Shanel Dickson v. Kenny Griffin et al Document 3: Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Case No. 22CV393878
Filed January 27, 2022

BackBack to Shanel Dickson v. Kenny Griffin et al

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 E-FILED
1/27/2022 10:
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
MATTHEW MATERN (SBN
Clerk of Court
MORAN
220V
AM
Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara
159798)
JOSHUA D. BOXER (SBN 226712)
CLARE E.
(SBN 340539)
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite Manhattan Beach, California Telephone: (3 1 0) 53 1- 1 Facsimile: (3 10) 53 1 - 1 J.
Reviewed By: M. Dominguez
Email: mmatem@maternlawgr0up.com
Email: iboxerébmatemlawgroupcom
Email: cmoran@maternlawgroup.com
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
COREY B. BENNETT (SBN 267816)

1330 Broadway, Suite Oakland, California Telephone: (510) 227-Facsimile: (3 10) 53 1— 1 cbennett(a>matemlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHANEL DICKSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

220V
SHANEL DICKSON,

CASE NO.:
an individual,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR:
VS.

TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS,

Delaware corporation; TESLA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; KENNY GRIFFIN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
.
INC., a
2.
3-
Defendants.

Sexual and Racial Harassment in Violation
of Cal. Gov’t Code § 129400) (FEHA);
Gender and Race Discrimination in
Violation 0f Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a);
Failure t0 Take Steps Necessary t0 Prevent
Harassment, Discrimination, and/or
Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Gov’t Code
§
12940(k);
Retaliation in Violation of Cal. GOV’t
Code
§ 12940(h);

Intentional Infliction 0f Emotional
Distress;

Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and/or
Retention;
Constructive Discharge in Violation 0f
Public Policy.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
MANHATTAN
BEACH, CA
-1-
COMPLAINT
Page 2 NATURE OF THE ACTION

1.
Plaintiff
SHANEL DICKSON
brings this action against Defendants
TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC,
corporation doing business in the State of California

Delaware corporation doing business

(“GRIFFIN”), an individual; and

to

discrimination, retaliation, failure t0 prevent discrimination and harassment, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, constructive discharge in Violation 0f public policy, and other unlawful and
remedy
in the state
DOES
DEFENDANTS’ employment
PLAINTIFF
tortious conduct.

attorneys’ fees, and costs.
(“TESLA ENERGY”); TESLA,
of California (“TESLA”);
practices and policies 0f sexual
KENNY
INC., a
GRIFFIN
“DEFENDANTS”),
through 50, inclusive (collectively,

and
racial harassment,
seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief,
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This Court has jurisdiction in this matter because
0f the State 0f California
citizen

residents and citizens 0f, and/or regularly conduct business

federal question

3.
at issue,
is
Venue
is
at all
PLAINTIFF was
times relevant t0 this complaint, and

in,
a resident and a
DEFENDANTS
are
the State of California. Further, no
because the claims are based solely 0n California law.
proper in the County of Santa Clara, California because
DEFENDANTS

performed work for

actions and omissions, set forth herein, occurred in the
in the
County 0f Santa
Clara,
and
County of Santa
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS’
unlawful
Clara.
PLAINTIFF

4.
PLAINTIFF
is
a female resident and citizen of the State

was employed by
DEFENDANTS

September
September 2021.
to
in the
County of Santa
ofNeW York. PLAINTIFF
Clara, California
fiom
in 0r
around
DEFENDANTS

5.

and

Delaware.

ENERGY
On
at all relevant
information and belief,
PLAINTIFF
alleges that Defendant
TESLA ENERGY is
times was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State 0f
PLAINTIFF
is
further informed
and believes, and thereon
alleges,
that
TESLA
conducts busmess 1n the State of Callfornla. Spemfically, upon 1nformat10n and behef,

MANHATTAN
a Delaware

BEACH, CA
demanding a jury
trial,

MATERN LAW GROUP
individual,

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
(“PLAINTIFF”), an
_2_
COMPLAINT
Page 3
TESLA ENERGY conducts business

where the unlawful conduct occurred.

On
6.
information and belief,
County 0f Santa
PLAINTIFF
alleges that Defendant
at all
PLAINTIFF

in the State

the
further informed
is
County of Santa
Clara,
TESLA ENERGY

Additionally,

DEFENDANTS

8.

unknown

fictitious names.

designated as a DOE

and legally caused the

0f the court
GRIFFIN
conducts business in
all
times relevant herein,
GRIFFIN was
and TESLA, and served as PLAINTIFF’S direct supervisor.
acted within the course and scope of his employment and/or as an agent 0f
true
names and
PLAINTIFF
t
TESLA
conducts business
during the events described herein, unless alleged otherwise.
The
to
belief,
TESLA
informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant
is
a male resident of the State 0f California. At
is
employed by

alleges, that
Where PLAINTIFF worked, and Where the unlawful conduct occurred.
PLAINTIFF
7.
GRIFFIN
and believes, and thereon
0f California. Specifically, upon information and

at this time,
PLAINTIFF
is
capacities 0f Defendant
is

through 50, inclusive, are
and PLAINTIFF therefore sues such Defendants under
informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant
responsible in
injuries
DOES
some manner
for the events
and damages alleged
amend this Complaint
and happenings referred to herein,
in this Complaint.
names and
t0 allege their true
PLAINTIFF will
capacities
When
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
PLAINTIFF was employed by TESLA
9.
ENERGY
and
TESLA
a solar roofer from
approximately September 2020 to September 2021 in Santa Clara County, California.

performed her job competently

seek leave
ascertained.

While working
10.
at all
at
PLAINTIFF
times material t0 this complaint.
TESLA ENERGY
and
TESLA
between September 2020 and
September 2021, PLAINTIFF was directly supervised by GRIFFIN.
From approximately

11.

ENERGY

demeaning and

harassing conduct, perpetrated by
MATERN LAW GROUP
and

and
TESLA under the
explicit
July 2021 t0 September 2021, While working at
supervision of GRIFFIN,
comments,
racially harassing
PLAINTIFF was
TESLA
subjected to sexually
and discriminatory comments, and other
GRIFFIN and other TESLA ENERGY and TESLA managers and

MANHATTAN
TESLA is
relevant times was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws 0f the State of Delaware.

BEACH, CA
Where PLAINTIFF worked, and
Clara,

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
in the
_3_
COMPLAINT
Page 4
employees. Such actions, which were offensive and unwelcome and created a

intimidating
work environment,

“nigga. ”

inappropriate, sexual

word and otherwise

GRIFFIN
GRIFFIN
comments. PLAINTIFF
tried ignoring
TESLA
Another white
unknown), laughed
at
PLAINTIFF’S
PLAINTIFF
hair,
which was styled

PLAINTIFF’S manager, Frank Wu, was standing

PLAINTIFF
felt
Black,
other
called her the n-
him
to stop, but
to
in dreadlocks, in
directly across
from
(last
name
fiont of a group. Silva
PLAINTIFF’S
hair.
Silva, but said nothing.
humiliated.
DEFENDANTS
C.
PLAINTIFF was
also discriminated against
woman on

gender.

appropriate duties for the position, Whereas
the only
Wu. Soon

experienced to Mr.

improvement plan (“PIP”). The PIP

requirements, but
PLAINTIFF was only given

0n

opportunities.
the
stated in part that
On
issued
given
duty work.
she
a performance
not meeting performance
had denied PLAINTIFF proper training and work opportunities
September
13, 2021,
PLAINTIFF fiom
PLAINTIFF complained
TESLA’s Human Resources
seeking internal
about the discrimination,
department. Chenoa Chavez, an

harassment, and retaliatory PIP t
Partner With
TESLA, met with PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF
that

crew where she worked with GRIFFIN. Instead of placing PLAINTIFF

position as a solar roofer, however,

required her t0 see
TESLA was
men were
PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF was
the basis of her gender. This PIP subsequently prevented
E.
light
the basis 0f her
discrimination and harassment
DEFENDANTS
thereafter,
DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF 0n
her solar roofing team. The
PLAINTIFF complained about
D.

opening an investigation into the matter, and removing her
TESLA
HR
regarding these concerns. Ms. Chavez then informed
fiom the
in another appropriate
assigned her t0 pick up trash—an assignment that still
GRIFFIN.

MANHATTAN
GRIFFIN when he
take her hair wrap off so she could touch
then asked
MATERN LAW GROUP
is
and made
employee, operations manager Silva

BEACH, CA
ass,”
‘Yat
referred t0 her in a derogatory manner, as well as asking
B.

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
PLAINTIFF, who
White, fiequently called
continued.

is
PLAINTIFF “Sha-nay—nay,”
called
also
and
include, but are not limited to, the following:
GRIFFIN, who
A.

hostile, abusive,
_4_
COMPLAINT
Page 5 PLAINTIFF was
F.

not interviewed by anyone as part of this investigation, nor

was she informed of any findings 0r

PLAINTIFF

remedy the discrimination and harassment
alleges that
failed t0 take
PLAINTIFF had

York,

transfer to another solar

being eligible t0 transfer. Because

was forced to
fell
ill.
t0 return t
New York t
DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has

anguish.

foregoing acts and omissions 0f DEFENDANTS.
Additionally,
13.
As
suffered,
PLAINTIFF
refused t0 allow
and will continue t
t0 transfer, she
unlawfifl and malicious
suffer, great
acts
0f
mental and emotional
has been humiliated and embarrassed as a result 0f the

of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has suffered monetary damages

trial.
in
an amount subject t0 proof at
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation 0f California Fair
Employment and Housing Act — Sexual and Racial Harassment
Gov’t Code § 12940(j)]

[Ca].

(Against

14.
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS)
all
incorporates herein
by specific
reference, as though fully set forth, the
factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

15.
At
all
relevant times herein, California
an unlawful employment

“[i]t is

0r,

State 0f California.
practice, unless
Government Code
§

provided
that
based upon a bona fide occupational qualification,
except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the
t0 harass
..
(j)
[flor an employer
01'
any other person, because 0f
an employee.”
MATERN LAW GROUP
MANHATTAN
PLAINTIFF
fiom
a further direct and proximate result of the foregoing unlawful and malicious acts

BEACH, CA
New
care for her, so she applied for an internal
a direct and proximate result of the foregoing

lives in
quit.
As
12.

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
PLAINTIFF’S mother, who
INJURIES TO PLAINTIFF

t
that she experienced.
roofing position. The retaliatory PIP, however, prevented PLAINTIFF

information and belief,
immediate and appropriate corrective action
In or around late September 2021,
G.

TESLA
On
resulting corrective action.
_5_
COMPLAINT
.
..
race, sex, gender
Page 6 As
16.

set forth
above,
Government Code
DEFENDANTS’
acts
PLAINTIFF

California

DEFENDANTS

Right t0 Sue

engaging in severe or pervasive conduct that created a hostile work environment on the basis 0f

PLAINTIFF’S

17.
§
129400).
a
complaint
against
With the California Department 0f Fair Employment and Housing and received a
letter
0n January
21, 2022.
DEFENDANTS
sexually harassed
PLAINTIFF by
sex.
TESLA ENERGY and TESLA knew,
0r should have known, 0f GRIFFIN’S conduct

against
GRIFFIN
18.
As
for his egregious conduct, thereby ratifying his actions.
a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts, practices, and omissions,

PLAINTIFF

emotional distress, in an amount subject t0 proof

damages together with prejudgment

3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment
19.
has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish, and physical and
By
engaging
in
the
at trial.
PLAINTIFF
claims such amount as
interest thereon pursuant t0 California Civil
aforementioned unlawful
acts,
Code §§ 3287,
interest.
practices,
and omissions,
PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was

DEFENDANTS

malicious, and despicable, and

and safety ofothers. Therefore, an award ofpunitive damages, sufficient

and t0 serve as an example to deter

made. PLAINTIFF claims such amount as damages

such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to California Civil

Code §§ 3287, 3288 and/or any other

20.

against

//

//

//

//
intended to cause injury to
Additionally,
was
carried
0n with a conscious and
DEFENDANTS fiom similar
t
willful disregard
t
conduct
be determined
reckless,
of the rights
punish DEFENDANTS
in the filture,
at trial.
should be
PLAINTIFF
claims
applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest.
PLAINTIFF
seeks an award 0f reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
DEFENDANTS pursuant t0 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
MATERN LAW GROUP
MANHATTAN
filed
and failed to properly investigate, reprimand, terminate, or take an appropriate disciplinary action

BEACH, CA
timely

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
and omissions constitute Violations of
_6_
COMPLAINT
Page 7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Gender and Race Discrimination

in Violation 0f the Fair
Act

[Ca].
(Against

PLAINTIFF
21.
Gov’t Code § 12940(a)]
DEFENDANTS TESLA ENERGY and TESLA)
incorporates herein
by specific
At
22.
all
relevant times herein, California
an unlawful employment practice

“[i]t is

gender

conditions, or privileges of employment.”

.
.
.
0f any person
As
23.
set forth
.
.
.
.
.
.
Government Code
Government Code
TESLA ENERGY
provided
[,]
sex, [or]
person in compensation or in terms,
TESLA ENERGY
TESLA
Violations of

against Plaintiff in compensation, conditions, and privileges of employment,

because of her gender and race.

and was subjected

employment benefits and

reprimanded. This conduct was severe and pervasive and so altered working conditions as t
it

have considered the work environment
more
difficult for
24.
section 12940.
because she was a Black woman.
privileges,
PLAINTIFF to do
PLAINTIFF
and
PLAINTIFF was an employee of TESLA
to discrimination
t
be
hostile, just as
and thereon
PLAINTIFF
alleges, that her
basis
ENERGY
of and
TESLA
and
PLAINTIFF was
denied
make

Violation

as alleged herein.

25.
section 12940 and has resulted in
a direct and proximate result of TESLA
did.
gender and race were the
motivating factors in the wrongful employment actions and practices.
As
on the
A reasonable person in PLAINTIFF’S position would

ofGovernment Code
discriminated
denied work opportunities and assignments, and was
her job.
believes,
that
and TESLA’S acts and omissions constitute
Such discrimination
damage and
ENERGY
injury to
is
in
PLAINTIFF,
and TESLA’s unlawfifl
acts,
and omissions, PLAINTIFF has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish,

practices,

and physical and emotional

amount
as
distress, in
an amount subject t0 proof at trial.
PLAINTIFF
damages together W1th prejudgment mterest thereon pursuant
MATERN LAW GROUP
MANHATTAN

[flor an employer, because of the race
t0 discriminate against the
above,
§

BEACH, CA
reference, as though fully set forth, the
factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
Employment and Housing
_7_
COMPLAINT
to C1V
claims such
Code
sectlons
Page 8
3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment

26.
By engaging
in the
and omissions,
TESLA ENERGY and TESLA intended to cause injury

to

and was carried on with a conscious and willful disregard of the rights and safety 0f others.

engaging in the aforementioned unlawful

practices,

The individual and

corporation and personally engaged in the oppressive, fiaudulent, 0r malicious conduct, and
PLAINTIFF. TESLA
ENERGY and TESLA’S conduct was reckless,
and omissions,
DOE
acts, practices,
TESLA ENERGY
and

authorized or ratified that conduct. Therefore,

sufficient to punish

future, in

t0 Civil

interest.
27.
against
DEFENDANTS
and
an amount according to proof at
Code
malicious, and despicable,
and omissions, and by ratifying such
TESLA
intended to cause injury to
By
acts,
PLAINTIFF.
defendants were officers, directors, or managing agents of the defendant
PLAINTIFF
to serve as
trial,
seeks an award 0f punitive damages,
an example to deter similar conduct in the
together With prejudgment interest thereon pursuant
sections 3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment
Additionally,
PLAINTIFF
seeks an award 0f reasonable attorneys” fees and costs
DEFENDANTS pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Take Steps Necessary to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and/or Retaliation

[Ca].

(Against

28.
PLAINTIFF
Gov’t Code § 12940(k)]
DEFENDANTS TESLA ENERGY and TESLA)
incorporates herein
by specific
29.
At
all
relevant times, California
Government Code

unlawful employment practice

necessary t0 prevent discrimination and harassment

30.
As
set forth

Violations of the California

t
MATERN LAW GROUP
reference, as though fully set forth, the
factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

.
.
above,
.
(k)
[flor an employer
TESLA ENERGY
Government Code
prevent harassment, and retallatlon.
§
.
.
.
§
12940 provided
that “[i]t
is
an
t0 fail t0 take all reasonable steps
fiom occurring.”
and TESLA’S acts and omissions constitute
12940(k), in that they failed to take necessary steps
PLAINTIFF filed

MANHATTAN
and omissions, and by
ratifying such acts, practices,

BEACH, CA
acts, practices,

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
aforementioned unlawful
interest.
_8_
COMPLAINT
a complalnt W1th the Callfornla
Page 9
Department ofFair Employment and Housing, and received a right to sue

TESLA ENERGY

harassment and retaliation
By
and
TESLA
TESLA ENERGY

omissions,

and emotional

damages together With pre-judgment

3288 and any other applicable provision providing
32.
reason of
and TESLA’S unlawfill
distress, in
an amount subject
t
proof at
PLAINTIFF
trial.
and
claims such amount as
interest thereon pursuant to California Civil
for
prejudgment
Code §§ 3287,
interest.
TESLA ENERGY and TESLA knew, or should have known,
of GRIFFIN’S conduct
and failed t0 properly investigate, reprimand, terminate, 0r take appropriate disciplinary action

against
GRIFFIN

TESLA
engaged

by

conduct, acted with willful and conscious disregard 0f PLAINTIFF’s rights, welfare and safety, and

caused great physical and emotional harm to PLAINTIFF.

damages, sufficient to punish

them from

damages

judgment

provision providing for prejudgment interest.
for his egregious conduct, thereby ratifying his actions.
in the
ratifying such acts,
aforementioned unlaWfiJI
engaged
in intentional, reckless
TESLA ENERGY
to be determined at
trial.
PLAINTIFF
33.
PLAINTIFF will also
and
TESLA
TESLA ENERGY
and
and omissions alleged herein, and
willful, oppressive
and malicious
Therefore, an award of punitive
and
t0 serve as
PLAINTIFF
an example t0 deter
claims such amount as
claims such amount as damages together with pre-
Code §§ 3287, 3288 and any other
applicable
seek the costs and expenses 0fthis action, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 the California Fair

policy.
Employment and Housing Act and
California public
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation [Ca]. Gov’t

and
interest thereon pursuant to California Civil

acts, practices
similar conduct in the future, should be made.

(Against
34.
PLAINTIFF
allegatlons 1n the
Code
§ 12490(h)]
DEFENDANTS TESLA ENERGY and TESLA)
incorporates
by specific
reference, as though fully set forth, the factual
foregomg paragraphs.
MATERN LAW GROUP
MANHATTAN
practices
has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish, and physical

BEACH, CA
acts,

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
such
fiom occurring.
31.

on January 21, 2022.
failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent

PLAINTIFF
letter
_9_
COMPLAINT
Page 10 At
35.

all
relevant times, California
Government Code
is
an

discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this

part 0r because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in

part.”
As
36.
set forth
.
.
above,
.
(h)
[flor any employer
TESLA ENERGY
of the California Government Code

Violations

PLAINTIFF

toward her and
to intolerable
§
.
.
.
to discharge, expel, or otherwise
any proceeding under
this
and TESLA’S acts and omissions constitute
12940(h),
in that
it
continued t0 subject
working conditions following her complaints about GRIFFIN’s conduct
TESLA ENERGY and TESLA failed
failed t0 investigate her complaints about him.
such harassment

t0 take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent

a complaint with the California Department of Fair

t0 sue letter
fiom occurring. PLAINTIFF filed
Employment and Housing, and received
a right
0n January 21, 2022.
37.
By reason of DEFENDANTS’
unlawful
acts, practices
and omissions, PLAINTIFF

has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish, and physical and emotional distress,

in

pre-judgment interest thereon pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288 and any other

applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest.
an amount subject

38.
t
proof at
DEFENDANTS
trial.
PLAINTIFF
engaged
in
the
claims such amount as damages together with
aforementioned unlawful
acts,
practices
and

omissions alleged herein, and by ratifying such acts, engaged in intentional, reckless and willful,

oppressive and malicious conduct, acted with willful and conscious disregard of

rights, welfare

an award of punitive damages, sufficient t0 punish

deter

damages

judgment

provision providing for prejudgment interest.

and
them from
safety,
DEFENDANTS
similar conduct in the filture, should be made.
to be determined at
trial.
PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF
Will also
and
t0 serve as
PLAINTIFF
an example t
claims such amount as
claims such amount as damages together with pre-
interest thereon pursuant to California Civil
39.
PLAINTIFF’s
and caused great physical and emotional harm to PLAINTIFF. Therefore,
Code §§ 3287, 3288 and any other
applicable
seek the costs and expenses 0f this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 the Cahforma Falr
MATERN LAW GROUP
BEACH, CA
that “[i]t
unlawful employment practice

MANHATTAN
12940 provided

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
§
_
0_
COMPLAINT
Employment and Housmg Act and
Page 11
California public policy.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(Against All

incorporates herein
by specific
During
41.

TESLA and was

TESLA ENERGY
all
GRIFFIN was employed by TESLA
relevant times,
and
TESLA are
liable for
GRIFFIN’S conduct.
knew, 0r should have known, 0f GRIFFIN’S conduct and

terminate, or take an appropriate disciplinary action against

thereby ratifying his actions.
GRIFFIN’S conduct,
42.
exceed
as set forth above,
bounds of decency. Further,

reasonable person as intolerable in a civilized community.

all
By engaging
43.
likely result in
harm due
On
44.
mental
to cause

probability that
and TESLA, such that
GRIFFIN
in that
it
was
so extreme as
conduct would be regarded by any
GRIFFIN knew that his conduct would
PLAINTIFF
distress or, at
alleges that
GRIFFIN
minimum, acted with
acted With the intent
reckless disregard of the
suffer emotional distress.
committing the outrageous and malicious acts and omissions alleged herein,
DEFENDANTS

severe emotional distress.

the intent 0f inflicting humiliation, mental anguish, and severe emotional distress
knew, or should have known,
Moreover,
that such conduct
DEFENDANTS’
a direct and proximate result 0f

46.

omissions,

PLAINTIFF

t0 California Civil
MATERN LAW GROUP
TESLA
for his egregious conduct,

As
and
distress.
PLAINTIFF would
By
45.
aforementioned conduct,
information and belief,
PLAINTIFF emotional

t
in the
and
failed to properly investigate, reprimand,
DEFENDANTS’
to
ENERGY
TESLA ENERGY
was outrageous

PLAINTIFF has
acts
would
result in
PLAINTIFF’S
and omissions were perpetrated with
DEFENDANTS’
suffered severe emotional distress, in an
unlawful
upon PLAINTIFF.
acts, practices,
and
amount subject t0 proof at trial.
claims such amount as damages together With prejudgment interest thereon pursuant
Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any

MANHATTAN
TESLA ENERGY
acting in his capacity as a supervisor at

BEACH, CA
reference, as though fully set forth, the
factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
PLAINTIFF
40.

DEFENDANTS)
_1 1_
COMPLAINT
other applicable provision providing for
Page 12
prejudgment

interest.
DEFENDANTS
47.
in the
aforementioned unlawful
and omissions. In doing
in intentional, reckless, willful, oppressive,

disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights, welfare, and safety, and caused great physical and/or emotional

harm

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF
to
PLAINTIFF.
and
acts, practices,
to deter
and malicious conduct, acted With willful and conscious
an award
Therefore,
so,
0f punitive
fiom
them and others
damages,
claims such amount as damages t0 be determined

Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and/or Retention
As
49.
Which

appropriate.
DEFENDANTS TESLA ENERGY and TESLA)
incorporates herein
by specific
reference, as though fully set forth, the
alleged above,
GRIFFIN was incompetent
and/or unfit to perform the
PLAINTIFF
50.
TESLA
is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
0f reasonable diligence, should have known

Who committed

he was hired, and that an undue risk t0 persons such as

employment.

described above in conscious disregard for the rights and well-being 0f others,

PLAINTIFF.
knew, or
in the exercise
the harassing conduct,
TESLA ENERGY
TESLA ENERGY
51.
and
and
was incompetent and unfit
TESLA
TESLA
had a duty

PLAINTIFF

consented to such outrageous and dangerous conduct.
52.
GRIFFIN was
form 0fthe harassment and
TESLA ENERGY
GRIFFIN,
perform the duties for which
exist because
t0 use reasonable care
it
0f
his
_
2_
COMPLAINT
to properly
PLAINTIFF
in
n0 manner
in hiring, supervising, and/or retaining
PLAINTIFF’S harm.

and
including
breached, thereby causing injury t
retaliation alleged above.
and TESLA’s negligence
a substantial factor in causing
that
retained the employees responsible for the acts
supervise their managers, employees, and agents, which
in the
t
PLAINTIFF would

for
TESLA ENERGY
and

work
TESLA ENERGY and TESLA hired him.

punish
factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

PLAINTIFF
48.
is
t
at trial.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against
sufficient
similar conduct in the filture,

MATERN LAW GROUP
engaged

BEACH, CA
DEFENDANTS
and
omissions and/or ratified such

MANHATTAN
practices,
acts,

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
engaged
Page 13 53.

As

and physical and emotional

amounts as damages together With prejudgment

§§ 3287, 3288 and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest.
54.
By
distress in
an amount subject to proof at
condoning and ratifying such acts by

perpetrators 0f these practices and omissions,

injury t
PLAINTIFF.
TESLA ENERGY

willful disregard
of the

punitive damages, sufficient to punish

to deter

together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to California Civil

any other applicable provision providing
fiom
TESLA
and safety 0f
others. Therefore,
TESLA ENERGY
similar conduct in the filture.
for
and
TESLA
PLAINTIFF
prejudgment
PLAINTIFF
intended to cause
seeks an award 0f
and t0 serve as an example
claims such amounts as damages
Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or
interest.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
DEFENDANTS TESLA ENERGY and TESLA)
(Against
PLAINTIFF
and by
and despicable, and was carried out With a conscious and

55.
Code
and TESLA’S intentional and injurious conduct toward
reckless, malicious,

incorporates herein
by specific
reference, as though fully set forth, the
allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

56.
At
all
times relevant in this action, Article
1,
Section 8 of the California Constitution

and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act was

0n

Housing Act, and the public policy of the State 0f California based thereupon prohibit

DEFENDANTS fiom discriminating

from

failing to take all reasonable steps necessary t0 prevent discrimination

occurrlng.
DEFENDANTS.
Article
retaliating against
I,
in filll force
and
effect,
Section 8 0f the Constitution, the California Fair
against or harassing an
and was binding
Employment and
employee because 0f race 0r gender,
an employee because she protests harassment 0r discrimination, and
MATERN LAW GROUP
BEACH, CA
and
PLAINTIFF was
them
claims such
and adequately discipline the

rights
PLAINTIFF
acts, practices, omissions,
failing to properly investigate
TESLA ENERGY
trial.
interest thereon pursuant to California Civil
engaging in the aforementioned unlawful

acts,
and omissions, PLAINTIFF has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish,
practices,

MANHATTAN
and TESLA’s unlawfifl

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
ENERGY
a direct and proximate result of TESLA
_
3_
COMPLAINT
fiom
and harassment from
Page 14
Each 0f the aforementioned
57.
PLAINTIFF
58.
believes,

constructive

DEFENDANTS

discharging

practices prohibited under the Fair

subject t0 working conditions
discharge
retaliated against
As
by
PLAINTIFF,
DEFENDANTS
BEACH, CA
by constructively
unlawful employment
Act. Accordingly,
PLAINTIFF was

damages together with prejudgment

any other applicable provision providing
has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish, and physical and
By engaging
60.
such
in the
interest thereon pursuant to Civil
for
prejudgment
and omissions,

PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was

0n With a conscious and willful disregard 0fthe

seeks an award ofpunitive damages, sufficient t0 punish

to deter similar

prejudgment

provision providing for prejudgment interest.
practices,
reckless, malicious,
rights
Code §§ 3287, 3288 and/or
acts, practices,
DEFENDANTS
ratifying
claims such amount as
interest.
aforementioned unlawful

acts,
PLAINTIFF
at trial.
intended t
cause injury t
and despicable, and was carried
DEFENDANTS and t0 serve as an example
conduct in the future, in an amount according t0 proof
interest thereon pursuant t0 Civil
and omissions, and by
and safety of others. Therefore, PLAINTIFF
at trial, together
Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any
with
other applicable
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays

1.
DEFENDANTS
For compensatory damages 0n PLAINTIFF’S economic
rights, humiliation, physical anguish,
2.
for judgment against
For injunctive
employees and successors, and
relief
all
and mental and emotional
permanently enjoining
_
14_
COMPLAINT
as follows:
losses, deprivation
of civil
distress;
DEFENDANTS
and
persons 1n actlve conduct or partlclpatlon w1th

MANHATTAN
that
a proximate result 0f DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts, practices, and omissions,
emotional distress, in an amount subject to proof

alleges
that violated public policy.

MATERN LAW GROUP
DEFENDANTS’
Employment and Housing
PLAINTIFF

further
including, but not limited to,

and gender were substantial
PLAINTIFF
employment.
because she opposed

ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
alleges, that her race
conduct, as set forth above, including but not limited t0 the
of PLAINTIFF’s
her employment,
59.
and thereon
DEFENDANTS’
motivating factors in

embodies a fundamental and well-established
public policy in the State of California.

statutes
their
agents,
DEFENDANTS
Page 15
in discriminatory
3.

permitted by law;

4.

and harassing practices;
For an award 0f punitive and exemplary damages on each cause of action as

For
interest
accrued to date pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or and other
applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest;
For an award 0f reasonable attorneys’
5.
Employment and Housing
fees, costs,
California Fair

applicable statutes providing for attorneys’ fees and costs; and
6.
For such other
relief as the
Act, California
§ 12965,
January 27,
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
By:
MATTHEW MATERN

JOSHUA D. BOXER
COREY B. BENNETT
CLARE E. MORAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff
J.
SHANEL DICKSON




MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
MANHATTAN
BEACH, CA
all
W MW
Respectfully submitted,
1
and
may deem just and proper.
Court

DATED:
and expenses, pursuant to the
Government Code

fiom engaging
_
5_
COMPLAINT
other
Page 16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF hereby demands
a jury
with respect t
trial
all
issues triable
of right by jury.

DATED:
January 27,
W
Respectfully submitted,
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

By:
MM—
MATTHEW MATERN
J.

JOSHUA D. BOXER
COREY B. BENNETT
CLARE E. MORAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHANEL DICKSON
1







MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE
MANHATTAN
BEACH, CA
_
6-
COMPLAINT
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?