in

paragraph 2 7.

64. Plaintiff Holt has performed all acts required of him under the duties and

obligations he swore in an oath to uphold for Defendants City and OFD.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

11 c:i: ~ <-N l;i; o 12 j >;;; < <;; Vl :::: <

13 <o-oo~ -o-:;: - 0

14 i= ~::; i:.....:; -0 ...l 25 Vl 0 . 15 '"' = ::i:: u :c ;z ~ !-- < i:.. c:i: = 16 0 0 c:: z ;;;i ~o= <..,. 17 ...l -.....

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

65. Defendant OFD offered the AAFM position to Plaintiff, which he accepted, then

Defendant rescinded the offer and placed a lesser qualified individual in the

position (Emmanuel Watson) and then removed Watson from the position and

altered the selection process to manipulate the fact they had discriminated against

Captain Holt.

66. Defendants and each of them breached their duties to Plaintiff in bad faith and

chose to discriminate against Captain Holt and treat him differently because of

his race and age even though Plaintiff was the proper appointee based on

Defendants own protocol, guidelines, and standards.

67. As a proximate result of Defendants, and each of their breaches of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Holt has suffered compensatory

and consequential damages in an amount according to proof at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Racial and Age Discrimination Against Defendants City of Oakland and Oakland Fire

Department pursuant to California Government Code Section et. Seq. 12940 et seq.)



69. Defendants City and OFD intentionally discriminated against Captain Holt on the

basis of his race and/or age and forced him to work under conditions that other

employees were not subject to.

70. Defendants City and OFD are an employer subject to California Government

Code§ 12940 et seq.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 a: ~ <-N 1;;; = 12 < >;;:; ~ < ;: en ~ <

13 <o-Qo~ ~l?o ~~~ 14 .... ..J ..J 0 ..J ~ en 0 , 15 l;l = ::.i:: u ... ;z ii:~< .... a:= 16 oo~ ~~iii <..,. 17 ..J -....

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

71 . Defendants to this cause of action discriminated against Captain Holt by failing t

promote him based on his race and age.

72. Defendants to this cause of action otherwise discriminated against Captain Holt

by failing to promote him as alleged in this complaint on the basis of his race and

age, through its employees, agents, and assigns.

73. Plaintiff is an African American Male and is fifty-eight years of age which was a

substantial factor behind Defendants refusal to promote Captain Holt.

74. Defendants unlawful conduct as alleged herein constitutes a violation of

California Government Code§ 12940 et seq.

75. Plaintiff Holt has been harmed by the discriminatory and unlawful conduct

inflicted upon him.

76. Defendants to this cause of action were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff

harm.

77. The above conduct by Defendant was a scheme intended to defraud the public .

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation Against Defendants City of Oakland and Oakland Fire Department pursuant to

California Government Code Section et seq. 12940 et seq.)



79. Defendants to this cause of action retaliated against Plaintiff Holt after he filed a

grievance against Defendants White and OFD on the grounds of discrimination

that he was subject to and forced to endure disparate treatment.

80. Captain Holt was repeatedly denied his rightful promotion based on the unlawful



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 a:~ <-N~o 12 < >;;:; ~<~ V> :i: <

13 <Q-QOZ -oci:: t.i 0 :c ~"" 14 !-- -""...l ..J 0 ...l ~ V> 0 • 15 t.i = ~ u ... z ~ f: < i;.. a:= 16 0 0 a: ::: ~ ~ <""' 17 ...l -N

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discrimination and retaliation against him for asserting his tight to properly be

promoted.

81. Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against Plaintiff and denied plaintiff his

rightful promotion.

82. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that the interview process for the position was

altered and the interviewing committee was changed in an effort to preclude

fairness and equity.

83. Plaintiff Hold was harmed by defendant's unlawful conduct.

84. Defendants retaliation was a substantial factor in causing his harm and Plaintiff

seeks the relief prayed for herein.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Racial Discrimination)

(Against Defendant Darrin White)

85 . Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation


86. Defendant White acted under color of state law in causing the harm alleged

herein.

87. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendant White willfully and without

justification deprived Plaintiff Holt of his rights, privileges and immunities as

secured to him by the laws and Constitution of the United States. All

Constitutional rights covered, specifically including the due process and equal

protection rights as afforded by the 14th (Fourteenth Amendment) in violation of

42 U.S.C. § 1983. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for the relief as set forth herein.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 C:: M

<~ N !jj; <=> 12 < ;;.. ;n ...l < -< - "' rJ'J::.: <

13 <Q;z :: 0 c:: t.l 0 0 ::i: ~ '- 14 ..... -'- ...l ~ 0 ...l u en 0 • 15 t.l :i: " u ... :z --..i: '- ..... CQ 16 '- c:: c:: oo ~ ~~= <..,,. 17 ...l -M

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION


(Against Defendant Darrin White)



89. Defendant White acted under color of state law in causing the harm alleged

herein.

90. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendant White intentionally, willfully and

without justification, did retaliate against Plaintiff Holt because of his protective

activity in opposing racial, ethnic, and age discrimination in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1983. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for the relief as set forth herein .

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION


(Against All Defendants)



92. Plaintiff confronted Defendant OFD Chief White about the discrimination he was

perpetrating against him in refusing to promote him based on his race.

93. Plaintiff filed a grievance with Defendant City and informed Defendant OFD

Chief White that he would pursue his legal rights if he continued his

discrimination against him based on age and race.

94. In response, Defendant OFD Chief White retaliated against Plaintiff further and

refused to promote him and tampered with the interview process.



95. Plaintiff Holt engaged in protected activity, and Defendant OFD Chief White

2 knew Plaintiff was engaged in protected activity when he decided to retaliate

3

4 against him.

5 96. As a result of engaging in protected activity, Defendants retaliated against

6 Plaintiff Holt in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for

7 the relief as set forth herein.

8

9 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Retaliation)

11 0:: ~

;s ~ ~ 12 j;;...,, < ~ ;, en ~ < 13 <: Q-QOZ - 0 0:: w 0 :::: ~'"' 14 f- -'"'..J ~ o ..J u en 0 • 15 w =~ u ... z --< '"' f- CQ 16 '"' 0:: ..... 005 ~ ! CQ <...,. 17 ..J -N

(Against All Defendants)



98. Plaintiff confronted Defendant OFD Chief White about the discrimination he was

perpetrating against him in refusing to promote him based on his age and race.

99. Plaintiff filed a grievance with Defendant City and informed Defendant OFD 18

19 Chief White that he would pursue his legal rights if he continued his

20 discrimination against him based on age and race.

21 100. In response, Defendant OFD Chief White retaliated against Plaintiff

22 further and refused to promote him and tampered with the interview process.

23 101. Plaintiff Holt engaged in protected activity, and Defendant OFD Chief

24

25 White knew Plaintiff was engaged in protected activity when he decided to

26 retaliate against him.

27

28



102. As a result of engaging in protected activity, Defendants retaliated against

2 Plaintiff Holt in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 . WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for

,, ..)

the relief as set forth herein. 4

5

6 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7

8 (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Racial Discrimination)

9 (Against All Defendants)

10 103. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

11 ci:: ~ <-N ~ <:> 12 < > ;;; ..J < -< > "' V'l , <

13 <c-co z - 0 ci::

~~~ 14 f- ... :::3 loo ..J < 0 ..Ju V'l 0 . 15 t.l = ~


104. Plaintiff confronted defendant OFD Chief White about the discrimination

he was perpetrating against him in refusing to promote him based on his age and

race. u - z ~ f: < loo a:= 16 0 0 ci::

z;;;;. ~ C> = <..,. 17 ..J -N

105. Plaintiff filed a grievance with defendant City and informed Defendant

OFD Chief White that he would pursue his legal rights if he continued his 18

19 discrimination against him based on age and race.

20 106. In response, defendant OFD Chief White retaliated against Plaintiff

21 further and refused to promote him and tampered with the interview process.

22 107. Plaintiff Holt engaged in protected activity, and defendant OFD Chief

23

24 White knew Plaintiff was engaged in protected activity when he decided to

25 retaliate against him.

26 108. As a result of engaging in protected activity, Defendants retaliated against

27 Plaintiff Holt in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for

28 the relief as set forth herein.



2

..,

.)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 ~~ <-N~~ 12 < >"' ..J < -< > °' "' .,. < 13 <o;z eo~ ""Oo :I::::: ... 14 !- > :3 ~ ..J < 0 ..Ju "' 0 . 15 ""= ~ u ... z ii: i= < ... ~ c: 16 oo~ ~ 2: cQ <~ 17 ..l -....

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 109. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation


110. Defendants ' conduct as alleged herein is extreme and outrageous and

designed to inflict emotional distress against the Plaintiff.

111 . Defendants' conduct was deliberate and intentional.

112. Defendants' acts, statements and actions as alleged in this complaint cause

plaintiff to suffer extreme embarrassment, mental and physical anguish and

distress.

113. It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendants' acts, statements and actions

as alleged herein would cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme embarrassment, mental

and physical anguish and distress. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for relief as ser

forth herein.

TWELTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Interference with Economic Advantage)

Against Defendant White


contained in the preceding paragraphs as fully set forth herein

115. Interference with Economic advantage requires an economic relationship

between Plaintiff and a third party; with the probability of future economic

benefit to Plaintiff; Defendant' s knowledge of the relationship; and their

intentional, wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; and actual



disruption, and proximately caused economic harm.

2 116. CA Law allows for the recovery of damages for the intentional interference with an

3 at-will-employment relation and Plaintiff asserts that Defendant White engaged in an

4

5 independently wrongful act, as required to recover damages for tortious interference.

6 117. Captain Holt is in the golden years of his career and was respected and revered by

7 many. Nevertheless, Defendant White sought to disrupt the growth, development, and

8 trajectory of Plaintiffs career and was aware of his actions and the consequences they

9 would have on the career of Captain Holt.

10 118. Defendant Whites actions have proximately caused Captain Holt harm, precluded hi

11 0:: ~ <-N~o 12 < >;;:; ..J < -< > °' Cl'l .... < 13 <o-oo z - 0 0::

~~~ 14 ........ ::i ""..J < o ..Ju <:ll 0 . 15 '"' =::.::

economic growth, and hindered the advancement of his career which will have a lifelong

domino effect on his earnings.

119. Defendant White is the substantial factor in the harm suffered by Plaintiff and as a

result, he must struggle to put the pieces of his career back together and regain the trust u ... z 10: ~ < ""0:: = 16 0 0 0::

z ::i ::: 0 = <..., 17 ..J -

"'

and confidence of his rank and file Fire Fighters and superior alike.

120. Defendant White was well aware of the hierarchy of the appointment system to

18 AAFM and it wasn't until he had to appoint an African American male that he thought

19 he needed to attempt to do everything in his power to change the process.

20

21 121. It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendants' acts, statements and actions

22 as alleged herein would cause Plaintiff embarrassment, mental and physical

23 anguish and distress. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for relief as ser forth herein.

24 REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

25

26 (California Civil Code§ 3294)

27 122. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

28 contained in the preceding paragraphs as fully set forth herein.



123. Defendants ' conduct as alleged herein is extreme and outrageous and falls

2 within the protection of California Civil Code Section 3294 for the imposition of

3

4 punitive damages against all Defendants.

5 PRAYER

6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Holt prays as follows:

7

8 1. Promotion to Fire Marshall;

9 2. Retroactive pay from the period plaintiff was denied his proper promotion to the

JO present;

11 3. General and compensatory damages according to proof; """' - °' <-N !ii; :;: 12 <>Ill ...J < -< - °' <.rJ ~ <

13 <o-::o~ ~90

14 - ~""' ........ -; I:. ...J -0 ...J <:) (fl 0 . 15 t.l = ~

4. Special Damages according to proof;

5. Past economic damages according to proof;

6. Future economic damages according to proof;

7. Damages for emotional distress;

u -z i:;:: f:= < "'" a: CQ 16 00§5 ::: ! CQ <...,. 17 ...J -

"'

8. Punitive damages in an amount found reasonable and prudent by the trier of fact;

9. Prejudgment interest at the maxim legal rate;

10. Cost of suit; 18

11. Cost of the proceedings herein; 19 12. Reasonable attorney's fees as permitted by law; and 20 13. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and property.

21 DATED: March 13, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF THEIDA SALAZAR

22

23 By: __ r_~-~--

24 THEIDA SALAZAR

25 Attorney for Plaintiff, HOWARD HOLT

26

27

28



DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on

3

4 all issues triable to a jury in each cause of action of his complaint.

5 DATED: March 13, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF THEIDA SALAZAR

6

7 By:-----'..~_....J<;.~-------'----:?c._-_ THEIDA SALAZAR

8 Attorney for Plaintiff, HOWARD HOLT

9

10

11 a: ~ <-N~~ 12 < >"' -l < -< > C\ "1 .,,.. <

13 < Oz e o a: wo o ..,.. ~ ~ 14 f:: ~ -'- :::; -l 0 -l ~ "1 0 . 15 w =~ u - z - ... < '- !- CQ 16 '- a: a: OO;:;i ::: ~ CQ < .... 17 -l -N

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 1 -COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 ~~ <-N ~ o 12 < >:;:; ..J < -< - "' Cl') ::::<

13 EXHIBIT I <o -ooz -o~ w 0 ::i:;;. i;:. 14 E--;;: :::s i;:. .J < 0 .J u Cl') 0 . 15 w =~ u z ~= < i;:. a:= 16 005 ~~= < .... 17 .J -N

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



CITY OF OAKLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT

TO: DL - Fire - All Staff [email protected]

COMMUNICATION NO. 145-16 DATE: October 14, 2016

FROM: Fiscal and Administration Services Division

SUBJECT: ACTING HIGHER RANK ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL (SWORN) - 2016

Fiscal and Administration Services Division is announcing the following personnel as eligible for Acting Higher Rank (AHR) as Assistant Fire Marshal (Sworn). All assignments to act higher rank will be made as per the current Local 55 MOU.

MOU provision 4.4.2.4 AHR Assignment Minimum Qualifications states:

"Bargaining unit members with the greatest department seniority who havf{J (1) attained a fully effective or better overall performance appraisal (2) completed the course work to be eligible for testing to the promoted rank, (3) attained the applicable and effective Department certification defined Fire Department policy, and (4) are eligible to take the promotional exam shall be assigned to an acting higher rank position."

The list of qualified members in order of seniority is:

1. Sabatini, Maria C. 2. Hom, Lawrence S .... 3. Holt, Howard C. 4. Watson, Emmanuel 5. Bryant, Felicia Lee 6. Lightfoot, Charleton D.

APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION:

Teresa De Fire Chie

Sonia Lara Acting Fire Division Manager


2

...

.J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 EXHIBIT II 0:: ~ <-N Si; ~ 12 <>Ill ~ < ;; en ~ <

13 <o:z :: 0 a:: to;i Oo ::: ~"" 14 f- ::i ""..l < 0 ..l u en 0 . 15 w :c ~ u ... z --<: t... f- cc

16 t... a::,.... oo-z :;i ~o= <"' 17 ..l -....

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



TO:

FROM:

CITY OF OAKLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT

COMMUNICATION N0.12·18 REVISED DATE: February 2, 2018

DL - Fire - All Staff [email protected]

Fiscal & Administration Services Division

SUBJECT: ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL CSWORNl ASSIGNMENT

The Department is currently working With Human Resources Management on preparing an Assistant Fire Marshal (Sworn) recruitment/promotional opportunity. The Fire Chief, with the approval of the Personnel Director, and subject to ratification of the Civil Service Board, may make a provisional appointment in the absence. of an eliglble list. Therefore, during the exam plan ·process, OFD · wil.I make a provi"sional appointment of an interested candidate to the Assistant Fire Marshal (Sworn) position. In accordance with personnel rules, a provisional appointment cannot continue for more than 120 calendar days.

All interested members are encouraged to apply by submitting a 538-8 and resume to me by Friday, February 16, 2018. Interviews of qualified candidates Will occur in late February or early March 2018. Please contact Miguel Trujillo at 238--40"51 if y·ou have any questions regarding the position.

APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION:

. ~444,, iJ/Ji Darin White Fire Chief

Trinette Gist Skinner, Fire Division Manager Fiscal & Administration Services Division

JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/ 17)

Case 4:19-cv-01394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1of1

CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS-CA ND_ 44 civil cover sheet and the information contain~d herein neilher replace nor SU!Jplement the fil ing and s~rvice of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as. p_rov1ded b)'. local rules of court. This fonn , approved m its ongmal fom1 by the Judicial Conference of the Umted States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to m1tiate the CIVIi docket sheet . (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

DEFENDANTS I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

HOWARD HOLT City of Oakland . Oakland Fire Depa1tment, Darren White, and Does I through 50

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plainti ff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

OTE: IN LAND CO DEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATIO OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

L( C) ....Attorneys. tF.irm N01p.e . .Address..and Telwhone Number) ilw Ut"flces ot The1da ;::.a Jazar, 1 ne1da ;::.a1azar, t::sq. 2140 North Hollywood Way, #7 192 Burbank, CA 91510 818.433.7290

Attorneys (If Known)

Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "x·· in One Box/or Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) a11d One Box for Defendant)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"" in One Box Only)

U.S. Government Plaintiff Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF

{U.S. Government Not a Part;~ Citizen of This State I Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government Defendant Citizen of Another State

4 Diversity {Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an ··x" in One Box OnM

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENAL TY I I 0 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Rela1ed Seizure of 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - Product

Property 21 USC § 881

130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Liability Liabil ity 690 Olher

140 Negotiable Instrument 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 367 Health Care/ LABOR 150 Recovery of 330 Federal Employers'

Phannaceulical Personal 710 Fair Labor Standards Act

Overpayment Of Liability Injury Product Liability

720 Labor/Management Veteran's Benefits 340 Marine 368 Asbestos Personal Injury

Relations I 5 I Medicare Act Product Liability

345 Marine Product Liabili1y 740 Rai lway Labor Act I 52 Recovery of Defaulted

350 Motor Vehicle PERSONAL PROPERTY

75 I Family and Medical Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Veterans) 355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act

Liabi lity 371 Truth in Lending X 790 Other Labor Litigation 153 Recovery of 360 Other Personal Injury 380 Other Personal Property 791 Employee Retirement Overpayment 362 Perronal Injury -Medical

Damage Income Security Act of Veteran's Benefits Malpractice 385 Propeny Damage Product

IMMIGRATION 160 Stockholders· Suits Liability 190 01her Contract

CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 462 Natural ization

195 Contract Produc1 Liabili ty Application

J 96 Franchise 440 01her Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS 465 Other Immigration 441 Voting 463 Alien Dciaincc Actions

REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 210 Land Condemna1ion 443 Housing/ Sentence

220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General

230 Rent Lease & Ejccnnent 445 Amer. w/Disabilirics- 535 Death Penalty

240 Tons lo Land Employment OTHER

245 Tort Product Liabil ity 446 Amer. w/Disabilirics--Othcr 540 Mandamus & Other

290 All Other Real Property 448 Education 550 Civil Rights

555 Prison Condilion

560 Civil Detainee-Conditions of Confinement

V. 0 RIG IN (Place an "X"" i11 One Box On(v)

2 Incorporaled and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign at ion 6 6

BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Acl

423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (3 1 SC § 157 § 3729(a))

PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 Stale Reapponionment

820 Copyrights 410 Antitrust

830 Patent 430 Ba1lks and Banking

835 Patent- Abbreviated New 450 Commerce

Drug Application 460 Depon ation

840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced &

SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupl Organizations

480 Consumer Credit 861 HlA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange

864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions

865 RSI (405(g)) 89 1 Agricultural Acts

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters

870 Taxes (U.S. Plain1iff or 895 Freedom of lnfomiation

Defendant) Act

871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 896 Arbitration

§ 7609 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision

950 Constinitional ity of Sta10 Statutes

X I Original Proceeding

2 Removed from StateCoun

3 Remanded from Appclla1e Court

4 Reinstated or Reopened

Transferred from Another District (specify)

6 Multidistrict Litigation- Transfer

Multidistrict Litigation-Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do 1101 cite i11risdictio11al statutes unless diversitv): 28 U.S.C. § 1331and28 U.S.C. § 1343 Brief descriotion of cause:

Racial Discrimination per 43 U.S.C. §§ 1981 (A) 1983 and 2000

vn. REQUESTED IN CHECKlFTHISISACLASSACTIO DEMAND$ 2qe'.XX:l oov.c>O COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P . )

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: X Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)

(Place an "X" in One Box Only) }< SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SANJOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE

DATE 03/14/2019 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

Case 4:19-cv-01394 Document 1-2 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1of1

AO 440 (Rev. 06112) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the

Northern District of California B

HOWARD HOLT, an individual

--------- -- -- - - ---Plaintiff(s)

V.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No.

CITY OF OAKLAND, a government entity; OAKLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT, a government entity; DARREN

WHITE in his official and individual capacities; and Does 1 through 50

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To. ,,.D ,,, d 1

• d dd .1 City of Oakland, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 • 1, e1 en a11 s name an a ress/ . Oakland Fire Department, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612

Darren White, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 Does 1 through 50

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it)- or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ( a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are: Theida Salazar, Esq.

2140 North Hollywood Way, #7192 Burbank, CA 91510

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date: Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

theida salazar sbn: 295547 law offices of...

Documents