Peter Nguyen Complaint

1
I.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Peter Nguyen was hired in June 2013 as the General Manager for Public
Employees Union, Local 1 (Local 1), one of Californias largest independent public employee unions.
An experienced manager, Mr. Nguyen was excited to join Local 1 and committed to making
improvements that would benefit the Local 1 members. Unfortunately, over the next two years,
members of the Local 1 Executive Committee and other Local 1 employees subjected Mr. Nguyen to
harassment, retaliation, and discrimination on the basis of his race. Mr. Nguyen filed a formal complaint
about this treatment with the Local 1 Executive Committee, but Local 1 Board members used the
subsequent investigation as an excuse to further harass Mr. Nguyen. This discriminatory course of
10
conduct culminated in June 2015, when Defendant Local 1 illegally terminated Mr. Nguyens
11
employment in breach of the terms of his contract and in violation of public policy, and shortly
12
thereafter, published libelous statements about Mr. Nguyen in a newsletter circulated to all of its
13
members.
14
2.
Accordingly, Mr. Nguyen brings this action against Defendants for general,
15
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, and costs and attorneys fees, resulting from Defendants
16
unlawful and tortious conduct.
17
18
19
20
II.
3.
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff Peter Nguyen (Mr. Nguyen or Plaintiff) is an 42-year-old Asian-American
male currently residing in Clark County in the state of Nevada.

4.
Defendant Public Employees Union, Local 1 (the Union or Local 1") is and was, at all
21
times relevant, a public employees union operating in California. Its offices are located in Contra Costa
22
County. Local 1 is one of the largest public employees unions in California, representing over 10,000
23
individuals working in a broad range of positions from road crew and maintenance crew workers to
24
public health nurses and social workers.
25
5.
Defendant James Starr was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local 1
26
Board of Directors and the First Vice President of the Local 1 Executive Committee, and therefore had
27
hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.
28
6.
Defendant Pete Ellis was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local 1
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Board of Directors and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Local 1 Executive Committee, and therefore had
7.
Defendant Tricell Dunn-Dickens was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the
Local 1 Board of Directors and the Secretary of the Local 1 Executive Committee, and therefore had
8.
Defendant David Ramirez was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local
1 Board of Directors and an elected representative serving on the Local 1 Executive Committee, and
therefore had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.
9.
Defendant Tom Shirley was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local 1
10
Board of Directors and the Second Vice President of the Local 1 Executive Committee, and therefore
11
had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.
12
10.
Defendant Mike West was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local 1
13
Board of Directors and an elected representative serving on the Local 1 Executive Committee, and
14
15
11.
Defendant Ana Morales was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local 1
16
Board of Directors and an elected representative serving on the Local 1 Executive Committee, and
17
18
12.
Defendant Pat Riley was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local 1
19
Board of Directors and an elected representative on the Local 1 Executive Committee, and therefore had
20
21
13.
Defendant Sylvia McClaflin was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the
22
Local 1 Board of Directors and an officer of the West Contra Costa County School District bargaining
23
unit, and therefore had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.
24
14.
Defendant Jose Avila was, at all times relevant herein, a voting member of the Local 1
25
Board of Directors and the President of the Contra Costa County Health Services bargaining unit, and
26
27
28
15.
Defendant Cedric Porter was the Executive Director of the Bay Area offices for Local 1,
and was made Interim General Manager and then General Manager after Mr. Nguyen was wrongfully
2
terminated.
16.
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and legal capacities of the Defendants sued here as
DOES 1 through 10 and therefore sues those Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend
his complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and on this basis alleges, that each DOE Defendant is in some way legally
responsible for the acts, omissions, and damages alleged here to have been caused by each remaining
Defendant.
17.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times material herein,
each of the Defendants was the agent or employee of, and/or working in concert with, his/her
10
co-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or concerted
11
activity. Plaintiff alleges that to the extent certain acts and omissions were perpetrated by certain
12
Defendants, the remaining Defendant or Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts and omissions.
13
18.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that at all times material herein,
14
each Defendant was dominated and controlled by his/her co-Defendant and each was the alter-ego of the
15
other.
16
19.
Whenever and wherever reference is made in this complaint to any act or failure to act by
17
a Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts and
18
failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly and severally.
19
20
21
III.
A.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Local 1 Board of Directors Hired Mr. Nguyen as General Manager

20.
Public Employees Union, Local 1 is one of the largest public employees unions in
22
California, representing over 10,000 individuals working in a broad range of positions from road crew
23
and maintenance crew workers to public health nurses and social workers.
24
21.
The day-to-day operations of Local 1 are managed by a team of about 40 staff, headed by
25
a General Manager, who serves as the chief administrative officer of the Union. The hiring and firing of
26
the General Manager is controlled by the Board of Directors, consisting of approximately 60 individuals.
27
Local 1 also has an Executive Committee, consisting of six officersPresident, First Vice President,
28
Second Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Sergeant at Armsand a few other individuals
3
appointed by the Board of Directors to represent specific constituencies within the larger organization,
such as the city, county, courts, special district, and education employees.
3
4
22.
Mr. Nguyen was hired as General Manager of Local 1 by a vote of the Board of Directors,
and signed his employment contract on June 19, 2013. He began his first day of work on July 15, 2013.
23.
As General Manager, Mr. Nguyen was responsible for, among other things, supervising,
hiring, and firing the Local 1 staff, managing the budget, making strategic decisions about the direction
and management of the Union, and communicating about these issues with the Board of Directors.
B.
9
10
Defendants Subjected Mr. Nguyen to Ongoing Discrimination on the Basis of Race and
Perceived National Origin
24.
Upon starting at Local 1, Mr. Nguyen discovered issues of poor management and
11
unprofessional behavior throughout the organization. Mr. Nguyen thus promptly began making changes
12
to improve the organization to better serve its members. For example, around July 2013 he fired the
13
manager of the Richmond office after learning that he was using and distributing drugs at work.
14
25.
Around August 2013, after Mr. Nguyen fired the Richmond manager, he attended a Board
15
meeting for the West Contra Costa County School District unit, one of the units represented by Local 1.
16
The meeting was headed by Defendant Sylvia McClaflin, a member of the Local 1 Board of Directors.
17
During and after this meeting, Defendant McClaflin verbally attacked Mr. Nguyen on the basis of his
18
race and perceived national origin, telling him that he did not understand the culture of Local 1 and the
19
Richmond office, and accusing him of behaving like a foolish foreigner. Ms. McClaflin later said to
20
Local 1 then-President David Rolley, I just dont trust [Nguyen]. He reminds me of that Kim
21
Jongguy, you know, the dictator of North Korea?
22
26.
In the fall of 2013, Defendants Local 1 Sergeant-at-Arms Pete Ellis and Board of
23
Directors Member Jose Avila also started directing racist comments at Mr. Nguyen, creating a hostile
24
work environment. Defendants Ellis and Avila demanded regular lunch meetings with Mr. Nguyen, paid
25
for by Local 1. At these lunch meetings, Ellis and Avila would engage in conversation in which they
26
regularly used bigoted terms such as chink, gook, Charlie, spic, wetback, faggot, and
27
camel jockey in reference to Mr. Nguyen and others. Mr. Nguyen did his best to redirect the
28
conversation onto more professional ground and specifically asked them both to reconsider their
4
1
2
language, but they refused to change their behavior.

27.
On October 18, 2013, Defendant Local 1 First Vice-President James Starr informed Mr.
Nguyen during a meeting, you dont have the benefit of the doubt. When Mr. Nguyen asked for
clarification, Defendant Starr said, I dont know if you know, but youre a departure from our past
General Managers and I did not support you. Starr continued, [y]our kind dont have a history running
things here, which Mr. Nguyen understood to mean that the prior general managers had not been Asian-
American. Mr. Nguyen was greatly concerned about these racist and threatening comments by the
second highest-ranking official in Local 1.
28.
At an Executive Committee meeting on November 4, 2013, Mr. Nguyen was presenting
10
an updated organization chart when Mr. Starr leaned towards him in an aggressive manner and asked,
11
Why are you trying to start a fight with me? Mr. Nguyen was bewildered and felt threatened by Mr.
12
Starrs inappropriate behavior.
13
14
15
29.
During another Executive Committee meeting on March 5, 2014, Mr. Starr again attacked
Mr. Nguyen verbally and made false and defamatory statements about him with clear racial overtones.
30.
The next day, March 6, 2014, Defendant Executive Committee member Ana Morales
16
wrote an email to her fellow Executive Committee members expressing concerns about Mr. Starrs
17
behavior towards Mr. Nguyen at the meeting, stating that: Mr. Starr continually challenges Mr. Nguyen
18
about conducting business as General Manager; Mr. Starr expresses clearly at meetings a dislike
19
behavior [sic] towards Mr. Nguyen. Ms. Morales further stated, I felt Mr. Starr was out of line.
20
31.
That same day, Executive Board Member Pat Riley left a message on Mr. Nguyens
21
voicemail stating that she was very disturbed by [Mr. Starrs actions at] the meeting last night and
22
had difficulty sleeping as a result. She related that the tension was too intense and she was trying to
23
decide if it was best for her well-being to leave the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors.
24
32.
Starting in May 2014, Defendant Ellis initiated a campaign to investigate Mr. Nguyen.
25
As part of his investigation, Mr. Ellis interrogated and harassed Local 1 employees who worked with
26
Mr. Nguyen, including the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Robert Clarke. Mr. Ellis threatened Robert
27
Clarke that he had to choose between supporting Mr. Nguyen or the Union. When Mr. Nguyen asked
28
Defendant Ellis to cease such activities, Mr. Ellis falsely claimed that it was his right as an individual
5
Board Member to commence any investigation within Local 1 at any time and for any reason.
33.
On June 12, 2014, Defendant McClaflin berated Mr. Nguyen over the phone for buying a
car from Japan instead of being a real American and buying a U.S. made car. When Mr. Nguyen
stated that he was supporting unions by purchasing the car, McClaflin responded, I dont care! Its still
a Jap car that you bought and I hate it. Ms. McClaflin also accused Mr. Nguyen of hiring his Asian
friends as employees in Local 1, specifically naming Madeleine Jen Kin and Chung Park. Mr. Nguyen
clarified that he did not know either individual prior to their being hired and explained that they
happened to be the most qualified candidates available.
34.
At a Local 1 Contra Costa County Leadership Meeting on June 24, 2014, Defendant Ellis
10
engaged in an unprovoked verbal attack on Mr. Nguyen, culminating in Ellis shouting at Mr. Nguyen:
11
youre sitting there lying to me through those squinty eyes of yours.
12
35.
At an Executive Committee meeting on August 6, 2014, Defendant McClaflin
13
complained about Mr. Nguyens handling of union affairs, mentioning his decision to fire the manager at
14
the Richmond office, his purchase of a Japanese car, and his decision to purchase a new building for
15
Local 1, which she falsely argued had benefitted Mr. Nguyen financially. She also demanded that Mr.
16
Nguyen re-hire a former employee who had been dismissed for sexual harassment.
17
C.
Defendants Retaliated Against Mr. Nguyen Because He Complained About Racial
18
Harassment and Discrimination
19
36.
20
21
On June 24, 2014, Mr. Nguyen filed a formal complaint with the Local 1 Executive
Committee regarding Defendant Ellis discriminatory and hostile behavior.

37.
Although the Executive Committee initiated a hearing in or around August 2014,
22
purportedly to investigate Mr. Ellis behavior toward Mr. Nguyen, the members of the Executive
23
Committee and the Board of Directorsincluding Defendants Starr, Ellis, Dunn-Dickens, Ramirez,
24
Shirley, West, Morales, Riley, and Avilaconspired to use the hearing and investigation to harass and
25
retaliate against Mr. Nguyen for making his complaint. During Board deliberations over whether to
26
initiate a hearing, Defendant Starr said of Mr. Nguyens complaint, I think theres a little job security
27
going on here, if you know what I mean.
28
38.
Defendant Avila approached hearing witnesses Phil Hu and Cedric Porter after their
6
sessions at the hearing, and threatened Hu by saying, when the shit hits the fan, I hope youll make the
right choice; I hope youre on the right sideand thats with the union. This was perceived as a threat
to witnesses attending the hearing on Mr. Nguyens behalf.
39.
On September 17, 2014, Defendant Morales, who was one of the Executive Board
members conducting the hearing and investigation of Defendant Ellis treatment of Mr. Nguyen, was
observed conferring with Defendant Ellis in the Local 1 parking lot prior to the start of the hearing.
Moreover, during the hearing, Defendant Morales counseled and reassured Ellis. Although Mr. Nguyen
complained about this conflict of interest several times during the hearing, Defendants took no action to
address the issue.
10
40.
After the two-day hearing, the Executive Committee took several months before issuing
11
their recommendation to the Board of Directors. During this time, Mr. Nguyens work environment
12
became increasingly hostile, as additional members of the Board of Directors, including Defendants
13
Avila, Dunn-Dickens, and Riley, started mistreating Mr. Nguyen in retaliation for initiating a complaint
14
against Defendant Ellis. This hostility was perceived by other Local 1 leadership and staff, and escalated
15
the hostile work environment.
16
17
18
41.
Ultimately the hearing panel recommended taking no meaningful action against
Defendant Ellis, and the Board of Directors affirmed the decision.

42.
On March 26, 2015, Defendant Local 1 Secretary Tricell Dunn-Dickens wrote a letter to
19
CFO Robert Clarke making false accusations against Mr. Nguyen and demanding expense invoices,
20
receipts, credit card statements, and vacation usage information about Mr. Nguyen. Defendant Dunn-
21
Dickens did not make similar requests for any other employee and had never requested such information
22
for previous General Managers or staff. Moreover, Dunn-Dickens personally lacked the authority to
23
make such a request, and had not sought approval from either the Executive Committee nor the Board of
24
Directors to approve this request. In recognition that Defendant Dunn-Dickens was acting outside of
25
policy, Robert Clarke required Ms. Dunn-Dickens to sign an indemnification agreement acknowledging
26
that she was making an extraordinary request and holding Local 1 harmless for her actions.
27
28
43.
Around this same time, the Teamsters started making efforts to decertify Local 1.
Defendants Ellis and Avila both participated in these effortspassing out fliers and having meetings
7
with individual Local 1 members on behalf of the Teamsters. On April 21, 2015, Defendant Executive
Committee and Board of Directors member David Ramirez falsely blamed Mr. Nguyen for problems
associated with the Teamsters efforts around that time to decertify Local 1, stating that: None of these
problems arose until Peter Nguyen filed his complaint against Pete Ellis. There may have been de-
certifications in the past, but they were not led by Local 1 officers. Mr. Nguyen understood these
allegations to be in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination.
44.
During the course of the Executive Committees investigation, both Defendants West and
Riley accused Mr. Nguyen of lying to benefit himself in his role as General Manager. They conspired
with the rest of the Executive Committee in investigating Mr. Nguyen, rather than investigating the
10
11
harassing conduct that was the subject of Mr. Nguyens complaint.

45.
On May 6, 2015, the Executive Committee conducted a closed-session meeting in which
12
members discussed their alleged concerns regarding Mr. Nguyen. Although President David Rolley
13
encouraged Executive Committee members to discuss these concerns directly with Mr. Nguyen, and Mr.
14
Nguyen stood by outside the meeting for hours to address any issues, they refused to do so. Instead, the
15
Executive Committee called in CFO Robert Clarke and disbanded the meeting without calling in Mr.
16
Nguyen.
17
46.
Several days later and prior to the next official Executive Committee meeting scheduled
18
for May 13, 2015, members of the Executive Committee, with the exception of President David Rolley,
19
convened a secret, unauthorized meeting to plan taking action against Mr. Nguyen. They discussed
20
bringing in staff members to testify against Mr. Nguyen and specific motions which would be passed to
21
suspend and ultimately terminate his employment. Around this time, the Executive Committee also
22
spoke with Defendant Cedric Porter about promoting him to Mr. Nguyens position. Defendant Porter
23
supported this idea and colluded with the Executive Committee to remove Mr. Nguyen.
24
47.
On May 13, 2015, in violation of his employment contract and in retaliation for his
25
complaints of discrimination, a majority of the Executive Committee placed Mr. Nguyen on paid leave.
26
Defendant members of the Executive Committee conspired to deny Mr. Nguyen his rights, as
27
demonstrated by the fact that they had pre-drafted the motions putting him on leave prior to holding the
28
meetings in which they purportedly decided to take these actions. Local 1 President David Rolley and
8
1
2
3
4
Treasurer Lynda Middleton voted against these pre-drafted motions.

48.
On May 15, 2015, President Rolley instructed the Local 1 Executive Committee and staff
to reinstate Mr. Nguyen as General Manager and to proceed in a manner which respected due process.
49.
On May 16, 2015, there was a Special Board of Directors meeting that had been
originally called to hear charges against four members, including Defendants Ellis and Avila, for their
actions in supporting the Teamsters, as these actions were considered inimical to the union. At the
meeting, however, the Board, led by members of the Executive Committee, instead moved to place an
item on the agenda entitled Executive Committee Actions of 5/13/2015. A Board majority then voted
to postpone the hearing on the original issue and moved directly into consideration of the Executive
10
Committees May 13 actions placing Mr. Nguyen on leave. The Board moved to uphold the Executive
11
Committees actions of May 13, 2015, and overrode President David Rolley, who had ruled the motion
12
out of order. When Mr. Rolley pointed out that the Board had likely violated Mr. Nguyens contractual
13
and due process rights and therefore could face legal action, Defendant Mike West stood up and
14
proclaimed, we know were going to get sued, but its worth it.
15
50.
The Board then approved a 30-day contract for an Interim General Manager, Cedric
16
Porter. President David Rolley refused to place his signature on the contract due to his belief that the
17
Board of Directors was violating Mr. Nguyens legal, contractual, and internal due process rights. Mr.
18
Rolley then resigned as President.
19
51.
On May 20, 2015, in accordance with the Local 1 Policy and Procedure Regarding
20
Resolution of Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Complaints Filed by a Local 1 Employee
21
Against a Local 1 Union Member or Officer, Mr. Nguyen filed complaints against Executive Committee
22
Members James Starr, Tom Shirley, David Ramirez, Tricell Dunn-Dickens, Mike West, Ana Morales
23
and Pat Riley. As of the date of this filing Local 1 has failed to provide any response, investigation, or
24
other action with regard to these complaints, in violation of its own policy.
25
52.
On May 27, 2015, Acting General Manager Cedric Porter notified Mr. Nguyen that the
26
Local 1 Board of Directors intended to terminate his employment on June 30, 2015 at a 7:30 pm meeting
27
in the Sacramento Union Hall. The Board sent a letter on July 2, 2015 [see attached Exhibit B] stating
28
that the Board believed that Mr. Nguyen had engaged in malfeasance, thereby triggering language in
9
Mr. Nguyens contract intended to deny him a contractual 6-month severance [see attached Exhibit C].
53.
On June 30, 2015, Mr. Nguyen arrived early to the meeting in the Sacramento Union
Hall. Mr. Nguyen spoke with Defendant Starr and stated that pursuant to Local 1s notification, he
intended to attend the meeting. Mr. Starr told Mr. Nguyen that he was not allowed to attend. Several
other Board Members came up to Mr. Nguyen and asked him questions individually. These Board
Members included David Rolley, Linda Middleton, a member from the El Dorado unit, and one or two
other members. These members primarily exchanged pleasantries and wanted to understand the charges
against Mr. Nguyen and his current employment status.
54.
Before the meeting, Defendant Starr physically stood over Mr. Nguyen and said that Mr.
10
Nguyen needed to leave or he would be embarrassed. Defendant Starr then threateningly asked Mr.
11
Nguyen if he wanted to be hogtied out of the meeting. Mr. Nguyen responded that Mr. Starr was
12
harassing him and that Mr. Nguyen was there based on the invitation of the Board. Mr. Nguyen then
13
started video-taping Mr. Starr and Mr. Starr backed off and walked to the front of the room to convene
14
the meeting.
15
55.
When the meeting formally came to order, Mr. Starr pointed out that Mr. Nguyen was
16
video-taping. Mr. Starr called for a closed session, and a woman stated that she did not want to be
17
video-taped by Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Starr spoke for some time, and during this time, Mr. Nguyen did not
18
move or cease video-taping. The members then took a recess and moved to another location within the
19
building, but Mr. Nguyen did not follow them. Nevertheless the Board called the police on Mr. Nguyen.
20
The police arrived and had a very peaceful encounter with Mr. Nguyen. The police explained that they
21
had been told that Mr. Nguyen was required to RVSP to the meeting. Mr. Nguyen explained that he had
22
provided proper notice of his intention to attend the meeting according to the notice he received, and
23
then left peacefully.
24
D.
After Illegally Terminating Mr. Nguyen, Defendants Published and Disseminated
25
Defamatory Statements About Mr. Nguyen in Local 1 Publications
26
56.
Shortly after Mr. Nguyens termination, Local 1 published the August 2015 issue of its
27
news magazine, We Are One, which contained an article on the inside cover written by Defendant
28
Interim President Tom Shirley entitled Local 1 Transitioning to a Better Place. In this article,
10
Defendant Shirley stated:
I am not one to mince words or one to be long and flowery in what I say. . . .
So here it is. For the past two years, Local 1 has been in active, purposeful
transition. Unfortunately, the General Manager we brought in was able to
express a vision for us, but did not perform in terms of executing the vision.
He also treated staff poorly while treating himself very well. Worst of all,
he did not care to engage our members. And for those reasons, he is gone.
When information of his transgressions came to light, we took swift action.
Two months was all that was necessary to investigate and remove him. . . .
10
At this time, I would like to give thanks to members and staff who had to
11
endure the negativity under the previous General Manager. Know that Local
12
1 appreciates you.
13
57.
Later, in the December 2015 issue of We Are One, Local 1 published a piece authored
14
by Interim General Manager Cedric Porter entitled, Reflections on the Past Year: Blessings, Problems,
15
and Solutions, in which he blames the threat of decertification facing Local 1 on people who are no
16
longer with Local 1.
17
18
58.
Local 1 sends its publication We Are One to all of its members and many retired
members, reaching around 14,000 individuals. Local 1 also publishes We Are One on its website.
19
59.
These statements clearly expose Mr. Nguyen to hatred, contempt, and ridicule, as they
20
accuse him of unlawfully or unethically benefitting himself at the expense of the union. Defendants thus
21
published false and defamatory statements about Mr. Nguyen to all members of Local 1 that receive the
22
news magazine.
23
60.
All of these actions, including his wrongful termination, were done with discriminatory
24
animus based on race and/or perceived national origin, as well as in retaliation for Mr. Nguyens
25
complaints of discrimination. Moreover, these actions were taken through a conspiracy between certain
26
members of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors, who acted together to deprive Mr.
27
Nguyen of his rights.
28
///
11
IV.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Discrimination on the Basis of Race and Color
(Violation of Cal. Gov. Code 12940(a)Against Defendant Public Employees Local 1)
[Plaintiff Against Defendant Local 1]
6
7
8
9
61.
CLAIMS OF RELIEF
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 60, inclusive, as
though set forth in full herein.

62.
Under Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), it is an unlawful
employment practice [f]or an employer, because of the race . . . [or] color . . . of any person to
10
discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
11
Cal. Gov. 12940(a)
12
63.
FEHAs prohibition on discrimination in employment applies to businesses regularly
13
employing five or more persons. Cal. Gov. Code. 12940(a). At all relevant times, Defendant Public
14
Employees Union, Local 1 has employed more than five persons.
15
64.
Defendant Local 1, through its agents and employees, subjected Mr. Nguyen to various
16
adverse employment actions, including but not limited to (a) failing to properly investigate claims of
17
racial harassment and discrimination, (b) using derogatory phrasing and racial epithets to describe Mr.
18
Nguyen, (c) treating employees outside Mr. Nguyens protected class more favorably, and (d)
19
terminating his employment.
20
65.
Defendants conduct was motivated by its agents and employees discriminatory attitude
21
towards Asian-Americans based on race. Mr. Nguyen was one of the few, if not the only, Asian-
22
American working for Local 1 prior to his hiring of other qualified Asian-Americans.
23
66.
As a direct and proximate result of Local 1s unlawful conduct, Mr. Nguyen has suffered
24
and will continue to suffer emotional and psychological injuries, including, but not limited to, emotional
25
distress, depression, and anxiety. Mr. Nguyen has also suffered and continues to suffer medical
26
expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of other employment benefits. Mr. Nguyen is thereby entitled to
27
general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
28
67.
The conduct of Defendant Local 1, through its agents and employees, as described herein,
12
was malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with the knowledge that they were acting in
violation of state laws, and/or with a willful conscious disregard for Mr. Nguyens rights and for the
deleterious consequences of their actions. Consequently, Mr. Nguyen is entitled to punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Acts Prohibition of Harassment in
Employment on the Basis of Race and Color
(Cal. Gov. Code 12940(j))
[Plaintiff Against Defendants Local 1, James Starr, Pete Ellis, Tricell Dunn-Dickens, David
Ramirez, Tom Shirley, Mike West, Ana Morales, and Pat Riley]
10
11
12
68.

69.
Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) proscribes employers from
13
harassing an employee because of . . . race, . . . [and] color. Cal. Govt Code 12940(j)(1). Further,
14
FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer that knows or should have known of this conduct to fail to
15
take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Id.
16
70.
Moreover, [a]n employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for
17
any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee, regardless of whether the
18
employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and
19
appropriate corrective action. Cal. Govt Code 12940(j)(3).
20
71.
In violation of FEHA, Plaintiff was subjected to offensive comments and abusive conduct
21
based on his race and color by his peers and co-workers that was severe, pervasive and unwelcome,
22
altering the conditions of his employment and ending in wrongful termination. Such treatment included,
23
but was not limited to, the use of derogatory terms and racial epithets to describe Mr. Nguyen and other
24
Asian-American employees, the creation of false complaints and issues with Mr. Nguyens work
25
performance, and constant harassment and workplace threats. For example, Defendant Starr verbally
26
attacked Mr. Nguyen at several meetings, and made derogatory comments referring to his kind.
27
Defendant Starr also attempted to physically intimidate Mr. Nguyen from attending the meetings relating
28
to his termination. Similarly, Defendant Ellis directed racial epithets at Mr. Nguyen (which continued
13
even after he was asked to stop), he initiated a campaign to investigate Mr. Nguyen for objecting to the
racist treatment, and he verbally attacked Mr. Nguyen at meetings. Defendants Dunn-Dickens, Shirley,
West, Ramirez, Riley and Morales all participated in this investigation intended only to harass Mr.
Nguyen, by for example, asking for his expense invoices and receipts, laying blame on him for unrelated
decertification efforts, and accusing him of lying, all after Mr. Nguyen complained about the
discrimination he was facing. This conduct was unreasonably abusive and created an offensive and
hostile work environment for Plaintiff and for any reasonable person in Plaintiffs position.
8
9
10
72.
Plaintiff repeatedly complained to the Executive Board and Managers about the harassing
conduct of his peers and co-workers.

73.
In violation of FEHA, Defendant Local 1 failed to take prompt and appropriate action to
11
remedy and prevent the hostile work environment and harassment of Plaintiff by his peers and
12
co-workers. Indeed, the Executive Board, including Defendants Starr, Ellis, Dunn-Dickens, Ramirez,
13
Shirley, West, Morales, and Riley, turned an investigation of Defendant Ellis behavior into a witch-hunt
14
to find wrong-doing on the part of Mr. Nguyen.
15
74.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff perceived Defendants conduct to be emotionally
16
threatening, humiliating, unwanted and unpleasant. The severe and pervasive conduct unreasonably
17
interfered with and created a material change in the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment. As
18
a consequence of the severe and pervasive conduct, Plaintiff suffers physically, psychologically, and
19
emotionally. The conduct was so severe and pervasive that a reasonable person in Plaintiffs position
20
would find Plaintiffs work environment to be hostile and abusive.
21
75.
The conduct was directed toward Plaintiff and was motivated by the fact that Plaintiff is
22
Asian-American.
23
76.
Defendant Public Employees Union, Local 1 is strictly liable for the unlawful acts of its
24
agents, including but not limited to the illegal actions of Defendants Starr, Ellis, Dunn-Dickens,
25
Ramirez, Shirley, West, Morales, and Riley.
26
77.
At all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known of the acts of harassment of
27
its agents and employees, including Defendants Starr, Ellis, Dunn-Dickens, Ramirez, Shirley, West,
28
Morales, and Riley. Mr. Nguyen and others complained about the behavior numerous times.
14
Furthermore, the harassment was so pervasive and open that a reasonable employer would be aware of it.
Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment based
on Plaintiffs race and color. In addition, Defendants failed to remedy such discrimination and
harassment when they realized and were informed that it was occurring. Defendants further failed to
train, supervise, and monitor their employees and agents and had no or ineffective and unenforced
policies, practices, and procedures regarding their obligations to refrain and remedy discrimination and
harassment on the basis of race.
8
9
78.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful conduct, Mr. Nguyen has
suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and psychological injuries, including, but not limited to,
10
emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer medical
11
expenses, loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and
12
compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
13
79.
The conduct of Defendants and their agents and employees, as described herein, was
14
malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were acting in violation of
15
state law, and/or with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious
16
consequences of their actions. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
17
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Failure to Remedy and Prevent Discrimination and Harassment
19
(Cal. Gov. Code 12940(k))
20
21
22
23
24
25
80.

81.
FEHA requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
discrimination and harassment from occurring. Cal. Gov. Code 12940(k).

82.
In violation of FEHA, Plaintiff was subjected to severe and pervasive harassment and
26
discrimination, and was ultimately terminated, on the basis of his race and color. Plaintiff complained
27
about the harassment and discrimination to his Supervisors and Managers on multiple occasions.
28
83.
In violation of FEHA, Defendant Local 1 failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to
15
prevent discrimination and harassment based on Plaintiffs race and color. In addition, Defendant Local
1 failed to remedy such discrimination and harassment when they realized and were informed that it was
occurring. Defendant Local 1 further failed to train, supervise, and monitor their employees and agents.
84.
Plaintiffs peers and the Executive Board deflected responsibility by continuing to search
for misconduct on Plaintiffs part instead of investigating his claims of racial discrimination.
Defendants failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment based on
Plaintiffs race and color fostered, created and encouraged an environment where such discrimination
and harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned and/or ratified.
85.
10
11
emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has also suffered and continues to suffer medical
12
13
14
86.
The conduct of Defendant Local 1, through its agents, as described herein was malicious,
15
fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were acting in violation of state law,
16
and/or with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences
17
of their actions. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
18
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Acts Prohibition of Retaliation
20
(Cal. Gov. Code 12940(h))
21
22
23
24
87.

88.
Through their conduct, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected
25
activity, including filing a complaint concerning racial harassment directed towards him and hiring
26
qualified Asian-Americans.
27
89.
The protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the retaliatory action.
28
90.
Defendant Local 1 and its agents and employees knew of and perpetrated the retaliatory
16
conduct. By allowing the harassment to continue and by turning an investigation of Mr. Ellis behavior
into an investigation of Mr. Nguyens alleged misconduct, they conspired and participated in the
retaliation against Plaintiff which resulted in his termination.
91.
92.
The conduct of Defendant Local 1, through its agents, as described herein, was malicious,
10
11
12
13
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
Violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act
15
(Cal. Civ. Code 52.1)
16
[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]
17
18
19
93.

94.
Defendants interfered or attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs exercise and enjoyment of
20
his state statutory rights by threats, intimidation and coercion when they discriminated, harassed and
21
retaliated against him and failed to remedy and prevent both discrimination and harassment.
22
95.
Specifically, Defendant Starr verbally attacked Mr. Nguyen at several meetings, and made
23
derogatory comments referring to his kind. Defendant Starr also attempted to physically intimidate
24
Mr. Nguyen from attending the meetings relating to his termination. Defendant Ellis directed racial
25
epithets at Mr. Nguyen (which continued even after he was asked to stop), he participated in a campaign
26
to investigate Mr. Nguyen for objecting to the racist treatment, and he verbally attacked Mr. Nguyen at
27
meetings to silence, harass, and intimidate him. Moreover, Defendants Dunn-Dickens, Shirley, West,
28
Ramirez, Riley and Morales all participated in this investigation, intended only to harass Mr. Nguyen,
17
by for example, asking for all of his expense invoices and receipts, laying blame on him for unrelated
decertification efforts, and accusing him of lying and cheating the Union members, all after Mr. Nguyen
complained about the discrimination he was facing.
96.
Defendants actions were motivated by Plaintiffs race as an Asian-American.
97.
emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has also suffered and continues to suffer loss of
earnings and other employment benefits. Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in Plaintiffs
suffering and harm. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be
10
11
proven at trial and a civil penalty of not less than $25,000.

98.
The conduct of Defendants, through their agents, as described herein was malicious,
12
13
14
15
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
Violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
17
(42 U.S.C. 1985(3))
18
[Plaintiff Against Individual Defendants Starr, Ellis, Dunn-Dickens, Ramirez, Shirley, West,
19
Morales, Riley, McClaflin, Avila, and Porter]
20
21
22
99.

100.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), If two or more persons in any State or Territory
23
conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of
24
the equal protection of the laws, or of the equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . the party so
25
injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or
26
deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
27
28
101.
As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants Starr, Ellis, Dunn-Dickens, Ramirez,
Shirley, West, Morales, Riley, McClaflin, and Avila, together with other agents and employees of
18
Defendant Local 1, conspired, agreed, planned and coordinated for the purpose of depriving Mr. Nguyen
of his rights under California Government Code sections 12940(a) (discrimination on the basis of race),
12940(j) (harassment in employment on the basis of race), 12940(k) (failure to remedy and prevent
discrimination and harassment), 12940(h) (retaliation), and California Civil Code section 52.1 (Bane
Civil Rights Act).
102.
Specifically, these Defendants conspired, planned, and coordinated a campaign of
unlawful harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against Mr. Nguyen for the purpose of depriving Mr.
Nguyen of his job in violation of law. For example, Defendants Ellis, McClaflin, and Avila threatened
and harassed Mr. Nguyen with racist comments and accusations. Defendant Ellis interrogated and
10
harassed Local 1 employees who worked with Mr. Nguyen, intimidating them into supporting the Union
11
over Mr. Nguyen. Defendant Dunn-Dickens demanded without authorization that the Local 1 CFO
12
provide expense invoices, receipts, and other documents, in an attempt to fabricate a basis for Mr.
13
Nguyens termination. Defendant Ramirez publicly blamed Mr. Nguyens complaints about racially
14
motivated harassment for the Teamsters efforts to decertify Local 1. Defendant Morales inappropriately
15
provided counsel and reassurance to Defendant Ellis while serving on the hearing panel investigating
16
Mr. Nguyens complaints against Defendant Ellis. Defendants West and Riley further participated in the
17
bogus investigation of Mr. Nguyen, and Defendant Starr physically intimated Mr. Nguyen from
18
attending the unauthorized Executive Committee meetings addressing his employment status. Mr.
19
Shirley and Cedric Porter then published defamatory articles in the Union magazine, We Are One, in
20
an effort to continue to legitimize their unlawful actions. Each of these actions combine to demonstrate
21
a concerted effort to retaliate and harass Mr. Nguyen on the basis of his race. The fact that this was a
22
conspiracy is further demonstrated by the fact that the Executive Board acted without the required
23
authorization from the full Board of Directors, as was required before terminating Mr. Nguyen, and the
24
fact that the Executive Board has pre-drafted and approved motions prior to their meetings, on issues
25
relating to Mr. Nguyen.
26
103.
Each of these Defendants was motivated by animus against Mr. Nguyen based on his race
27
and/or perceived national origin when they conspired to deprive him of his rights and/or acted in
28
furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Mr. Nguyen of his rights.

19
1
2
3
104.
Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification
planned and acted to deprive Mr. Nguyen of his rights.

105.
earnings and other employment benefits. Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in Plaintiffs
suffering and harm. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be
proven at trial.
106.
The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents and employees, as described herein was
10
11
12
consequences of their actions. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
13
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
15
[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]
16
17
18
107.

108.
As described above, the conduct of Defendants and their agents/employees was
19
outrageous and outside the normal scope of the employment relationship. Specifically, Defendants
20
discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff based on his race and color, in violation of state law, and
21
retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity, constitute conduct outside of the normal
22
scope of the employment relationship and violative of public policy.
23
109.
Defendants knew that their conduct would result in Plaintiffs severe emotional distress,
24
and said conduct was perpetrated by Defendants with the intent to inflict, or with reckless disregard of
25
the probability of inflicting humiliation, mental anguish, and severe emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
26
Such conduct did, in fact, result in severe emotional distress and psychological damage of Plaintiff.
27
28
110.
20
earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory
damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Retention and Supervision
7
8
9
111.

112.
Plaintiff was subjected to severe and pervasive harassment and discrimination based on
10
his race and color. Plaintiff complained of the harassment and discrimination to his Supervisors and
11
Managers on multiple occasions. Accordingly Defendant Local 1, and its agents and employees, knew
12
or reasonably should have known, that their employees, individually or together in varying
13
combinations, were engaging in the conduct set forth above.
14
113.
Defendant Local 1 failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In failing
15
to do so, Local 1 showed demonstrable negligence in the retention and supervision of their employees
16
resulting in a foreseeable harm on Plaintiff. Defendants negligence created and encouraged an
17
environment where such discrimination and harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated,
18
affirmatively authorized and/or ratified.
19
114.
Defendant Local 1 either had no or ineffective policies outlining its responsibilities to
20
prevent and remedy discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Further, Defendant failed to train their
21
employees on the legal requirements prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation as well as
22
Defendant Local 1s corresponding policies. In failing to create effective policies and/or train its
23
employees, Defendant Local 1 showed demonstrable negligence in their supervision of their employees
24
resulting in foreseeable harm on Plaintiff.
25
115.
At all relevant times, Defendant Local 1, and its agents and employees, knew or
26
reasonably should have known that unless they intervened to protect Plaintiff, and to adequately
27
supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and otherwise penalize the conduct of theirs agents and
28
employees, their agents and employees would perceive the conduct and omissions described as being
21
1
2
encouraged, ratified, and condoned.

116.
At all relevant times, the negligent failure of Defendant Local 1 to protect Plaintiff, and to
supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize adequately the conduct and
omissions of their agents and employees violated Plaintiffs rights under state law, as alleged herein.
117.
10
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
12
13
14
15
118.

119.
As described above, Defendant Local 1 terminated Mr. Nguyen because of his race and
16
color, and in response to his complaints of harassment and discrimination, as well as his complaints of
17
unlawful conduct on the part of Executive Committee and Board Members. This conduct is in violation
18
of the public policies of this State as expressed in, inter alia, the California Constitution, the Labor
19
Code, the Civil Code, the Government Code, and all state statutes and regulations prohibiting retaliation,
20
discrimination, and harassment. These include, but are not limited to, Cal. Gov. Code 12940, et seq.
21
120.
As the direct and legal result of Defendant Local 1s wrongful termination in violation of
22
public policy, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer reasonable, foreseeable and ascertainable
23
damages, including but not limited to, emotional distress, past and future earning loss, loss of benefits,
24
and attorneys fees.
25
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26
Breach of Contract
27
28
121.

22
through set forth in full herein.
122.
Mr. Nguyen had a lawful employment contract with Public Employees Union, Local 1.
123.
The terms of the contract carefully laid out the manner and method by which the contract
4
5
6
7
could be terminated. Local 1 initiated proceedings against Mr. Nguyen in violation of his contract.
124.
Local 1 breached the terms of the contract by improperly terminating his employment and
by failing to provide a severance once they terminated his contract.

125.
As the direct and legal result of Defendants breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer reasonable, foreseeable and ascertainable damages, including but not limited to,
past and future earning loss, loss of benefits, and attorneys fees.
10
126.
The conduct of Defendant Local 1, through its agents, as described herein was malicious,
11
12
13
of their actions. Defendants and their agents and employees, authorized, condoned and ratified the
14
unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
15
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
Defamation
17
[Plaintiff Against Defendants Local 1, Dunn-Dickens, Ramirez, Shirley, and Porter]
18
127.
19
20
through set forth in full herein.

128.
During the relevant times as described in this Complaint, Defendants Local 1, Dunn-
21
Dickens, Ramirez, Shirley, Porter and/or DOES 1-10, defamed Plaintiff and made false statements about
22
him to the public, including but not limited to false statements published in the August 2015 and
23
December 2015 issues of We Are One, a news magazine sent to members of Defendant Public
24
Employees Union, Local 1. Specifically, Defendants Local 1, Dunn-Dickens, Ramirez, Shirley, and
25
Porter falsely stated in these and other publications and written statements that Mr. Nguyen did not
26
adequately perform his job, mistreated staff, and made personal financial gain off of Local 1 contracts
27
and/or business deals.
28
129.
Plaintiff was not specifically named in all of these communications, but the articles and
23
publications contained sufficient information to reveal that these statements were made of and
concerning Plaintiff, and these statements were so understood by those who read them, especially
including the August 2015 and December 2015 issues of We Are One.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
130.
When Defendants made the aforementioned statements, Defendants deliberately and
intentionally communicated false and damaging statements.

131.
In publishing these defamatory statements, Defendants knew that these allegations would
seriously damage Plaintiffs reputation and his ability to earn a living.

132.
These written statements were libelous per se because they tend to injure Plaintiff in his
profession by imputing a general disqualification in those respects that the occupation peculiarly
requires.
133.
As the direct and legal result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will
12
continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment and retirement benefits, and has
13
suffered and will continue to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish in an amount
14
according to proof.
15
134.
The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents and employees, as described herein was
16
17
18
consequences of their actions. Defendants and their agents and employees, authorized, condoned and
19
ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
20
21
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Mr. Nguyen has filed a Complaint of
22
Discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on October 2, 2015 [see attached
23
Exhibit A]. The administrative complaint expressly alleged racial discrimination and retaliation by
24
Defendants. It was assigned DFEH Matter No. 671798-185721-R.
25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
26
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor:
27
(a)
28
Declaring that the actions of Defendants described above constitute discrimination and
harassment on the basis of race and color in violation of Cal. Gov. Code 12940;
24

Peter Nguyen Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Peter Nguyen Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

unlawful and tortious conduct.

Plaintiff Peter Nguyen (Mr. Nguyen or Plaintiff) is an 42-year-old Asian-American

male currently residing in Clark County in the state of Nevada.

public health nurses and social workers.

hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

therefore had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

therefore had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

therefore had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

therefore had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Nguyen.

failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly and severally.

The Local 1 Board of Directors Hired Mr. Nguyen as General Manager

Jongguy, you know, the dictator of North Korea?

language, but they refused to change their behavior.

second highest-ranking official in Local 1.

At an Executive Committee meeting on November 4, 2013, Mr. Nguyen was presenting

Starrs inappropriate behavior.

happened to be the most qualified candidates available.

youre sitting there lying to me through those squinty eyes of yours.

At an Executive Committee meeting on August 6, 2014, Defendant McClaflin

Defendants Retaliated Against Mr. Nguyen Because He Complained About Racial

Harassment and Discrimination

Committee regarding Defendant Ellis discriminatory and hostile behavior.

Although the Executive Committee initiated a hearing in or around August 2014,

going on here, if you know what I mean.

to witnesses attending the hearing on Mr. Nguyens behalf.

address the issue.

the hostile work environment.

Ultimately the hearing panel recommended taking no meaningful action against

Defendant Ellis, and the Board of Directors affirmed the decision.

allegations to be in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination.

harassing conduct that was the subject of Mr. Nguyens complaint.

On May 6, 2015, the Executive Committee conducted a closed-session meeting in which

Treasurer Lynda Middleton voted against these pre-drafted motions.

Rolley then resigned as President.

Resolution of Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Complaints Filed by a Local 1 Employee

against Mr. Nguyen and his current employment status.

then left peacefully.

After Illegally Terminating Mr. Nguyen, Defendants Published and Disseminated

Defamatory Statements About Mr. Nguyen in Local 1 Publications

Defendant Shirley stated:

transition. Unfortunately, the General Manager we brought in was able to

When information of his transgressions came to light, we took swift action.

longer with Local 1.

Nguyen of his rights.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Discrimination on the Basis of Race and Color

(Violation of Cal. Gov. Code 12940(a)Against Defendant Public Employees Local 1)

[Plaintiff Against Defendant Local 1]

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 60, inclusive, as

though set forth in full herein.

Under Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), it is an unlawful

discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Cal. Gov. 12940(a)

FEHAs prohibition on discrimination in employment applies to businesses regularly

Employees Union, Local 1 has employed more than five persons.

terminating his employment.

general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION