Page 1 E-FILED
6/4/2021 3:Clerk of Court
Matthew
Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara
McNicholas, State Bar N0. Douglas D. Winter, State Bar N0. Emily R. Pincin, State Bar N0. S.
21CV38374O
Reviewed By: L Del Mundo
McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
PM
10866 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite Los Angeles, California Tel: (3 10) 474-Fax: (310) 475—Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ERIC FIGUEROA, an individual; MICHAEL
FOLEY, an individual; CHRISTOPHER
MOORE,
an individual;
Case NOJ
CV38374O
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
ROBERT PARHAM,
TANNOCK, an
an individual; and JULIE
individual,
1.
DISCRIMINATION 1N VIOLATION
0F FEHA (CAL. Gov’T C. §§
Plaintiffs,
seq-);
V.
2.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a government entity;
PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a
government entity; and DOES through 100,
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
12940, et
HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF
FEHA (CAL. GOV’T C. §§ 12940, et seq.);
and
inclusive,
3.
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION 0F
FEHA (CAL. Gov’T C. §§
Defendants.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12940, et seq.)Page 2 COMES NOW Plaintiffs ERIC FIGUEROA, MICHAEL FOLEY, CHIRSTOPHER MOORE,
ROBERT PARHAM,
TANNOCK
and JULIE
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
by jury, and based on information and belief complain and
and hereby demand a
trial
allege as follows:
THE PARTIES
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
1.
At
all
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff ERIC
California police officer
employed by the Palo Alto Police Department
“Department”) and was a competent
2.
At
all
At
all
4.
At
all
At
all
employed by the
employed by the
employed by the
Plaintiffs are
PAPD”
or
FOLEY (“Foley”) was a sworn
and was a competent
PAPD
PAPD
adult.
PARHAM (“Parham”) was a sworn
and was a competent
PAPD
adult.
MOORE (“Moore”) was a sworn
and was a competent
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff JULIE
California police officer
6.
PAPD
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff ROBERT
California police officer
5.
employed by the
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff CHRIS
California police officer
(“the
a sworn
adult.
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff MICHAEL
California police officer
3.
FIGUEROA (“Figueroa”) was
adult.
TANNOCK (“Tannock”) was a sworn
and was a competent
adult.
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
at all
times relevant
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
hereto, Defendant City 0f Palo Alto
in the
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
County 0f Santa
Clara.
At
all
was a public
Plaintiffs are
0f California
times pertinent hereto, Defendant City owned, controlled, and
operated the law enforcement agency
7.
entity Violating laws Within the State
known
as the Palo Alto Police Department.
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants
through 100, inclusive, and each 0f them,
business, and/or other entities
Whose form
at all
is
DOES
times relevant hereto, were individuals or public,
unknown committing
torts in
and/or engaged in
purposeful economic activity Within the County 0f Santa Clara, State of California.
8.
The
true
names and
capacities 0f Defendants
DOES
through 100, and each 0f them,
Whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown ttherefore Plaintiffs sue said Defendants
amendments, and/or ask leave 0f court
capacities 0f these Defendants
by such
to
Plaintiffs at this time,
fictitious names. Plaintiffs Will file
amend this complaint t
When they have been
assert the true
DOE
names and
ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and believe,Page 3 and upon such information and belief allege,
and are
some manner,
in
the injuries and
that
each Defendants herein designated as a
negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise responsible
damages hereinafter
and
alleged,
that Plaintiffs’
damages
and
DOE was,
liable t0 Plaintiffs for
as herein alleged
were
proximately caused by their conduct.
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Plaintiffs are
9.
herein, the Defendants,
agents, servants,
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
at all
times material
and each 0f them, were the agents, servants, 0r employees, or ostensible
and employees of each other Defendant, and as such, were acting Within the course
and scope 0f said agency and employment or ostensible agency and employment, except on those
occasions
When Defendants were
acting as principals, in
Which
case, said Defendants,
and each 0f
them, were negligent in the selection, hiring, and use 0f the other Defendants.
10.
At
all
times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the co-tortfeasor 0f each 0f
the other Defendants in doing the things hereinafter alleged.
11.
Plaintiffs are further
informed and believe that
at all
times relevant hereto,
Defendants, and each 0f them, acted in concert and in furtherance of the interests of each other
Defendant. The conduct 0f each Defendant combined and cooperated With the conduct of each of the
remaining Defendants so as t0 cause the herein described incidents and the resulting injuries and
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
damages
to Plaintiffs.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
12.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
At
all
relevant times hereto, Plaintiffs were residing in the
County of Santa
Clara,
State of California.
13.
At
all
relevant times hereto, the Defendants, and each 0f them, were residents of the
County 0f Santa Clara,
14.
the
State of California.
The wrongful conduct alleged
County 0f Santa Clara,
part of a continuous
15.
against the Defendants, and each 0f them, occurred in
State of California.
At
all
relevant times hereto, the conduct at issue
was
and ongoing pattern 0f behavior.
This Court
is
the proper court because the wrongful acts that are the subj ect 0f this
action occurred here, at least one Defendant
now resides
person 0r damage t0 personal property occurred in
its
in
its
jurisdictional area,
jurisdictional area.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and injury
toPage 4 16.
Plaintiffs
have complied with and/or exhausted any applicable claims
statutes and/or
administrative and/or internal remedies and/or grievance procedures, and/or are excused from
complying therewith.
Government Code
§
Plaintiffs
945.4 and
have complied with the claim presentation requirement of California
§ 912.4. Plaintiff Moore
filed a complaint With the Department of
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Fair
Employment and Housing on
0n or about September
15,
or about September 15,
right—to-sue notice
2020. Plaintiffs Figueroa, Foley, Parham, and Tannock filed their
individual complaints With the Department of Fair
2021 and were issued
2020 and was issued a
Employment and Housing 0n
their individual right-to-sue notice
0n or about March
3,
0r about
March
3,
2021.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17.
At
all
times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were sworn police officers for the Palo Alto
Police Department, assigned to various Divisions Within the
PAPD.
Plaintiffs
were qualified
for the
position they held
by reason 0f their education, experience, and
employment With
the City, Plaintiffs have performed their various responsibilities in an exemplary
training.
During the course of their
fashion and otherwise capably performed each and every condition of their respective employment
agreement.
18.
Beginning in 0r around June 2020, Defendants City and
PAPD
encouraged, endorsed,
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
and otherwise permitted local
efforts t
engage in and showcase public
art installations,
including
murals, throughout the City. Specifically, City officials permitted and encouraged artists t0 create
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
sixteen individual murals
on City property
that, side-by-side,
spelled out “Black Lives Matter”
(hereinafter, the “Mura1”).
19.
Plaintiffs are
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Mural was
approximately 245-feet long and seventeen—feet
downtown Palo
Alto,
which
is
in front
tall
and was located 0n Hamilton Avenue
0f Palo Alto City Hall and immediately adjacent t0 the Palo
Alto Police Department. The Mural featured several images inside each
the portrait 0f and a quote
20.
better
by Joanne Chesimard Within
The iconography at issue in the
letter
the letter
for the
a White police officer. In 1979, While serving a
letter
of the phrase, including
“E” of the word “Matter.”
“E” 0fthe mural
known as Assata Shakur, who was convicted in
Wermer Foerster,
in
is
an image of Joanne Chesimard,
murder ofNew Jersey
life
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
State Trooper
sentence for the murder, ShakurPage 5 escaped from prison and ended up in Cuba Where she
refuses to extradite her to the United States.
now has refuge and Where the Cuban government
As a result 0f her conviction and subsequent prison escape,
Shakur was placed on the FBI’s Top Ten List 0f Most Wanted Domestic
Further, the
21.
Mural included a portion 0f the logo
Terrorists.
attributed t0 the
New Black Panthers,
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
which
is
identified by the Southern Poverty
SPLC defines
the
New
Law
Center (“SPLC”) as a hate group. Specifically, the
Blank Panthers as a “Virulently
and antisemitic organization Whose
racist
leaders have encouraged Violence against the Whites, Jews, and law enforcement officers.” Also
the
SPLC webpage
“I hate
are the following quotes attributed to a
White people. A11 of them. Every
play today. .You want freedom?
.
some 0f
You
their babies!” (Attributed t
chapter, in a
last iota
member 0f the New Black Panther
of a cracker,
going t0 have t
kill
I
some
hate
it.
We
crackers!
didn’t
You
King Smir Shabazz, former head 0f
come
from
Party:
out here t
going t0 have t
kill
the party’s Philadelphia
2009 National Geographic documentary.)
Law
22.
enforcement officers, including
confront the Mural and
its
Plaintiffs,
offensive, discriminatory,
were forced
t0 physically pass
and
and harassing iconography every time they
entered the Palo Alto Police Department.
Plaintiffs reported t
23.
Defendants City of Palo Alto,
PAPD, and
supervisors that the
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
Mural and
its
accompanying iconography
are discriminatory
and harassing. Additionally,
Plaintiffs’
PAPD by
Plaintiffs’
complaints were brought to the attention 0f Defendants City of Palo Alto and
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
Police Officer’s Association in two separate writings.
Defendants created and allowed t0 exist the aforementioned discriminatory and
24.
harassing
work environment. Not only did Defendants allow
the harassing and discriminatory
iconography t0 exist in the workplace, but they also sanctioned, approved, encouraged, and paid for
it.
In further discrimination and harassment based
t0 disapprove
on race, national
Defendants failed
0f and enjoin the underlying harassing and discriminatory conduct. Failure to abate the
harassing and discriminatory conduct in and 0f itself
(i.e.,
origin, or color,
Plaintiffs raised issues that Violate the
conduct and insisted that
it
remain and
FEHA
is
a form 0f retaliation for raising such issues
and, instead 0f acting, Defendants ratified the
persist).
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 6 Plaintiffs’ careers
25.
harmed and damaged by
have been materially and adversely affected, and irreparably
the conduct of the Defendants. Defendants,
and each 0f them, created and
allowed t0 exist a harassing, discriminatory, and retaliatory work environment and failed teliminate the illegal conduct complained 0f by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were discriminated against and
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
harassed 0n the basis 0f their race, national origin, and/or color and retaliated against for exercising
their rights to
Plaintiffs
be free from harassing and discriminatory conduct in the workplace. Moreover,
spoke out about and reported misconduct,
retaliation, discrimination,
Violation of state and federal law and reported such conduct to people above
command. As a
direct
and harassment
them
in the chain
in
of
and proximate consequence of reporting such misconduct—which constitutes
protected activity under state and federal law—Defendants, and each 0f them, retaliated against,
discriminated against, and harassed Plaintiffs and subjected them t0 adverse employment actions.
Those adverse employment actions include, but are not limited
and discriminatory conduct, and
t0,
refusing t0 eliminate the harassing
failing 0r refusing to investigate Plaintiffs’ complaints.
Defendants have created, ratified, condoned, and failed t0 remedy the unlawful
26.
conduct. Such retaliation, discrimination, and harassment are
known by
all
Defendants and
throughout the chain 0f command and the Department, and has been carried out and/or ratified by
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
Defendants, or Defendants have otherwise failed t0 take steps to prevent 0r undo the retaliation, 0r
both. This
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
is
a continuing and ongoing Violation and therefore subj ect t0 the continuing Violation
doctrine.
27.
Plaintiffs
have suffered both general and special damages in the past and present and
will continue t0 suffer such
damages
in the future for
an unknown period 0f time.
suffered and continue to suffer losses in earnings and other
future
non-economic
injury. This has
employment benefits,
Plaintiffs
have also
as well as past
and
caused damage to their professional reputation, their ability to
promote, their ability t0 be selected for other units, and their ability t0 work. Moreover,
it
has
adversely affected their personal health and well-being, including medical expenses, that are
anticipated into the future and
may
force an early retirement. Plaintiffs have also suffered extensive
general damages in the form 0f anxiety, anguish, and mental suffering. Plaintiffs’ damages are
continuing and in an amount not yet determined, but in excess 0f $25,000.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 7 The Department’s conduct was a
28.
federal law. Therefore, Defendants,
Violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under both state and
and each of them, are
conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
is
under the
liable
FEHA. The wrongful
continuing and ongoing as 0f the present date.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION 0F FEHA, CAL. GOV’T C. §§ 12940, ET SEQ.
Plaintiffs re-allege
29.
in paragraphs
and
effect
1—28 0f this complaint as though fully
At
30.
and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
all
set forth herein again.
times herein mentioned, Government
Code §§ 12940,
et seq.
was
in full force
and was binding upon Defendants, and each 0f them.
At
1.
all
times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs were in a protected class 0f persons,
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a
protected activities contemplated by
member 0f a protected class, and engaged
Government Code §§ 12940,
believe that Defendants, and each 0f them, discriminated against
original, color, and/or association
with a
z'.e.,
member of a protected
et seq. Plaintiffs are
them based on
class,
in
informed and
their race, national
and for reporting and speaking
out against wrongful and discriminatory treatment based 0n their protected status, speaking out
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
against improper conduct, and for generally attempting to protect and secure their rights and the
rights
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
0f other under the
FEHA.
Commencing
32.
and allowed
t0 exist a hostile
in
and during 2020, and continuing
environment and discriminated against
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a
discrimination
embodied
was
t0 the present,
in Violation
Plaintiffs
Defendants created
0n the basis 0f their
member 0f a protected class. Such
of Government Code §§ 12940,
et seq.
and the public policy
therein.
33.
constructive
At
all
times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or
knowledge 0f the discriminatory conduct levied against
employees, and superiors. Moreover, such
also conducted and/or
retaliation,
Plaintiffs
by Defendants, fellow
harassment, and discriminatory conduct was
condoned by Defendants, and each of them.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 8 As
34.
and
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ discriminatory conduct
failure to act, Plaintiffs suffered
mental anguish, and emotional
future employ, physicians
and continues
distress. Plaintiffs
to suffer humiliation,
were required
and health care providers
embarrassment, anxiety,
and did employ, and will
t
to examine, treat,
and care for
in the
and
Plaintiffs,
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
did,
and will
expenses
is
in the future, incur medical
unknown to
As
35.
Plaintiffs suffered
their
damage
in
Plaintiffs at this time.
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ discriminatory conduct,
and continue
to suffer losses in earnings and/or other
an amount in excess of the
amount 0f Which
Will be
As
36.
and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such
proven
minimum jurisdictional
employment benefits
limits
all to
0f this court, the precise
at trial.
a further legal result 0f the above-described conduct 0f Defendants, and each 0f
them, Plaintiffs have and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount according to
proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
HARASSMENT 1N VIOLATION 0F FEHA, CAL. GOV’T C.
§§ 12940, ET SEQ.
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
Plaintiffs re-allege
37.
in paragraphs
38.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
and
effect
and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
1—36 0f this complaint as though fully
At
all
set forth herein again.
times mentioned herein, Government
Code §§ 12940,
er seq.
was
in full force
and was binding upon Defendants, and each 0f them. Said law required Defendants, and
each of them, t0 refrain from harassing any employee based upon race, national origin, color, and/or
association With a protected class of persons, and t0 provide each employee With a working
environment free from harassment based 0n race, national origin, color, and/or association With a
protected class 0f persons.
39.
At
all
times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs were in a protected class of persons,
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a protected class
protected activities contemplated by
Government Code §§ 12940,
i.e.,
of persons, and engaged in
et seq. Plaintiffs are
informed and
believe that Defendants, and each 0f them, harassed Plaintiffs based 0n their race, national origin,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 9 color, and/or association With a protected class
0f persons, and for reporting and speaking out against
wrongful and harassing treatment based 0n their race, national origin, color, and/or association with
a protected class 0f persons, speaking out against improper conduct, and for generally attempting tprotect and secure their rights and the rights 0f others under the
FEHA.
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Commencing
40.
in
and during 2020, and continuing 0n an ongoing basis
to the present,
Defendants created and allowed to exist a hostile work environment and harassed Plaintiffs on the
basis 0f their race, national origin, color, and/or association With a protected class 0f persons.
Such
harassment was in Violation 0f Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. and the public policy embodied
therein.
At
41.
constructive
all
times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or
knowledge 0f the harassing conduct levied against
Plaintiffs
by Defendants, fellow
employees, and superiors. Moreover, such harassment was also conducted and/or condoned by
Defendants, and each 0f them.
As
42.
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ harassing conduct and
failure t0 act, Plaintiffs suffered
and continue
t0 suffer humiliation,
embarrassment, anxiety, mental
anguish, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs were required to and did employ, and Will in the future
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
employ, physicians and health care providers t0 examine,
will in the future, incur medical
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
unknown to
As
Plaintiffs suffered
damage
in
Plaintiffs,
and
did,
and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such expenses
and
is
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f the Defendants’ harassing conduct,
and continue
to suffer losses in earnings and/or other
an amount in excess of the
amount 0f Which
44.
and care for
Plaintiffs at this time.
43.
their
treat,
will be
As
proven
minimum jurisdictional
employment benefits
limits
all t
0f this court, the precise
at trial.
a further legal result 0f the above-described conduct 0f Defendants, and each of
them, Plaintiffs have and Will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount according tproof.
/ / /
///
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
RETALIATION 1N VIOLATION 0F FEHA, CAL. Gov’T C. §§ 12940, ET SEQ.
Plaintiffs re-allege
45.
and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
in paragraphs
At
46.
and
effect
0f this complaint as though fully
all
set forth herein again.
times herein mentioned, Government
Code §§ 12940,
et seq.,
was
in full force
and were binding upon Defendants, and each 0f them. Said sections required Defendants,
and each 0f them,
to refrain
from
FEHA.
practices prohibited under the
At
47.
all
an employee for their opposition t0 employment
retaliating against
times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs were in a protected class of persons,
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a
protected activities contemplated by
i.e.,
member of a protected class, and engaged
Government Code §§ 12940,
believe that Defendants, and each 0f them, retaliated against
them
et seq. Plaintiffs are
in
informed and
for speaking out against
inappropriate workplace behavior, reporting and speaking out against wrongful, discriminatory,
harassing, and retaliatory treatment based
With a
member 0f a protected
class,
on
their race, national origin, color, and/or association
and for generally attempting
t0 protect
and secure
their rights
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
and the
rights
Commencing
48.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
0f others under the
and allowed
t0 exist a hostile
in
FEHA.
and during 2020 and continuing
environment and retaliated against
protected activity. Such retaliation
was
in Violation
to the present,
Plaintiffs
Defendants created
on the basis 0f their
0f Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. and the
public policy embodied therein.
At
49.
constructive
all
times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or
knowledge 0f the
retaliatory conduct levied against Plaintiffs
employees, and superiors. Moreover, such
also conducted and/or
50.
As
harassment, and discriminatory conduct was
condoned by Defendants, and each 0f them.
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ retaliatory conduct,
Plaintiffs suffered
emotional
retaliation,
by Defendants, fellow
distress.
and continue
Plaintiffs
to suffer humiliation,
were required
t
embarrassment, anxiety, mental anguish, and
and did employ, and Will
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
in the future
employ,Page 11 physicians and health care providers to examine,
future, incur
treat,
and care for
Plaintiffs,
and
medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount 0f such expenses
did,
is
and Will
in the
unknown t
Plaintiffs at this time.
5 1.
As
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Defendants” retaliatory conduct,
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Plaintiffs suffered
their
damage
in
and continue
to suffer losses in earnings
an amount in excess 0f the
amount of which
Will be
proven
at trial.
and other employment benefits
minimum jurisdictional
As
limits
all t
of this court, the precise
a further legal result of the above-described conduct 0f
Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiffs have and Will continue t0 incur attorneys’ fees and costs in
an amount according to proof.
Dated:
June
4,
McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
By:
Matthew
S. McNicholas
Douglas D. Winter
Emily R. Pincin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NNNNNNNNNr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—A
OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOONQM-PWNP—‘O
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 12 PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs
MOORE, ROBERT PARHAM,
each of them, on
and JULIE
Causes 0f Action
TANNOCK seek judgment against all Defendants, and
for:
Physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, fright,
1.
\DOONQUl-PUJNp—i
all
ERIC FIGUEROA, MICHAEL FOLEY, CHIRSTOPHER
nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation, and
indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental,
reputation,
and other non-economic damages,
2.
sum t0 be
ascertained according t0 proof;
ascertained according to proof;
Loss 0f wages, income, earnings, earning capacity, support, domestic services,
benefits, and other economic damages in a
4.
sum to be
sum to be
ascertained according t0 proof;
Other actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages in a sum to be ascertained
according to proof;
5.
Attorney fees and costs 0f suit pursuant to
6.
Costs 0f suit herein incurred;
7.
Pre-judgment
8.
Such other and
statute;
NNNNNNNNNr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—A
interest;
and
further relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOONQM-PWNP—‘O
Dated:
June
t
Health care, services, supplies, medicines, health care appliances, modalities, and
other related expenses in a
3.
in a
and emotional reactions, damages
4,
MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS, LLP
By:
Matthew
S. McNicholas
Douglas D. Winter
Emily R. Pincin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
E-FILED
6/4/2021 3:50
Clerk of Court
Matthew
Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara
McNicholas, State Bar N0. 190249
Douglas D. Winter, State Bar N0. 150795
Emily R. Pincin, State Bar N0. 334566
S.
21CV38374O
Reviewed By: L Del Mundo
McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
PM
10866 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90024
Tel: (3 10) 474-1582
Fax: (310) 475—7871
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ERIC FIGUEROA, an individual; MICHAEL
FOLEY, an individual; CHRISTOPHER
MOORE,
an individual;
Case NOJ
21
CV38374O
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
ROBERT PARHAM,
TANNOCK, an
an individual; and JULIE
individual,
1.
DISCRIMINATION 1N VIOLATION
0F FEHA (CAL. Gov’T C. §§
Plaintiffs,
seq-);
V.
2.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a government entity;
PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a
government entity; and DOES through 100,
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
12940, et
HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF
FEHA (CAL. GOV’T C. §§ 12940, et seq.);
and
1
inclusive,
3.
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION 0F
FEHA (CAL. Gov’T C. §§
Defendants.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12940, et seq.)
PDF Page 3
COMES NOW Plaintiffs ERIC FIGUEROA, MICHAEL FOLEY, CHIRSTOPHER MOORE,
ROBERT PARHAM,
TANNOCK
and JULIE
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
by jury, and based on information and belief complain and
and hereby demand a
trial
allege as follows:
THE PARTIES
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
1.
At
all
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff ERIC
California police officer
employed by the Palo Alto Police Department
“Department”) and was a competent
2.
At
all
At
all
4.
At
all
At
all
employed by the
employed by the
employed by the
Plaintiffs are
PAPD”
or
FOLEY (“Foley”) was a sworn
and was a competent
PAPD
PAPD
adult.
PARHAM (“Parham”) was a sworn
and was a competent
PAPD
adult.
MOORE (“Moore”) was a sworn
and was a competent
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff JULIE
California police officer
6.
PAPD
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff ROBERT
California police officer
5.
employed by the
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff CHRIS
California police officer
(“the
a sworn
adult.
times relevant hereto, Plaintiff MICHAEL
California police officer
3.
FIGUEROA (“Figueroa”) was
adult.
TANNOCK (“Tannock”) was a sworn
and was a competent
adult.
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
at all
times relevant
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
hereto, Defendant City 0f Palo Alto
in the
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
County 0f Santa
Clara.
At
all
was a public
1
Plaintiffs are
0f California
times pertinent hereto, Defendant City owned, controlled, and
operated the law enforcement agency
7.
entity Violating laws Within the State
known
as the Palo Alto Police Department.
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants
through 100, inclusive, and each 0f them,
business, and/or other entities
Whose form
at all
is
DOES
times relevant hereto, were individuals or public,
unknown committing
torts in
and/or engaged in
purposeful economic activity Within the County 0f Santa Clara, State of California.
8.
The
true
names and
capacities 0f Defendants
DOES
1
through 100, and each 0f them,
Whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown t0
therefore Plaintiffs sue said Defendants
amendments, and/or ask leave 0f court
capacities 0f these Defendants
by such
to
Plaintiffs at this time,
fictitious names. Plaintiffs Will file
amend this complaint t0
When they have been
assert the true
DOE
names and
ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and believe,
PDF Page 4
and upon such information and belief allege,
and are
some manner,
in
the injuries and
that
each Defendants herein designated as a
negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise responsible
damages hereinafter
and
alleged,
that Plaintiffs’
damages
and
DOE was,
liable t0 Plaintiffs for
as herein alleged
were
proximately caused by their conduct.
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Plaintiffs are
9.
herein, the Defendants,
agents, servants,
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
at all
times material
and each 0f them, were the agents, servants, 0r employees, or ostensible
and employees of each other Defendant, and as such, were acting Within the course
and scope 0f said agency and employment or ostensible agency and employment, except on those
occasions
When Defendants were
acting as principals, in
Which
case, said Defendants,
and each 0f
them, were negligent in the selection, hiring, and use 0f the other Defendants.
10.
At
all
times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the co-tortfeasor 0f each 0f
the other Defendants in doing the things hereinafter alleged.
11.
Plaintiffs are further
informed and believe that
at all
times relevant hereto,
Defendants, and each 0f them, acted in concert and in furtherance of the interests of each other
Defendant. The conduct 0f each Defendant combined and cooperated With the conduct of each of the
remaining Defendants so as t0 cause the herein described incidents and the resulting injuries and
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
damages
to Plaintiffs.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
12.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
At
all
relevant times hereto, Plaintiffs were residing in the
County of Santa
Clara,
State of California.
13.
At
all
relevant times hereto, the Defendants, and each 0f them, were residents of the
County 0f Santa Clara,
14.
the
State of California.
The wrongful conduct alleged
County 0f Santa Clara,
part of a continuous
15.
against the Defendants, and each 0f them, occurred in
State of California.
At
all
relevant times hereto, the conduct at issue
was
and ongoing pattern 0f behavior.
This Court
is
the proper court because the wrongful acts that are the subj ect 0f this
action occurred here, at least one Defendant
now resides
person 0r damage t0 personal property occurred in
its
in
its
jurisdictional area,
jurisdictional area.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and injury
to
PDF Page 5
16.
Plaintiffs
have complied with and/or exhausted any applicable claims
statutes and/or
administrative and/or internal remedies and/or grievance procedures, and/or are excused from
complying therewith.
Government Code
§
Plaintiffs
945.4 and
have complied with the claim presentation requirement of California
§ 912.4. Plaintiff Moore
filed a complaint With the Department of
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Fair
Employment and Housing on
0n or about September
15,
or about September 15,
right—to-sue notice
2020. Plaintiffs Figueroa, Foley, Parham, and Tannock filed their
individual complaints With the Department of Fair
2021 and were issued
2020 and was issued a
Employment and Housing 0n
their individual right-to-sue notice
0n or about March
3,
0r about
March
3,
2021.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17.
At
all
times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were sworn police officers for the Palo Alto
Police Department, assigned to various Divisions Within the
PAPD.
Plaintiffs
were qualified
for the
position they held
by reason 0f their education, experience, and
employment With
the City, Plaintiffs have performed their various responsibilities in an exemplary
training.
During the course of their
fashion and otherwise capably performed each and every condition of their respective employment
agreement.
18.
Beginning in 0r around June 2020, Defendants City and
PAPD
encouraged, endorsed,
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
and otherwise permitted local
efforts t0
engage in and showcase public
art installations,
including
murals, throughout the City. Specifically, City officials permitted and encouraged artists t0 create
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
sixteen individual murals
on City property
that, side-by-side,
spelled out “Black Lives Matter”
(hereinafter, the “Mura1”).
19.
Plaintiffs are
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Mural was
approximately 245-feet long and seventeen—feet
downtown Palo
Alto,
which
is
in front
tall
and was located 0n Hamilton Avenue
0f Palo Alto City Hall and immediately adjacent t0 the Palo
Alto Police Department. The Mural featured several images inside each
the portrait 0f and a quote
20.
better
by Joanne Chesimard Within
The iconography at issue in the
letter
the letter
for the
a White police officer. In 1979, While serving a
letter
of the phrase, including
“E” of the word “Matter.”
“E” 0fthe mural
known as Assata Shakur, who was convicted in 1977
Wermer Foerster,
in
is
an image of Joanne Chesimard,
murder ofNew Jersey
life
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
State Trooper
sentence for the murder, Shakur
PDF Page 6
escaped from prison and ended up in Cuba Where she
refuses to extradite her to the United States.
now has refuge and Where the Cuban government
As a result 0f her conviction and subsequent prison escape,
Shakur was placed on the FBI’s Top Ten List 0f Most Wanted Domestic
Further, the
21.
Mural included a portion 0f the logo
Terrorists.
attributed t0 the
New Black Panthers,
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
which
is
identified by the Southern Poverty
SPLC defines
the
New
Law
Center (“SPLC”) as a hate group. Specifically, the
Blank Panthers as a “Virulently
and antisemitic organization Whose
racist
leaders have encouraged Violence against the Whites, Jews, and law enforcement officers.” Also
the
SPLC webpage
“I hate
are the following quotes attributed to a
White people. A11 of them. Every
play today. .You want freedom?
.
some 0f
You
their babies!” (Attributed t0
chapter, in a
last iota
member 0f the New Black Panther
of a cracker,
going t0 have t0
kill
I
some
hate
it.
We
crackers!
didn’t
You
King Smir Shabazz, former head 0f
come
from
Party:
out here t0
going t0 have t0
kill
the party’s Philadelphia
2009 National Geographic documentary.)
Law
22.
enforcement officers, including
confront the Mural and
its
Plaintiffs,
offensive, discriminatory,
were forced
t0 physically pass
and
and harassing iconography every time they
entered the Palo Alto Police Department.
Plaintiffs reported t0
23.
Defendants City of Palo Alto,
PAPD, and
supervisors that the
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
Mural and
its
accompanying iconography
are discriminatory
and harassing. Additionally,
Plaintiffs’
PAPD by
Plaintiffs’
complaints were brought to the attention 0f Defendants City of Palo Alto and
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
Police Officer’s Association in two separate writings.
Defendants created and allowed t0 exist the aforementioned discriminatory and
24.
harassing
work environment. Not only did Defendants allow
the harassing and discriminatory
iconography t0 exist in the workplace, but they also sanctioned, approved, encouraged, and paid for
it.
In further discrimination and harassment based
t0 disapprove
on race, national
Defendants failed
0f and enjoin the underlying harassing and discriminatory conduct. Failure to abate the
harassing and discriminatory conduct in and 0f itself
(i.e.,
origin, or color,
Plaintiffs raised issues that Violate the
conduct and insisted that
it
remain and
FEHA
is
a form 0f retaliation for raising such issues
and, instead 0f acting, Defendants ratified the
persist).
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 7
Plaintiffs’ careers
25.
harmed and damaged by
have been materially and adversely affected, and irreparably
the conduct of the Defendants. Defendants,
and each 0f them, created and
allowed t0 exist a harassing, discriminatory, and retaliatory work environment and failed t0
eliminate the illegal conduct complained 0f by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were discriminated against and
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
harassed 0n the basis 0f their race, national origin, and/or color and retaliated against for exercising
their rights to
Plaintiffs
be free from harassing and discriminatory conduct in the workplace. Moreover,
spoke out about and reported misconduct,
retaliation, discrimination,
Violation of state and federal law and reported such conduct to people above
command. As a
direct
and harassment
them
in the chain
in
of
and proximate consequence of reporting such misconduct—which constitutes
protected activity under state and federal law—Defendants, and each 0f them, retaliated against,
discriminated against, and harassed Plaintiffs and subjected them t0 adverse employment actions.
Those adverse employment actions include, but are not limited
and discriminatory conduct, and
t0,
refusing t0 eliminate the harassing
failing 0r refusing to investigate Plaintiffs’ complaints.
Defendants have created, ratified, condoned, and failed t0 remedy the unlawful
26.
conduct. Such retaliation, discrimination, and harassment are
known by
all
Defendants and
throughout the chain 0f command and the Department, and has been carried out and/or ratified by
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
Defendants, or Defendants have otherwise failed t0 take steps to prevent 0r undo the retaliation, 0r
both. This
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
is
a continuing and ongoing Violation and therefore subj ect t0 the continuing Violation
doctrine.
27.
Plaintiffs
have suffered both general and special damages in the past and present and
will continue t0 suffer such
damages
in the future for
an unknown period 0f time.
suffered and continue to suffer losses in earnings and other
future
non-economic
injury. This has
employment benefits,
Plaintiffs
have also
as well as past
and
caused damage to their professional reputation, their ability to
promote, their ability t0 be selected for other units, and their ability t0 work. Moreover,
it
has
adversely affected their personal health and well-being, including medical expenses, that are
anticipated into the future and
may
force an early retirement. Plaintiffs have also suffered extensive
general damages in the form 0f anxiety, anguish, and mental suffering. Plaintiffs’ damages are
continuing and in an amount not yet determined, but in excess 0f $25,000.
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 8
The Department’s conduct was a
28.
federal law. Therefore, Defendants,
Violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under both state and
and each of them, are
conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
is
under the
liable
FEHA. The wrongful
continuing and ongoing as 0f the present date.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION 0F FEHA, CAL. GOV’T C. §§ 12940, ET SEQ.
Plaintiffs re-allege
29.
in paragraphs
and
effect
3
1—28 0f this complaint as though fully
At
30.
and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
all
set forth herein again.
times herein mentioned, Government
Code §§ 12940,
et seq.
was
in full force
and was binding upon Defendants, and each 0f them.
At
1.
all
times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs were in a protected class 0f persons,
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a
protected activities contemplated by
member 0f a protected class, and engaged
Government Code §§ 12940,
believe that Defendants, and each 0f them, discriminated against
original, color, and/or association
with a
z'.e.,
member of a protected
et seq. Plaintiffs are
them based on
class,
in
informed and
their race, national
and for reporting and speaking
out against wrongful and discriminatory treatment based 0n their protected status, speaking out
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
against improper conduct, and for generally attempting to protect and secure their rights and the
rights
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
0f other under the
FEHA.
Commencing
32.
and allowed
t0 exist a hostile
in
and during 2020, and continuing
environment and discriminated against
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a
discrimination
embodied
was
t0 the present,
in Violation
Plaintiffs
Defendants created
0n the basis 0f their
member 0f a protected class. Such
of Government Code §§ 12940,
et seq.
and the public policy
therein.
33.
constructive
At
all
times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or
knowledge 0f the discriminatory conduct levied against
employees, and superiors. Moreover, such
also conducted and/or
retaliation,
Plaintiffs
by Defendants, fellow
harassment, and discriminatory conduct was
condoned by Defendants, and each of them.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 9
As
34.
and
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ discriminatory conduct
failure to act, Plaintiffs suffered
mental anguish, and emotional
future employ, physicians
and continues
distress. Plaintiffs
to suffer humiliation,
were required
and health care providers
embarrassment, anxiety,
and did employ, and will
t0
to examine, treat,
and care for
in the
and
Plaintiffs,
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
did,
and will
expenses
is
in the future, incur medical
unknown to
As
35.
Plaintiffs suffered
their
damage
in
Plaintiffs at this time.
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ discriminatory conduct,
and continue
to suffer losses in earnings and/or other
an amount in excess of the
amount 0f Which
Will be
As
36.
and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such
proven
minimum jurisdictional
employment benefits
limits
all to
0f this court, the precise
at trial.
a further legal result 0f the above-described conduct 0f Defendants, and each 0f
them, Plaintiffs have and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount according to
proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
HARASSMENT 1N VIOLATION 0F FEHA, CAL. GOV’T C.
§§ 12940, ET SEQ.
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
Plaintiffs re-allege
37.
in paragraphs
38.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
and
effect
and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
1—36 0f this complaint as though fully
At
all
set forth herein again.
times mentioned herein, Government
Code §§ 12940,
er seq.
was
in full force
and was binding upon Defendants, and each 0f them. Said law required Defendants, and
each of them, t0 refrain from harassing any employee based upon race, national origin, color, and/or
association With a protected class of persons, and t0 provide each employee With a working
environment free from harassment based 0n race, national origin, color, and/or association With a
protected class 0f persons.
39.
At
all
times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs were in a protected class of persons,
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a protected class
protected activities contemplated by
Government Code §§ 12940,
i.e.,
of persons, and engaged in
et seq. Plaintiffs are
informed and
believe that Defendants, and each 0f them, harassed Plaintiffs based 0n their race, national origin,
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 10
color, and/or association With a protected class
0f persons, and for reporting and speaking out against
wrongful and harassing treatment based 0n their race, national origin, color, and/or association with
a protected class 0f persons, speaking out against improper conduct, and for generally attempting t0
protect and secure their rights and the rights 0f others under the
FEHA.
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Commencing
40.
in
and during 2020, and continuing 0n an ongoing basis
to the present,
Defendants created and allowed to exist a hostile work environment and harassed Plaintiffs on the
basis 0f their race, national origin, color, and/or association With a protected class 0f persons.
Such
harassment was in Violation 0f Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. and the public policy embodied
therein.
At
41.
constructive
all
times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or
knowledge 0f the harassing conduct levied against
Plaintiffs
by Defendants, fellow
employees, and superiors. Moreover, such harassment was also conducted and/or condoned by
Defendants, and each 0f them.
As
42.
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ harassing conduct and
failure t0 act, Plaintiffs suffered
and continue
t0 suffer humiliation,
embarrassment, anxiety, mental
anguish, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs were required to and did employ, and Will in the future
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
employ, physicians and health care providers t0 examine,
will in the future, incur medical
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
unknown to
As
Plaintiffs suffered
damage
in
Plaintiffs,
and
did,
and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such expenses
and
is
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f the Defendants’ harassing conduct,
and continue
to suffer losses in earnings and/or other
an amount in excess of the
amount 0f Which
44.
and care for
Plaintiffs at this time.
43.
their
treat,
will be
As
proven
minimum jurisdictional
employment benefits
limits
all t0
0f this court, the precise
at trial.
a further legal result 0f the above-described conduct 0f Defendants, and each of
them, Plaintiffs have and Will continue to incur attorneys' fees and costs in an amount according t0
proof.
/ / /
///
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
RETALIATION 1N VIOLATION 0F FEHA, CAL. Gov’T C. §§ 12940, ET SEQ.
Plaintiffs re-allege
45.
and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
in paragraphs
At
46.
and
effect
144
0f this complaint as though fully
all
set forth herein again.
times herein mentioned, Government
Code §§ 12940,
et seq.,
was
in full force
and were binding upon Defendants, and each 0f them. Said sections required Defendants,
and each 0f them,
to refrain
from
FEHA.
practices prohibited under the
At
47.
all
an employee for their opposition t0 employment
retaliating against
times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs were in a protected class of persons,
race, national origin, color, and/or association with a
protected activities contemplated by
i.e.,
member of a protected class, and engaged
Government Code §§ 12940,
believe that Defendants, and each 0f them, retaliated against
them
et seq. Plaintiffs are
in
informed and
for speaking out against
inappropriate workplace behavior, reporting and speaking out against wrongful, discriminatory,
harassing, and retaliatory treatment based
With a
member 0f a protected
class,
on
their race, national origin, color, and/or association
and for generally attempting
t0 protect
and secure
their rights
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
and the
rights
Commencing
48.
OONQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQONUI-RWNF—‘O
0f others under the
and allowed
t0 exist a hostile
in
FEHA.
and during 2020 and continuing
environment and retaliated against
protected activity. Such retaliation
was
in Violation
to the present,
Plaintiffs
Defendants created
on the basis 0f their
0f Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. and the
public policy embodied therein.
At
49.
constructive
all
times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or
knowledge 0f the
retaliatory conduct levied against Plaintiffs
employees, and superiors. Moreover, such
also conducted and/or
50.
As
harassment, and discriminatory conduct was
condoned by Defendants, and each 0f them.
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result 0f Defendants’ retaliatory conduct,
Plaintiffs suffered
emotional
retaliation,
by Defendants, fellow
distress.
and continue
Plaintiffs
to suffer humiliation,
were required
t0
embarrassment, anxiety, mental anguish, and
and did employ, and Will
1
0
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
in the future
employ,
PDF Page 12
physicians and health care providers to examine,
future, incur
treat,
and care for
Plaintiffs,
and
medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount 0f such expenses
did,
is
and Will
in the
unknown t0
Plaintiffs at this time.
5 1.
As
a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Defendants” retaliatory conduct,
\DOONQUl-PUJNr—k
Plaintiffs suffered
their
damage
in
and continue
to suffer losses in earnings
an amount in excess 0f the
amount of which
Will be
proven
at trial.
and other employment benefits
minimum jurisdictional
As
limits
all t0
of this court, the precise
a further legal result of the above-described conduct 0f
Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiffs have and Will continue t0 incur attorneys’ fees and costs in
an amount according to proof.
Dated:
June
4,
2021
McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
By:
Matthew
S. McNicholas
Douglas D. Winter
Emily R. Pincin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NNNNNNNNNr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—A
OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOONQM-PWNP—‘O
1 1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 13
PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs
MOORE, ROBERT PARHAM,
each of them, on
and JULIE
Causes 0f Action
TANNOCK seek judgment against all Defendants, and
for:
Physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, fright,
1.
\DOONQUl-PUJNp—i
all
ERIC FIGUEROA, MICHAEL FOLEY, CHIRSTOPHER
nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation, and
indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental,
reputation,
and other non-economic damages,
2.
sum t0 be
ascertained according t0 proof;
ascertained according to proof;
Loss 0f wages, income, earnings, earning capacity, support, domestic services,
benefits, and other economic damages in a
4.
sum to be
sum to be
ascertained according t0 proof;
Other actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages in a sum to be ascertained
according to proof;
5.
Attorney fees and costs 0f suit pursuant to
6.
Costs 0f suit herein incurred;
7.
Pre-judgment
8.
Such other and
statute;
NNNNNNNNNr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—Ar—tr—tr—A
interest;
and
further relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOONQM-PWNP—‘O
Dated:
June
t0
Health care, services, supplies, medicines, health care appliances, modalities, and
other related expenses in a
3.
in a
and emotional reactions, damages
4,
2021
MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS, LLP
By:
Matthew
S. McNicholas
Douglas D. Winter
Emily R. Pincin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES