“THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM (805) 719-2010 28 Paul P. Tashnizi (CSBN 190670) ‘The Tashnizi Law Firm 200N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 204 Westake Village, California 91362 Telephone: (805) 719-2010 Facsimile: (866) 973-3368 Email: paul @tachnzilaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs, Renee Hantke, Virginia Lopez, and Victor Romero SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION RENEE HANTKE, an individual; VIRGINIA LOPEZ, an individual; and VICTOR ROMERO, an individual, CASE NO. CIVDS1618317 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1, Sex and Gender Discrimination; 2, Race and National Origin Diserimination (Gov. Code §12940(a) 3, Age Discrimination (Gov. Code § 12941); 4. trey Work Environment (Gov. Code § 129404) Ce 6. Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF ONTARIO, a business entity; TOM O’NEIL, an individual; DON MYERS, an individual; and DOES 1-200 Rutaliatig, % violation of FEHA, Government ‘ode section 12940, subdivision (h); Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination i ) } ) F INCLUSIVE and Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(0): Discrimination (Gov. Code ‘2940p tas Peete i a 3 sc Lepage inthe Interactive Process to } Accommodate Disab (Gov. Code § 12940(0) )9. Failure to Provide ) Accommodation (Gov. Code §12940(m)); } 10. Associational discrimination in violation of } FEHA, Government Code sections 12940, ) subdivision (a), 12926, subdivision (n); and, 11, Defamation 3 Bi amages Exceed $25,000.00 } DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs Renee Hantke, Virginia Lopez, and Victor Romero allege: INTRODUCTION This is a Complaint by RENEE HANTKE (hereafter “HANTKE”), VIRGINIA LOPEZ 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD,, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (805) 749-2010 n B “ 1s 16 7 19 0 21 2 B 4 2s 2” (hereafter “LOPEZ”), and VICTOR ROMERO (hereafter “ROMEO") against their current employer, CITY OF ONTARIO, (hereafter “ONTARIO”), THOMAS M. O°NEILL (hereafter “O°NEILL"), and DONALD MEYER (hereafter “MEYER”) who discriminated against and harassed these individuals because of their sex, gender, disability and or race. These defendants created a hostile work environment, retaliated against the individual plaintiffs, failed to prevent/remedy discrimination and retaliation, failed to provide reasonable accommodation and failed to engage in the to accommodate their disabilities in violation of the laws of the State of California, THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs HANTKE, LOPEZ, and ROMERO are all individuals and, at al times relevant herein, were residents of the County of San Bemardino, State of California. HANTKE, LOPEZ, and ROMERO were employed at all times relevant by City of ONTARIO in California. All the torts and statutory violations took place in Ontario, California. 2. Atall times herein mentioned, HANTKE, LOPEZ, and ROMERO are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant ONTARIO is a city in San Bernardino County, California. 3. tall times herein mentioned, HANTKE, LOPEZ, and ROMERO are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant O’NEILL is and has been an individual, residing in San Bernardino County, State of California, 4. Atall times herein mentioned, HANTKE, LOPEZ, and ROMERO are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant MEYER is and has been an individual, residing in San Bernardino County, State of California. 5. Defendants Does 1 through 200 are sued under fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintifis are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 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 ‘course and scope of his or her authority as such agent, servant, manager, supervisor, and/or employee with the permission and consent of the other Defendants. 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 206 (05) 719-2010, WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 19 2 a 2 2 28 6. HANTKE and LOPEZ are both fifty (50) year old Mexican-American women. ROMERO is a thirty-three (33) year old Asian-Mexican man. They are all 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. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7. _ HANTKE isa fifty (50) year old Mexican-American woman who has been working for ONTARIO for the past twenty-nine (29) years in the utilities department. HANTKE is the only female employee working in the utilities department and has been experiencing discrimination and harassment at the hands of her managers and supervisors ANDY MARQUEZ (hereinafter “MARQUEZ”), MEYER, and O’NEILL. 8. Defendants discriminated against and harassed HANTKE after she went to HR to complain what she believes was discriminatory when she received a written reprimand for taking a forty-five (45) minute lunch break. For years HANTKE had not taken her rest breaks during the day to add them to her lunch break, which her supervisors were aware of and had no issue with. Sometime in January of 2016, HANTKE was with two other co-workers, ROMERO and CHRIS RUBIO (hereafter “RUBIO”), and received a write up for taking an extended break. However, the other two co-workers, ‘who she had her break with, did not receive a written reprimand. This was the first time Defendants had raised this issue and brought to her attention that she could not combine her rest and meal breaks. ROMERO, who was with HANTKE, only received a written waming, while RUBIO, a white male, ‘was just spoken to about the incident. Sometime in April of 2016, HANTKE went to HR about her issues regarding this incident because she felt it was extremely unfair she was the only one who had received a write up for something all three employees had done, especially when most employees take extended lunch breaks and have never been reprimanded for it. NEILL found out about HANTKE’s complaint to HR and was very unhappy about her complaining. Shortly after, O’NEILL retaliated by intensifying a campaign of discrimination and harassment against her. 9. After going to HR, HANTKE felt as though her superiors, especially O’NEILL, were picking on her and continuously looking for any minor issues to reprimand her. They began checking 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N, WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (005) 719-2010 "7 18 19 20 2 2B 4 25 6 7 28 her GPS that had been installed on the trucks, including hers, to see how long she was at each location for, and began to reprimand her for being at locations for too long. Such conduct was in violation of the agreement by ONTARIO and its management. The purpose of the GPS was to allow supervisors to see where the employees were so that if they needed to send someone to a specific location, they could send whoever was closest. The GPS installed on the trucks would not be used to track and reprimand employees. 10. Sometime in January of 2016, O'NEILL and MEYER began making HANTKE put on her time sheets when she would go to the restroom, and how long it would take, as well as start and stop times for every task she would do while at work. HANTKE believes that she is the only ‘employee made to provide such detailed information about her restroom breaks on her time sheets. 11. Employees of ONTARIO do a variety of jobs, and some of the tasks are very strenuous and less desired, such as working on meters. In order to combat the issue of employees continuously doing such a tiring job, ONTARIO had created a rotation amongst the crews where they would each be assigned to meters for a week and then return back to their normal duties. 12, Sometime in April of 2016, HANTKE began to experience a lot of pain in her hands to which she went to the doctor for. HANTKE found out that she had carpal tunnel in both of her hands and was given a set of restrictions that prevented her from doing meters. Instead of engaging in good faith interaction to see how she could be accommodated, MEYER told HANTKE that if she couldn’t do the tasks assigned to her that maybe she couldn’t do her job at all. On May 17, 2016, MEYER made HANTKE clock out at work to go see her treating doctor to have her restrictions revised if she wanted to keep her job, MEYER even went as far as to have HANTKE paint fire hydrants, along with her normal job duties, even though this job required her to use her hands. However, HANTKE could have easily returned to her job duties which did not go against her doctor’s restrictions and did not, cause her pain and discomfort, but MEYER knowingly made HANTKE do jobs that would cause her pain and discomfort. 13, HANTKE believes that in retaliation for her complaint in March of 2016, she was transferred to another department for which she needed to be trained. ROMERO was assigned to train HANTKE in the new department but began to feel that the training he was assigned to provide her was 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (205) 749-2010 19 2 2 2 a 25 n inadequate and started questioning the management’s motive. ONTARIO wanted HANTKE to know ‘how to complete certain tasks and handle certain emergency situations, but management would not allow ROMERO to expose HANTKE to those situations and teach her the necessary skills to succeed in her new position. ROMERO has trained numerous employees for the position that HANTKE filled, but HANTKE’s training was very different than every other training he had been assigned to do. ROMERO believes the training was completely insufficient, and he felt that the way he was told to train her she would be in no way capable of doing well in the position. When ROMERO confronted MARQUEZ about HANTKE’s training, MARQUEZ acknowledged that her training was insufficient but he did not make any changes and continued with insufficient training. 14. HANTKE has also been denied the opportunity to work overtime on many occasions. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, overtime is based off of a rotation in which the individual with the most seniority is initially offered the overtime, and if they decline, then it works its way down the hierarchy of seniority. Each overtime opportunity is offered to the individual next in line of seniority and so on in order to ensure that every individual on the crew is given the opportunity to work overtime if he or she chooses to do so. However, HANTKE was not offered overtime, although she is the highest ranked and holds the most seniority in the department. Those who are friends with O'NEILL are always offered the overtime and those not favored were not offered any overtime hours. After HANTKE found out that less senior employees were offered overtime hours and not her, she raised the issue with MARQUEZ and MARQUEZ claimed that he had forgot to offer her the overtime hours. HANTKE is never made aware of these opportunities, let alone given the chance to work overtime. 15. Plaintiff, LOPEZ is a fifty (50) year old Mexican-American female, who has worked for ONTARIO for the past ten (10) years. Because of her excellent work performance, MOHAMED ELAMAMY (hereafter “ELAMAMY”), the PW Director, created her a position that he thought she ‘was qualified for. This allowed LOPEZ to work her way up through the ranks. She took advantage of this opportunity and became extremely educated in the area of environment and water in ways that other employees had not had the opportunity to do. However, as soon as her previous manager left and O'NEILL became her manager, the harassment began and any chance of advancement and growth was 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(808) 718-2010 “THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 n 2 B “ a 2 B m4 25 2” taken away. 16. In November 2008, ELAMAMY asked LOPEZ if she wanted to help the Environmental Department, which she was delighted to and said yes. During this time, ELAMAMY stated that LOPEZ could ask for out of class pay. From November 2008 to May 2010, LOPEZ was learning and assisting with Water Conservation, Fat Oil and Grease (FOG), and Pre-Treatment and Water Quality Programs. Her job responsibilities have grown far beyond her original job description. However, she was never formally promoted or received an updated job description and was still receiving her original pay rate as the office specialist. 17. In May 2010, LOPEZ was promoted to Environmental Technician and continued to manage the Water Conservation outreach, assist in Pre-Treatment and Water Quality, and the FOG programs. Sometime in 2011, LOPEZ had asked ALISA HASBROUCK (hereafter “HASBROUCK”), the Environmental Programs Manager, for a copy of her job description, because LOPEZ could not find a copy when she originally applied. HASBROUCK said that the Environmental Technician was recently created so that there was no job description. Eventually, LOPEZ found her original copy of the Environmental Technician flyer/job description. 18, LOPEZ has been asking O’NEILL, MIKE SIGSBEE (“SIGSBEE”) and other ‘management to classify her position since 2012. The reason she has requested for her position to be classified is because she does so much outside of her job description and believes is entitled to out of class pay. She has been denied. O’NEILL denied LOPEZ the classification because of her age, gender| or race. 19. In March and April of 2012, management had brought in MARGARET HABER (hereafter “HABER”), the Wastewater Technician, back to the Environmental Department. At management's direction, LOPEZ was only allowed to input data for reports and other projects that ‘management had asked her to do. The Environmental Department was understaffed, and LOPEZ felt that in retaliation for complaints that she had asked for out of class pay or because of her age, race or gender, management had removed some of LOPEZ’s tasks. 20. In November of 2012, LOPEZ met with SIGSBEE to clarify her job description. LOPEZ ‘expressed that she thought she should be doing the tasks along the lines of her job description, instead 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (805) 719-2010 10 u 2 B “ a 2 2 4 25 6 7 8 of cutting bookmarks. SIGSBEE stated that they were working on a list of job duties with the whole Environmental Department, but it never happened. 21. In January of 2013, LOPEZ being upset about the unfair treatment and management's failure to respond, sent an email to the Environmental Manager requesting for more work duties. LOPEZ mentioned that there were a lot more things that she could learn, according to her job flyer/description. LOPEZ was told that there was no budget and no formal job description for her position, Lopez believes that the management’s response was not true and it was because of her complaints and her age, race or gender. 22. In February of 2015, LOPEZ went to see her doctor due to work related stress. LOPEZ ‘was given an off work order from February 9 until February 20. 23. On June 15, 2015, LOPEZ sent MICHAEL BIRMELIN (hereafter “BIRMELIN”), the Environmental Manager, an email stating that she had knots in her stomach, shoulders, arms and wrists. This was not the first time she had told BIRMELIN about her stress due to her workload. BIRMELIN did not engage in an interaction with LOPEZ to see if she needed any accommodation and instead only responded by saying that his hands were tied and the tasks are in her PACE evaluation. 24. Throughout the years starting in 2012, LOPEZ had continually asked management if she could attend conferences and seminars that would count towards her continuing education credits, that were necessary for her job, however her superiors were unsupportive and did not agree to pay for her and did not allow her any days off to attend such seminars and conferences. Although, LOPEZ knows that other employees, including JOLINE NEAL (hereinafter “NEAL”) who is in her 20s, had attended these conferences. LOPEZ believes that the management discriminated against her because of her age, gender or race when rejected her request for attending conferences. 25. LOPEZ who was eager to learn to be able to perform even better in her position, however, attended the necessary conferences and seminars on her vacation time, and paid any expenses| and fees out of her own pocket. LOPEZ spoke to a coworker named SCOTT ADAMS (hereinafter “ADAMS”) who attended one such conference for his continuing education hours told LOPEZ that ONTARIO paid for him to attend the conference, and did not require him to use his vacation time, but rather allowed him to go during his scheduled workdays. On the other hand, NEAL was sent to 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 206 (805) 719-2010 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 m4 a 8 training seminars paid for by ONTARIO and she did not have to use her vacation time to attend any training seminars. 26. On or about January 9, 2016, O’NEILL insisted on meeting LOPEZ in his office without representative. LOPEZ believed that such request to meet with her supervisor without her representative was illegal. LOPEZ objected to meet without a representative but met with O’NEILL and BIRMELIN without her representative for fear of losing her job or being written up for insubordination. O’NEILL knew that an employee has a right to representation at any meeting with an employee that could potentially lead to a disciplinary action, 27. On January 19, 2016, O’NEILL and BIRMELIN held a meeting with LOPEZ and BRIDGET WASHINGTON (hereinafter “ WASHINGTON”), Union Representative, and wamed LOPEZ of any insubordination when LOPEZ refused to have a meeting without a union representative present. This meeting was very hostile and retaliatory. O’NEILL and BIRLEMIN intended to intimidate and harass LOPEZ. LOPEZ felt harassed and intimidated. Accusing LOPEZ of being insubordinate contradicts what BIRMELIN wrote in an email to ONEIL and LOPEZ soon after January 8, 2016 that BIRMELIN believed LOPEZ had done everything that O”NEIL had requested her to do on January 8, 2016. 28. Onor about April 21, 2016, LOPEZ tumed in her PACE evaluation input form where she mentioned that she had requested a third party present in a meeting in January of 2016 with O"NEILL but O'NEILL had refused to have a third party present. When O'NEILL found out about the evaluation he was very upset and spoke to LOPEZ about the evaluation form and told her that “it was hostile.” 29. On October 25, 2016, at approximately one (1) pm, BIRMELIN approached LOPEZ and asked her to come to his office. LOPEZ went to his office and he closed the door behind her. He wanted to discuss a write up warning about the incident that occurred on 9/26/16 about the wastewater factors. Once again, LOPEZ reminded him that she could not discuss that incident with him without a third party present. BIRMELIN emailed O’NEILL and informed him that LOPEZ didn’t want to discuss without a representative present. LOPEZ had complained to O’NEIL and BIRMELIN that she could not and would not meet with O’NEIL and BIRMELIN without a third party present anytime coaching, evaluations or disciplinary actions could be discussed at such meetings since doing so could 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(GE, CALIFORNIA 91362 3 ‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 i 19 2 2 2 4 25 6 7 8 be against the policies in place. However, O'NEIL disregarded her requests and told her she did not need a third party representation. LOPEZ believes that such meetings were held to harass and intimidate her in retaliation for her complaints to them and the HR about the discriminatory treatment she endured because of her age, race or gender. 30. On February 11, 2016, LOPEZ had printed a flyer for the CWEA conference that her coworker, WENDY HSIAO (hereafter “HSIAO"), had emailed her. LOPEZ and HSIAO had asked BIRMELIN if they were allowed to attend the workshop. LOPEZ had explained that since she ‘coordinates and is present at the industrial inspections, as well as track industrial self-monitoring reports, this training session would be relevant to the work that she does in the Environmental Department. BIRMELIN stated that he would think about it and get back to her, but he never did. 31. On or about February 23, 2016, BIRMELIN instructed LOPEZ not to use ONTARIO’s vehicle to go to lunch despite the fact that other employees were allowed to use the company vehicle to| go to lunch. On February 23, 2016, after a meeting, LOPEZ witnessed BIRMELIN and her co-worker NEAL, the Water Quality Specialist, go to lunch in a company vehicle. 32. On February 29, 2016 BIRMELIN told LOPEZ that he would be out for the next two days, BIRMELIN ended up attending the CWEA conference that LOPEZ had asked him about. To this day, BIRMELIN has not shared any information to LOPEZ about the CWEA conference, but has made comments to NEAL that LOPEZ is bitter. HSIAO, LOPEZ’s co-worker, overheard that comment that LOPEZ was bitter for not being provided the necessary training. LOPEZ asked O'NEILL about why she couldn’t attend the CWEA conference, and O”NEILL stated that the CWEA conference was only for management level, which LOPEZ knew was a lie. LOPEZ’s co-workers, not in management, had attended the CWEA conference. 33. BIRMELIN never got back to LOPEZ. about the training she had requested. BIRMELIN, himself, however, attended this t ing seminar without saying a word to LOPEZ. LOPEZ was not sent to the CWEA because ONTARIO and its management discriminated against her for her age, gender or race. 34. Defendants further discriminated and retaliated against LOPEZ by not providing her the proper technology training and equipment she needed to complete tasks that were required by her job 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM (005) 719-2010 21 2 2 m 2s a 2 and were provided to others. For instance, Defendants provided LOPEZ with an old style flip phone as a work phone without a GPS feature that she needed in order to navigate locations while on the job. Her flip phone also did not have the capability to take pictures, although she was required to take pictures of sights. All of the other employees, however, received iPhones that had GPS systems as well as cameras. LOPEZ has brought up the issue to O’NEILL, but O’NEILL stated that LOPEZ had never requested a phone upgrade, which was a lie because LOPEZ had requested a phone upgrade to BIRMELIN and at department meetings. 35. In May of 2016, LOPEZ went to HR to complain about the discrimination, harassment ‘and retaliation she had to endure at the hands of the management because of her age, gender or race. 36. On June 3, 2016, LOPEZ was scheduled to have an administrative interview regarding an investigation that HR was conducting through a third party. The meeting had to be rescheduled until June 16, 2016. 37. On June 21, 2016, LOPEZ requested vacation time from BIRMELIN. BIRMELIN told LOPEZ that O’NEILL was not authorizing any vacation time in December. O’NEILL has never been involved in authorizing vacation time before and LOPEZ believes that O'NEILL is retaliating against her because she complained about him to HR and the administrative hearing held in June 2016. 38. Before O'NEILL took over the Environmental group in July 2015, BIRMELIN approved any time off without a need for approval from his superiors. It was obvious to LOPEZ that O’NEILL’s| need to approve any time off was in retaliation for LOPEZ filing complaints about him to HR and her age, gender or race. Furthermore, shortly before this incident, during a work meeting a tech asked O’NEILL about taking a vacation and O’NEILL had responded that BIRMELIN is the one that should take care of such request and there was no need to go through O’NEILL. 39. On July 21, 2016, LOPEZ emailed BIRMELIN and requested a classification review. On July 22, 2016, LOPEZ followed up the email with a discussion with BIRMELIN regarding her request for the classification review. LOPEZ requested, once again, a job description. She did not receive one. 40. Sometime soon after July 22, 2016, LOPEZ had a meeting with O'NEILL, BIRMELIN, and ANNAMARIE GUILLAM (hereafter “GUILLAM”), LOPEZ’s Union Steward, regarding her job 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZ! LAWFIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 208 (805) 719-2010 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 B “4 15 16 ” 19 20 a 2 2B m 25 6 7 classification, LOPEZ was given a job description and was told her position had been classified in an attempt to appease her. However, in order for a city job to be classified it has to go through two approval processes, one though HR and another through the union. The document she was given did not have an approval signature from HR, and had not been processed properly, therefore leaving her job unclassified and job description worthless. 41. Sometime in July of 2016, LOPEZ had gone to a chiropractor specifically for tension headaches. On August 8, 2016, LOPEZ was very concerned about her continuous tension headaches that so she went to see her doctor. On August 15, 2016, LOPEZ had to leave work and go home due to a tension headache and tightness in her neck and shoulders. On August 16, 2016, LOPEZ had to call in sick due to the stress in her neck and shoulders, along with her tension headaches. 42. On August 17, 2016 LOPEZ emailed BIRMELIN regarding her employee grievance. BIRMELIN never replied. 43. On August 18, 2016, LOPEZ called KATHY GARAZZO (hereafter “GARAZZO”), in Risk Management, regarding her continuous tension headaches and tightness in her neck and shoulders. LOPEZ could not move her head from left to right. GARAZZO referred LOPEZ to a City doctor and LOPEZ went to the see the doctor the same day. The doctor placed LOPEZ on a stress leave until August 30, 2016. 44, On September 7, 2016, LOPEZ had to call in sick because she woke up with another headache. 45. On September 9, 2016, BIRMELIN approached LOPEZ and told her that O’NEILL wanted to review the wastewater factors that she had conducted out in the field before she could send the results to the Revenue Department. This caused LOPEZ tremendous stress because she was not to mail, email, or say a word to customers without management first approving. LOPEZ believes that O'NEILL’s decision to review her work was nothing but to find a reason not provide her with a job description and in retaliation for her complaints to HR or because of her age, race or gender. On the same day, LOPEZ sent HR an email complaining about how she was being treated unfairly requesting a department transfer due to a very hostile work environment, 46. On September 13, 2016, LOPEZ had a follow up doctor appointment. Her doctor placed 1" FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM. 200 N, WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (806) 719-2010 25 6 8 her on a stress leave once again until September 21,2016. LOPEZ retuned to work but continued to suffer from stress-related issues. 47. OnNovember 2, 2016, O’NEILL and BIRMELIN wrote LOPEZ up for what they claimed to be insubordination, In the same write-up, they accused LOPEZ of being unprofessional, disrespectful and uncooperative in reference to an incident on January 8, 2016. LOPEZ filed a complaint with ONTARIO, however, ONTARIO informed LOPEZ that she could not file a grievance over such write-up. Accusing LOPEZ of being insubordinate contradicts what BIRMELIN had said in January of 2016 that LOPEZ had done the work that O”NEILL had requested her to do on January 8, 2016. 48. LOPEZ, at fifty (50), is one of the oldest women working in her department and all signs indicate that O'NEILL and ONTARIO favored young employees. For instance, ONTARIO and O'NEILL unfairly applied ONTARIO’S attendance and clock-in/out policies rigidly against LOPEZ. LOPEZ was warned multiple times for clocking in a few minutes early or clocking-out a few minutes. early. In contrast, much younger employees, including CYNTHIA TORREZ, who worked in the same department was late routinely, took two-hour lunches, thirty-minute rest breaks and clocked in late but was never warmed or disciplined. 49. Another example is NEAL who is approximately 28 years old. NEAL started in the Environmental Department approximately in May 2015 as the wastewater Technician. Approximately 3 months later O’NEILL promoted her to the Water Quality Specialist position. O’NEILL has sent NEAL to ‘numerous water quality training workshops since 2015 50. One time in early in 2016, after LOPEZ repeatedly requested to be provided with more training including attending seminars and conferences, O’NEILL told her that "you have a chip on your shoulder." 51. SIGSBEE used the analogy of a cowherd to describe LOPEZ as the "the single cow* away from the herd. 52. On other occasions, O’NEILL and BIRMELIN made similar disparaging and harassing comments to LOPEZ. This resulted in LOPEZ requesting to have a third party present any time O'NEILL and BIRMELIN asked to meet with her. Their inappropriate comments to LOPEZ were 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, (05) 719.2010 200 N, WESTLAKE BLVD,, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 15 16 ” 8 19 2» 2 2B m n 8 hurtful and disparaging. 53. O'NEILL monitored LOPEZ and her work more than other employees. He made statements that LOPEZ gets very “heated.” O’NEILL admitted in a meeting that he went to LOPEZ’s desk to have conversations with her about her work performance but did not recall doing that to any other employees. 54. To further harass and intimidate LOPEZ, ONEILL insisted on meeting LOPEZ in his, office alone, despite LOPEZ’s request to have a third party present. If LOPEZ refused to meet, O'NEILL, she was threatened with insubordination. 55. In September of 2016, BIRMELIN told LOPEZ that O’NEIL had asked him to review and sign off on the WWF's that LOPEZ had completed. This instruction came soon after LOPEZ complained to HR about being harassed by O°NEILL. LOPEZ had been performing the WWF task since 2013 and prior to September of 2016 no reviews or signature approval were ever required. This was done in retaliation for LOPEZ complaining to HR about O’NEILL’s discriminatory and harassing conduct. O’NEILL had not requested to review other employees’ WWF reports and LOPEZ was being| singled out because of her age, gender, or race and had dared to complain about O’NEILL harassing her. 56. On another occasion on September 26, 2016, the first day back from stress leave, LOPEZ still had pain in her neck and shoulder. Being the first day after a leave she was swamped with work that she needed to catch up with. Despite that, BIRMELIN wanted LOPEZ to go out on the field to ‘complete wastewater factors. LOPEZ informed her that she would be happy to do so but she was still in pain, had work piled up that she needed to catch up with and needed a resolution to her grievance about her job classification that she had filed in July before she could go out on the field. A few minutes later O’NEIL went to LOPEZ and asked her if she is refusing to do the wastewater factors. LOPEZ said “no.” LOPEZ informed him that she needed a resolution on her grievance and that she had pain in her neck and shoulder and it would be hard to go out on the field to gather data. She further repeated o O’NEILL that she had to catch up with paperwork, go through over 120 emails, voicemails to retrieve and respond to, and reports to be completed. This was a very intense situation and LOPEZ felt nervous, and the pain in her neck and shoulder intensified. O°NEILL and BIRMELIN did not give 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTg Be Bes 5835 a wee ae i “Ee 10 2 B “4 1s 6 ” 19 20 a 2 2B m 2 LOPEZ a chance to settle down and catch up knowing that this was her first day back and was in pain. 57. In September of 2016, LOPEZ was asked by BIRMELIN that she needed to email him. her location when going out to the field, Such reporting was not required prior to September of 2016 and was not required of other employees. 58. ROMERO isa thirty-three (33) year old Asian-Mexican male who has worked for ONTARIO for twelve (12) years as a utilities technician with an excellent reputation as an employee ‘with great performance evaluations. 59. In January of 2016, ROMERO and HANTKE were reprimanded and written up for taking an extended lunch break. The management used the GPS that was installed on his work truck to verify that he had taken a long lunch with HANTKE. This was after management had promised employees of ONTARIO that the GPS’s would not be used as track their movement in violation of their privacy and will not be used to punish them. In addition, ROMERO could not believe that HANTKE received a harsher punishment than him who had more recent write ups than she did and if anyone deserved a write-up, it should have been him and not HANTKE. 60. On February 12, 2016, ROMERO raised issues with the HR for the management's use of the GPS to track the employee’s movement in violation of their promises not to use the GPS to track employees. HR ultimately responded that management was not wrong in using the GPS to track his movement though it directly violated what they had promised the employees. He also complained about what he thought was discrimination against HANTKE for writing her up for the extended lunch ‘break that she did not deserve. 61. In 2016, ROMERO was assigned to do meters during the months of February, March, April, May, June, July, August and September and was not rotated fairly out as MARQUEZ had promised and as it used to be done. 62. At the end of March of 2016, ROMERO confronted MARQUEZ who oversaw HANTKE?s training, and asked why he wasn’t allowed to fully train her to the best of his abilities. MARQUEZ responded, “That's the way I want it.” ROMERO respected HANTKE, knew she was a well-qualified employee and that she had great work ethics. He believed that ONTARIO and the management, MEYER and O"NEILL, discriminated against HANTKE and he complained to HR about “4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(605) 719-2010 ‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 2 a 2B Fy 25 6 a 8 it. With every complaint he made about the unfair and discriminatory treatment HANTKE was receiving, ROMERO and HANTKE were faced with more retaliation from the management. 63. On or about March 23, 2106, ROMERO and HANTKE were in the yard where ROMERO was training HANTKE on the computer on how to use city computer to help complete Atlas pages of the gate valves (“GV") program, when MARQUEZ told them that there is a new program and he wanted to run it by HANTKE and ROMERO. MARQUEZ informed them that management, MEYER and O'NEILL, wanted to have a new program of tuning only GV and nothing else. MARQUEZ then said that ROMERO and HANTKE are to do the new program and that they ‘won't be called off for any reason(s) and they are to do the new basic GV program. 64. For years before ROMERO assigned to train HANTKE, when assigned to GV, he was allowed to do more than just doing valves. He responded to emergencies, did shut downs, worked on traffic control, did compute data input and updates, assisted with USA and other duties with his male ‘co-workers. After his complaints and his support for HANTKE, all these duties were taken away from him and he was only to work on GV and GV only. 65. Soon after ROMERO and HANTKE were assigned to the new GV program in March, MARQUEZ informed ROMERO and HANTKE that they were not allowed to come to the yard for any| reason. For instance if ROMERO needed to get on the computer to gather new atlas pages or to complete the paperwork of an finished atlas page as he was able to do before, he was required to contact ALONZO to get him any new Atlas pages or new info on the corresponding atlas pages he needed. The other crews were allowed to go the yard and had access to the computers and were not required to ask their supervisor to access the computers for them. The other crews were not told not to g0 to the yard. This biased rule was only applied to ROMERO and HANTKE and was designed and intended to punish ROMERO and HANTKE in retaliation for complaints they made to HR about the ‘management discriminating against them by their age, gender or race. Defendants enforced this. discriminatory rule upon ROMERO during the entire time he was in GV crew and until he was transferred to construction. 66. On April 14, 2016, the entire GV crew, O'NEILL, MEYER, and MARQUEZ had their monthly crew meeting. In that meeting O’NEILL and MEYER explained to the crew of the new basic 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD,, SUITE 204 (805) 719-2010 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 7 18 19 2 2 2B 4 2s 6 7 GV program and that both ROMERO and HANTKE would be doing it and that there would be a rotation among the crews doing GV. In that same meeting, ROMERO asked about a timetable of a rotation and their reply was that there was not a timetable. ROMERO and HANTKE were to be on the new program until management decided to do any changes including rotating crews. 67. Inlate April of 2016, ROMERO was moved to a different crew. ROMERO believes that this took place in retaliation to the complaints he made to HR and MARQUEZ about the discriminatory conduct against HANTKE by O’NEILL, MEYER and ONTARIO. ROMERO was confused as to why, all of a sudden, he was being moved and asked MARQUEZ about the change. MARQUEZ responded in a threatening manner that he would have ROMERO do “any job, anytime, any day.” MARQUEZ did just that. Around this time the crews had been put on a rotation to work on meters, and after ROMERO’s rotation was over and he was supposed to go back to his regular duties, MARQUEZ made him stay and continue to work on meters. MARQUEZ also moved ROMERO to a sewage crew and made him do jobs and tasks that are typically assigned to workers who are in lower positions and have far less experience than ROMERO. It was degrading and demeaning to have him do such work his seniority. 68. On May 25, 2016, ROMERO was assigned to do meters again. That day, his direct supervisor, MONTE FERRELL (hereinafter “FERRELL”) was not in and GEORGE F. was filling in for him. ROMERO asked GEORGE for meters to work on and he was told that there were none that day. The management did not even try to assign other work available to ROMERO. ROMERO asked MARQUEZ to assign him some other work and he did not assign ROMERO any different work either. This is despite the fact that GEORGE F. had informed ROMERO that there were Underground Service Alerts he could work on, along with another coworker, or he could go with the construction crew to get training on some equipment. ROMERO was sent back to work on a few meters from the day before that work had not been completed instead. 69. The ultimate decision to place ROMERO with a certain crew and working on valves or meters came from O”NEILL and MEYER since they were the only individuals with authority to have employees transferred from one crew to another. MARQUEZ, FERRELL, ALONZO D., GEORGE F. and any of the other intermediaries and immediate supervisors did not have such authority. 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (805) 719-2010 u R 1B “4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B m4 n 70. On May 31,2016, ROMERO was assigned to do meter exchanges and was driving his work truck to the warehouse to gather his supplies for the day. HANTKE was gathering her supplies for the day as well. As ROMERO and HANTKE were loading the supplies into the work truck, FERRELL was standing a few feet away from them watching them. ROMERO and HANTKE felt uncomfortable because FERRELL was watching them, so HANTKE asked FERRELL if he was watching them. FERRELL replied, “no, but I do know who is watching you guys.” ROMERO and HANTEE were disturbed and annoyed that they were being watched. ROMERO and HANTKE ‘believe that MEYER and O’NEILL have been watching them constantly in retaliation for complaining to HR in hope of finding an excuse to write them up and get rd of them. 71. Inearly June of 2016, ROMERO, after his complaints were not taken seriously, took the next step and contacted AL BOLING (hereafter “BOLING”), the city manager of ONTARIO, to notify him ofthe harassment, discrimination, and retaliation that was occurring in the Utilities Department. ROMERO mentioned a few concems, such asthe lack of training of certain employees were receiving, and being singled out and retaliated against by O"NEILL and MEYER. ROMERO specifically mentioned one instance that he was being singled out by being asked by his superiors to provide his start and stop times on his timesheets, including when he went to the bathroom or when he was done with the bathroom break. The management had not requested other employees to provide them with how long their bathroom break were. ROMERO and HANTKE were the only ones asked to do so. ROMERO complained to BOLING that he was being singled out and retaliated against, and how he ‘was assigned the least desired tasks despite his qualifications, while other workers less qualified were favored and promoted within the Utilities Department. 72. On or about June 6, 2016, ROMERO asked his supervisor, MARQUEZ, how long he will have to do meters. MARQUEZ responded that since the work truck that ROMERO normally used was| down for service in the motor pool, he was to do meters until further notice. That same morning ROMERO noticed the work truck he normally used was being driven by away by coworkers, TONY. R. and ERROL T., out of the yard. : 73. In June of 2016, HANTKE, ROMERO’s partner, was on light duty and that meant that ROMERO did not have a partner since HANTKE could not work on meter because of her restrictions. 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 (005) 719-2010 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 6 7 18 19 a 2 2B 4 25 6 7 In such circumstance, ONTARIO would find someone to fill in for the employee who is not available, ROMERO was not provided with someone to fill in. 74. On or about June 21, 2016, ROMERO complained to MARQUEZ why he was not assigned someone to fill in to work with him. ROMERO also suggested to MARQUEZ that he was able and ready to fill in for someone that didn't show up. His request was denied. The week after, ROMERO was transferred out of GV to construction, 75. On or about June 29, 2016, ROMERO was moved to a different crew, this time to do construction. Interestingly, shortly after, SCOTT BURTON (hereafter “BURTON”, Assistant City Manager, approached ROMERO to let him know that MARQUEZ had informed him that ROMERO ‘was being difficult, challenging and questioning his authority. ROMERO was told he would be moved to a new crew and that it was in his best interest to get a fresh start with another crew. 76. However, ROMERO’s evaluations, under MARQUEZ’s supervision, did not mention anywhere that ROMERO was difficult or a problem employee or challenging or questioning MARQUEZ’s authority. As a matter of fact, ROMERO’s evaluations stated that he was a good worker that got along with everyone including management and received and completed orders well. 77. ALONZO D. had told coworkers that there were a few troublemakers within the utilities, department including ROMERO and HANTKE and they should stay away from them if they didn't want to get in trouble. 78. ROMERO who had worked with HANTKE and had trained her as well, was also held back by the lack of training. ROMERO was very supportive of HANTKE and felt that defendants were discriminating against HANTKE and that HANTKE was denied necessary training to do her job. Many of the crews from ONTARIO worked together and helped each other out because they were all trained for different tasks and specialized in certain areas and jobs. 79. ROMERO and HANTKE were isolated and insulated from the other crews. They were denied training to do what the gate crews does, and were often sent to do jobs apart from everyone else in isolation and would work in one specific area, not allowed to learn what other crews did. For instance, while ROMERO trained HANTKE, he was never allowed to respond to emergency situations, in what he believes was in an effort by the management to deny HANTKE from being fully 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, 1200 N: WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (005) 719-2010 a 2 2 4 25 6 a trained. Again, ROMERO questioned such unfair and vindictive conduct along with the fact that he and HANTKE were being held back from learning things they needed to know to do their jobs. 80. ROMERO'S superiors initiated a campaign of harassment and retaliation against him for standing up for HANTKE and the discriminatory treatment she received, and every time he ‘complained, he was treated worse. ROMERO, along with HANTKE, were assigned to jobs that were ‘more strenuous and demanded a lot of physical labor like meters, and was asked to do demeaning and ‘humiliating tasks for his positions and even asked to perform tasks that were beyond and outside his job description. 81. ROMERO believes that Defendants singled him out and retaliated against him after he reached out to HR to complain about how he believed O’NEILL and MEYER discriminated against other employees. Soon after he raised his concerns, he was not allowed to do any other usual duties besides meters, which is the least desirable task and the most physical activity, and is usually assigned to those with a lot less seniority. 82. HANTKE, LOPEZ, and ROMERO all made countless attempts to remedy the harassment and discrimination that they experienced and reached out to all proper authorities with no success. All three employees did everything within their power to stop the harassment, discrimination, and retaliatiof that they were subjected to, while ONTARIO not only turned a blind eye to it, but ratified, facilitated, and encouraged such conduct by O’NEILL and MEYER and other individual managers. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEX AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code §12940(a)) (Renee Hanike and Virginia Lopez. Against City of Ontario and Does 1-10) 83. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 84, Defendants’ sex and gender discrimination was a violation of California Government Code § 12940(a). 85. Defendants, discriminated against HANTKE and LOPEZ (hereinafter “Plaintiffs), by treating them differently, denigrating them, and humiliating them because of their gender/sex. 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM. 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD,, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (605) 719-2010 8 » 20 2 2 2B 2% 2s 26 u Defendants actions were in violation of the FEHA, California Government Code §12900, et seq. 86. Plaintiffs have been damaged as alleged above as a legal result of Defendants’ unlawful sex and gender discrimination. 87. At all times, relevant, City of Ontario was the employer and Plaintiffs were employees| within the meaning of California Government Code §12926 and at all times during their employment| they performed in a competent, satisfactory manner. 88. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon alleges that in additi m to the| practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged in other discriminatory practices against them 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. 89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against him, Plaintiffs have sustained, and continues to sustain, loss of earnings, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore, will seek leave of cour to amend him complaint at such time as these damages are fully ascertained. 90. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and actions against Plaintiffs in violation of Government Code § 12900 et. seq. as heretofore described, Plaintiffs have 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, Plaintiffs were 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. 91. Plaintiffs further requests attorney fees be awarded to her pursuant to California| Government Code §12965. SECOND OF ACTION RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code §12940(a)) (All Plaintiffs Against City of Ontario and Does 11-20) 92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM 200 N, WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 206 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (805) 719-2010 a 2 2B m 25 n ‘contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 93. Defendants, discriminated against Plaintiffs by treating them differently, denigrating| ‘them, and humiliating them because of race and national origin. Defendants actions were in violation] of the FEHA, California Government Code §12900, et seq. 94, At all times City of Ontario was the employer nad Plaintiffs were employees within the meaning of California Government Code §12926 and at all times during his employment he performed ina competent, satisfactory manner. 95. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon alleges that in addition to the| practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged in other discriminatory practices agains them 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. 96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional] discrimination against him, Plaintiffs have sustained, and continues to sustain, loss of earnings, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore, will seek leave of court to amend him complaint at such time as these damages are fully ascertained. 97. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and actions against Plaintiffs in violation of Government Code § 12900 et. seq. as heretofore described, Plaintiffs have 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, Plaintiffs were| 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. 98. Plaintiffs further requests attorney fees be awarded to her pursuant to California| Government Code §12965. MW MW MW MW 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM (805) 718-2010 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD,, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 10 R B “ 1s ” 19 20 a 2 2B 4 25 6 7 8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGE DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code §12941); (Lopez and Hantke Against City of Ontario and Does 21-30) 99. LOPEZ restates and incorporates by this reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs | through 98 of this Complaint. 100. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful discrimination by, among other things, subjecting LOPEZ to discrimination, harassment, retaliation when she was denied training, was picked on, singled out, reprimanded and warned for clocking-in earl or late by a few minutes, was not paid for out of class pay, among other things, on the basis of LOPEZ’ age in violation of Government ‘Code §12941. She was also called bitter, insubordinate, heated, troubled, uncooperative, and unprofessional, when she complained and raised concern for mistreatment on the basis of her age in ‘violation of Government Code §12941. 101. LOPEZ is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in addition to LOPEZ’ practices enumerated above, defendants, and each of them, have engaged in discriminatory practices against LOPEZ, which are not yet fully known. At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to him, LOPEZ will seek leave of court to amend her Complaint in that regard. 102. Asa direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, LOPEZ 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 suffering, and extreme and severe mental anguish and ‘emotional distress. LOPEZ is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 103. Asa further direct and proximate result of defendants’ violation of Government Code § 12941, as heretofore described, PHILLIPS 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. LOPEZ requests that attorney’s fees be awarded pursuant to Government Code § 12965. Mm 22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, (05) 719-2010 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 81362 2 a 2 2 a 2 a FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (Gov. Code §12940()) (Renee Hantke and Victor Romero Against All Defendants and Does 31-40; Virginia Lopez Against O'Neill, City of Ontario and Does 31-40;) 104. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, 105. By engaging in the acts detailed herein, all Defendants and Does 21-30, inclusive, have violated Government Code Section 12940, subdivision (j) as to HANTKE and ROMERO. 106. By engaging in the acts detailed herein, O’NEILL, ONTARIO, and Does 21-30, inclusive, have violated Government Code Section 12940, subdivision (j) as to LOPEZ. 107. Asa proximate result of Defendants and Does 11-20, inclusive willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs, they have sustained and continue to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 108. Atall 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs rights under the law. 109. Atall times material herein, Defendants and Does 21-30, 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 Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, loss of sleep, anxiety, stress, unable to focus and concentrate, and depression. 110. Atal times material herein, Defendants and Does 21-30, inclusive, failed to protect Plaintiffs, 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 23, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (805) 719-2010 10 n 2 B “ 15 BSR RRBR conduct, acts, and failures to act. 111, Atall times material herein, Defendants and Does 21-30, inclusive, and each of them, failed to protect Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs rights under the law. 112. Atall times material herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, extreme, and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 113. In light of Defendants’ outrageous malicious conduct, Plaintifis seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants recognized their obligation to not discriminate against and harass Plaintiffs and of their obligation not to abuse and defraud their employees. Defendants were aware and conscious of Plaintiffs 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, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages from individual Defendants only. 114, As a further direct and proximate result of defendants’ violation of Government Code § 12941, as heretofore described, Plaintifi’s have 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. Plaintiffs request that attomey’s fees be awarded pursuant to Government Code §12965. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION (Gov. Code §12940, Et Seq) (All Plaintiffs Against City of Ontario and Does 41-50) 115. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, 24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM. 200 N' WESTLAKE BLVD,, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (806) 719-2010 mu %6 Fa 116. ONTARIO retaliated against Plaintiffs for, among other things, 1) Plaintiff's requests for| accommodation; 2) Plaintiff's complaints regarding discrimination based on gender and or race; and 3)| taking their duties away; 4) assigning them demeaning and humiliating assignments; 5) assigning them| to tasks that were below their grades; 6) not providing training; 7) tracking them using the GPS on| their vehicles; and 8) not giving them any overt time work. 117. ONTARIO engaged in unlawful retaliation against PlaintiffS by, among other things; 1) discriminating against Plaintiffs; 2) treating them differently; 3) refusing reasonable accommodations| for Plaintiff's disabilities; and 4) because Plaintiffs opposed practices forbidden by Government Code| §12900 et seq. ONTARIO’s treatment of Plaintiffs was in violation of Government Code section| 12940(h). 118. Asa direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earings 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. 119. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that the outrageous conduet of ONTARIO described above was malicious and oppressive, and done with a conscious disregard of his rights, and with the intent to injure him. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive and| exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. 120, Asa further direct and proximate result of ONTARIO’s violation of Government Code §} 12941, as heretofore described, Plaintiffs have 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. Plaintiffs request that attomey’s fees| be awarded pursuant to Government Code § 12965. Mt Mm Mt mM 26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(805) 719-2010 ‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N, WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 18 19 2 2 25 6 1 2% XT! ACTI FAILURE TO PREVENT/REMEDY DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION (Gov. Code §12940(k) (Against City of Ontario and Does 51-60) 121. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation| contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 122. Plaintiff is informed and believes that 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. 123. Defendant ONTARIO 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 Plaintiffs 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. 124, 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 Plaintiffs. 125. _ By failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, and by failing to properly investigate and remedy the discrimination that occurred, Defendant committed unlawful employment practices as described and prohibited in Government Code section 12940(k). 126. In engaging 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. 127. Asa direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of said Defendant, PlaintiffS has Jost 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 26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(805) 719-2010 ‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 0 21 2B m 2 section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 128. Asa result of the aforesaid acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs claim general damages for ‘mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 129. Plaintiffs will also seek and are entitled to recover attomey's fees in connection with this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civ. Code section 1021.5) as well as Government Code section 12940, et seq. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code §12940(a)&(m)) (Renee Hantke Against City of Ontario and Does 61-70) 130. HANTKE realleges and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 131. HANTKE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, ONTARIO discriminated| against her by virtue of her disability, a violation of Government Code section 12900, et. seq. 132. Specifically, HANTKE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that in| electing to terminate her, ONTARIO discriminated against HANTKE and ONTARIO failed to engagel in a timely, continuing, good faith, interactive process with HANTKE to determine reasonable and| effective accommodations for HANTKE’s disability, following HANTKE’s request for them to do so, ONTARIO violated Government Code section 12940 (n). 133, Asa direct and proximate result of the acts of ONTARIO, HANTKE have 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| tial. a Ml MM a mM 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(05) 719-2010 ‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 208 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 3 “ 15 16 ” 0 2 2 B m4 2s 6 Fo EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY (Gov. Code §12940(n)); (Renee Hantke Against City of Ontario and Does 71-80) 134, HANTKE reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation| contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 135. At all relevant times, HANTKE was a qualified individual with a mental and/or physical disability that limited her major life activities. 136. Despite her disabilities, HANTKE was able to perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodations. 137. ONTARIO knew of HANTKE’s disabilities and knew or should have known that they| fell within the definition of disability under Gov. Code section 12926. But, ONTARIO further knew| or should have known that despite her disability, HANTKE could perform the essential functions of| her job with or without reasonable accommodations. 138. ONTARIO also knew, or should have known, of the need to accommodate HANTKE’s disabilities, including the need to engage in the interactive process to determine how to achieve a| reasonable accommodation for HANTKE. However, ONTARIO failed and refused to engage in the| interactive process with HANTKE. 139. Instead of engaging in the interactive process, ONTARIO took adverse action against HANTKE, in whole or in part, because of her disabilities and/or ONTARIO’s perception that HANTKE was disabled. 140. In engaging in the foregoing conduct, ONTARIO aided, abetted, incited, participated in, coerced and/or compelled unlawful employment practices in violation of California's Fair Employment] and Housing Act. 141. Asa direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of said ONTARIO, HANTKE has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at the time of trial HANTKE claims such amount as damages together with pre-judgment interest pursuant to Civil Code! 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD,, SUITE 206 (606) 719-2010 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgment interest. 142, As a result of the aforesaid acts of ONTARIO, HANTKE claims general damages for ‘mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 143, HANTKE will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney's fees in connection with this cause of action under Government Code section 12940, et seq. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (Gov. Code §12940(m)): (Renee Hantke Against City of Ontario and Does 81-90) 144. HANTKE realleges and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation| contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 145. ONTARIO knew of HANTKE?s disabilities and knew or should have known that they| fell within the definition of disability under Gov. Code section 12926. But, ONTARIO further knew or should have known that despite her disability, HANTKE could perform the essential functions o! her job with or without reasonable accommodations. 146. At all relevant times, HANTKE was a qualified individual with a mental and/or physical disability and or perceived disability that limited some of her life activities. Specifically, but| without limitation, HANTKE suffered from physical disability, depression and anxiety. 147. Despite her disabilities, HANTKE was able to perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodations. 148. Despite their knowledge of the foregoing, ONTARIO took adverse action against HANTEE, including, but not limited to, failing to accommodate her, in whole or in part, because of] her disabilities and/or ONTARIO’s perception that HANTKE was disabled. 149. In engaging in the foregoing conduct, ONTARIO aided, abetted, incited, participated in, coerced and/or compelled unlawful employment practices in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. 150. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of said ONTARIO, HANTKE| has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, 29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘CALIFORNIA 91362 (006) 719-2010 THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM. 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 g : 3 2 2 2 25 6 co 8 HANTKE 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. 151. As a result of the aforesaid acts of ONTARIO, HANTKE claim general damages for mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 152, HANTKE will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney's fees in connection with this cause of action under Government Code section 12940, et seq. * ‘TENTH CAUSE OF ACTIC ASSOCIATION DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code §12940, et. seq.) (Victor Romero Against City of Ontario and Does 91-100) 153. Plaintiff, ROMERO, realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every| allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 154, Atall times relative to this Complaint, Plaintiff ROMERO was qualified for his job and performed his jobs at a consistent level that was at least sufficient to warrant continued employment with ONTARIO. 155. Defendants discriminated against ROMERO and treated ROMERO differently because of his support of HANTKE and standing up for her when he believed she was being discriminated against because of her gender or age. 156. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and bias, Plaintiff was harmed. 157. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 158. Defendants’ conduct constitutes unlawful harassment and discrimination based on Plaintiff's association to HANTKE and her gender. 159. 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. 160. 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. 30 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM (805) 719-2010 200 N, WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 u 2 B 15 16 7 8 19 20 2 2 2B m 6 Fu 161. Plaintiff will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney's fees in connection with this cause of action under Government Code section 12940, et seq. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION (Lopez. Against City of Ontario and Tom O’Neil and Does 101-110) 162. 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. 163. Plaintiff is informed and believes that all Defendants and Does 91 through 100, inclusive, through their agents, made disparaging written and oral statements about them to third parties, that were untrue, including, without limitation, that Plaintiffs were insubordinate, whiners, trouble makers, had a poor work performance, and dishonest. That these false statements defamed Plaintiffs in that they challenged their integrity, honesty, and professionalism, and had a tendency to injure them in their profession and professional reputation, These statements were false, had no basis in fact and were made with ill will towards Plaintiffs and/or with no reasonable grounds for believing| they were truthful, and were not privileged. 164, In addition to the publication of these false and defamatory statements, Plaintiffs will be required to republish these false and defamatory statements, including by explaining the reasons for| being placed on administrative. leave by Defendants to other prospective employers or co-workers. 165. As a result of Defendants’ defamation, Plaintiffs have suffered significant damages to their reputation. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered general damages, losses in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, employment benefits, earning capacity, opportunities for advancement, work experience, and out-of pocket expenses and consequential damages, all to her damage in excess of the minimum subject ‘matter jurisdiction of this Court and according to proof. 166. The above described acts of individual Defendants, by and through themselves, their managing agents, officers, or directors, were engaged in with a deliberate, cold, callous, fraudulent, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff and/or with a conscious disregard of| Plaintiffs and their rights. Such acts were despicable, and constitute malice, fraud, and/or oppression 34 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM ‘200 N, WESTLAKE BLVD., SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 1362 (605) 719-2010 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 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages ag: st Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of salary, future earnings, and for loss of other valuable employment benefits in an amount according to proof, 2. For the value of Plaintiffs’ physical and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's wrongful conduct; 3. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 4, For punitive damages against individual defendants according to proof; 5. For attorneys” 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; and, 6. For such other relief that the Court may deem just Dated: March 9, 2017 By Paul P. Tashnizi, Esq. The Tashnizi Law Firm Attorney for Plaintiffs Renee Hantke, Virginia Lopez, and Victor Romero DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury. Dated: March 9, 2017 By Paul P. Tashnizi, Esq. The Tashnizi Law Firm Attorneys for Plaintiffs Renee Hantke, Virginia Lopez, and Victor Romero 32 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT“THE TASHNIZI LAWFIRM, 200 N. WESTLAKE BLVD, SUITE 204 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 (805) 719-2010 PROOF OF SERVICE Taman cmployes in the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a to the within action; my business address is 200 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 204, Westlake Village, ‘alifornia 91362. On March 9, 2017, I served the foregoing document, described as FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on all interested parties in this action: Mark H. Meyethoft, Esq, Leighton D, Henderson, Esa. LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE ‘A Professional Law Corporation 6033 West Century Boulevard, 5" Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 mime ethoff@lcwlegal.com rson@lewlegal.com (1 By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope 1 Iplaced such envelope, with postage thereon prepaid, in the United States mail at Westlake ‘Village, California. BX Iam “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing correspondence for ‘mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, at Westlake Village, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation or Postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. Bd (STATE) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct. Cy FEDERAL) 1 declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at se direction the service was made. 1 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) | caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the attomey at the offices of the addressee. & @Y ELECTRONIC MAIL) I sent such document via Email to the individuals noted above. C1 (VIA FACSIMILE) I sent such document via Facsimile to the individuals noted above. Executed on March 9, 2017 at Westlake Village, California. Wa 33 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT