David Salcedo's Complaint For Damages

Camey R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No.
150461
CShegerian@Sheoerianlaw.com CONFORMED cop,
2 Anthony~uyen,~sq., State Bar No. 259154 pR1GINAL FILED
~,ap~r:lor Coa.,.rt or CllifornJ,.
A
Al\Jguyen Shegenanlaw.com ..... oanty 0, Loi Anttlf'>~
3 SHEGE N & ASSOCIATES, INC.

225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 SEP 18 2017
4 Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770 Sherri A. Carter, !:xecuuve urncer1C1erk
5 Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771 By: Marlon Gomez, Deput~1
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
DAVID SALCEDO
7
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
11
BC676398
12 DAVID SALCEDO, ) Case No.:
I
13 1 PLAINTIFF DAVID SALCEDO'S
Plaintiff, 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
14
<
vs. <
(1) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
15
<
1102.5;
I
<
16 CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, and I (2) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, I 1101;
17 I
Defendants. , (3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
18 I 1102;
I
<
19 (4) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
6310;
20
(5) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
21 6311;
<
22
<
(6) VIOLATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
<
OFFICERS' PROCEDURAL BILL
23 I OF RIGHTS ACT (Government Code
) 3300, et seq.);
24
<
(7) VIOLATION OF THE
25 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION,
ARTICLE I, 1;
26
(8) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
27
<
OFFEHA;
28
-------------'
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2
3
l (9) HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF
FEHA;
(10) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
4 FEHA;
5 (11) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE
INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN
6 VIOLATION OF FEHA;
7 (12) FAILURE TO PROVIDE
REASONABLE
8 ACCOMMODATION IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
9
(13) FAILURE TO PREVENT
10 DISCRIMINATION,
HARASSMENT, AND
II RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
FEHA;
12
(14) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
13 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15
16 Plaintiff, David Salcedo, alleges, on the basis of personal knowledge and/or infor-
17 mation and belief:
18
19 SUMMARY
20 This is an action by plaintiff, David Salcedo ("plaintiff' or "Salcedo"), whose em-
21 ployment with defendant City of Baldwin Park ("City") was wrongfully terminated.
22 Plaintiff brings this action against defendants for economic, non-economic, and
23 compensatory damages, civil penalties pursuant to Government Code 3300, et seq.,
24 pre-judgment interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 3291, and costs and
25 reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b) and Code of
26 Civil Procedure section 1021. 5.
21 Ill
28 Ill
-2-
PARTIES
2 1. Plaintiff: Plaintiff Salcedo is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was,
3 a resident of the County of Los Angeles, California.
4 2. Defendants: Defendant City is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint
s was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government
6 and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. Defendant's
7 place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the
8 County of Los Angeles, at 14403 East Pacific Avenue, Baldwin Park, California 91706.
9 3. Doe defendants: Defendants Does 1 to 100, inclusive, are sued under fictitious
10 names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is infonned and be-
11 Iieves, and on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is
12 in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below, in so acting was
13 functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the co-defendants, and in tak-
14 ing the actions mentioned below was acting within the course and scope of his or her auth-
15 ority as such agent, servant, partner, and employee, with the permission and consent of the
16 co-defendants. The named defendants and Doe defendants are sometimes hereafter re-
l7 ferred to, collectively and/or individually, as "defendants."
18 4. Relationship of defendants: All defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or
19 abetted the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which
20 conduct is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). All defen-
21 dants were responsible for the events and damages alleged herein, including on the fol-
22 lowing bases: (a) defendants committed the acts alleged; (b) at all relevant times, one or
23 more of the defendants was the agent or employee, and/or acted under the control or
24 supervision, of one or more of the remaining defendants and, in committing the acts
25 alleged, acted within the course and scope of such agency and employment and/or is or
26 are otherwise liable for plaintiffs damages; (c) at all relevant times, there existed a unity
27 of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the defendants such that any
28 individuality and separateness between or among those defendants has ceased, and de-
-3-
fondants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control
2 over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of defendants
3 does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the fiction of the
4 separate existence of defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and
5 would sanction fraud and promote injustice. All actions of all defendants were taken by
6 employees, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during employment with all
7 defendants, were taken on behalf of all defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, rati-
8 fied, and approved ofby all other defendants.
9 5. Defendant City both directly and indirectly employed plaintiff Salcedo, as
10 defined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") at Government Code
11 section 12926(d).
12 6. In addition, defendant City compelled, coerced, aided, and abetted the discrimi-
13 nation, which is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i).
14 7. Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of
15 all other defendants in committing the acts alleged herein.
16
11 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

