Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich 8) 610-8600 « Sowa anne vn 22 : e e FILED JosePH M. LovreTovicu Ki Fs ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT WOODLAND HLS CAL OMNA oe ay ay \ : Tet i s10 880 on ex (18) 910.8030 JUN 714 10 JOSEPH M, LOVRETOVICH, STATE BAR NO. 73403 CHRISTOPHER W. TAYLOR, STATE BAR NO. 236245 Yor A. CLARKE, CLERK. ELLEN E, COHEN, STATE BAR NO. 258131 BRIAN T. BRADLEY, STATE BAR NO, 266693 BV! DEPUTY Attorneys for Plaintiff AMANDA SAMY A um +t rNO Gul Ig, Selva May Napa! Lihue, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT caseNo: BC439469 ) AMANDA SAMYA, an individual, Plaintist } COMPLAINT FOR: vs, ) A. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION I ) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA ) GOVERNMENT CODE §12940, ET SEQ. Chen eee one ) a, HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION oF Califomia Corporations JOHN) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE BAKER, an individual; and DOES 1 ) §12940, ET SEQ. [FEHAI; through 100, inclusive, } 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF ) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE Defendants §12940, ET SEQ. [FEHAI; — 4. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940, ET SEQ. IFEHAI; 5. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE WORK PROCES VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ. IFEHAJ; AND 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. §12940, ET.SEQ. [FEHA}. 7. WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET, SEQ [FEHAI. IN n COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich Woodland Hills, CA 91387 (618) 610-8800, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, AMANDA SAMYA, hereby brings her complaint against the above-named Defendants and states and alleges as follows: PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIO! 1. Plaintiffis informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter ‘CPR TECHNOLOGIES”), was, and is, a California Corporation, doing business in the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles. 2. Atall times herein mentioned, and at the time the cause of action arose, Defendant JOHN BAKER (hereinafter “Defendant BAKER”), was an individual and resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and at all relevant times was employed by Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. as President. 3. Atall times herein mentioned, and at the time the cause of action arose, Plaintiff AMANDA SAMYA (hereinafter "Plaintif?") was an individual and resident of the County of Lo: Angeles, State of California, and at all relevant times was employed by Defendants in the County| of Los Angeles. 4. PI ‘ff is unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES | through 100, inclusive, and for that reason sue: id defendants by such fictitious names, Plaintiff will file and serve one or more amendments to this complaint upon leaming the true names and capacities of said defendants. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for, and proximately caused, the injuries and damages to Plaintiff hereinafter alleged. ‘COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich 6. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual, or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is negligently, intentionally, or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to the Plaintiff, as herein alleged. Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show their names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 7, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the defendants named herein acted as the employee, agent, servant, partner, alter-ego and/or joint venturer of one or more of the other defendants named herein. In doing the acts and/or ‘omissions alleged herein, each of said defendants acted within the course and scope of his or her relationship with any other defendant; and gave and received full consent, permission and ratification to the acts and/or omissions alleged herein. 8, Hereinafter in Complaint, unless otherwise noted, reference to a defendant shall mean all defendants, and each of them. 9. Plaintiff commenced employment with Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES in or around March 31, 2008 as a Transcription Clerk. At all relevant times during her employment, Plaintiff performed her duties with competence and professionalism, and had become a valued member of Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES. 10. On or around August, 2008, Plaintiff lost consciousness when she suffered a head injury as a consequence of a chair breaking during Plaintif?’s employment with Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES. 11. Following Plaintiff's injury on or around July, 2008, Plaintiff began to suffer from severe headaches, occasional loss of vision, and difficulty concentrating, 12. In or around August 6, 2008, Plaintiff went to the Providence Holy Cross Hospital. Plaintiff's symptoms were so severe that she was transferred to the Northridge Hospital, where Plaintiff stayed for seven (7) days. COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich Avenue is. CA 91367 s 13, Despite of seeing several specialists, Plaintiff's diagnosis is inconclusive, but suspected to be Post Traumatic Concussive Syndrome. Plaintiff's symptoms continued to worsen forcing her to schedule monthly doctor appointments in order to moni it her condition, 14. In or around mid-April, 2009, Plaintiff engaged in a conversation with Defendant BAKER in which she discussed the possibility of changing her employment from full-time to part-time, Plaintiff informed Defendant BAKER that her symptoms were not improving and that working less hours would allow her to fulfill her duties as well as attend scheduled doctor appointments. Unfortunately, Defendants arbitrarily denied this request to accommodate. 15. Ati 3, Plaintiff also proposed to work from home, as almost half of Defendants’ employees do, but Defendant BAKER stated this was not possible for the Plaintif?’s job description, 16. In or around the beginning of May, 2009, Plaintiff engaged in a conversation with Defendant BAKER. Plaintiff explained to Defendant BAKER that she would need time to see a doctor approximately two (2) days a month, Defendant BAKER told Plai that all other employees found time for medical appointments after work hours, and so should she. Subsequently, Plaintiff notified defendant that there were no doctor appointments after 4:30 p.m. which Defendants ignored. Defendants expected that Plaintiff chose between her job or her health, 17. In or around beginning of May 2009, Plaintiff complained to Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ Operations Manager and Supervisor, Sara Pina (hereinafter "Ms, Pina"), about Defendant BAKER giving Plaintiff verbal warnings regarding her need to attend doctor appointments, Plaintiff stated that because of her disability she should be accommodated, and these verbal threats were against the law. 18. In or around May 5, 2009, Defendant BAKER sent Plaintiff an electronic communication, in which he stated that Ms, Pina had told Defendant BAKER that Plaintiff was considering filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinatter| "EEOC". 4 COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich 4 5 6 7 8g 9 19, After hearing of Plaintiff"s alleged intention of filing a complaint with the EEOC, Defendants began to retaliate against her by threatening to replace her, and stating that as a small employer they were not required by state or federal law to provide employees with accommodation for their disabilities. 20. In or around May 11, 2009, Plaintiff sent Defendants an electronic correspondence in which she offered Defendants several ways in which they could accommodate her. As Defendants had already denied her petition to work a few hours from home, Plaintiff offered to ‘work on a part-time basis, sharing her employment with another employee. Defendants disregarded her suggestion claiming that her position was very specialized and it would be very costly to train a new employee. 21. The hostile work environment created by Defendants, together with Defendants’ ‘unwillingness to accommodate Plaintiff for her disability left Plaintiff with no option but to resign her former employment with Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES in or around June 5, 2009. 22. Despite of claiming that Plaintiff's position could not be completed from home, Plaintiff informed and believes that Defendants now allow the employee who replaced Plaintiff t0 complete his/her job duties from home. 23. On or about May 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed charges with the State of California, Department of Fair Employment and Housing and received immediate right to sue letters on or about May 3, 2010, Wy Ht Me We Wh COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich Avenue Is. OA 91367 30-9800 5041 Va Woodiand 1618) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ. [FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA)] (Against Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100) 24. Pl mtiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 23 inclusive of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place. 25. Atall times herein mentioned, California Government Code (“Code”) § 12940 et seq,, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants, as Defendants regularly employed five or more persons 26. Code § 12940(a) requires Defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of disability. Per Code § 12926.1(b), “disability” includes, but is not limited to, protection from discrimination due to actual or perceived impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived to be disabling. 27. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the FEHA by harassing Plaintiff based on her disability and subjecting Plaintiff to numerous verbal threats for attending doctor appointments. Moreover, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the FEHA when they failed to engage in the interactive process to determine if Plaintiff could be given a reasonable accommodation and failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that her disability was a motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to harass Plaintif?’s employment, and other discrimination against her, in violation of Government Code §12940(a). 29. Asa proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered | actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation, loss of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment related opportunities in her field and damage to her professional reputation, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. Plaintif? claims such amounts as damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. si : | COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich §<3 Sos = 30, Asa proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment, as well as the manifestation of physical symptoms. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that she will continue to experience said physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently ascertainable, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial 31. Asa proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attomeys to prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected to continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys fees and costs under Code § 12965(b). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION HARASSMENT BASED ON DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ. [FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA)| (Against All Defendants) 32, Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 23, inctusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein 33. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES has subjected PI ‘ff to unlawful diserimination by creating a hostile work environment based on Plaintiff's disability, in violation of the FEHA. ‘The acts and conduet whieh ve rise to this harassment were pervasive and severe, and include but are not limited to: Falsely accusing Plaintiff of receiving compensation for hours she did not ‘work; Refusing to allow Plaintiff to do work from home when other similarly situated employees| were allowed to; Verbally threatening Plaintiff for attending doctor meetings; Subjecting Plaintiff to over-scrutinization by Plaintiff's supervisors 34. The foregoing actions, when viewed collectively, created a hostile work environment based on disability, tantamount to, and no less severe or pervasive than, the facts supporting a finding of hostile work environment because of disability, as found in Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 341 z COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich Avenue is, OA 91367 10-0800, eran 35. The above-described acts of dis rmination and harassment created an intimidating, oppressive, hostile, offensive and abusive work environment, which altered and impaired the Plaintiff's employment and emotional well-being, 36. The foregoing conduct was severe or pervasive, with the objective or the consequence, of making it more difficult and less desirable for Plaintiff to perform her work duties. These actions have been and continue to be taken by defendants, with the objective or the consequence, of adversely transforming Plaintiff's work environment, 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in addition to the practices enumerated above, defendants, and each of them, have engaged in other acts, conduct and practices against the Plaintiff which are not yet fully known. At such time, as said practices become known to her, Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint. 38. Upon receiving Plaintiff's report of discrimination, Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGI 3S failed to fulfill its statutory duty to timely take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring in the workplace, as required by Government Code § 12940(k). 39, Asa direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress in the form of anger, anxiety, embarrassment, headaches, humiliation, loss of sleep, confidence, self-esteem and general discomfort; will ineur medical expenses for treatment by psychotherapists and other health care professionals, and other incidental expenses; suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages| in an amount according to proof at trial. 40. In doing the act alleged herein, Defendant BAKER acted willfully, intentionally and maliciously, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES had in place policies and procedures whereby supervisors, officers, directors, and employees were required to follow in accommodating an employee's known physical bilities. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, through its agent and officer, Defendant BAKER consciously chose not to follow these known procedures, thereby entitling Plaintiff to 8 ‘COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich (618) 610-8800 an award of exemplary and pun ive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be proven at trial 41. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, as alleged hereis Plaintiff has been compelled to retain legal counsel, and is therefore entitled to reasonabl attomeys’ fees and costs of suit, pursuant to Government Code §§ 12940, 12965 subdivision (b). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ. [FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA)} (Against Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100) 42. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 43. Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct protected by the FEHA. In or about August, 2008 Defendants were informed of Plaintiff's disability. Specifically, Defendants were informed that Plaintiff had been injured in the workplace when a chair broke, and had suffered from a severe head concussion and loss of consciousness, which had led to several recurrent symptoms. In or about August 2008, Plaintiff's belief was confirmed by the diagnosis of several specialists, leading to the belief that she suffered from Post Traumatic Concussive Syndrome. Defendants were thereby was placed on express notice that Plaintiff had a physical disability within the meaning of the FEHA, California Government Code §§12940 and 12926. 44, Further, Plaintiff made a complaint to Defendants regarding Defendants’ failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Following this complaint, Defendants heard of Plaintiff's alleged intention of filing a complaint with the EEOC for Defendants’ failure to accommodate Plaintiff. Thereafter, rather than providing Plaintiff with reasonable accommodations, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff. 45. The acts of retaliation from Defendants towards Plaintiff include, but are not limited to: Falsely accusing Plaintiff of receiving compensation for hours she did not work; Refusing to allow Plaintiff to do work from home when other similarly situated employees were allowed to; 9 ‘COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich 5 ‘Verbally threatening Plaintiff for attending doctor meetings; Subjecting Plaintiff to over- scrutinization by Plaintif?’s supervisors. 46. The foregoing conduct constitute acts of retaliation performed by defendants in response to plaintiff's conduct in (a) asserting the existence of her disability, (b) requesting reasonable accommodations, and (¢) making complaints to Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES for Defendant BAKER’s refusal to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff, 47. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in addition to the practices enumerated above, defendants, and each of them, have engaged in other retaliatory actions against Plaintiff which are not yet fully known. At such time, as said discriminatory practices become known to her, Plaintiff will scek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint. 48, Asa direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress in the form of anger, anxiety, embarrassment, headaches, humiliation, loss of sleep, confidence, self-esteem and general discomfort; will incur medical expenses for treatment by psychotherapists and other health care professionals, and other incidental expenses; suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintif'is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 49. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain legal counsel, and is therefore entitled to reasonable, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, pursuant to Government Code §§ 12940, 12965 subdivision (b), 50. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against and upon employees of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, based on the disability of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ employees and required defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ managers officers, and agents to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against and upon employees of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, based on the disability of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ employees. Defendant BAKER was a manager, officer, and/or agent of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES and was aware of Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES" 10 COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M, Lovretovich policies and procedures prohibiting discrimination, harassment, retaliation based on an employee's disability and also requiring defendant CPR TECHNOLOGI managers, officers, and agents to prevent, and investigate discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against and. ‘upon employees of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, based on their disability. However, Defendant BAKER chose to consciously and willfully ignore said policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduct was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant to Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount to be established that is appropriate to punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct, FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ENGAGE 1 IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ. [FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA)] (Against Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100) THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS 51. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs | through 23, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein, 52. Government Code §12940(n) provides that it is unlawful for an employer to fail to ‘engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any. 53. Defendants failed to engage is a timely, good faith, interac ve process with Plaintiff to determine effective reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's known disability. 54. Defendants engaged in communication with Plaintiff regarding possible aecommodations, but did not make an effort to assess the effectiveness of any of the accommodations suggested by Plaintiff. Further, Defendants failed to explore PlaintifP's limitations and failed to suggest a reasonable accommodation to overcome such limitations. a COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich 5041 va Weadlana (618) 6 55. Asa proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at the time of trial 56. Asa direct and legal result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions herein referenced, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general, and special damages including but not limited to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, physical injuries, physical sickness, as well as emotional distress, all to her damage in an amount according to proof. 57. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, acted willfully, intentionally and maliciously, an conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, had in place policies and procedures whereby supervisors, officers, directors, and employees were required to follow in accommodating an employee's known physical disabilities. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, through its agent and o! Defendant BAKER consciously chose not to follow these known procedures, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be proven at trial 58. Plaintiff also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ. [FAIR EMPLOYMENT. AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA)] (Against Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100) 59. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs | through 23of this Complaint, 2 COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich 60. Defendant is a business entity regularly employing at least the minimum number of employees upon which certain legal duties and obligations arise under various laws and statutes, including FEHA. 61, Plaintiff's physical disabilities limited her ability to engage in the major life activity of working. 62. Although Defendants, and each of them, knew of Plaintiff's physical injury, Defendants, and each of them, refused to accommodate Plaintiff's disability foreing her to choose between her health and her job, Defendants’ actions were in direct contravention of FEHA. 63. Plaintiff alleges with reasonable accommodations she could have fully performed all duties and functions of her job in an adequate, satisfactory and/or outstanding manner. 64. Asa direct and legal result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions herein referenced, Piaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general, and special damages including but not limited to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, physical injuries. physical sickness, a8 well as emotional distress, all to her damage in an amount according to proof. 65. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, acted willfully, intentionally and maliciously, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Pla iff, Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, had in place policies and procedures whereby supervisors, officers, directors, and employees were required to follow in accommodating an employee's known physical disabilities. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, through its agent and officer, Defendant BAKER consciously chose not to follow these known procedures, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be proven at 66. Plaintiff also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965. mm Mt 13 COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich CA 91367 10.8600 eed aU SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ. [FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA)] (Against Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100) 67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 23 of this complaint as though fully set forth, 68. At all times mentioned herein, California Government Code section 12940, et seq. including but not limited to sections 12940 (j) and (k), were in full force and effect and were binding upon Defendants and each of them. These sections impose on an employer a duty to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end discrimination and harassment and take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring, among other things 69. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end the discrimination and harassment. Defendants also failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the harassment and discrimination from occurring. 70. In failing and/or refusing to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end, the discrimination and harassment and in failing and/or refusing to take and or all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring, Defendants violated California Government Code § 12940 (j) and (k), causing Plaintiff to suffer damages as set forth above. 71, Asa proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plainti has suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation, loss of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment related opportunities in his field and damage to his professional reputation, all in an amount subject to proof atthe time of | trial. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 andlor § 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest | is COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M, Lovtetovich 1 Avenue, (08800, 5041 Va g & 2 ea ae 72. Asa proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintif has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment, as well as the manifestation of physical symptoms. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that she will continue to experience said physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently ascertainable, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 73. Asa proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attomeys to prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected! to continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attomeys” fees and costs under California Government Code § 12965(b). 74, Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, had in place policies and procedures that ically prohibited and required defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES” managers, officers, and sp agents to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against and upon employees of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES. based on the protected classes identified in the California Fair Employment Housing Act. Defendant BAKER was a manager, officer, and/or agent of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, and was aware of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ policies and procedures requiring defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ managers, officers, and agents to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against and upon employees of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, based on the protected classes identified in the California Fair Employment Housing Act. However, Defendant BAKER chose to consciously and willfully ignore said policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduct was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton distegard for the rights of Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant to Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount to be established that is appropriate to punish cach Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct. Mu 1s COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich 0-880, 5941 Veriel Avenue (B18) Woodiand Hills, CA 91397 aw Sewn )s SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Against Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES and DOES 1 through 100) 75. Plaintift incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 23, inclusive, of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place. 76, Atall times herein mentioned, California Government Code § 12940 et seq. were in full force and effect and were binding on Defendant and each of them, as Defendant regularly employed five (5) or more persons. California Government Code § 12940 et seq. provides that it is unlawful for an employer, to discharge a person from employment or discriminate against them in compensation or as to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment based on a prohibited employment practice, as stated in California Government Code § 12940 (a)-(0). 77. Defendants constructively terminated Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. 78. Asa proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, ineluding without limitation, loss of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment related opportunities in ber field and damage to her professional reputation, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 79. Asa proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment, as well as the manifestation of physical symptoms. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that she will continue to experience said physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently ascertainable, all in an amount subject to proof, at the time of trial. 80. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attomeys to prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected 6 ‘COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich een to continue to incur attorneys” fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled 10 recover attorneys’ fees and costs under California Government Code § 12965(b) 81. Defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited and required defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ managers, officers, and agents to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against and upon employees of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, based on the protected classes identified in the California Fair Employment Housing Act, Defendant BAKER wi a manager, officer, and/or agent of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, and was aware of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES’ policies and procedures requiring defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES” managers, officers, and agents to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against and upon employees of defendant CPR TECHNOLOGIES, based on the protected classes identified in the California Fair Employment Housing Act, However, Defendant BAKER chose to consciously and willfully ignore said policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduet was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant to Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount to be established that is appropriate to punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; 2. For medical expenses and related items of expense, according to proof, 3. For loss of eamings, according to proof; 4, For attomeys' fees, according to proof, 5. For projudgment interest, according to proof, 6. For punitive and exemplary damages, according to proof, fa ‘COMPLAINTLaw Offices of Joseph M. Lovreto wr eR ao DATED: @ ¢. 7. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 8. For such other relief and the Court may deem just and proper. Friday, June 11, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. LOVRETOVICH By: We oe JOSEPH M. LOVRETOVICH CHRISTOPHER W. TAYLOR ELLEN E. COHEN BRIAN T. BRADLEY Attorneys for Plaintiff AMANDA SAMYA 18 COMPLAINTTOR on EMT WOT ATORNEY pa Ba aon: aaa Ton caonr ose oar [Ellen E. Cohen; Joseph M. Lovretovich “SBN” 258131; 73403 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M LOVRETOVICH e-mail: jml@jmnllav.com 5941 Variek Avenue, Woodland Fills, CA 91367 rear 818610880 vo. 88.6103030 FILED _arcomeyron pues): Amanda Saya LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COUR! [SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNA, COUNTY oF LOS ANGELES swneey pores: 11 North Hill Street nung sooness: 111 North Hi Street AUN 4 2000 crrvaro zr coe: Los Angeles, 90012 seanciniae: Stanley Mosk Courthouse ‘CASE NAME: SAMYA vs. CPR TECHNOLOGIES, etal, JOH A, CLARKE, CLERIC CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation ia, vance’ Ba C1 eeunter 7 soinder BC439469 : eat Somurded__ omandodis_| _Flegwi dx pperace by dondrt tscnedetos000) Sesgoocrse)| "foal fessrooun mie aad) | xy tems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). Fak one boxBS ri ese We atest dccis Wi cae ‘Auto Tort ‘Contract Provitonally Complox Civil Litigation TT At (223 FE) reach ot conractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Cour, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) TE) Aaie 3.740 collections (08) TE) antirusvtrace regulation 09) ‘Other PUPDIWO (Personal inryProperty — [_] Oth collections (08) 1 construction detect (10) DamageWrongttl Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) (1 ass tort (40) ‘Asbestos (04) Omer contact (37) (J seeuitisitgaton (2 Proce laity (24) Real Property {A EnvironmertairToxic tort (90) Mecical malpracive (45) Eminent domaivinverse (1 tneurance coverage clare ang tom the ner PLPONWD (23) «condemnation (4) Sbove sted provera comply case Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort wrong evieion (33) types 41) Business tetuntabucinass practice (07) _] Other ea property (26) Enforcement of Judgment Gilg (08) LUniawtul Detainer {Fo entorcement of judgment (20) Defamation (13) CI commercial 1) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) [Resident (22 FE) arco ren Iretectua property (19) TF ongs.20 Other complaint ot specif above) (42) Peoessional neaigonce (25) susie Review ‘Miseutaneous Civ Potion Otternen PUPDWD on) TET asset ttre (08) nearer eee HRI Employment Penenre wotnacones ty Fulani na ieee SS verormmane eo feet eer Toner enptoant 15 Toni evi 2 2 Thiscase [Tis [XTisrot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. tthe case is complex, mark tre factore requiring exceptional judicial managoment: 2. 2) Large number of separately represented parties d. _] Large number of witnesses. o.[_] Extensive motion practice raising dificult or novel issues that willbe time-consuming to resalve . [1 Substantial amount of documentary evidence @.1 1 Coordination wth rlated actions pening in one ox mare courts imother counties, states, or countries, orn federl court +. [2 substantial pstjuégmentuccialsupenision Remedies sought (check alhat appt): aE] monetary. 6.[—]} nonmonctary; declaratory or injunctive reiet ©: [Epunitve Number of causes of action (specify): Seven (7) Thiscase (Tis [XJisnot aciass action sut ifthe are any known elated cases, fle ard serv a notice of ated case. (You may ugo form CM-O15,) Dat: fang 11,2010 : 5. foe TYPE OR Prat Taney SARTRE OFFEROR TORET FORFRENT NOTICE + Plaintjt must fe this cover sheet withthe first paper fled in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled under tne Probate Code, Family Code, or Weltare and institutions Code). (Cal, Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may rosult in sanctions, ' Fle ts cover sneot in action to any cover sheet required by local court ru. + Ithis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq, of the California Rules of Cour, you must serve a copy ofthis caver shoet on all ‘ther partes tothe action or proceeding, + Unies tsi a cotections case under rue 8.740 ora complex case, tis cover sheet wil be used for statistical purposes only 8 ae sa "Sngagee iam oe CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ProDoc® = ™a,7S naman ea Bio RrSserTHORTTME Samy vs. CPR Technologies, etal CAEN ER BC439469 | CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.0 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Rem, Check ihe types of hearing and filin the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: sury Tria? Bil yes ciass action? [Ives umiencase? Clyes ime esmMATED FOR TRIAL $-7__C] HOURS! DAYS Item Il, Select the corract district and courthouse location (4 steps - If you checked “Limited Case, skip to lem Il, Pg. 4) Step 1: After fist completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet Form, find the main civil case cover sheet Neading for your case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected. Step 2: cect one Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature ofthis case. Step 3: In Column G, circle the reason for the cout locaton choice that applies tothe type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.0. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below) 1, Giese Acions must be fled The County Courhouse, Conral Dail &Locaton of propor or permanent coraged vehi, 2 May e'ited in Cental (ther couny, ono Body IfuyiPropery Dama 7. {seoton utter setioner eigen 5 Leen wre our aston act "oy rion Cara) gehen were dlenanespndes oko uty. 5: Leeaton Where penormancerequrod o datensant rete, ‘. dcaton of isbes Commsioner Oa ‘Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in item Il; complete item 1V. Sign the dectaration. A B c Civ Case Cover Sheet | Type of Action ‘Applicable Reasons - . [MERE eae S| slates 5 e ‘ate 22) 1 A7100 Motor Vehie -Peronal IuryPropery DemageMWrongtul Death | 4, 4 | uninares Motorist (46) | C7110 Personal IjucyProperty DamagenirongulDesth~ Uninsured Motor | 1,2. 4 I 16070 Asbosios Propery Damage 2. BE ‘Asbestos (04) 1 A721 Asbestos - Personal ijuyiirngfu Death 2 ze 2 |_ Promotie 24) | ar260_ Product bit (not atbostes a txclevirenmantl) 142,3,4,8. za ES | seceastapractca es) | [A720 Ness! Mapractee -Physcns & Surgeons 4.24 ae 1D A7240. Otter Profesional Heath Cae Malpractice ead as (To A7250. Promises Liabiy (e.g. sip anda) 5 Othe 1.2.4 ee Personal injury 1 A7230 Intentional Bodiy injunyProperty Damage/Wrangful Death (eg. SE | rempvetete ‘ssout vandalism, et) oe #3 Weng Seah C7270 ‘intentional nfiton of EmationalDistroes as ey I A7220. Omer Personal injury Property Oamegenrongiul Death 124 EP i : Business Tor 7) | 7 6009 Other CommersolBusiness Tot (rt reudbroach of contac) 1.2.9. ce ee Liza BE | Speco C1 A610 Detamaton(sandertbe) 1.2.5 3 1 Fraud (16) C1 AB01S Fraud (no contract) ae es * te 2a (AGN 109 (Rev. 0107) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM TASC, rule 20 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4i ‘svoar Tce Samya vs. CPR Technologies, etal ‘CASE NMMBER 2s 88 | csacan’ B c ES | cracase cover Type of Acton ‘Applicable Reasons g | shoot Category No. (Cheetonty one) “Bee Step 3 Above Ee is SE | Prtessinal Acar? Lege Malpractice ee 38 Negigerce a 23 2) 1.6050. Ober Professional Naprsctc (rot medial olga és BE] ones 1 ne025 oter No Personal un/Propery Damage txt 28 i ee eet (Bl A6037 Wrongful Termination 14.2.3, Z| merEmpeyment | asc24 other Employment Compan: Caso 1.2.8 é C6109. Labor Commissioner Appeals rr ‘reach of Contac’ | Cl A6008 Breach o Renta ease Gonrac (pl Urtawtl Detar orwrangtlevcion) | 2. 6 wacaey 1 46008 ContraciarrantyGreach-Saer Platt (a raudhnegigarce) pe (eotiserance) 1 A6019 Negigent Breach of GntactWaranty (rod) ae a 1 As028 ter reach of Convactteranty nc aud or negigence) ql £ z ae 15 Ato02 Calecon Cac Soler Pt! 2.6.8 (o © As012 Other Promiseory NoteColectione Caso aie trewronee Coverage |) gots. insurance Coverage ra corel) 4.2.5.8 ther Gonract TI A8008 Contaciual Fraud 1.2.3.8 & A605¢ Toriousiteerencw 4.2.85 o ther Contract Dsputeinot breachinsurancefeudlnesigence) Eminent Hanh C7200 Eminent DamainiCerdemnation Number of patel 2 & |_contonnaton Wrong Elton ae ae 7 3 BH caaicus CB Aso18 Moxgege Forecosue 2.6. @ 8082 cult Te ae (71 8060. other Rea Property (at eminent domain, lndlorenan, areosure) ae EB | wasrttpennes | oy ner21 unawtlDetne conn (nt dns a meh econ 26. a - S| stow Doane 2 | aioe 178020. Unewul Detain Resident (ot drugs or wrong! evieson) 2.6. © | vets Doane 7 5 ag Da TD A6022. Unows Detsinee Drags 2.6. 3 ‘Asset Forteture (05) DD Ast08 Asset Forieture Case 2.6 E | Pettonse Xbivalon“T)Aaiis Potion w GompolCanfenVacate Arraon 2 LAGIV 108 Rew. 0107), CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM LASC, le 20 LASC Approved 02-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of 4i Miscellaneous Civil Miscellaneous Civil Petitions Judicial Review (Cont’d.) Litigation i 3 3 Com ‘Sour Sanja ws CPR TechnoTonies, al or A B c Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action ‘Applicable Reasons - Category No. (Cheek only one) ‘Soa Stop 3 Above 17 ABIS! Wit Adminstatve Mandamus RICO @7) 28 Wit ot Mandate 1 Aots2 Wit-Mondams on Lined Court Case ater ic 2) 1 Aats3. wit- Othe Limited Cout Case Review 2 Omer ude Revew |) g6450 Cher Wt a Rovion 2.8 fairs Trade tT fon 4.2.8 onelea A803. Aninstiade Rena Censnucton Detet(10) | aBg07_Gonstueton defect tba iis nvr Mass eee 1.2.8 Hove (7 A8008 Cains involving Mass Te Secure Lbgaton (2) | __C ABI Searitos Llgston Cose re Tose Tot itn eee 11 As036 Tox ToEnironmenia 1.2.3.8 insurance Coverage 14 newranco CoveragelSubrogaton (complex e380 on crwrance Coverage | 7) agora. insurance Covragesubrogaton (comp ) 1288 ase) —— TC) ASt4t Sister Sas Judoment 2.8 aes 1 Ast60 Abstact of dent 2.6 easement {1 ABt07 Contossion of dgment non domestic relations) 2.8 @ 1D AH. Acminstatve Agere Ava no uni as) an 1 AGtt4.ebionCeritcate or Enty of Judgment on Unpaid Tox a E foresmentof Judgment Case : 1 ntt2. Otter Enforcement of Judgment eae (Cl A632 Racketeering (RICO) Case 1.2.8 1 6030, Dottaratoy Rete! Ony 1.2.8 Other Complaints 6040 Injnctve Rett Cri (nt éomostiomarassment) 2.8. eee i A6011 other Commersal Complaint Case (nn-toenen-complox) tte. (a 1D 8000. other Ci Complaint ren sorinn-complen) eat ParierstipCorporaton | C] 6113 Parorship and Comorcto Governance Case 2.8 Govemance(21) Ti Ast21 Gi Harassment 2.3.8 1 A6123 Workplace Harassment 2.0.9 I 6124. ElierDependentAduR Abuse Case aaa nor Potions i (Wot Specied Above) 1D AB180 Election Contest : A810: Peiton for Change of Name ar a7. i 11 A6170 Pttion or Rei fom Late Cin Law eee f 1 48100 Other cia Peon get LACIV 109 (Rev. 01/07) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM LASC, rule 2.0 LASC Approves 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 0f 4‘Soar ne: Sama vs. CPR Technologies, a CASE NER Item Ill. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party’s residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in item I, Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected. REASON: CHEGK THE NUMBER UNDER COLUNN G ‘OORES: WHICH APPLIES IN THIS CASE 25129 The Old Road, Suite 303 Ot. 2, 03.04. 05. 06.07.08, Oe. O10. or we | aw co0e Stevenson Ranch cA 91381 Iter IV. Declaration of Assignmont: | dectare under penalty of perjury under the laws cf the State of Calfomia that the foregaing is ‘ue and correct and that the above-enttled matter is properly fled for assignment to the Stanley Mosk __courthouse in the Central Distict ofthe Los Angeles Superior Cour (Code Civ. Proc., § 392 et seq. and LASC Local Rule 20, ssubds. (6), (c) and (6) Dated: June 11, 2010 PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 4, Original Complaint or Petition FF fling 2 Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. hil Case Cover Sheet form CM-010. 2 3. 4. Complete Addendum to Civil Case Cover Sheet form LACIV 109 (Rev. 01/07), LASC Approved 03-04. 5. Payment in full ofthe fling fee, unless fees have been waived 6 ‘Signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, JC form FL-935, ifthe plaintiff or petitioner is a minor ‘under 18 years of age, or if required by Court, 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case. {AGIV 109 (Rev 0707) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM LASC, rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4