Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20
10 an 12 13 14 15 16 uy 18 19 20 an 22. 23 26 25 26 27 28 e e ED SPER SOE Law Office of Ritchie M. Lewis SBN #231100 8608 Utica Ave., Su 212 MAR 23 2015 Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Ph: 909 948-9890 Jullette Jot Fax: 909 948-9820 Attorney for Josetti Fields SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY Tosetti Fields, ) Case No. : RI e ISENAS ) Plaintiff ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. ) 1. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code ) 1102.5 County of Riverside, } 2, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of DOES Ithrough 25, inclusive, ) Publie Policy . Defendants ) ) COMES NOW Plaintiff Josetti Fields (hereinafter “Fields”) alleges causes of action against the County of Riverside (hereinafter “Riverside”) and DOES 1 through 25 as follows: 1. Plaintiffs an individual who is and at all relevant times has been a resident of San Bernardino County, California 2. Defendant Riverside is a public entity in the State of California duly organized under the laws of the State of California, and provided, among other things, employment to employees. County of Riverside is a governmental entity, which came into legal existence in or about 1893. 3. Defendant County of Riverside conducted business in the County of Riverside, State of California and was plaintiff's employer until January 2015. The County of Riverside principal place of business was in the City of Riverside, California. Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant from her employment in the City of Riverside. = r @ BW cloz § o ww 10 an 12 3 14 15. 16 uv 18 19 20 an 22. 23 24 26 21 28 4, Plaintiff'is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as Does | through 25 and for that reason has sued such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff ‘will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when their informed and believes, and based on such information and identities are ascertained. Plaintiff i belief alleges, that each of said DOES named as a Defendant in this action is in some fashion liable and legally responsible as alleged in this Complaint for the injuries and damages Plaintiff has sustained. 5. In doing the things alleged in this Complaint, all of the Defendants were employees, agents and or alter egos of their co-Defendants, As agents and employees, they acted within the course and scope of such employment and agency. The conduet of each of the Defendants and their agents and employees was authorized and /or directed and /or was subsequently ratified by cach of their co-Defendants, Defendants are vicariously liable for all employees, agents, and or servants performing services on behalf of them. 6. The allegations of this complaint on information and belief are likely to have evidentiary support afier a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, when acting as a principal, were negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every employee, agent and or servant and every other defendant as its agents, servant or employee. 8, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cach and every one of the wrongful acts of the employees, agents, and servants and or Doe defendants, were performed under the instructions and approval, express or implied of the County of Riverside. 9. Prior to filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff presented a claim to the County of Riverside pursuant to Calif, Government Code 911.2. Riverside acted on the claim by rejecting it on February 27, 2015. This complaint is timely filed within the six (6) months after the rejection of the claim. 10, Plaintiff, was an employee for Riverside until she was terminated and was hired as an Information Technology Officer for Riverside with the Auditor-Controller’s Office . Three 2 10 qn 12 13 4 15, 16 uv 38 as 20 2. 22. 23 24 25 26 an 28 anonymous emails (attached) were circulated amongst County employees accusing executive management, for the County of Riverside of illegal activity. The first email was disseminated on or about June 24, 2014 and among other things, accused Auditor Controller Paul Angulo of spending over $100,000 on personal Harvard and Berkley training at taxpayer’ s expense. It also accused Mr. Angulo of spending over $50,000 of taxpayer's money to finance MPA graduate programs for Frankie Ezzat and another management level employee but will not pay for advanced degrees for other employees. 11. As the perceived illegal activity of misappropriating, deceit and or concealing the use of government finds by a County executive became personal to Mr. Angulo and Ms. Ezzat, Ms. Ezzat became concerned with the source of the email. At all relevant times, Ms, Ezzat reported to Mr. Angulo. 12, Plaintiff was asked on or about June 25, 2014 by Ms. Ezzat, who directly supervised Plaintiff knew who sent the disparaging email on June 24, 2014. To evidence the County’s obsession with the source of the email as opposed to the accuracy thereof, Ms. Ezzat asked Plaintiff if she could determine if the source of the email was from a County or personal computer. Plaintiff informed Ms, Ezzat in June 2014 she was unaware who sent the email. 13, On or about July 7, 2014, within days of Plaintiff returning from vacation, Ms. Ezzat made her suspicions known when she asked Plaintiff if County employee Marla Pendleton was the source of the email and if Plaintiff could determine who was forwarding the email throughout the county as other departments acknowledged receiving the June 24, 2014 email. 14, Knowing that Ms. Ezzat believed Ms. Pendleton was the whistleblower and Plaintiff informed Ms. Ezzat she did not believe Ms. Pendleton was the source of the email, Plaintiif knew she had become a witness for Ms. Pendleton against the County of Riverside as she was privy to the Marla Pendleton suspicions by Riverside County management. 15. Ms. Ezzat felt so strongly that Ms. Pendleton was the email source, in early July 2014 she admitted to Plaintiff she believed Ms. Pendleton was the source as she had access to all of the information contained in the email. Ms. Ezzat added that two County managers were also of the opinion Ms. Pendleton authored the June 24, 2014 email. County Manager Ms. Elias told 3