146.

At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants were subject to the

provisions of California Labor Code section 1102.5.

147.

At all times mentioned in this complaint, Plaintiff was employed by the

Defendants as an employee and thus was protected by the provisions of section 1102.5 of the
California Labor Code.
148.

Plaintiff TAYLOR disclosed information that he had reasonable cause to believe

were violations of state or federal statute, or violations of or noncompliance with a local, state, or
federal rule or regulation, including but not limited to: (a) disclosures of information to the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing regarding defendants' retaliation and
discrimination in violation of FEHA; (b) disclosures of information to the Federal Emergency
Management Authority (FEMA), a federal government agency, regarding the defendants
violations of federal statutes or regulations as to their orders that Plaintiff and other CITY
employees falsify time records in order to obtain reimbursements from FEMA for the Camarillo
Springs Fire; and (c) disclosures of information regarding defendants' noncompliance with local
rules or regulations as to retaliation and harassment of Plaintiff as well as the creation of a
hostile working environment for Plaintiff.
149.

As a result of Plaintiff TAYLOR having made the above-referenced disclosures,

he suffered acts of reprisal, retaliation, and termination.

150.

In subjecting Plaintiff TAYLOR to the acts of reprisal, retaliation, termination or

similar acts, Defendants violated California Labor Code section 1102.5.

151.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct as alleged

in the complaint, Plaintiff TAYLOR has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in
employment benefits with defendant employer, including loss of reputation, lost wages, bonuses,
incentives, and job benefits, and expenses incurred in the search for comparable employment in
an amount not less than the jurisdictional minimum of this court. The precise amount of the
damages is presently unknown and will be proven at trial.
152.

As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct,

Plaintiff TAYLOR has suffered and continues to suffer extreme and severe anguish, humiliation,
TRON & TRON

?97 FLYNN 5010, STE. 210

CAMARILLO, CA 93012
(805) 388-1241

-34COMPLAINT

emotional distress, nervousness, tension, anxiety, and depression, the extent of which is not fully

known at this time, and the amount of damages caused by defendants' conduct is not yet fully

ascertained but in an amount in an amount not less than the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

The precise amount of the damages is presently unknown and will be proven at trial.

153.

Plaintiff TAYLOR also claims all amounts thereunder together with prejudgment

interest pursuant to California

providing for prejudgment interest.

8
9
10

154.

Civil Code

3287 and pursuant to any other provision of law

Plaintiff TAYLOR pursuant to California Labor Code section 1102.5(f) seeks

civil penalties against defendant CITY in the amount of $10,000 per violation of California
Labor Code section 1102.5.

11

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY PLAINTIFF TAYLOR

12

AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

13

FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

14
15
16

155.

Plaintiff TAYLOR realleges and incorporates herein by reference all other

paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth in this Cause of Action.
156.

On or about March 26, 2014, defendant CITY and Plaintiff TAYLOR and other

17

employees in the competitive service entered into an agreement which defined the obligations,

18

rights, privileges, and benefits of the parties. This agreement is hereinafter referred to as the

19

Personnel Rules. A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of the Personnel Rules is

20

attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and made a part hereof by this reference.

21

157.

Chapter 14 of the Personnel Rules established the procedure for disciplinary

22

action against an effected employee. Section 14.5 of the Personnel Rules provided that the

23

employee was permitted to respond, either verbally or in writing, to a notice of intent to

24

discipline in a pre-disciplinary hearing. Thereafter, defendant CITY was obligated, pursuant to

25

Section 14.5.3 of the Personnel Rules, to "within five working days after the later of the

26

employee's verbal or written response, the date of the pre-disciplinary meeting, or the expiration

27

of the employee's time to respond to the Notice of Intent, the Department Head will take one of

28

the following actions: (1) dismiss the Notice of Intent and take no disciplinary action against the

TRON & TRON

297 FLYNN ROAD, STE. 210
CAMARILLO, CA 93012
(809) 388-1241

-35COMPLAINT