18 8. Plaintiff's hiring: On March 1, 2017, the City of Baldwin Park approved the
19 employment contract with Salcedo for the position of Chief of Police.
20 9. Plaintiff's job performance: At all times, Salcedo performed his job duties in
21 an exemplary manner.
22 10. Plaintiff's protected activity I characteristics:
23 a. Salcedo is a Hispanic male, over the age of 40. He suffers from Carpal
24 Tunnel syndrome, and medical issues related to his back.
25 b. On numerous occasions, Salcedo made good faith complaints about
26 discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Salcedo also complained of unlawful
27 activity, complained that he was asked to perform unlawful activity, and refused to
28 participate in unlawful activity. Salcedo was also asked to engage in political activity
-4-
against his will, and suffered an adverse employment action for his having engaged in
2 his own political activity. Said protected activity is discussed below in more detail.
3 11. Examples of Plaintiff's Protected Activity and Defendants' adverse employment
4 actions and behavior:
5 a. In or around March of 2017, Pacheco called Salcedo, and asked him to
6 illegally "fix" a ticket for political reasons. Salcedo refused. Thereafter, Pacheco
7 followed up several times, once by telephone. When Salcedo again refused, Pacheco
8 again hung up the phone. Pacheco was incensed.
9 b. In or around March of 2017, Pacheco requested that Salcedo leave in place
10 "no parking" signs that had been posted in violation of the code for political reasons.
11 Salcedo responded that he could not leave the signs up, because doing so would be
12 illegal. Pacheco was not happy.
13 c. In or around March of 2017, Pacheco requested that Salcedo tow a truck
14 that was legally parked in Baldwin Park for political reasons. Salcedo also informed
15 Pacheco that the truck could not be towed or cited, because there was no legal basis, and
16 doing so would be illegal. This angered Pacheco.
17 d. In or around April of 2017, Pacheco again asked Salcedo to perform illegal
18 activities for political reasons. Salcedo reported back, and informed Pacheco that nothing
19 else could be done. Pacheco was exasperated.
20 e. In or around April of 2017, Pacheco asked Salcedo to send a patrol car to
21 investigate a vacant house on his street. It is believed that Pacheco was using the police
22 department to gain favor from his constituents in his neighborhood.
23 f. On several occasions Salcedo complained to the powers that be - including
24 the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney- that he had been asked to perform illegal
25 actions and had refused to do so. He also reported that he had been unlawfully asked to
26 take part in political activity against his will.
21 Ill
28 Ill
-5-
g. In April of 2017, Salcedo was informed that an officer was misusing non-
2 prescribed pain medication. Based on this report, Salcedo had the officer in question
3 interviewed. Based on further information fmnished to him, Salcedo ordered another
4 investigation into a different officer, because of the concern of a possible familial gang
5 affiliation, and the investigation of a K-9 handler after his dog attacked a city employee.
6 Because Salcedo took action to investigate what he believed to be unlawful conduct that
7 could endanger the lives of his fellow officers, as well as the community, many members
8 of the Baldwin Park Police Department became insubordinate, and united against him. In
9 part, many officers who retaliated against Salcedo make up the Police Officer's and
10 Management Associations, both of which worked to sabotage Salcedo's career and
11 prospects. Salcedo advised the City Attorney and Chief Executive Officer of at least one
12 of these incidents, as well as the backlash he was facing. Nothing was done.
13 h. Salcedo also complained to the Mayor, and Councilman Pacheco, that he
14 thought there was over- and/or double-billing on the part of the City Attorney. Salcedo
15 suggested that there be an assessment I audit, and opined that it was likely that the City
16 could hire two-to-three permanent in-house attorneys for the same price.
11 i. Prior to the City Council meeting in which his employment was terminated,
18 Salcedo was not given any written notice of the tennination of his employment.
19 j. Upon his hire, Salcedo was informed that his resume was released to the
20 Tribune over his objection. After the termination of his employment, Salcedo was
21 informed that his test scores for his Outside Chiefs Panel Interview had been leaked to
22 the Tribune.
23 k. Plaintiff is also informed and believes that the aforementioned actions, as
24 well as his termination discussed below, were taken against him because of his age, and
25 both the powers that be, and the rank-and-file's, animus thereon, and interest in having a
26 younger Chief.
21 Ill
28 Ill
-6-
12. Defendants' unlawful treatment of Salcedo based on his race, ancestry, and/or
2 national origin:
3 a. Within the Baldwin Park Police Department, there has been a pattem-and-
4 practice of racial discrimination against in promotions against Hispanic officers. In fact,
5 a recent report found clear bias against Hispanics. Salcedo is informed and believes that
6 a statistical comparison of the rank-and-file and the supervisory staff shows the same.
7 b. Salcedo was subjected to this same bias and discrimination and harassment
8 from many police officers and supervisors, who banded together in their respective
9 Police Officer and Management Associations, and used their collective power to affect
1o the termination of Salcedo' s employment. In fact, it was reported to Salcedo that several
11 Caucasian officers has said that they would do their best to make sure he didn't last more
12 than a year, at most. In the end, these efforts to eliminate yet another Hispanic Police
13 Chief were successful. A Caucasian Police Chief who had previously been "let go," was
14 brought back to replace Salcedo.
15 c. In fact, this is the second permanent Hispanic Police Chief in a row that
16 suffered an unlawful termination at the hands of the Baldwin Park City Council. Said
17 Council also tenninated Lili Hadsell, and at the same time, terminated other Hispanic
18 employees such as the City Attorney, both of whom were Hispanic as well.
19 13. Defendants' failure to engage in the interactive process and reasonably
20 accommodate Salcedo:
21 a. Shortly after Salcedo was hired, he informed a Human Resources manager
22 of his Carpal Tunnel syndrome, and that he suffered from medical issues related to his
23 back. He requested an ergonomic workspace, such as a sit/stand desk, and a ball to sit
24 on. However, instead of engaging in the interactive process, or accommodating Salcedo,
25 the Human Resources manager told Salcedo that he would have to buy said items
26 himself.
21 Ill
28 Ill
-7-
14. Defendants' termination ofplaintiff's employment:
2 a. On April 19, 2017 - just 49 days after his hire - the City wrongfully
3 terminated its employment contract with Salcedo for the position of Chief of Police and
4 dismissed him. Pacheco influenced this decision.
5 b. Contemporaneously, ranking officers-some on their own and others be-
6 lieved to be operating at the direction of City leadership-ransacked Chief Salcedo' s
7 locked office, took many items, and copied numerous documents. When informed of
8 this, Salcedo called the City of Baldwin Park Police Department to complain that such
9 actions violated his rights under the Police Officers' Bill of Rights, but nothing was
10 done.
11 c. Later that day, Salcedo was finally allowed into his office. Once inside, he
12 saw that the documents that had been on top of his desk were gone. Likewise, his desk
13 drawers had been emptied of their contents-including a memorandum of insubordina-
14 tion against a cun-ent captain-which had been removed from his office.
15 d. Even more unconscionable was the fact that Salcedo's personal briefcase
16 had been searched, and some of its contents (including documents) were missing. In
17 addition, a folder containing confidential/privileged documents and medical records had
18 been moved and placed front and center on the top of his desk.
19 e. Salcedo's gun had also been unloaded, and his Sam Brown belt was found
20 on his desktop.
21 15. Economic damages: As a consequence of defendants' conduct, plaintiff has
22 suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and employment
23 benefits, damage to his career, and lost wages, overtime, unpaid expenses, and penalties,
24 as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which
25 those wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial.
26 16. Non-economic damages: As a consequence of defendants' conduct, plaintiff
27 has suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation, and men-
28 tal and physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial.
-8-
17. Attorneys' fees: Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and
2 attorneys' fees.
3 18. Exhaustion of administrative remedies: Prior to filing this action, plaintiff ex-
4 hausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely tort claim and administrative
5 complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and
6 receiving a DFEH right-to-sue letter.
7
8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

9 (Violations of Labor Code 1102.5, et seq.-Against
1o Defendants City and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
11 19. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18 are re-alleged and incorpo-
12 rated herein by reference.
13 20. At all relevant times, Labor Code section 1102.5 was in effect and was binding
14 on defendants. This statute prohibits defendants from retaliating against any employee,
15 including plaintiff, for raising complaints of illegality that he believes to have violated
16 state and/or federal statutes, and/or resulted in the violation of, and/or noncompliance
17 with, local, state, and/or federal rules or regulation.
18 21. Section 1102.5 also prohibits defendants from taking action against an
19 employee: (1) who is believed to have disclosed, or who defendant believes might
20 disclose, a violation, or what he had reasonable cause to believe to be a violation, of
21 state or federal statute, and/or a violation of, and/or noncompliance with, a local, state, or
22 federal rule or regulation, to a person with authority over him, or to another employee
23 who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, and
24 (2) who has: (a) provided, or who defendant believes might provide, information to a
25 public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, and/or (b) testify before, or
26 who defendant believes might testify before, a public body conducting an investigation,
27 hearing, or inquiry.
28 ///
-9-
22. Section 1102.5 further prohibits an employer, or any person acting on behalf of
2 the employer, from retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in an
3 activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
4 noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.
5 a. Here, Salcedo made complaints of illegality that he believed violated state
6 and/or federal statutes, and/or resulted in the violation of, and/or noncompliance with,
7 local, state, and/or federal rules or regulations, and refused to participate in activities that
8 would have resulted in a violation state and/or federal statutes, and/or resulted in the
9 violation of, and/or noncompliance with, local, state, and/or federal rules or regulations.
1o As a result, defendants retaliated against him by discriminating against him, harassing
11 him, and taking adverse employment actions against him, up to, and including, the
12 termination of his employment.
13 b. Defendants also believed that Salcedo: (1) disclosed, or might disclose a
14 violation, or what he had reasonable cause to believe to be a violation, of state or federal
15 statute, and/or a violation of, and/or noncompliance with, a local, state, or federal rule or
16 regulation, to a person with authority over him, or to another employee who has
17 authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, and/or (2)
18 that: (a) he provided, or might provide, information to a public body conducting an
19 investigation, hearing, or inquiry, and/or (b) testified before, or might testify before, a
20 public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. As a result, defendants
21 retaliated against him by discriminating against him, harassing him, and taking adverse
22 employment actions against him, up to, and including, the termination of his
23 employment.
24 23. Defendants also retaliated against Salcedo, and eventually terminated him, for
25 refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal
26 statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or
27 regulation.
28 Ill
-10-
24. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional viola-
2 tions of Labor Code section 1102.5, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humili-
3 ation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in
4 a sum according to proof.
s 25. As a result of defendants' adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plain-
6 tiff has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof.
7 26. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys' fees.
8 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, et seq., plaintiff is enti-
9 tied to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in an amount according to proof.
10
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (Violations of Labor Code 1101)-Against
13 Defendants City and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
14 27. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 are re-alleged and incor-
15 porated herein by reference.
16 28. At all relevant times, Labor Code section 1101 was in effect and was binding on
11 defendants. This statute prohibits defendants from adopting or enforcing any rule,
18 regulation, or policy: (a) "[f]orbidding or preventing employees from engaging or
19 participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office" and (b)
20 "[ c]ontrolling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or
21 affiliations of employees."
22 29. Defendants violated section 1101 when they controlled, directed, or tended to
23 control or direct the political activity of Salcedo. Defendants also violated section 1101
24 when they prohibited Salcedo from engaging in political activity, and terminated him in
2s part for, therefore.
26 Ill
21 Ill
28 Ill
-11-
30. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional and
2 repeated violations of Labor Code section 1101, plaintiff has suffered and continues to
3 suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to
4 his damage in a sum according to proof.
5 31. As a result of defendants' adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plain-
9 tled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in an amount according to proof.
10
11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

17 defendants. This statute states that: "No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to
18 coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of
19 employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular
20 course or line of political action or political activity."
21 35. Defendants violated section 1102 when they coerced, influenced, and/or
22 attempted to coerce or influence Salcedo through or by means of threat of discharge or
23 loss of employment to adopt, follow, and/or refrain from adopting or following a
24 particular course or line of political action and/or activity.
2s 36. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional and
-12-
37. As a result of defendants' adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plain-
6
7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 defendants. This statute prohibits defendants from retaliating or otherwise
14 discriminating against an employee, including the plaintiff, for raising complaints (either
15 oral or written) about something the employee believed to be illegal or unsafe.
16 41. Plaintiff raised complaints of illegality, unsafe working conditions, and/or
17 unsafe work practices while he worked for defendants and was believed to be willing to
18 raise complaints, and because of said complaints, and the fact that the Plaintiff stood up
19 for the workplace safety rights of both himself and his co-workers, defendants retaliated
20 against him, discriminated against him, harassed him, and otherwise took adverse
22 employment.
23 42. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional and
21 Ill
28 Ill
-13-
43. As a result of defendants' adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plain-
6
7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 defendants. This statute prohibits defendants "from retaliating or otherwise
14 discriminating against an employee, including the plaintiff, for refusing to perform work
15 that would create a real and apparent hazard to himself or his fellow employees.
16 47. Because of his refusal to perform said tasks, defendants retaliated against the
17 plaintiff, discriminated against him, harassed him, and otherwise took adverse
19 employment.
20 48. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional and
24 49. As a result of defendants' adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plain-
-14-
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Violation of the Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of
3 Rights Act (Government Code 3000, et seq. )-Against All
4 Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
7 52. At all relevant times, Government Code section 3300, et seq. - the Public
8 Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act - was in effect and was binding on
9 defendants. This Act requires defendants to follow certain procedural safeguards, and
10 prohibits them from taking certain acts, as they related to Salcedo, because he was
11 employed as a public safety officer pursuant to section 3301, and the sections referenced
12 therein.
13 53. According to section 3302, "no public safety officer shall be prohibited from
14 engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political activity." Defendants violated
15 section 3302 when they coerced and/or required Salcedo to engage in political activity.
16 They also prohibited Salcedo from engaging in political activity when Salcedo was
17 terminated, in part for, doing so.
18 54. According to section 3304(a), "[n]o public safety officer shall be subjected to
19 punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with any such treatment, because
20 of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under this chapter, or the exercise of any
21 rights under any existing administrative grievance procedure." As stated herein, Salcedo
22 was subjected to punitive action (i.e., termination), because of his lawful exercise of
23 right guaranteed under this chapter.
24 55. According to section 3304(c), "[n]o chief of police may be removed by a public
25 agency, or appointing authority, without providing the chief of police with written notice
26 and the reason or reasons therefor and an opportunity for administrative appeal." Salcedo
21 was not provided with written notice of his termination, or the reason or reason's
28 therefore, prior to the City Council's termination of his employment.
-15-
56. According to section 3304, "[n]o public safety officer shall have any comment
2 adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other file used for any
3 personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first read
4 and signed the instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware of such
5 comment, except that such entry may be made if after reading such instrument the public
6 safety officer refuses to sign it." On information and belief, comments adverse to
7 Salcedo's interests were entered into his personnel file, and/or used for a personnel
8 purpose by his employer, without his first having read and signed the instrument, or his
9 having been given the opportunity to read and sign the instrument, and refusing to do so.
10 As such, defendants also violated section 3306, by depriving Salcedo of the mandatory
11 30-day period in which to file a written response to any adverse comment entered in his
12 personnel file.
13 57. According to section 3309, "[n]o public safety officer shall have his locker, or
14 other space for storage that may be assigned to him searched except in his presence, or
15 with his consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained or where he has been
16 notified that a search will be conducted." Defendants violated section 3309 when his
17 office was searched, and private documents were seized and/or copied, in his absence,
18 without his having been notified, without his consent, and without a valid search
19 warrant.
20 58. According to section 3309.5, "[i]t shall be unlawful for any public safety
21 department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections
22 guaranteed to him or her by this chapter." As described herein, defendants have
23 repeatedly refused Salcedo the rights and protections guaranteed to him by section 3300,
24 et seq.
25 59. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional miscon-
26 duct, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and
27 other employment benefits. Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties for each violation of the
28 aforementioned sections and subsections of section 3300, et seq.
-16-
60. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional miscon-
2 duct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and
3 physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof.
7
8 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9 (Violations of Cal. Const. art. I, 1)- Against
13 63. California Constitution Article I, section 1, creates a right of action against
14 private as well as government entities. The constitutional provision is self-executing;
1s hence, it confers a judicial right of action on all Californians. Privacy is protected not
16 merely against state action; it is considered an inalienable right which may not be
17 violated by anyone.
18 64. Here, Salcedo had: (1) a legally protected privacy interest based on the statutes,
19 codes, and constitutional provision alleged herein; (2) a reasonable expectation of
20 privacy in the circumstances; and (3) defendants' actions constituted a serious invasion
21 of privacy, such as the search, seizure, and photocopying of private documents and items
22 in his office in his absence, without his having been notified, without his consent, and
23 without a valid search warrant.
26 other employment benefits.
21 Ill
28 Ill
-17-
66. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys' fees.
10
11 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12900,
13 et seq.) (Race, National Origin, Ancestry, And Age
14 Discrimination)-Against Defendants City and Does 1
15 to 100, Inclusive)
18 70. Defendants' conduct, as alleged, violated FERA, Government Code section
19 12900, et seq., and defendants committed unlawful employment practices, including by
20 the following bases for liability:
21 a. Subjecting plaintiff to adverse employment actions, such as discharging,
22 barring, refusing to transfer, retain, hire, select, and/or employ, and/or otherwise
23 discriminating against plaintiff, in whole or in part on the basis of plaintiffs race,
24 national origin, ancestry, and/or age, in violation of Government Code section 12940(a);
25 b. Harassing plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, in whole or
26 in part on the basis of plaintiffs race, national origin, ancestry, and/or age, in violation
27 of Government Code section 12940G);
28 Ill
-18-
c. Failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment
2 based on race, national origin, ancestry, and/or age, in violation of Government Code
3 section 12940(k);
4 d. Retaliating against plaintiff for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under
5 FEHA and/or opposing defendants' failure to provide such rights, in violation of Gov-
6 ernment Code section 12940(h).
7 71. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi-
8 nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses
9 of earnings and other employment benefits.
10 72. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi-
11 nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo-
12 tional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum
13 according to proof.
15 Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reason-
16 able attorneys' fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof.
17
18 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19 (Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12900, et seq.)
20 (Racial, National Origin, Ancestry, and Age Harassment)-
21 Against Defendants City and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
24 75. Defendants' conduct, as alleged, violated FEHA, Government Code section
26 the following bases for liability:
21 Ill
28 ///
-19-
a. Harassing plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, in whole or
2 in part on the basis of plaintiffs race, national origin, ancestry, and/or age, in violation
3 of Government Code section 12940(j);
4 b. Failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment,
5 and retaliation based on race, national origin, ancestry, and/or age, in violation of
6 Government Code section 12940(k).
7 76. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional harass-
8 ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of
9 earnings and other employment benefits.
10 77. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional harass-
11 ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional
12 distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum accord-
13 ing to proof.
17
18 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19 (Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12900,
20 et seq.) (Retaliation for the Exercise of Rights
21 Guaranteed Under the FEHA, Participating in
22 Protected Activities, and/or Opposing Defendants'
23 Failure to Provide Such Rights)- Against Defendants
24 City and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
21 Ill
28 ///
-20-
80. Defendants' conduct, as alleged, violated FERA, Government Code section
3 the following, separate bases for liability:
4 a. Taking adverse employment actions against plaintiff, including discharging,
5 barring, refusing to transfer, retain, hire, select, and/or employ, and/or otherwise discrim-
6 inating against plaintiff, in whole or in part on the basis of plaintiffs race, national
7 origin, ancestry, age, and/or other protected characteristic, in violation of Government
8 Code section 12940(a);
9 b. Harassing plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, in whole or
10 m pmi on the basis of plaintiffs race, national origin, ancestry, age, and/or other
11 protected characteristic, in violation of Government Code section 12940G);
12 c. Failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment,
13 and retaliation based on race, national origin, ancestry, age and/or other protected
14 characteristic, in violation of Government Code section 12940(k);
15 d. Retaliating against plaintiff for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under
16 FERA, participating in protected activities (including testifying), and/or opposing defen-
17 dants' failure to provide such rights, including but not limited to leave rights, and/or the
18 right to be free of discrimination and harassment, in violation of Government Code
19 section 12940(h).
20 81. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional retalia-
21 tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses
22 of earnings and other employment benefits.
23 82. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional retalia-
24 tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo-
25 tional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum
26 according to proof.
21 Ill
28 ///
-21-
4
s ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6 (Failure to Engage in Interactive Process (Government
7 Code 12940(a), (i), (m), (n))-Against Defendants City
8 and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
9 84. The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 83 are re-alleged and incorpo-
1o rated herein by reference.
11 85. At all times herein mentioned, FERA, Government Code section 12940(a), (i),
12 (m), and (n), was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute
13 requires defendants to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process to accommodate
14 known disabled employees.
15 86. Defendants wholly failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process
16 with plaintiff to accommodate his known disabilities. Instead, defendants ignored his
11 requests, as well as his visible medical needs, and terminated plaintiffs employment in
18 part therefore.
19 87. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that his disabilities was a motivating
20 factor in defendants' termination of his employment.
2s duct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and
21 Ill
28 Ill
-22-
4
s TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6 (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
7 (Government Code 12940(a), (i), (m), (n))-Against
11 92. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940(a), (i),
12 (m), and (n), was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute
13 requires defendants to provide reasonable accommodations to known disabled employ-
14 ees.
15 93. Defendants wholly failed to attempt any reasonable accommodation of plain-
16 tiff's known disability. Defendants used plaintiff's disability and his need to take medi-
17 cal leave as an excuse for terminating plaintiff's employment.
18 94. Plaintiff believes and on that basis, alleges that his disability and the need to
19 accommodate his disability were substantial motivating factors in defendants'
20 termination of his employment.
2s duct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and
21 Ill
28 Ill
-23-
4
s THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6 (Violation of FEHA (Government Code 12940(k)
7 (Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment,
8 and Retaliation)- Against Defendants City and
9 Does 1 to 100, Inclusive)
12 99. At all times herein mentioned, FERA, Government Code section 12940(k), was
13 in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute states that it is an
14 unlawful employment practice in California for an employer "to fail to take all rea-
15 sonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring."
16 100. During the course of plaintiff's employment, defendants failed to prevent their
17 employees from engaging in intentional actions that resulted in plaintiff's being treated
18 less favorably because of plaintiff's protected status (e.g., his race, national origin,
19 and/or ancestry). During the course of plaintiff's employment, defendants failed to
20 prevent their employees from engaging in unjustified employment practices against
21 employees in such protected classes. During the course of plaintiff's employment,
22 defendants failed to prevent a pattern and practice by their employees of intentional
23 discrimination and harassment on the bases of race, national origin, ancestry, and/or
24 other protected statuses or protected activities.
25 101. Plaintiff believes, and on that basis alleges, that his race, national ongm,
26 ancestry, and/or other protected status and/or protected activity were substantial
27 motivating factors in defendants' employees' discrimination and retaliation against him.
28 Ill
-24-
102. As a proximate result of defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional miscon-
7 104. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and att01neys' fees.
10
11 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress- Against
14 105. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 104 are re-alleged and
15 incorporated herein by reference.
16 106. Defendants' discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory actions against plaintiff,
17 which include violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act,
18 constituted severe and outrageous misconduct and caused plaintiff extreme emotional
19 distress.
20 107. Defendants were aware that treating plaintiff in the manner alleged above, in-
21 eluding depriving plaintiff of his livelihood, would devastate plaintiff and cause him
22 extreme hardship.
23 108. As a proximate result of defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff
24 has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has sustained
25 and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits as
26 a result of being emotionally distressed.
21 Ill
28 Ill
-25-
109. As a proximate result of defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff
2 has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and
3 physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof.
4
5 PRAYER
6 WHEREFORE, plaintiff, David Salcedo, prays for judgment against defendants as
7 follows:
8 1. For general and special damages according to proof;
9 2. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded;
10 3. For reasonable attorneys' fees;
11 4. For civil penalties;
12 5. For costs of suit incurred;
13 6. For declaratory relief;
14 7. For equitable relief, such as reinstatement, instatement, the prov1s10n of
15 opportunities to make up any lost promotional prospects, and the restoration of seniority,
16 along with any other grounds for equitable relief that may arise during this litigation and
11 any other equitable relief deemed proper by the Court.
18 8. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
19
ADDITIONALLY, plaintiff, David Salcedo, demands trial of this matter by jury.
20
The amount demanded exceeds $25,000.00 (Government Code 72055).
21
22
Dated: September 18, 201 7 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
23
24
By:
25
26 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

DAVID SALCEDO
27
28
-26-

David Salcedo's Complaint For Damages

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

David Salcedo's Complaint For Damages

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Camey R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No.

Al\Jguyen Shegenanlaw.com ..... oanty 0, Loi Anttlf'>~

3 SHEGE N & ASSOCIATES, INC.

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

11 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

s ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

s TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

s THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi