frail Femme gy 1 Fax: +1900 7088686 or" BY F: ‘ax SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO: CIVDSIBIT4S ISS: KELVIN HAYNES CASE NO.: SEX vs. CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT CITY OF ONTARIO, ET AL. ‘K dvi action or proceeding presented for fling must be accompanied by this Certificate. If the ground is the residence of a party, name and residence shall be stated. The undersigned declares that the above-enttled mata is fied fr proceedings in the District of the Superior Court under Rule 404 of this court for the Sacked reas General collection Nature of Action Ground 4. Adoption Petitioner resides within the district 2! Conservator Petitioner or conservatee resides within the district. 3. Contract Performance in the district is expressly provided for. . O 4. Equity ‘The cause of action arose within the district. 5. Eminent Domain ‘The property is located within the district. G6. Family Law Paint, defendant, petitioner or respondent resides within the district. 7. Guardianship Petitioner or ward resides within the district or has property within the district. 5 2: easement Pin defonen patton responder rede whine tn 9. Mandate ‘The defendant functions wholy within the district. 10, Name Change The petitioner resides within the district. 4. Personal injury The injury occurred within the district. 412. Personal Property The property is located within the district. 13, Probate Decedent resided or resides within the district or had property within the district. 414, Prohibition ‘The defendant functions wholly within the district. 45. Review The defendant functions wholly within the district. 16. Title to Real Property The property is located within the district. 17. Transferred Action _The lower courts located within the district. 18, Unlawiul Detainer The property is located within the district. 19. Domestic Violence The petitioner, defendant, plaintiff or respondent resides within the district. 20. Other ewnorwent 21. THIS FILING WOULD NORMALLY FALL WITHIN JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT ‘The address of the accident, performance, party, detention, place of business, or other factor which qualifies this case for filing in the above-designed district is: ITV oF TAR sos-t sneer Tau = RORRTE NICE GR OTHER OOAIFYRG FCTOR ORES omrano ca x76 | declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is rue and correct and that this deglaration was executed fon AUGUST 24, 204 ‘at 200 N. Weslehe Biz Suite 204, Weaehe , Califomia CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT 19-16503-360, Rev 08-2014fentatten Fecoumers gy te +1900 Tonsee oe “irene ARIE Pome Ee ONE PITTED 2 New Wese Soler, Sue 204 “CAR SPE Strona eke Vilaen Ca StS SABER ENO ‘rengrnoneno: 805-719-2010 raxwo: 866-973-3368 sod srroma Fon pom: Plaintiff, Kelvin Haynes AUG 24 2015 Jfurcmon cour or caurowma courry or San Bernardino seer ssoness 247 West Third Street sue sooeess: Same cvwear cou: San Bernardino, 92415-0210 TASENAE Haynes v City of Ontario By Fax ci. CHEE GOWER SHEET Complex case Designation | PT SAGIS TES: Unknites Limited oe teed) comme C2) sont [EX Serandes amended | Fed wih rst appearance by dtendont exceeds $25,000) $25,000 orless)| "(Cal Rules of Gout rule 3402) | cor. hems 1-6 below must be compleed (se insuctons On page 2) [F- Cheek one box below forthe case type thet best describes this case: Tet ce Prolenay Come Ch ion ‘ao 22) Sroctcoocnaraty(06) (62 Ros our te 3400-3. Grae mottt (t) () earavenectene (om) ) snes etn 2) Ce Pero (eee iunyPropay er emets ) Cerone ote (0) rong Dea Tot ve one) Manson 40) fen 00) OO orrennan [sce pst 28) Pre aly 2 patron Enema eo (0) tose mares) Core oman os cogs cana a ow buono a) Somers wre cearenehe (ten Tort ‘eng acta (9) sear useeslonrlareesness price (7) (=) Oterel popes) Enforcement of gmat eaigee Maal Deane 1 eecenent gn 20) Drtanaton (3) cones) ttucatoneous Cv Compl Foes) ence 2 Cinco ttc poey 10) TS onoeon 1) coer sao et pectin atv) 8) Professional neghgence (25) Review “Miscellaneous Civil Petition rer an IPOD (5) Aa ie 08) [i remy ee corpnte veraes 1) Pemen ween wer) =) Gta peta eect ve) not termination (36) ) wrkot mandate (02) euronews i) Foner sact aw 2 LeTis nat complex onder rule 3.400 ofthe Calforia Rules af Cour. the case le complex, mark the ‘Bek requing exceptions! cic management 2.) Large number of separately represented partivs —_¢. [_] Large number of witnesses 1.) Extensive motion practice raising dificult or novel». [__] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more cours issues that wil be time-consuming o resolve Inother counties, states, or countries, o ina federal court c. 7) substantia! amount of documentary evidence 1, 7D) substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check ail hat apply): 3.2] monetary ».[7] nonmonetary, declaratory or injunctive relief. [7 punitive Number of causes of acon (speci): 9 Triscase CJis isnot a class sction suit. tere are any known rested cases, le and serve a notice of related case. (You may use NOTICE «+ Pinal! must fe this cover shoet wih the frst paper fied in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled Lunde the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Instulons Code). (Cal Rules of Cour ule 3220.) Falke to fe may resut Insarctons {Files cover sheet in aciion to any cover she aquired by local court le "IPs case is complex under rule 3400 el seq. ofthe Calla Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of his cover sheat on al ‘ner partes to he acon or proceeding. «= Unless this is calections case under rue 3.740 ora complex case, hi cover cheet willbe used for statistical purposes: ae CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET WaSothcd hessnoce aa Steer hot eenema S teen gt po ee ieee hese SUMMONS Bameo (CITACION JUDICIAL) = — NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: {AVISO AL DEMANDADO): x, FAG, Duron ‘See ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT SBR ons OTET 16 ‘YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: Aug 2 4 20 (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO El. DEMANDANTE) KELVIN HAYNES, an individual oLf tS NGTEE Vas hve sr sa Te car nay sept Ss WE YOU DA HON DS YOU RSS WH Da, Rand wR “Yc hre 90 CALENOAR DAYS afer is wureroe an gl pre re srveden oul weiter respons leu nd ave cy ‘sed onthe jl. A ltr opr cl wr pret ou, Your writen respanne roa sn proper legal fom you wart fe out hem our ‘aun There may be a court fom al you can use for your respons. You can find theso cout oma and more nfrmaton at he Castres Cows ‘Gna Seto Cater wi coutaca gown), you county law Bary, rte courthouse nearest ou. you cari ay the ing fa, ak ‘he cot ler fora ee waver orm. If you dont le your response on ime eum ose ha ease by dele. and your wages, honey, end Property ‘ay be thon wie forte warn am 8 cout "Tore are cer og oqiramers, You ray want cal en atamey Fight nay. you donot know an alomey, you my wart cal an atomay retarlvove you con ford an anny. you may ow sige re lal sande fm a Nona ega services prorat. You can ato" ever sam Caco Savos Vio an (neato) Caria Gers Cre Sue Can (wn cur Sa geet) Oy cotta out cay be sxocon NOTE: Tho cut aay an lr ward tn ed ‘Soa en any solomon er rblenton wars of $10,000 er moren a leas. Tha court ln mt bo pad before the cost wt Same the care {AMISOI La han demande. Sino respond deriv de 30 dak, lace puede Goan tu cone sn escuchar bu wera6n. Ln le SMa ‘ontncnssn Tene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO desuss de que oertrguen est clactn y paces agate pare presetar un reapuasa par esto one ‘ate y heer du sa arivegue un copa al emanate, Una cara o une famed ntrica rob potogon. Su responsi por escrte tone Qu ater tn fometo gel coecta deren Que procesen wu cao nl cor. Ex pestle qu haa un formar gue usted puede Usa pares reapunaa. Spel omvomen ariscum aes va ee owes ever oer Fax “he nao ond eros oe corti = {Einonrey srecstn doe coe 0): Superior Court of California, County of |" "WT YDS1 61 4186 San Bernardino Disrict-Civil Divison, 267 West Third Sueet, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210 ‘The nae, address, and telephone number of planti'satlorey, or pil without an attorney, i: (Elnombre, le recctn yo! mero de Tolono de! abogado Gel demendante, 0 del demandante que no Were sbogado, es): Paul P. Tashnizi, Esq, 200 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 204, Westlake Village, CA 91362. 805-719-2010 ATE, August 24,2016 AUG 9.42016 Clot, by Qi LC G. ue Deputy 2707) (curt) ‘For pool of sarvce Tita summans, aso Prool ol Sense of Surenons (lam (Pare prueba de entroga de esta cain use el formula Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010). Jessica Gafcez + NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are serves — 1. (2) a8 an individual defendant. 2, as the pereon sued undar the fstous name of (apecty: 3, [1 on ehai of (specit: under: cor 416.10 (corporation) ‘CCP 418.60 (minor) Gerdtezsetmcconentn) FA) corso tomenatn ccP 41640 (association or partnership) (—] CCP 416.90 (auhotized person) ; TC other (speci: '. 2) by personal detivery on (doe): a ‘SUMMONS Sacoenmaam esasfreind Fecommom gy Fem ens gp «sym ae ‘SHORT TITLE: enna |_ Kelvin Haynes v. City of Ontario k:avost 614186 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE This form may be used as an attachment o any summons if space does not peri the leting of ll paris on the summons. > lftis atachmertis used, inset he folowing statement inthe plant or defendant box onthe summons: Additonal Paris ‘Altachment form it tached” st adtiona partie (Chock ony one ox. Use a seperate page hr ch ype of party) (O Pianatt —[Z) Dofendont 7] cross-compionant (] Cross Defendant CITY OF ONTARIO, a business entity; MIKE MERGENER, an individual; MARK CHASE, an individual; DALE ADCOCK, an individual; and DOES 1-200, INCLUSIVE eee "ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT spor ae ‘Attachment te SummonsPaul P. Tashnizi (CSBN 190670) ‘The Tashnizi Law Firm 200 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 204 Westlake Village, Califomia 91362 ‘Telephone: (805) 719-2010 Facsimile: (866) 973-3368 Email: paul@tashnizilaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Kelvin Haynes SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION KELVIN HAYNES, an individual; ) CASE NO.: CIVDS1614186 ) Plaintiff, } FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: ) 1. Race Discrimination (Gov. Code §12940(a)); ~ 2. Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code gos (a) & (m)); CITY OF ONTARIO, a business entity; . Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process to individual; ) Accommodate Disal (Gov. Code § 12940(n)); Sn earn | thmcee Pearce ees ‘i * ) Accommodation (Gov. Code §12940(m)); an individual; and DOES 1-200, ) 5, Harassment/Hostile Work Environment (Gov. INCLUSIVE. ) Code §12940())); fendants 3 Bist iat i Retaliation (Gone C imi taliation (Gov. ps 7 ; g1294009): 3 . liation (Gov. Code §12940, Et Seq.); and, 8. Defamation } Damages Exceed $25,000.00 } DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) d ) 5 Plaintiff, Kelvin Haynes, alleges: INTRODUCTION This is a Complaint by KELVIN HAYNES (hereafter “HAYNES”) against his current jemployer, CITY OF ONTARIO. (hereafter “ONTARIO”), MIKE MERGENER (hereafter FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM. 1200 N: WESTLAKE BLVD. SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (005) 719-2010 “MERGENER”), MARK CHASE (hereafter “CHASE”), and DALE ADCOCK (hereafter ADCOCK"). All Defendants are all collectively called “Defendants”. Defendants discriminated against him because of his race, discriminated against him because of his disabilities, failed to engage in the interactive process to accommodate his disabilities, failed to provide reasonable accommodation, harassed him and created a hostile work environment, failed to prevent and remedy discrimination, retaliated against him, and defamed him, THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff HAYNES is an individual and, at all times relevant herein, was a resident of the| County of San Bernardino, State of California. HAYNES was employed at all times relevant by| ONTARIO in California. All the torts and statutory violations took place in Ontario, California. 2. Atall times herein mentioned, HAYNES is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant ONTARIO is a city in San Bernardino County, California. 3. Atal times herein mentioned, HAYNES is informed and believes, and on that basis, alleges, that at all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant MERGENER is and has been an individual, residing in San Bernardino County, State of California. 4, Atall times herein mentioned, HAYNES is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant CHASE is and has been an individual, residing in San Bernardino County, State of California. 5. Atal times herein mentioned, HAYNES is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant ADCOCK is and has been an individual, residing in San Bernardino County, State of California. 6. Defendants Does 1 through 200 are sued under fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that ‘each defendant sued under such fictitious names is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages as alleged below, and in so acting was functioning as the agent, servant, manager, supervisor, and/or employee of the Defendant, and in doing the actions mentioned below was acting within the jcourse and scope of his or her authority as such agent, servant, manager, supervisor, and/or employee FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM. 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVO., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (605) 7192010 with the permission and consent of the other Defendants. 7. Plaintiffs a sixty (60) year old African American male who was disabled and is accordingly entitled to the protections of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA"). The Defendants are California employers who employ more than one hundred (100) employees, and are accordingly subject to the provisions of FEHA. [ON TY ‘AUS! [ON 8. HAYNES is sixty (60) year old African American male who has been working for ONTARIO for the past twenty-six (26) years. HAYNES began working for ONTARIO in November ‘of 1991, and has worked his way through the city and has received a series of promotions. Until recently, in 2016, when he was placed on medical leave, he was a Street Maintenance Technician, laying concrete and repairing sidewalks, amongst other duties. HAYNES has been noted as an outstanding, dedicated and hard working employee for years. He, however, has experienced racism and discrimination which has been embedded in ONTARIO, by his managers, supervisors and other city employees. 9. HAYNES did not have any serious issues with his managers and or supervisors until his {former manager David Powell left the company in 2005 and was replaced by MIKE MERGENER (hereafter “MERGENER”). MERGENER was a City employee and was brought in to replace David Powell from within the City structure. HAYNES and MERGENER worked for two different departments and so they did not have any issues before MERENGER was brought on board to replace David Powell. However, as soon as MERGENER took over David Powell’s position, he let HAYNES, who was the only African American employee in his crew, know that he did not like him. MERGENER even told HAYNES that “I’m going to do everything I can to get rid of you.” 10. When MERGENER first became HAYNES" supervisor in 2005, he began screaming at HAYNES for being in the yard, although he had to be there in order to carry out some of his duties as required by his job description. HAYNES complained about such treatment to the manager DALE, ADCOCK (hereafter “ADCOCK”) within months of MERGENER taking over the position as his supervisor. ADCOCK promised to investigate the matter and to get MERENGER to stop. MERGENER, however, continued to target HAYNES. Throughout the years the harassment and FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT2s 6 hostile treatment worsened to the point about two (2) to three (3) years ago MERGENGER began to hide behind trees and walls, constantly watching HAYNES while he worked. 11. Such hostile and unfair treatment to get HAYNES by picking on him and singling him out continued as recently as July and August of 2016. Such acts continued to escalate and intensify to the point that MERGENER started taking pictures of HAYNES while he was working. HAYNES found out about MERENGER taking pictures of him from Jerry Fenton, a field supervisor, who had informed Joe Ramos, a co-worker, who then informed HAYNES. Joe Ramos also told HAYNES that MERGENER was taking these pictures in hopes of catching HAYNES doing something he wasn’t supposed to or not doing his job so he could fire HAYNES. 12, Such constant mistreatment by MERENGER, being singled out and picked on, affected HAYNES’ well being. He also had some lingering physical injuries, knee injuries, because of the nature of his work and being assigned the worst physically strenuous tasks despite such injuries. As recently as July and August of 2016, HAYNES had medical issues and problems with his knees, which his managers and supervisor knew about but never accommodated nor asked how such injuries could be accommodated. 13, To the contrary, HAYNES witnessed Bill Nickles, a Caucasian man, being accommodated for his knee and ankle injuries. MERENGER and ONTARIO accommodated Bill Nickles by only having him work with machinery such as the bobcat which breaks concrete and the shoot which pours mud. Management even asked HAYNES to help accommodate Bill Nickles by driving Bill Nickles’ truck and trailer to the jobsite where Bill Nickles was. To HAYNES, this felt like slap in the face. 14. HAYNES had told MERGENGER, ADCOCK, and the director MARK CHASE (hereafter “CHASE”) that he had knee problems as well. However, HAYNES was ignored and did not receive any accommodations, and was expected to do tasks that caused him pain. HAYNES even had to wear a knee brace while he worked. 15. In May of 2013, HAYNES made a complaint to MERGENER and ADCOCK about Bill Nickles being treated better and being accommodated for his knee, ankle and leg injuries on what he believed was the management favoring a White employee better than him. Not only ONTARIO and 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM. 200 N: WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 206 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (205) 719-2010 the management did not stop the favoritism based on race but targeted and retaliated against HAYNES for complaining about such blatant racism at work. 16. Such racist conduct continued as recently as August of 2016 and that is when HAYNES [could not take any longer working in such a hostile environment filled with racism and prejudice because of the color of his skin. 17, HAYNES was given the belittling and humiliating tasks of preparing the bobcat for Bill ‘Nickles, making sure it had gas, checking the fluids and supplies, and even getting the crew water. This is a lower level job and was extremely embarrassing and demeaning considering how long HAYNES had worked for the city and that he was the highest ranked tech. 18, In May of 2015, HAYNES, once again, raised his concerns about racism and mistreatment in response to his manager's unfair and false performance evaluation. HAYNES, in a section asking what could help him to be more effective in his job, wrote “no more discrimination, no more favoritism, no more harassment- all employees treated equally.” He also wrote comments about how he wanted “equal opportunities” and how in the entirety of his employment he has yet to see any changes or improvement amongst the management. His manager MERGENER refused to sign this document. MERGENER responded in July of 2015 by letting HAYNES know that his employee input form would be sent to management and Human Resources (“HR”) to review his allegations, however HAYNES never heard anything further regarding this issue from the management or HR. 19, HAYNES who was frustrated even handwrote a letter at the time to ONTARIO in May of 2015 raising very serious issues he had with the management and more specifically MERGENER. HAYNES wrote how he had been discriminated against because of his race and how he was constantly disrespected by his superiors; was yelled and screamed at by MERGENER; his employee reviews had gone from outstanding to moderate under MERENGER; how his supervisors had destroyed his reputation; and how he was being plotted against, stalked, mistreated, and singled out. HAYNES was never contacted by ONTARIO nor HR, and he never received any response to his letter. 20, HAYNES had written another letter in May of 2013 to management out of frustration due’ to the continued discrimination and prejudices he had faced, and how the management had ignored and. tumed a blind eye to him. HAYNES wrote about how he had continually received only competent0 2 B “ 6 ” 8 ‘employee reviews when he had received excellent reviews in the past and was one of the best in his crew. He also complained how in 2000 Bill Nickles was hired while he was wearing an ankle bracelet /monitor and put in a position he was unqualified for. He also complained how he was required to obtain a Class A License through the Department of Motor Vehicles or else he would have been demoted while the management allowed other workers such as Bill Nickles to keep his position without a Class A license, 21, In November of 2015, HAYNES found out that Jerry Fenton was planning to retire as the field supervisor. ONTARIO approached other employees with less seniority and qualifications to replace Jerry Fenton and it was very hurtful that HAYNES was not even considered for the position. HAYNES was the highest ranked tech in the department and it would have made perfect sense, in a fair workplace, he'd be considered for the position as the field supervisor. Especially since HAYNES 'was the one that had trained all of the new employees who were considered for the position and training other employees was part of the filed supervisor's duties. 22. Upto his last day at work in August of 2016, and year after year, including in 2016, HAYNES was not afforded the opportunity to go to a training school while other employees, such as Daniel Leon, with only two years of working experience for ONTARIO had been offered this opportunity. Without this training employees could not move up and hold supervisory positions. This is despite the fact that HAYNES had expressed interest in going to training school. HAYNES believes that Daniel Leon is being trained to fill out Jerry Fenton’s position following his retirement despite his short time with the city. HAYNES was denied the opportunity because of the color of his skin and because he complained about racism at work. 23. In May of 2016, HAYNES complained to Dave Coops, who replaced MERENGER, that he was acting just like MERGENER. HAYNES expressed how it was unfair that he was never given the opportunity to take over Jerry Fenton’s position, and how he has the most seniority. After this incident and because of such mistreatment, HAYNES sought medical treatment and his doctor placed him on stress leave for ten weeks. 24. As of August of 2016, HAYNES was the only person who had not been approached by the management to be the field supervisor, although he was the highest ranked in his department, and 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 1200 N WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 204 (805) 719-2010 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91382 the most qualified. Plus, he was carrying out some of the tasks designated for that position up to August of 2016. 25. Up until August of 2016, Defendants have continued to discriminate, harass, retaliate and defame HAYNES because of his race and because he complained about racism and favoritism by the management at work. 26. As recent as August of 2016, it has been a pattern and a practice within ONTARIO for |Caucasian workers to drive machinery that required a Class A License without actually having one. HAYNES believes that Caucasian workers were not given any deadlines to obtain their Class A License. In contrast, HAYNES was given a deadline to obtain his Class A License or else he would be demoted. HAYNES even complained in his letter that he had tried to speak to numerous people about his work environment and how the city and its management ignored him and his complaints. In response to his letter, HAYNES received a letter from ADCOCK in July of 2013 which expressed no ‘empathy or acknowledgment for what HAYNES had been dealing with. Rather it was filled with ‘numerous responses alleging that many of HAYNES complaints were addressing things that happened ‘years ago. The letter completely lacked credil ity and it did not even mention any attempt to investigate such serious issues raised by HAYNES. 27. In February of 2016, HAYNES brought up with MERENGER, before MERENGER left, that he believed he was entitled to seventeen and a half (17 '%) years in out of class pay. He also brought up the fact that other employee in the city received their out of class pay immediately after it ‘was owed to them but not him. HAYNES believes that this was discrimination against him because he was black and because he had complained about racism he endured and witnessed on a daily basis for years by his managers. He also believes that this was a tactic for ONTARIO to discriminate, harass, and retaliate against him because of his color of skin and his repeated complaints and to pressure him ‘to stop complaining or to quit. MERGENER again disrespected HAYNES and ignored him and did nothing to help him. HAYNES took his complaint to HR to which he has not received any response to as of October of 2016. 28. In February of 2016, HAYNES once again went to HR and filed yet another complaint about the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation he endured at the hands of his superiors. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N: WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (208) 710-2010 HAYNES spoke to one of the HR staff about what he had been experiencing and proceeded to fill out the appropriate forms. HR did not reach out to HAYNES until mid-June of 2016, four months after he had originally made a complaint to them. However, HR and ONTARIO did not take any serious actions to investigate or remedy the situation HAYNES complained about. 29. Sometime in or about August of 2016, after years of harassment, discrimination and retaliation because of his race, HAYNES could not continue working in such hostile work environment, suffered from a serious work related stress and was placed on a stress leave by his doctors. 30. ONTARIO is a workplace dominated by white male leadership and a “good ol” boys” culture (almost all heads of the departments are white men) that facilitated, ratified, encouraged and participated in the harassment and discrimination that HAYNES endured while embedding an acceptance of employee maltreatment in those that run this city. 31. HAYNES has exhausted his administrative remedies. Within the time provided by law, he filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and received a [Right-to-Sue Notice on August 8, 2016. A copy of this notice is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit AL FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RACE DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code §12940(a)) (Against City of Ontario and Does 1-10) 32, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation ‘contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 33. Defendants, and each of them, discriminated against Plaintiff by treating him differently, denigrating him, and humiliating him because of his race. Defendants actions were in violation of the FEHA, California Goverument Code §12900, et seq. As alleged above, Haynes complained about the discrimination because of his race and requested a fair treatment by his supervisors and the city. He had also disclosed his knee injuries and defendants knew about the same. Defendants, however, failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations for said disabilities. Instead, in retaliation for such FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTcomplaints and requests, Defendants intensified their discriminatory treatment of Mr. Haynes and ‘engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment against Haynes that he performed unsatisfactory ‘work and continually and constantly pressured him to perform above his physical abilities. Haynes, was discriminated against in different ways, among many other things; 1) assigning him degrading tasks and assignments; 2) refusing reasonable accommodations for his disabilities; 3) assigning him belittling and demeaning tasks; 4) not promoting him or offer him a chance of promotion; 5) not offering him training needed to exce!; 6) singling him out; 8) not compensating him for out of class pay; 9) accusing him of being insubordinate; 10) making him act as an inferior to newly hired white Jemployees; 11) calling him a trouble maker; 12) isolating him; 13) threatening him with his job if he [complained to HR; and, 11) taking pictures of him while he worked. 34. At all times Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of California Government [Code §12926 and at all times during his employment he performed in a competent, satisfactory manner. 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that in addition to the practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged in other discriminatory practices against him which are not yet fully known. At such time as such discriminatory practices become known to him, Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard. 36. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against him, Plaintiff has sustained, and continues to sustain, loss of earnings, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore, will seek leave of court to amend him complaint at such time as these damages are fully ascertained. 37. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and actions against Plaintiff in violation of Government Code § 12900 et. seq. as heretofore described, Plaintiff has been damaged and deprived of the security, solace, and peace of mind for which he entered the employment relationship with Defendants, and each of them. Therefore, Plaintiff was [brought to suffer emotional and mental distress, anguish, embarrassment and humiliation, all to his general damages in an amount according to proof at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this court. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N" WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 23 n 38. Plaintiff further requests attomey fees be awarded to her pursuant to California Government Code §12965. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code §12940(a)&(m)); (Against City of Ontario and Does 11-20) 39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, Defendants discriminated] against Plaintiff by virtue of his disability, a violation of Government Code section 12900, et. seq. 41. Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that in electing| not to accommodate him, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff and Defendants failed to engage ‘in a timely, continuing, good faith, interactive process with Plaintiff to determine reasonable and| effective accommodations for Plaintiff's disability, following Plaintiff's request for them to do so, Defendants violated Government Code section 12940 (n). 42. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the defendant, and each of them, Plaintiff] has suffered damages, including but not limited to, loss of earings and future loss of earnings, loss of health benefits, emotional anguish, and others as yet unascertained damages, all in an amount to be proven at trial. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS TO ACCOMMODATE, DISABILITY (Gov. Code §12940(n)); (Against City of Ontario and Does 21-30) 43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation| [contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 44, At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a mental and/or physical disability that limited his major life activities. 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZ LAW FIRM 1200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD. SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (005) 719.2010 45. Despite his disabilities, Plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of his job] 'with or without reasonable accommodations. 46. Defendants, and each of them, knew of Plaintiff's disabilities and knew or should have| known that they fell within the definition of disability under Gov. Code section 12926. But, Defendants further knew or should have known that despite his disability, Plaintiff could perform the| essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodations. 47. Defendants also knew, or should have known, of the need to accommodate Plaintiff's disabilities, including the need to engage in the interactive process to determine how to achieve a| reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff. However, Defendants failed and refused to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff. 48, Instead of engaging in the interactive process, Defendants took adverse action against| Plaintiff, in whole or in part, because of his disabilities and/or Defendants’ perception that Plaintiff was disabled. 49. In engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, participated in, ‘coerced and/or compelled unlawful employment practices in violation of California's Fair Employment| and Housing Act. 50. Asa direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of said Defendants, Plaintiff has| lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at the time of tral. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with pre-judgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 51. As a result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff claims general damages for| mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 52. Plaintiff will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney's fees in connection with this cause of action Government Code section 12940, et seq. Mm a a Mh 1" FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (Gov. Code §12940(m)): (Against City of Ontario and Does 31-40) 53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation| contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 54. Defendants knew of Plaintiff's disabilities and knew or should have known that they fell within the definition of disability under Gov. Code section 12926. But, Defendants further knew or should have known that despite his disability, Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his job /with or without reasonable accommodations. 55. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a mental and/or physical| disability and or perceived disability that limited some of his life activities. Specifically, but without| limitation, Plaintiff suffered from physical disability, depression and anxiety. 56. Despite his disabilities, Plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of his job] with or without reasonable accommodations. 57. Despite their knowledge of the foregoing, Defendants took adverse action against Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, assigning him degrading and difficult physical tasks to punish him, in whole or in part, because of his disabilities and/or Defendants’ perception that Plaintiff was disabled. 58. In engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, participated in, coerced and/or compelled unlawful employment practices in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. 59. Asa direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of said Defendants, Plaintiff has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with pre-judgment interest pursuant to Civil Code| section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 60. As a result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff claims general damages for ‘mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” 8 9 8 8 Rox S BN 61. Plaintiff will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney's fees in connection with this cause of action Government Code section 12940, et seq. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (Gov. Code §12940()); (Against All Defendants and Does 41-50) 62, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation| contained in preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein 63. By engaging in the acts detailed herein, Defendants and Does 41-50, inclusive, have violated Government Code Section 12940, subdivision (j) as to Plaintiff. 64, Asa proximate result of Defendants and Does 41-50, inclusive willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, he has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 65. Atal times material herein, Defendants at all times knew, or reasonably should have known, that the conduct, acts, and failures to act of all other Defendants and/or supervisors, agents and ‘employees as described herein above violated Plaintiff's rights under the law, inclusive, knew, or reasonably should have known, that the conduct, acts, and failures to act of all other Defendants and/or supervisors, agents and employees as described herein above violated Plaintiff's rights under the law. 66. Atal times material herein, Defendants and Does 41-50, inclusive, and each of them, ‘knew, or reasonably should have known, that the incidents, conduct, acts, and failures to act described herein above, would and did proximately result in emotional distress to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, oss of sleep, anxiety, stress, tension, depression, and humiliation. 67. Atall times material herein, Defendants and Does 41-50, inclusive, failed to protect Plaintiff, and to adequately supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to act of all other Defendants and/or supervisors, agents or employees as alleged herein above, said conduct, acts, and failures to act were perceived by them as, and in fact had the effect of, ratifying, encouraging, condoning, exacerbating, increasing, and/or worsening said ‘conduct, acts, and failures to act. 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, 200 N' WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 01362 (205) 719-2010 68. tall times material herein, Defendants and Does 41-50, inclusive, and each of them, failed to protect Plaintiff and to adequately supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to act of all other Defendants and/or supervisors, agents or employees violated Plaintiff's rights under the law. 69, Atall times material herein, Defendants at all times material herein, Defendants and Does 41-50, inclusive, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, extreme, and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 70, In light of individual Defendants outrageous malicious conduct, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants recognized their obligation to not discriminate against and harass Plaintiff and of their obligation not to abuse and [defraud their employees. Defendants were aware and conscious of Plaintiff's rights and yet, they chose, to ignore and disregard them. The acts of Defendants were performed with the knowledge of an ‘employer's economic power over its employees. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct of all of the other Defendants in this action. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages from individual Defendants, only. 71, Asa further direct and proximate result of defendants’ violation of Government Code § 12941, as heretofore described, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an effort to enforce the terms and conditions of the employment relationship with Defendants and has thereby incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs. Plaintiff requests that attorney’s fees be awarded pursuant to Government Code §12965. ‘SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE/PREVENT/REMEDY DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION (Gov. Code §12940(k)): (Against City of Ontario and Does 51-60) 72. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation 1“ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTcontained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Employer Defendant failed to take all steps reasonably necessary to prevent harassment and retaliation to Plaintiff from occurring as required by Government Code §12940(k). Such conduct violated Government Code §12940(k), and allowed Plaintiff to be harassed and retaliated against, all as aforepled. 74, Defendant and/or their agents/employees, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination in employment from occurring. Further, said Defendant knew or should have known of the discrimination against Plaintiff described above, yet failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the nature and substance of the discrimination and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action so as to discipline any of the offenders. 75. The response of Defendant, and/or their agents/employees, to that knowledge was so inadequate as to establish a deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, the alleged offensive practices, and an affirmative causal link existed between Defendant's inaction and the injuries suffered by Plaintiff. 76. By failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, and by failing to properly investigate and remedy the discrimination that occurred, Defendants committed unlawful Jemployment practices as described and prohibited in Government Code section 12940(k). 77. Imengaging in the aforementioned conduct, Defendants, and each of them, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced unlawful employment practices in violation of the announced policy) of this State against such practices. 78. Asa direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of said Defendant, Plaintiff has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with pre-judgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 79. Asaresult of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff claims general damages for ‘mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 80. The above described acts of the individual Defendants, by and through their managing agents, officers, or directors, were engaged in with a deliberate, cold, callous, fraudulent, and 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff and/or with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff and her rights. Such acts were despicable, and constitute malice, fraud, and/or oppression Within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff requests an assessment of punitive damages against individual Defendants, in an amount to be proven at time of trial. 81. Plaintiff will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney's fees in connection with this ‘cause of action Government Code section 12940, et seq. EVENTH CA\ RETALIATION (Gov. Code §12940, Et Seq) (Against City of Ontario and Does 61-70) 82. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation ‘contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 83. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for, among other things, 1) his complaints regarding discrimination based on his race; 2) his complaints regarding unfair treatment and| harassment; and, 3) his requests for accommodation. 84. Defendants engaged in unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff by, among other things; 1) assigning him degrading tasks and assignments; 2) refusing reasonable accommodations for his| disabilities; 3) assigning him belittling and demeaning tasks; 4) not promoting him or offer him al chance of promotion; 5) not offering him training needed to excel; 6) singling him out; 8) not Jcompensating him for out of class pay; 9) accusing him of being insubordinate; 10) making him act as jan inferiour to newly hired white employees; and, 11) taking pictures of him while he worked. Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff was in violation of Government Code section 12940(h). 85. Asa direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities; and has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional] distress. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven| at trial. 86. Asa further direct and proximate result of defendants’ violation of Government Code| 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.2 %6 n §12941, as heretofore described, Plai iff has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an| effort to enforce the terms and conditions of the employment relationship with defendants and has thereby incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs. Plaintiff requests that attomey’s fees be awarded pursuant to Government Code § 12965. “AUS iE DEFAMATION (Against All Defendants and Does 71-80) 87. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation| [contained in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 88, Plaintiff is informed and believes that before and after he was forced to take a leave from! his employment by all Defendants and Does 71 through 80, inclusive, through their agents, made| disparaging written and oral statements about him to third parties, that were untrue, including, without limitation, that he was insubordinate, a trouble maker, unwilling to take responsibility, not productive, and a bad employee with poor performance. That these false statements defamed Plaintiff in that they challenged his integrity, honesty, and professionalism, and had a tendency to injure him in his profession and professional reputation. These statements were false, had no basis in fact and were made with ill will towards Plaintiff and/or with no reasonable grounds for believing they were truthful, and were not privileged. 89. In addition to the publication of these false and defamatory statements, Plaintiff will be required to republish these false and defamatory statements, including by explaining the reasons for his demotion, resignation or termination by Defendants to other prospective employers. 90. Asa result of Defendants’ defamation, Plaintiff has suffered significant damage to his reputation. Asa further direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered general damages, losses in earings, bonuses, deferred compensation, employment benefits, earning capacity, opportunities for advancement, work experience, and out-of-pocket expenses and consequential damages, all to his damage in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Court and according to proof. mu 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZ LAW FIRM 200 N| WESTLAKE BLVD. SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (608) 719-2010 « PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of salary, future earnings, and for oss of other| valuable employment benefits in an amount according to proof: 2. For the-value of Plaintiff's physical and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's wrongful conduct; 3. For punitive damages against individual defendants, 4. Foran award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 5. Forattorneys’ fees on causes of action, including but not limited to, causes of action ‘brought pursuant to the California Labor Codes, California Civil Procedure and FEHA; Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and California: Government Code §§ 12940, et. sea.; 6. Forsuch other relief that the Court may deem just and proper, Dated: October 28, 2016 By Paul P. Tashnizi, Esq, ‘The Tashnizi Law Firm Attomeys for Plaintiff Kelvin Haynes DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby requests a tral by jury. Dated: October 28, 2016 By Paul P. Tashnizi, Esq. ‘The Tashnizi Law Firm Attorneys for Plaintiff Kelvin Haynes 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT