Preview
PARVIZ DARABI — Bar No. 209021
LAW OFFICES OF PARVIZ DARABI 3/15/2024
500 Airport Blvd., Suite 410
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 343-5357
Facsimile: (650) 343-5391
E-mail:narvlz(a,,darabilaw.corn
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THK STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12 Case No.: 24CV00837
HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS, an
individual,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
14
15 1. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages: Violation of
PLAINTIFF, LCIJ'CI 510, 1194, 1198 and IWC Wage Order
16 "Hours and Days of Work" Section;
vs. 2, Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Secret
17
Underpayment of Wages: Violation of LCD)
223, 1197, 1198 and IWC Wage Order "Hours and
JC FARM SERVICES, INC., a California
Days of Work" and "Minimum Wage" Sections;
Corporation; R.E. MERLO GENERAL
19
FARMING, INC., a California Corporation; and
3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods: Violation of
DOES 1-30, inclusive, LCD( 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Order "Meal
20 Periods" Section;
4. Failure to Provide Rest Periods: Violation of
21
DEFENDANTS. LCC'l 226.7 and IWC Wage Order "Rest Periods"
22 Section;
5. Failure to Indemnify for Expenses and Losses
23 in Discharging Duties: Violation of LCIII'l 2802;
6. Failure to Provide and Maintain Accurate
24 Itemized Wage Statements: Violation of LCIJI't
25 226, 1174, 1198 and IWC Wage Order "Records"
Section;
26 7. Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon Termination:
Violation of LCIJIk 201, 202, 203 and IWC Wage
27 Order;
8. Unfair Business Practices: Violation of Business
28
& Professions Code 5fJ 17200, et seq.;
l
Plaintiff s Complaint fot Damages
9. Retaliation: Violation of Labor Code tj232.5;
10. Retaliation-Whistleblower Protection:
Violation of Cal. LCtj1102.5;
11. Wrongful Termination: In Violation of Public
Policy;
12. Wrongful Termination [FEHA]: Violation of
Gov. Code tjtj12900 and 12940 et seq.;
13. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
[FEHA]: Violation of Cal. Gov. Code tj[[12940
(m), 12926/&) and Cal. Code Regs., Title 2
tj11068;
14.Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
[FEHA]: Violation of Cal. Gov. Code t)12940;
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL
10
Plaintiff HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS, an individual ("PLAINTIFF") brings this
12
action against defendants JC FARM SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation and R.E. MERLO
GENERAL FARMING, INC., a California Corporation ("R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING" )
13
(collectively "DEFENDANTS"); and DOES 1-30, inclusive, and alleges as follows:
14
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15
1. This court has jurisdiction over this action and DEFENDANTS pursuant to California
16
Code of Civil Procedure [[ 410.10. This is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of
17
California.
interest and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. DEFENDANTS, during times
18
relevant to this action, have conducted substantial, systematic, and continuous commercial activities in
19
20
2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure tjf
21 of in this action occurred in the
395 (a) and 395.5 as at least some of the acts and omissions complained
County of BUTTE in the State of California. DEFENDANTS organized, existing and doing business
under the laws of the State of California with their principal place ofbusiness in BUTTE County. Each
24 of the DEFENDANTS either owns property, maintains an office, transacts business, engages in financial
25 operations, has an agent or agents within the County of BUTTE, and/or is otherwise found within the
26 County of BUTTE, and each of the DEFENDANTS is within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes
27 of service of process.
28
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS, an individual (hereinatler
"PLAINTIFF" ) was employed by DEFENDANTS to perform services for a wage.
4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges that at
all times relevant hereto, JC FARM SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation ("JC FARM
SERVICES" ) is and at all times relevant herein, was duly authorized to do business throughout the State
6
of California and within the County of BUTTE. JC FARM SERVICES has been engaged in various
7
businesses including farming/agriculture/ ranch and sales business throughout California. JC FARM
8
SERVICES employed PLAINTIFF during the relevant time to work at its farming and ranch business in
California. At all times relevant herein, JC FARM SERVICES, by and through the acts of its authorized
10
agents, employed and exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of PLAINTIFF and
11
paid PLAINTIFF's wages during the relevant time. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the
12
present time to support these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have
13
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
14 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges that at
15 all times relevant hereto, R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING, INC., a California Corporation ("R.E.
16 MERLO GENERAL FARMING" ) is and at all times relevant herein, was duly authorized to do business
17 throughout the State of California and within the County of BUTTE. R.E. MERLO GENERAL
18 FARMING has been engaged in various businesses including farming/agriculture/ ranch and sales
19 business throughout California. R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING employed PLAINTIFF during the
20 relevant time to work at its farming and ranch business in California. At all times relevant herein, R.E.
21 MERLO GENERAL FARMING, by and through the acts of its authorized agents, employed and
22 exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of PLAINTIFF and paid PLAINTIFF's
wages during the relevant time. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the present time to
23
support these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
25
6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and, on such information, and belief alleges, at all
26
relevant times herein, Defendants JC FARM SERVICES and R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING were
27
business partners and joint venturers who engaged in the same line ofbusiness, farming/agriculture/ ranch
28
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages
and sales, agreed to combine their money, property, knowledge, skills, experience, time or other resources
for common purpose and were "joint employer" of PLAINTIFF operating their businesses throughout
California, within the County of BUTTE, among others. Defendants JC FARM SERVICES and R.E.
MERLO GENERAL FARMING agreed to carry on their businesses, as co-owners, share the profits and
losses &om the venture, including investment in farming/ agriculture/ ranch and sales and each owned/
operated/controlled all or a portion of the businesses, paid the employees of their businesses and has
6
some degree of control over it. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the present time to support
7
these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have evidentiary support
8
after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
PLAINTIFF all eges, on information and belief, that at all relevant times herein, JC FARM
10
SERVICES and R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING controlled, and/or managed the day-to-day
11
operations and activities at its businesses through its authorized agents, including without lnnitation
12
supervisors/managers, MIGUEL MOJITA (" MIGUEL" ) and JUANITA [LAST NAME UNKNOWN]
13 ("JUANITA") among others.
14 At all times relevant herein, JC FARM SERVICES and R.E. MERLO GENERAL
FARMING, maybe collectively referred to as the "DEFENDANTS".
16 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all material fimes
17 herein, each of DEFENDANTS has continuously been an "employer" within the meaning of FEHA
18 [Government Code (j 12926(d)], that each regularly employing five (5) or more employees and is
19 therefore subject to the proidsions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government
20 Code Section 12940 et seq.
21 10. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANTS by and through acts of their authorized
agents, including but not limited to MIGUEL and JUANITA employed and exercised control over the
wages, hours, and working conditions of their employees and paid their employees including
PLAINTIFF. At all times relevant herein, MIGUEL and JUANITA were under the direct supervision,
24
employment, agency, and control of each defendant.
25
11. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times relevant
26
hereto, DEFENDANTS (a) placed MIGUEL and JUANITA, among others, in a position to supervise
27
DEFENDANTS'ay-to-day business operations and the work performances of their respective
28
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damagoa
employees, including PLAINTIFF; and (b) empowered MIGUEL and JUANITA, among others, to take
tangible employment actions against PLAINTIFF to effect a significant change in PLAINTIFF'S
employment status, including but not limited to actions substantially bearing on PLAINTIFF'S schedule
and assignments, reported work hours, receipt of wages, receipt of reasonable accommodations (or lack
thereof), and employment status (i.e. hiring and termination). In their respective roles as PLAINTIFF'S
supervisors/managers, and as authorized agents for DEFENDANTS, MIGUEL and JUANITA and others
6
exercised unique authority over PLAINTIFF. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the present
7
time to support these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have
8
evidentiary support aller a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. At all times
material to this Complaint, MIGUEL and JUANITA and others engaged in the conduct herein alleged
10
and were each acting within the scope of employment and authority DEFENDANTS as PLAINTIFF's
11
supervisors/managers within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
12
Government Code Section 12940 et seq. ("FEHA").
13
12. PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that MIGUEL and JUANITA
14
were, at all times relevant to this action, an agent, employee, representative and/ or director of
15 DEFENDANTS and was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. PLAINTIFF is further
16 informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of the DEFENDANTS herein gave consent to, ratified,
17 and/or authorized the acts alleged herein as to each of the remaining DEFENDANTS.
18 13. The true names, capacities, relationships, and extent ofparticipation in the conduct alleged
herein of the DEFENDANTS named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, are presently unknown to
20 PLAINTIFF, but PLAINTIFF is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that said DEFENDANTS are
21 legally responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein and therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by
22
such ficfitious names. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint when their true names and capabilities are
ascertained.
23
14. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each defendant — whether
24
named or fictitious, directly, or indirectly, or through agents or other persons — engaged PLAINTIFF and
25
exercised control over PLAINTIFF'S wages, hours, and/or working conditions.
26
15. PLAINTIFF is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that each defendant acted and/or
27
ratified in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF is
28
Plaintiff s Complaint fot Damages
informed and believes, and thereon allege, that each defendant carried out a joint scheme, business plan
or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the act of each defendant is legally attributable to the other
DEFENDANTS.
PRE-LITIGATION COMPLAINTS. CLAIM FILINGS. AND DISPOSITIONS
16. PLAINTIFF exhausted his administrative remedies under the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act. On or about March 15'", 2024, PLAINTIFF filed charges of wrongful
termination, discrimination, and retaliation against DEFENDANTS. On March 15'", 2024, the
7
Department of Fair Housing and Employment issued the Notice of Case Closure/Right-to-Sue Letter. A
8
Copy of the Complaint and Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto, as Exhibit "1".
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10
17. PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANTS on or around January 2019, and
11
continued working until his termination on or about November 5, 2023. PLAINTIFF had a
12
disability/injury/medical condition as ofhis final day of work with DEFENDANTS.
13
18. At all times relevant hereto, and during his entire period of employment with
DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF fulfilled the duties of a full-time non-exempt employee, within the
meaning of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Order, to perform routine duties for
DEFENDANTS, subject to thc laws of the State of California, for the payment of wages as set-forth in
17 the California Labor Code, and was covered under one or more statutes, regulations and Wage Orders of
18 the IWC, and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE").
19 19. The applicable Wage Order defines "employer" as any person "who directly or indirectly,
20 or through an agent, for any other person, employs or exercises conuol over the wages, hours, or working
conditions of any person."
22
20. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each DEFENDANTS was an employer of
PLAINTIFF in that DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF to provide services for wages and exercised
control over the wages, hours, and working conditions of PLAINTIFF, as defined, and regulated by the
Labor Code, the IWC Wage Order, California common law, and within the meaning of FEHA.
25
21. At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of PLAINTIFF'S employment
26
with DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS maintained and implemented a uniform pattern of unlawful
27
employment policy and practice that denied accurate compensation to PLAINTIFF for PLAINTIFF'S
28
Plaintiff s Complaint for Damages
earned wages by failing to pay PLAINTIFF for "all hours worked" including "off-the-clock" hours,
depriving PLAINTIFF of all required code-compliant meal and rest breaks, and requiring PLAINTIFF
3 to pay for certain expenses and employment-related costs that are the responsibility of DEFENDANTS
to pay and failed to indemnify PLAINTIFF, resulting in failure to compensate PLAINTIFF properly for
all his earned wages.
22. Throughout the relevant time, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF to follow the
date/time schedules devised by its supervisors (including but not limited to MIGUEL and JUANITA)
7
and perform work at the locations designated by its supervisors/managers (including but not limited
8
MIGUEL and JUANITA). At all times, PLAINTIFF made best efforts to adhere to the strict standards,
policies, and practices established by DEFENDANTS. At all times, PLAINTIFF lacked authority or
10
discretion to exercise independent judgment beyond the strict standards, policies, practices, schedules,
11
assignments, and duties set forth by DEFENDANTS. At all times, DEFENDANTS, by its supervisors
12
and managers (including but not limited to MIGUEL and JUANITA), carried out strict oversight with
13
respect to the minute details of PLAINTIFF's daily duties and PLAINTIFF's adherence to
DEFENDANTS'trict standards, policies, and practices.
15 23. DEFENDANTS'niform practices and/or treatment of PLAINTIFF required that
PLAINTIFF frequently work regular and overtime hours without compensation for such hours.
17 Throughout the time period relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS maintained and implemented a
18 uniform pattern ofunlawful wage policy and practice that denied accurate compensation to PLAINTIFFS
19 for all hours worked, including overtime hours, through the intentional enforcement of the following
20 policies: (a) Requiring PLAINTIFF to perform work beyond eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40)
hours per week without legally-required compensation for all of that time, let alone at any overtime rate;
(b) Requiring PLAINTIFF to perform work "off-the-clock" prior to and subsequent to their scheduled
shiA including, among other things, time spent donning and doffing his uniform and personal protective
equipment (such as protective footwear, etc.); and (c) Requiring PLAINTIFF to perform essential job
24
functions while he was counted as "off-the-clock" for his meal breaks — such that these "off-the-clock"
25
hours resulted in further unpaid time worked, including time which should have been paid at an overtime
26
rate. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that each DEFENDANTS had the ability to monitor
27
and did monitor the hours worked by PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANTS, therefore, knew or should have
28
Plaintiff s Complaint Eot Damages
1 known that PLAINTIFF routinely worked substantial time without compensation, let alone at an overtime
rate.
3
24. Throughout the time relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS failed to pay
PLAINTIFF for all hours worked and paid PLAINTIFF a lower wage than contractually promised and
legally required. At all times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS directly and/or indirectly paid
PLAINTIFF less than minimum wage for all times suffered or permitted to work for DEFENDANTS,
6
particularly when evaluating PLAINTIFF'S hourly wage against his actual work hours, including time
7
worked "off-the-clock." DEFENDANTS failed to satisfy minimum wage requirements by secretly
8
paying PLAINTIFF a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by agreement/contract
9
between the parties; this occurred, inter alia, when DEFENDANTS: (a) routinely deprived PLAINTIFF
10
of his rightful wages, including overtime pay and failed to pay PLAINTIFF for all hours worked (i.e.
11
"off-the-clock" work that was incidental to PLAINTIFF'S daily duties and responsibilities); (b)
12
improperly rounded off and/or shaved PLAINTIFF'S time; (c) failed to provide code-compliant meal
13
and rest breaks; and (d) neglected to pay PLAINTIFFS the applicable wage rate, including the overtime
rate, as designated by statute of by contract.
15 25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, PLAINTIFF regularly worked sufficient hours to
16 require that he be provided with off-duty meal breaks. However, DEFENDANTS lacked and/or failed to
17 consistently implement a policy requiring that PLAINTIFF be relieved of all duty for an uninterrupted
18 30-minute off-duty meal period during the first five (5) hours of his shiA, and PLAINTIFF routinely
19 lacked an opportunity for a full 30-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty meal period during the first five (5)
20 hours ofhis shift with DEFENDANTS. Moreover, DEFENDANTS never provided PLAINTIFF with the
opportunity for a second meal break when PLAINTIFF worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a single
workday. DEFENDANTS, by and through its policies and/or practices, sometimes impeded
PLAINTIFF'S ability to take full and timely 30-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty meal periods and
required PLAINTIFF to perform necessary job functions instead of allowing him the chance to take such
meal periods. Compounding matters, DEFENDANTS consistently deducted 30-minutes per day from
25
PLAINTIFF'S wages for an off-duty meal break — even though PLAINTIFF typically did not receive a
26
full and timely 30-minute off-duty meal break and this improper deduction of time led to further unpaid
—
27
hours worked, including hours beyond 8 (eight) in a day which should have been compensated at any
28
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages
overtime rate. DEFENDANTS did not pay PLAINTIFF any premium wages for lack of a meal break
opportunity.
26. At all times relevant to the Complaint, PLAINTIFF regularly worked sufficient hours to
require that PLAINTIFF be provided with off-duty rest breaks. However, DEFENDANTS lacked and/or
failed to consistently implement a policy requiring that PLAINTIFF be relieved of all duty for an
uninterrupted 10-minute off-duty rest period during the first four (4) hours of work, and PLAINTIFF
6
consistently lacked an opportunity for a 10-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty rest period during the first
7
four (4) hours of his shiA, let alone multiple off-duty rest periods on days exceeding 6 hours.
8
DEFENDANTS, by and tluough its policies and/or practices, impeded PLAINTIFF'S ability to take a
timely 10-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty rest period and required PLAINTIFF to perform necessary job
10
functions instead of allowing him the chance to take such rest periods. DEFENDANTS did not pay
11
PLAINTIFF any premium wages for lack of a rest break opportunity.
12
27. At all times relevant to the Complaint, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF to bear
13
necessary job expenses and failed to indemnify or reimburse PLAINTIFF for such expenses. This
includes but is not limited to: (a) expenses stemming from PLAINTIFF's purchase of personal protective
equipment in order to safely perform his essential job duties, including without limitation the cost of
16 specific protective work shoes, waterproofboots; (b) the cost of laundering his work clothes which were
17 in contact with pesticides and other toxic chemical used at work; and (c) expenses associated with
18 PLAINTIFF's use of his personal cell phone for work purposes, namely for the purposes of keeping in
19 contact with his supervisor/ manager for DEFENDANTS'usiness purpose.
20 28. At all times relevant to the Complaint, flowing &om its failures with respect to the
21 compensation and indemnification of PLAINTIFF, as herein alleged, DEFENDANTS regularly failed to
22 timely issue complete and accurate wage statements to PLAINTIFF. Likewise, DEFENDANTS failed to
timely remit final payments in full to PLAINTIFF, who no longer works for DEFENDANTS.
23
29. During PLAINTIFF's employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF suffered serious
24
injuries at work, as follows:
25
(a) On or about March 4, 2023, PLAINTIFF suffered a work-related injury to his chest when a
26
metal cable used to tow a tractor caught in mud snapped and struck PLAINTIFF in the chest.
27
PLAINTIFF timely informed Defendants by and through its agents, MIGUEL, of the incident
28
Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages
and sought access to medical treatment as well as reasonable accommodation in the form of
modified work. However, DEFENDANTS ignored PLAINTIFF's condition and refused to
provide PLAINTIFF with medical treatment, modified work duties or co-worker assistance,
among other types of reasonable accommodations, and DEFENDANTS, by and through its
agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA failed to engage in a good-faith
interactive process with PLAINTIFF to explore extended work modification to accommodate
this injury/disability/medical condition. Instead, DEFENDANTS, by and through its agents,
required PLAINTIFF to perform work subject to his regular schedule and regular duties—
without co-worker assistance, modified work duties or any other type of reasonable
accommodation, despite PLAINTIFF's complain of pain and discomfort,
10
(b) On or about April 16, 2023, PLAINTIFF suffered a work-related respiratory illness because
of spraying pesticides for DEFENDANTS'usiness purposes without adequate personal
12
protective equipment. PLAINTIFF informed the DEFENDANTS through his supervisor/
13
manager MIGUEL about this injury and sought access to medical treatments. Despite
14 DEFENDANTS'nowledge about the severity of PLAINTIFF's injury and PLAINTIFF's
15 need for medical treatments, DEFENDANTS refused to file an incident report and failed to
16 open a workers'ompensation claim. Instead, DEFENDANTS refused to provide
17 PLAINTIFF with the access to medical treatments and modified work duties or co-worker
18 assistance, among other types of reasonable accommodations, and DEFENDANTS, by and
19 through its agents, MIGUEL, and JUANITA, failed to engage in a good-faith interactive
20 process with PLAINTIFF to explore extended work modification to accommodate this
21 disability/medical condition. Instead, DEFENDANTS, by and through its agents, required
PLAINTIFF to perform work subject to his regular schedule and regular duties — without co-
22
worker assistance, modified work duties or any other type of reasonable accommodation,
23
despite PLAINTIFF's complaints of pain and discomfort. To this day, PLAINTIFF continues
24
to suffer consequences (physical limitation and restriction and pain) with respect to his
25
respiratory illness.
26
30. As a result of PLAINTIFF's medical condition/ injuries, described above, PLAINTIFF
27
was lefi with physiological conditions that limited his ability to perform certain major life activities, and
28
10
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages
to perform certain tasks at work without reasonable accommodation. PLAINTIFF sought treatment at
the Emergency Department on or about April 16, 2023, and he was provided with restrictions including
avoiding spraying chemical sprays while PLAINTIFF recovers. PLAINTIFF provided DEFENDANTS
with the doctor's note and requested access to medical treatment and reasonable accommodation.
DEFENDANTS denied PLAINTIFF's request and refused to provide him with the reasonable
accommodation, in the form of modified work duties and work schedule, assistance, access to medical
6
treatment, or other reasonable accommodations that might have been formulated through the required
7
interactive process. DEFENDANTS failed to engage in the required interactive process after the injury
8
and failed to provide reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF 's continued restrictions.
9
31. PLAINTIFF timely informed DEFENDANTS of each of the above incidents of serious
10
medical condition /disability and of the limitations caused by the above injuries, as they arose, and
11
requested that DEFENDANTS engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable
12
accommodations. However, DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFF with appropriate modified
13
work duties or additional assistance, among other types of reasonable accommodations, and
DEFENDANTS failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process with PLAINTIFF to explore other
possible accommodations of his injuries and disabilities. Instead, PLAINTIFF alleges that
16 DEFENDANTS, by and through their respective agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and
17 JUANITA, discriminated against PLAINTIFF and treated him less favorably, due to his physical
18 disability, work restrictions, because of his expressions of concern about his safety and welfare, and
19 because of his insistence on reasonable accommodation. Among other things, DEFENDANTS, by and
20 through one or more of their agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA: (a) denied
21 PLAINTIF's right to take time off to get treatments for his medical condition and the requests for a
22 good-faith interactive process and a reasonable accommodation of his work restrictions, (b) ignored
PLAINTIFF's safety and welfare concerns with respect to the performance of work and need for time off
23
to receive medical treatments, (c) brushed-aside further comments and questions regarding his workplace
24
injuries and DEFENDANT's ongoing failure to accommodate and DEFENDANT's refusal to allow
25
PLAINTIFF time off and access to receive medical treatments, (d) required PLAINTIFF to perform
26
work subject to his regular schedule and regular duties — without co-worker assistance, modified work
27
duties or any other type of reasonable accommodation, and retaliated against PLAINTIFF by subjecting
28
Plainuff s Complaint fot Damages
him to harassment and hostility in retaliation for availing himself of his right to such modified
duties/accommodations; and (e) informed PLAINTIFF that DEFENDANTS could not accommodate
PLAINTIF's restrictions and ultimately terminated PLAINTIFF's employment.
32. California Government Code 12926(m)(1) defines a physical disability as: "Having any
physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of
the following: (A) Affects one or more of the follovtdng body systems: neurological, immunological,
6
musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive,
7
digestive, genitourinary, hemic, and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine. (B) Limits a major life activity..."
33. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the injury suffered
by PLAINTIFF was a physiological disease, disorder, or condition that affected the musculoskeletal body
10
system within the meaning of California Government Code Section 12926(m), and that therefore
11
PLAINTIFF had a physical disability within the meaning of that statute.
12
34. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that following PLAINTIFF's requests for
13
reasonable accommodation, DEFENDANTS perceived PLAINTIFF as having, or having had, a physical
14 condition that made achievement of a major life activity di fficult, or as having, or having had, a disease,
15 disorder, condition, or health impairment that has no present disabling effect but may become a physical
16 disability.
17 35. PLAINTIFF alleges information and belief that DEFENDANTS discriminated and
18 retaliated against PLAINTIFF, treating him less favorably due to his injury-related disabilities, meFfical
19 condition, and work restrictions.
20 36. PLAINTIFF would have been able to perform thc essential job duties if he had received
21 reasonable accommodations for the restrictions resulting from his physical disability/ medical condition
22
caused by thc incidents at work, described above.
37. At all relevant times herein, and during the relevant time, DEFENDANTS maintained
23
unlawful employment policies and practices for financial gain. During the time relevant to this
Complaint, PLAINTIFF observed, reported, and attempted to prevent unlawful workplace conditions and
25
conduct committed by, at the direction of and/or under the control and supervision of DEFENDANTS,
26
which PLAINTIFF reasonably believed to be unlawful. Among other things, PLAINTIFF: (a) lack of
27
adequate personal protective equipment and proper training in handling pesticide (PLAINTIFF
28
12
Plaintiff s Complaint For Damages
complained many times of experiencing headaches, irritation to his eyes and other respiratory symptoms
due to exposure to pesticides and toxic chemical fumes without proper personal protective safety
equipment); (b) asserting the right to receive reasonable accommodations in conjunction with a disability
resulting from a workplace injury /medical condition; (c) raising concerns for his safety and welfare in
light of the breach of his restrictions; and (d) articulating that he was being unfairly and unlawfully
mistreated as a result of his protected status (f.e. work related injury/ illness/ disability) and engagement
6
in protected activities (f.e. complaining about health/safety issues and discriminatory conducts and
7
differential treatments at work for asserting his rights). Indeed, PLAINTIFF's complaints and requests
8
were met with hostility and derision by each of the DEFENDANTS'uthorized agents, including
9
MIGUEL and JUANITA, among others.
10
38. PLAINTIFF opposed and reported the above unlawful practices and abusive misconduct
11
to the DEFENDANTS through his supervisors / managers and brought his concerns to the
12
DEFENDANTS about the situation (i.e., he "blew the whistle."), which angered the DEFENDANTS.
13
PLAINTIFF asked DEFENDANTS to look into this matter and take corrective action. DEFENDANTS
14 ignored PLAINTIFF'S complaints and failed to take any corrective actions —and instead retaliated
15 against him. DEFENDANTS took retaliatory actions against PLAINTIFF by and through its authorized
agents and ultimately terminated his employment on or about November 5, 2023.
17 39. PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that DEFENDANTS'cts and omissions,
as described in this Complaint, violate the Civil Code, Labor Code, Equal Pay Act, and the applicable
19 Wage Order. PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that DEFENDANTS knew or should have
20 known of the unlawful nature of its acts and omissions, as described in this Complaint — and that such
21 conduct reflects a deliberate scheme to lower payroll costs and gain an unfair workforce advantage,
22 contrary to public policy. PLAINTIFF further alleges on information and belief that such acts and
omissions constitute unlawful business practices and amount to policies in violation of FEHA given that
23
they occurred in a continuing and systematic manner over a substantial period to the detriment of
24
PLAINTIFF and other employees. Examples of such unlawful acts and omissions that occurred within
25
four (4) years prior of the filing of this Complaint include, without limitation, DEFENDANTS'ailure
26
to: (a) pay proper wages, including that of overtime wages, "all hours worked," "off-the-clock" hours,
27
and payment of wages at the rate designated by statute or by contract; (b) indemnify and reimburse
28
13
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages
expenses incurred in discharging duties; (c) provide all required code-compliant meal and rest breaks, or
missed meal/rest break premiums in lieu of such breaks; (d) pay timely wages upon termination of
employment; (e) maintain accurate records and provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements;
(f) provide medical care, reasonable accommodations, and a good-faith interactive process; (g) prevent
workplace discrimination and refrain &om discriminating against employees in protected classes; (h)
prevent retaliation and refrain &om retaliating against employees who engage in protected activities; (i)
6
provide adequate, safe and sanitary workplace conditions with respect to deficiencies concerning the
7
availability of (I) potable drinking water, (2) proper meal and rest break facilities (no place to sit (no
8
tables/ benches/ chairs), no shaded place, no &idge/ microwave), (3) adequate restroom facility (no
portable bathrooms), (4) adequate personal protective equipment and proper training in handling
10
pesticides; and (j) re&ain from terminating an employee when said employee's protected status and/or
11
engagement in protected activities would be a substantial factor in the decision to terminate.
12
40. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that, as a result of PLAINTIFF's injury/disability/
13
medical condition and for seeking an accommodation/work restriction, coupled with asserting his rights
to take leave under CFRA, DEFENDANTS, by and through one or more of its agents, including without
limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA, and others, directly or acting within the scope of his employment
16 and authority given to them by DEFENDANTS — as PLAINTIFF's managers/supervisors — continuously
17 and repeatedly discriminated against and continuously and repeatedly
PLAINTIFF 'S harassed PLAINTIFF and/or
18 caused harassment to continue against PLAINTIFF, thereby creating a hostile work environment.
19 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that, as a result of engagement in protected activities
20 (i e. complaining ofa lack of personal protective safety equipment when handling pcs ti cides, complaining
21 offailure to fulfill a promise of a raise; reporting a work injury and seeking medical care and use and/
22 or request to use reasonable accommodations, among other things), DEFENDANTS, by and through
one or more of its agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA retaliated against
23
PLAINTIFF. Indeed, PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that these actions were motivated
by bias, bigotry, and/or personal gratification/gain. Such harassment, hostile work environment,
25
differential treatment and retaliatory acts against PLAINTIFF committed by DEFENDANTS, by and
26
through one or more of its agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA, included, but
27
were not limited to:
28
14
Planttiff s Complaint for Damages
1 a. Rounded and shaved PLAINTIFF's time resulting in underpayment of wages to
PLAINTIFF;
b. Demanded that PLAINTIFF perform work off-clock without adequate payment of wages
for all hours and overtime hours that he worked resulting in underpayment of his wages;
c. Denied PLAINTIFF with opportunities for legally compliant meal and rest breaks;
d. Expressly doubted the veracity and/or severity of PLAINTIFF's injuries;
e. Denied PLAINTIFF access to medical treatment for his work-related injury/illness;
f. Pushed PLAINTIFF to work through pain when PLAINTIFF vocalized that his job duties
were causing him physical discomfort and that he needed assistance, modified work and
accommodation;
10
g. Refused PLAINTIFF'S requests for reasonable accommodation and ignored his medical
restriction;
12
h. Articulated a disposition of apathy and an ongoing lack of concern with respect to
13
PLAINTIFF's wellbeing;
14 i. Refused to engage in an interactive dialogue with PLAINTIFF regarding his physical
15 limitations caused by workplace injury/disability/ medical health condition;
16 j. Ignored PLAINTIFF's request and treated him with hostility for complaining and raising
17 concerns about inadequate, unsafe and unsanitary workplace conditions with respect to
18 lack o f adequate personal protective equipment and proper training in handling pesticides—
19 PLAINTIFF complained many times of experiencing headaches, irritation to his eyes and
20 other respiratory symptoms due to exposure to pesticides and toxic chemical fumes
21 without proper personal protective safety equipment;
k. Ultimately terminated PLAINTIFF without good cause, despite his successful
22
performance of duties.
23
41. As a result of the conduct and violations described herein, the workplace was intolerable
24
for PLAINTIFF; the harassment, discrimination and retaliation communicated an offensive message to
25
PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF alleges, on information and belief, that he was targeted by DEFENDANTS
26
due to his status in protected class and engagement in protected activities, set forth in detail hereinabove—
27
despite the fact that he had been a reliable and hardworking employee. Throughout his employment,
28
15
Plainuff s Complaint for Damages
PLAINTIFF performed the duties of his work assignments in a competent and proficient manner; he was
at all times ready, willing and able to perform his tasks reliably and capably.
42. PLAINTIFF'S employment with DEFENDANTS ended on or about November 5, 2023.
DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF without good cause or prior notice. PLAINTIFF alleges, on
information and belief, that PLAINTIFF's injury/disability / medical condition health history were
substantial factors in DEFENDANTS'ecision to discriminate against and terminate PLAINTIFF.
6
PLAINTIFF further alleges, on information and belief, that PLAINTIFF's engagement in protected
7
activities (i. e, complaining of a lack ofpersonal protective safety equipment when handling pesticides,
8
complaining offailure to fulfill a promise of a raise; reporting a work inj ury and seeking medical care
and use and/or request to use reasonable accommodations, among other things) were substantial factors
10
in DEFENDANTS'ecision to retaliate against and terminate PLAINTIFF.
43. PLAINTIFF alleges, on information and belief, that DEFENDANTS had knowledge of
12
the harassment, discrimination and retaliation PLAINTIFF faced. PLAINTIFF alleges on information
13
and belief that DEFENDANTS intentionally refused to act in response to such objections and requests
14 for corrective action — and, instead, aided, encouraged, and/or fostered the harassing and discriminatory
conduct.
16 44. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that acts of harassment
17 and discrimination by MIGUEL and JUANITA and others provide evidentiary support for PLAINTIFF's
18 claims by establishing discriminatory animus on the part of these individuals and others — and thereby
19 permit the inference that discriminatory and/or hostile comments and/or behavior by MIGUEL and
20 JUANITA and others were similarly motivated by discriminatory animus.
21 45. PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that MIGUEL and JUANITA and others
22
acted within the scope of employment and pursuant to the authority given by DEFENDANTS as
PLAINTIFF's manager/supervisor within the meaning of FEHA — and, further, acted for their own
23
personal motives, based on personal bias against PLAINTIFF on the basis of PLAINTIFF's protected
24
class and engagement in protected activines while undertaking the actions and omissions herein alleged.
25
46. All of the defendants'ctions were undertaken for improper purposes as alleged above
26
and were willful, oppressive and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF's rights, and were designed and
27
intended to cause and did, in fact, cause and continue to cause PLAINTIFF to suffer severe emotional
28
16
Plaintiff s Complaint for Damages
distress, pain and suffering, and substantial economic damage and, therefore, justify the awarding of
exemplary and punitive damages.
47. The actions and continuing course of the aforesaid conduct amounted to a systematic
policy of discrimination and harassment, thereby constituting a continuing violation actionable under,
among other things, Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA) which reflects a fundamental public policy
against discrimination in employment on account of disability/ medical condition and engaging in
6
protected activities.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
(Violation of Labor Code $ f 510, 1194, 1198 and
IWC Wage Order "Hours and Days of Work" Section)
10 (Alleged by PLAINTIFF against DEFENDANTS, and all applicable DOES 1-30)
11
48. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations in each
12
and every paragraph above, as though fully set forth herein.
13
49. At all relevant times hereto, PLAINTIFF was a non-exempt employee of DEFENDANTS
14
under the laws of the State of California within the meaning of the Labor Code and Wage Order.
15
50. Labor Code II 510 provides in pertinent part: "Eight hours of labor constitutes a day'
16
work. Any work in excess of 8 hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one
17
workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be
compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.
Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the
20 regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of
21 a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an
Preview
PARVIZ DARABI — Bar No. 209021 LAW OFFICES OF PARVIZ DARABI 3/15/2024 500 Airport Blvd., Suite 410 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 343-5357 Facsimile: (650) 343-5391 E-mail:narvlz(a,,darabilaw.corn 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS SUPERIOR COURT OF THK STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 Case No.: 24CV00837 HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS, an individual, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 14 15 1. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages: Violation of PLAINTIFF, LCIJ'CI 510, 1194, 1198 and IWC Wage Order 16 "Hours and Days of Work" Section; vs. 2, Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Secret 17 Underpayment of Wages: Violation of LCD) 223, 1197, 1198 and IWC Wage Order "Hours and JC FARM SERVICES, INC., a California Days of Work" and "Minimum Wage" Sections; Corporation; R.E. MERLO GENERAL 19 FARMING, INC., a California Corporation; and 3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods: Violation of DOES 1-30, inclusive, LCD( 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Order "Meal 20 Periods" Section; 4. Failure to Provide Rest Periods: Violation of 21 DEFENDANTS. LCC'l 226.7 and IWC Wage Order "Rest Periods" 22 Section; 5. Failure to Indemnify for Expenses and Losses 23 in Discharging Duties: Violation of LCIII'l 2802; 6. Failure to Provide and Maintain Accurate 24 Itemized Wage Statements: Violation of LCIJI't 25 226, 1174, 1198 and IWC Wage Order "Records" Section; 26 7. Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon Termination: Violation of LCIJIk 201, 202, 203 and IWC Wage 27 Order; 8. Unfair Business Practices: Violation of Business 28 & Professions Code 5fJ 17200, et seq.; l Plaintiff s Complaint fot Damages 9. Retaliation: Violation of Labor Code tj232.5; 10. Retaliation-Whistleblower Protection: Violation of Cal. LCtj1102.5; 11. Wrongful Termination: In Violation of Public Policy; 12. Wrongful Termination [FEHA]: Violation of Gov. Code tjtj12900 and 12940 et seq.; 13. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation [FEHA]: Violation of Cal. Gov. Code tj[[12940 (m), 12926/&) and Cal. Code Regs., Title 2 tj11068; 14.Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process [FEHA]: Violation of Cal. Gov. Code t)12940; PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL 10 Plaintiff HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS, an individual ("PLAINTIFF") brings this 12 action against defendants JC FARM SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation and R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING, INC., a California Corporation ("R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING" ) 13 (collectively "DEFENDANTS"); and DOES 1-30, inclusive, and alleges as follows: 14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15 1. This court has jurisdiction over this action and DEFENDANTS pursuant to California 16 Code of Civil Procedure [[ 410.10. This is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of 17 California. interest and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. DEFENDANTS, during times 18 relevant to this action, have conducted substantial, systematic, and continuous commercial activities in 19 20 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure tjf 21 of in this action occurred in the 395 (a) and 395.5 as at least some of the acts and omissions complained County of BUTTE in the State of California. DEFENDANTS organized, existing and doing business under the laws of the State of California with their principal place ofbusiness in BUTTE County. Each 24 of the DEFENDANTS either owns property, maintains an office, transacts business, engages in financial 25 operations, has an agent or agents within the County of BUTTE, and/or is otherwise found within the 26 County of BUTTE, and each of the DEFENDANTS is within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes 27 of service of process. 28 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, HECTOR JAVIER SIMENTAL RAMOS, an individual (hereinatler "PLAINTIFF" ) was employed by DEFENDANTS to perform services for a wage. 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges that at all times relevant hereto, JC FARM SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation ("JC FARM SERVICES" ) is and at all times relevant herein, was duly authorized to do business throughout the State 6 of California and within the County of BUTTE. JC FARM SERVICES has been engaged in various 7 businesses including farming/agriculture/ ranch and sales business throughout California. JC FARM 8 SERVICES employed PLAINTIFF during the relevant time to work at its farming and ranch business in California. At all times relevant herein, JC FARM SERVICES, by and through the acts of its authorized 10 agents, employed and exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of PLAINTIFF and 11 paid PLAINTIFF's wages during the relevant time. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the 12 present time to support these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have 13 evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. 14 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges that at 15 all times relevant hereto, R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING, INC., a California Corporation ("R.E. 16 MERLO GENERAL FARMING" ) is and at all times relevant herein, was duly authorized to do business 17 throughout the State of California and within the County of BUTTE. R.E. MERLO GENERAL 18 FARMING has been engaged in various businesses including farming/agriculture/ ranch and sales 19 business throughout California. R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING employed PLAINTIFF during the 20 relevant time to work at its farming and ranch business in California. At all times relevant herein, R.E. 21 MERLO GENERAL FARMING, by and through the acts of its authorized agents, employed and 22 exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of PLAINTIFF and paid PLAINTIFF's wages during the relevant time. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the present time to 23 support these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. 25 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and, on such information, and belief alleges, at all 26 relevant times herein, Defendants JC FARM SERVICES and R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING were 27 business partners and joint venturers who engaged in the same line ofbusiness, farming/agriculture/ ranch 28 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and sales, agreed to combine their money, property, knowledge, skills, experience, time or other resources for common purpose and were "joint employer" of PLAINTIFF operating their businesses throughout California, within the County of BUTTE, among others. Defendants JC FARM SERVICES and R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING agreed to carry on their businesses, as co-owners, share the profits and losses &om the venture, including investment in farming/ agriculture/ ranch and sales and each owned/ operated/controlled all or a portion of the businesses, paid the employees of their businesses and has 6 some degree of control over it. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the present time to support 7 these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have evidentiary support 8 after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. PLAINTIFF all eges, on information and belief, that at all relevant times herein, JC FARM 10 SERVICES and R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING controlled, and/or managed the day-to-day 11 operations and activities at its businesses through its authorized agents, including without lnnitation 12 supervisors/managers, MIGUEL MOJITA (" MIGUEL" ) and JUANITA [LAST NAME UNKNOWN] 13 ("JUANITA") among others. 14 At all times relevant herein, JC FARM SERVICES and R.E. MERLO GENERAL FARMING, maybe collectively referred to as the "DEFENDANTS". 16 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all material fimes 17 herein, each of DEFENDANTS has continuously been an "employer" within the meaning of FEHA 18 [Government Code (j 12926(d)], that each regularly employing five (5) or more employees and is 19 therefore subject to the proidsions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government 20 Code Section 12940 et seq. 21 10. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANTS by and through acts of their authorized agents, including but not limited to MIGUEL and JUANITA employed and exercised control over the wages, hours, and working conditions of their employees and paid their employees including PLAINTIFF. At all times relevant herein, MIGUEL and JUANITA were under the direct supervision, 24 employment, agency, and control of each defendant. 25 11. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times relevant 26 hereto, DEFENDANTS (a) placed MIGUEL and JUANITA, among others, in a position to supervise 27 DEFENDANTS'ay-to-day business operations and the work performances of their respective 28 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damagoa employees, including PLAINTIFF; and (b) empowered MIGUEL and JUANITA, among others, to take tangible employment actions against PLAINTIFF to effect a significant change in PLAINTIFF'S employment status, including but not limited to actions substantially bearing on PLAINTIFF'S schedule and assignments, reported work hours, receipt of wages, receipt of reasonable accommodations (or lack thereof), and employment status (i.e. hiring and termination). In their respective roles as PLAINTIFF'S supervisors/managers, and as authorized agents for DEFENDANTS, MIGUEL and JUANITA and others 6 exercised unique authority over PLAINTIFF. While PLAINTIFF lacks evidentiary support at the present 7 time to support these allegations, he is informed and believes these alleged facts are likely to have 8 evidentiary support aller a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. At all times material to this Complaint, MIGUEL and JUANITA and others engaged in the conduct herein alleged 10 and were each acting within the scope of employment and authority DEFENDANTS as PLAINTIFF's 11 supervisors/managers within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, 12 Government Code Section 12940 et seq. ("FEHA"). 13 12. PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that MIGUEL and JUANITA 14 were, at all times relevant to this action, an agent, employee, representative and/ or director of 15 DEFENDANTS and was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. PLAINTIFF is further 16 informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of the DEFENDANTS herein gave consent to, ratified, 17 and/or authorized the acts alleged herein as to each of the remaining DEFENDANTS. 18 13. The true names, capacities, relationships, and extent ofparticipation in the conduct alleged herein of the DEFENDANTS named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, are presently unknown to 20 PLAINTIFF, but PLAINTIFF is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that said DEFENDANTS are 21 legally responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein and therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by 22 such ficfitious names. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint when their true names and capabilities are ascertained. 23 14. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each defendant — whether 24 named or fictitious, directly, or indirectly, or through agents or other persons — engaged PLAINTIFF and 25 exercised control over PLAINTIFF'S wages, hours, and/or working conditions. 26 15. PLAINTIFF is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that each defendant acted and/or 27 ratified in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF is 28 Plaintiff s Complaint fot Damages informed and believes, and thereon allege, that each defendant carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the act of each defendant is legally attributable to the other DEFENDANTS. PRE-LITIGATION COMPLAINTS. CLAIM FILINGS. AND DISPOSITIONS 16. PLAINTIFF exhausted his administrative remedies under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. On or about March 15'", 2024, PLAINTIFF filed charges of wrongful termination, discrimination, and retaliation against DEFENDANTS. On March 15'", 2024, the 7 Department of Fair Housing and Employment issued the Notice of Case Closure/Right-to-Sue Letter. A 8 Copy of the Complaint and Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto, as Exhibit "1". FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 10 17. PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANTS on or around January 2019, and 11 continued working until his termination on or about November 5, 2023. PLAINTIFF had a 12 disability/injury/medical condition as ofhis final day of work with DEFENDANTS. 13 18. At all times relevant hereto, and during his entire period of employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF fulfilled the duties of a full-time non-exempt employee, within the meaning of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Order, to perform routine duties for DEFENDANTS, subject to thc laws of the State of California, for the payment of wages as set-forth in 17 the California Labor Code, and was covered under one or more statutes, regulations and Wage Orders of 18 the IWC, and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE"). 19 19. The applicable Wage Order defines "employer" as any person "who directly or indirectly, 20 or through an agent, for any other person, employs or exercises conuol over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person." 22 20. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each DEFENDANTS was an employer of PLAINTIFF in that DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF to provide services for wages and exercised control over the wages, hours, and working conditions of PLAINTIFF, as defined, and regulated by the Labor Code, the IWC Wage Order, California common law, and within the meaning of FEHA. 25 21. At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of PLAINTIFF'S employment 26 with DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS maintained and implemented a uniform pattern of unlawful 27 employment policy and practice that denied accurate compensation to PLAINTIFF for PLAINTIFF'S 28 Plaintiff s Complaint for Damages earned wages by failing to pay PLAINTIFF for "all hours worked" including "off-the-clock" hours, depriving PLAINTIFF of all required code-compliant meal and rest breaks, and requiring PLAINTIFF 3 to pay for certain expenses and employment-related costs that are the responsibility of DEFENDANTS to pay and failed to indemnify PLAINTIFF, resulting in failure to compensate PLAINTIFF properly for all his earned wages. 22. Throughout the relevant time, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF to follow the date/time schedules devised by its supervisors (including but not limited to MIGUEL and JUANITA) 7 and perform work at the locations designated by its supervisors/managers (including but not limited 8 MIGUEL and JUANITA). At all times, PLAINTIFF made best efforts to adhere to the strict standards, policies, and practices established by DEFENDANTS. At all times, PLAINTIFF lacked authority or 10 discretion to exercise independent judgment beyond the strict standards, policies, practices, schedules, 11 assignments, and duties set forth by DEFENDANTS. At all times, DEFENDANTS, by its supervisors 12 and managers (including but not limited to MIGUEL and JUANITA), carried out strict oversight with 13 respect to the minute details of PLAINTIFF's daily duties and PLAINTIFF's adherence to DEFENDANTS'trict standards, policies, and practices. 15 23. DEFENDANTS'niform practices and/or treatment of PLAINTIFF required that PLAINTIFF frequently work regular and overtime hours without compensation for such hours. 17 Throughout the time period relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS maintained and implemented a 18 uniform pattern ofunlawful wage policy and practice that denied accurate compensation to PLAINTIFFS 19 for all hours worked, including overtime hours, through the intentional enforcement of the following 20 policies: (a) Requiring PLAINTIFF to perform work beyond eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per week without legally-required compensation for all of that time, let alone at any overtime rate; (b) Requiring PLAINTIFF to perform work "off-the-clock" prior to and subsequent to their scheduled shiA including, among other things, time spent donning and doffing his uniform and personal protective equipment (such as protective footwear, etc.); and (c) Requiring PLAINTIFF to perform essential job 24 functions while he was counted as "off-the-clock" for his meal breaks — such that these "off-the-clock" 25 hours resulted in further unpaid time worked, including time which should have been paid at an overtime 26 rate. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that each DEFENDANTS had the ability to monitor 27 and did monitor the hours worked by PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANTS, therefore, knew or should have 28 Plaintiff s Complaint Eot Damages 1 known that PLAINTIFF routinely worked substantial time without compensation, let alone at an overtime rate. 3 24. Throughout the time relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF for all hours worked and paid PLAINTIFF a lower wage than contractually promised and legally required. At all times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS directly and/or indirectly paid PLAINTIFF less than minimum wage for all times suffered or permitted to work for DEFENDANTS, 6 particularly when evaluating PLAINTIFF'S hourly wage against his actual work hours, including time 7 worked "off-the-clock." DEFENDANTS failed to satisfy minimum wage requirements by secretly 8 paying PLAINTIFF a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by agreement/contract 9 between the parties; this occurred, inter alia, when DEFENDANTS: (a) routinely deprived PLAINTIFF 10 of his rightful wages, including overtime pay and failed to pay PLAINTIFF for all hours worked (i.e. 11 "off-the-clock" work that was incidental to PLAINTIFF'S daily duties and responsibilities); (b) 12 improperly rounded off and/or shaved PLAINTIFF'S time; (c) failed to provide code-compliant meal 13 and rest breaks; and (d) neglected to pay PLAINTIFFS the applicable wage rate, including the overtime rate, as designated by statute of by contract. 15 25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, PLAINTIFF regularly worked sufficient hours to 16 require that he be provided with off-duty meal breaks. However, DEFENDANTS lacked and/or failed to 17 consistently implement a policy requiring that PLAINTIFF be relieved of all duty for an uninterrupted 18 30-minute off-duty meal period during the first five (5) hours of his shiA, and PLAINTIFF routinely 19 lacked an opportunity for a full 30-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty meal period during the first five (5) 20 hours ofhis shift with DEFENDANTS. Moreover, DEFENDANTS never provided PLAINTIFF with the opportunity for a second meal break when PLAINTIFF worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a single workday. DEFENDANTS, by and through its policies and/or practices, sometimes impeded PLAINTIFF'S ability to take full and timely 30-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty meal periods and required PLAINTIFF to perform necessary job functions instead of allowing him the chance to take such meal periods. Compounding matters, DEFENDANTS consistently deducted 30-minutes per day from 25 PLAINTIFF'S wages for an off-duty meal break — even though PLAINTIFF typically did not receive a 26 full and timely 30-minute off-duty meal break and this improper deduction of time led to further unpaid — 27 hours worked, including hours beyond 8 (eight) in a day which should have been compensated at any 28 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages overtime rate. DEFENDANTS did not pay PLAINTIFF any premium wages for lack of a meal break opportunity. 26. At all times relevant to the Complaint, PLAINTIFF regularly worked sufficient hours to require that PLAINTIFF be provided with off-duty rest breaks. However, DEFENDANTS lacked and/or failed to consistently implement a policy requiring that PLAINTIFF be relieved of all duty for an uninterrupted 10-minute off-duty rest period during the first four (4) hours of work, and PLAINTIFF 6 consistently lacked an opportunity for a 10-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty rest period during the first 7 four (4) hours of his shiA, let alone multiple off-duty rest periods on days exceeding 6 hours. 8 DEFENDANTS, by and tluough its policies and/or practices, impeded PLAINTIFF'S ability to take a timely 10-minute, uninterrupted, off-duty rest period and required PLAINTIFF to perform necessary job 10 functions instead of allowing him the chance to take such rest periods. DEFENDANTS did not pay 11 PLAINTIFF any premium wages for lack of a rest break opportunity. 12 27. At all times relevant to the Complaint, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF to bear 13 necessary job expenses and failed to indemnify or reimburse PLAINTIFF for such expenses. This includes but is not limited to: (a) expenses stemming from PLAINTIFF's purchase of personal protective equipment in order to safely perform his essential job duties, including without limitation the cost of 16 specific protective work shoes, waterproofboots; (b) the cost of laundering his work clothes which were 17 in contact with pesticides and other toxic chemical used at work; and (c) expenses associated with 18 PLAINTIFF's use of his personal cell phone for work purposes, namely for the purposes of keeping in 19 contact with his supervisor/ manager for DEFENDANTS'usiness purpose. 20 28. At all times relevant to the Complaint, flowing &om its failures with respect to the 21 compensation and indemnification of PLAINTIFF, as herein alleged, DEFENDANTS regularly failed to 22 timely issue complete and accurate wage statements to PLAINTIFF. Likewise, DEFENDANTS failed to timely remit final payments in full to PLAINTIFF, who no longer works for DEFENDANTS. 23 29. During PLAINTIFF's employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF suffered serious 24 injuries at work, as follows: 25 (a) On or about March 4, 2023, PLAINTIFF suffered a work-related injury to his chest when a 26 metal cable used to tow a tractor caught in mud snapped and struck PLAINTIFF in the chest. 27 PLAINTIFF timely informed Defendants by and through its agents, MIGUEL, of the incident 28 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages and sought access to medical treatment as well as reasonable accommodation in the form of modified work. However, DEFENDANTS ignored PLAINTIFF's condition and refused to provide PLAINTIFF with medical treatment, modified work duties or co-worker assistance, among other types of reasonable accommodations, and DEFENDANTS, by and through its agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process with PLAINTIFF to explore extended work modification to accommodate this injury/disability/medical condition. Instead, DEFENDANTS, by and through its agents, required PLAINTIFF to perform work subject to his regular schedule and regular duties— without co-worker assistance, modified work duties or any other type of reasonable accommodation, despite PLAINTIFF's complain of pain and discomfort, 10 (b) On or about April 16, 2023, PLAINTIFF suffered a work-related respiratory illness because of spraying pesticides for DEFENDANTS'usiness purposes without adequate personal 12 protective equipment. PLAINTIFF informed the DEFENDANTS through his supervisor/ 13 manager MIGUEL about this injury and sought access to medical treatments. Despite 14 DEFENDANTS'nowledge about the severity of PLAINTIFF's injury and PLAINTIFF's 15 need for medical treatments, DEFENDANTS refused to file an incident report and failed to 16 open a workers'ompensation claim. Instead, DEFENDANTS refused to provide 17 PLAINTIFF with the access to medical treatments and modified work duties or co-worker 18 assistance, among other types of reasonable accommodations, and DEFENDANTS, by and 19 through its agents, MIGUEL, and JUANITA, failed to engage in a good-faith interactive 20 process with PLAINTIFF to explore extended work modification to accommodate this 21 disability/medical condition. Instead, DEFENDANTS, by and through its agents, required PLAINTIFF to perform work subject to his regular schedule and regular duties — without co- 22 worker assistance, modified work duties or any other type of reasonable accommodation, 23 despite PLAINTIFF's complaints of pain and discomfort. To this day, PLAINTIFF continues 24 to suffer consequences (physical limitation and restriction and pain) with respect to his 25 respiratory illness. 26 30. As a result of PLAINTIFF's medical condition/ injuries, described above, PLAINTIFF 27 was lefi with physiological conditions that limited his ability to perform certain major life activities, and 28 10 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages to perform certain tasks at work without reasonable accommodation. PLAINTIFF sought treatment at the Emergency Department on or about April 16, 2023, and he was provided with restrictions including avoiding spraying chemical sprays while PLAINTIFF recovers. PLAINTIFF provided DEFENDANTS with the doctor's note and requested access to medical treatment and reasonable accommodation. DEFENDANTS denied PLAINTIFF's request and refused to provide him with the reasonable accommodation, in the form of modified work duties and work schedule, assistance, access to medical 6 treatment, or other reasonable accommodations that might have been formulated through the required 7 interactive process. DEFENDANTS failed to engage in the required interactive process after the injury 8 and failed to provide reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF 's continued restrictions. 9 31. PLAINTIFF timely informed DEFENDANTS of each of the above incidents of serious 10 medical condition /disability and of the limitations caused by the above injuries, as they arose, and 11 requested that DEFENDANTS engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable 12 accommodations. However, DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFF with appropriate modified 13 work duties or additional assistance, among other types of reasonable accommodations, and DEFENDANTS failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process with PLAINTIFF to explore other possible accommodations of his injuries and disabilities. Instead, PLAINTIFF alleges that 16 DEFENDANTS, by and through their respective agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and 17 JUANITA, discriminated against PLAINTIFF and treated him less favorably, due to his physical 18 disability, work restrictions, because of his expressions of concern about his safety and welfare, and 19 because of his insistence on reasonable accommodation. Among other things, DEFENDANTS, by and 20 through one or more of their agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA: (a) denied 21 PLAINTIF's right to take time off to get treatments for his medical condition and the requests for a 22 good-faith interactive process and a reasonable accommodation of his work restrictions, (b) ignored PLAINTIFF's safety and welfare concerns with respect to the performance of work and need for time off 23 to receive medical treatments, (c) brushed-aside further comments and questions regarding his workplace 24 injuries and DEFENDANT's ongoing failure to accommodate and DEFENDANT's refusal to allow 25 PLAINTIFF time off and access to receive medical treatments, (d) required PLAINTIFF to perform 26 work subject to his regular schedule and regular duties — without co-worker assistance, modified work 27 duties or any other type of reasonable accommodation, and retaliated against PLAINTIFF by subjecting 28 Plainuff s Complaint fot Damages him to harassment and hostility in retaliation for availing himself of his right to such modified duties/accommodations; and (e) informed PLAINTIFF that DEFENDANTS could not accommodate PLAINTIF's restrictions and ultimately terminated PLAINTIFF's employment. 32. California Government Code 12926(m)(1) defines a physical disability as: "Having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of the following: (A) Affects one or more of the follovtdng body systems: neurological, immunological, 6 musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, 7 digestive, genitourinary, hemic, and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine. (B) Limits a major life activity..." 33. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the injury suffered by PLAINTIFF was a physiological disease, disorder, or condition that affected the musculoskeletal body 10 system within the meaning of California Government Code Section 12926(m), and that therefore 11 PLAINTIFF had a physical disability within the meaning of that statute. 12 34. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that following PLAINTIFF's requests for 13 reasonable accommodation, DEFENDANTS perceived PLAINTIFF as having, or having had, a physical 14 condition that made achievement of a major life activity di fficult, or as having, or having had, a disease, 15 disorder, condition, or health impairment that has no present disabling effect but may become a physical 16 disability. 17 35. PLAINTIFF alleges information and belief that DEFENDANTS discriminated and 18 retaliated against PLAINTIFF, treating him less favorably due to his injury-related disabilities, meFfical 19 condition, and work restrictions. 20 36. PLAINTIFF would have been able to perform thc essential job duties if he had received 21 reasonable accommodations for the restrictions resulting from his physical disability/ medical condition 22 caused by thc incidents at work, described above. 37. At all relevant times herein, and during the relevant time, DEFENDANTS maintained 23 unlawful employment policies and practices for financial gain. During the time relevant to this Complaint, PLAINTIFF observed, reported, and attempted to prevent unlawful workplace conditions and 25 conduct committed by, at the direction of and/or under the control and supervision of DEFENDANTS, 26 which PLAINTIFF reasonably believed to be unlawful. Among other things, PLAINTIFF: (a) lack of 27 adequate personal protective equipment and proper training in handling pesticide (PLAINTIFF 28 12 Plaintiff s Complaint For Damages complained many times of experiencing headaches, irritation to his eyes and other respiratory symptoms due to exposure to pesticides and toxic chemical fumes without proper personal protective safety equipment); (b) asserting the right to receive reasonable accommodations in conjunction with a disability resulting from a workplace injury /medical condition; (c) raising concerns for his safety and welfare in light of the breach of his restrictions; and (d) articulating that he was being unfairly and unlawfully mistreated as a result of his protected status (f.e. work related injury/ illness/ disability) and engagement 6 in protected activities (f.e. complaining about health/safety issues and discriminatory conducts and 7 differential treatments at work for asserting his rights). Indeed, PLAINTIFF's complaints and requests 8 were met with hostility and derision by each of the DEFENDANTS'uthorized agents, including 9 MIGUEL and JUANITA, among others. 10 38. PLAINTIFF opposed and reported the above unlawful practices and abusive misconduct 11 to the DEFENDANTS through his supervisors / managers and brought his concerns to the 12 DEFENDANTS about the situation (i.e., he "blew the whistle."), which angered the DEFENDANTS. 13 PLAINTIFF asked DEFENDANTS to look into this matter and take corrective action. DEFENDANTS 14 ignored PLAINTIFF'S complaints and failed to take any corrective actions —and instead retaliated 15 against him. DEFENDANTS took retaliatory actions against PLAINTIFF by and through its authorized agents and ultimately terminated his employment on or about November 5, 2023. 17 39. PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that DEFENDANTS'cts and omissions, as described in this Complaint, violate the Civil Code, Labor Code, Equal Pay Act, and the applicable 19 Wage Order. PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that DEFENDANTS knew or should have 20 known of the unlawful nature of its acts and omissions, as described in this Complaint — and that such 21 conduct reflects a deliberate scheme to lower payroll costs and gain an unfair workforce advantage, 22 contrary to public policy. PLAINTIFF further alleges on information and belief that such acts and omissions constitute unlawful business practices and amount to policies in violation of FEHA given that 23 they occurred in a continuing and systematic manner over a substantial period to the detriment of 24 PLAINTIFF and other employees. Examples of such unlawful acts and omissions that occurred within 25 four (4) years prior of the filing of this Complaint include, without limitation, DEFENDANTS'ailure 26 to: (a) pay proper wages, including that of overtime wages, "all hours worked," "off-the-clock" hours, 27 and payment of wages at the rate designated by statute or by contract; (b) indemnify and reimburse 28 13 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages expenses incurred in discharging duties; (c) provide all required code-compliant meal and rest breaks, or missed meal/rest break premiums in lieu of such breaks; (d) pay timely wages upon termination of employment; (e) maintain accurate records and provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements; (f) provide medical care, reasonable accommodations, and a good-faith interactive process; (g) prevent workplace discrimination and refrain &om discriminating against employees in protected classes; (h) prevent retaliation and refrain &om retaliating against employees who engage in protected activities; (i) 6 provide adequate, safe and sanitary workplace conditions with respect to deficiencies concerning the 7 availability of (I) potable drinking water, (2) proper meal and rest break facilities (no place to sit (no 8 tables/ benches/ chairs), no shaded place, no &idge/ microwave), (3) adequate restroom facility (no portable bathrooms), (4) adequate personal protective equipment and proper training in handling 10 pesticides; and (j) re&ain from terminating an employee when said employee's protected status and/or 11 engagement in protected activities would be a substantial factor in the decision to terminate. 12 40. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that, as a result of PLAINTIFF's injury/disability/ 13 medical condition and for seeking an accommodation/work restriction, coupled with asserting his rights to take leave under CFRA, DEFENDANTS, by and through one or more of its agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA, and others, directly or acting within the scope of his employment 16 and authority given to them by DEFENDANTS — as PLAINTIFF's managers/supervisors — continuously 17 and repeatedly discriminated against and continuously and repeatedly PLAINTIFF 'S harassed PLAINTIFF and/or 18 caused harassment to continue against PLAINTIFF, thereby creating a hostile work environment. 19 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that, as a result of engagement in protected activities 20 (i e. complaining ofa lack of personal protective safety equipment when handling pcs ti cides, complaining 21 offailure to fulfill a promise of a raise; reporting a work injury and seeking medical care and use and/ 22 or request to use reasonable accommodations, among other things), DEFENDANTS, by and through one or more of its agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA retaliated against 23 PLAINTIFF. Indeed, PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that these actions were motivated by bias, bigotry, and/or personal gratification/gain. Such harassment, hostile work environment, 25 differential treatment and retaliatory acts against PLAINTIFF committed by DEFENDANTS, by and 26 through one or more of its agents, including without limitation MIGUEL and JUANITA, included, but 27 were not limited to: 28 14 Planttiff s Complaint for Damages 1 a. Rounded and shaved PLAINTIFF's time resulting in underpayment of wages to PLAINTIFF; b. Demanded that PLAINTIFF perform work off-clock without adequate payment of wages for all hours and overtime hours that he worked resulting in underpayment of his wages; c. Denied PLAINTIFF with opportunities for legally compliant meal and rest breaks; d. Expressly doubted the veracity and/or severity of PLAINTIFF's injuries; e. Denied PLAINTIFF access to medical treatment for his work-related injury/illness; f. Pushed PLAINTIFF to work through pain when PLAINTIFF vocalized that his job duties were causing him physical discomfort and that he needed assistance, modified work and accommodation; 10 g. Refused PLAINTIFF'S requests for reasonable accommodation and ignored his medical restriction; 12 h. Articulated a disposition of apathy and an ongoing lack of concern with respect to 13 PLAINTIFF's wellbeing; 14 i. Refused to engage in an interactive dialogue with PLAINTIFF regarding his physical 15 limitations caused by workplace injury/disability/ medical health condition; 16 j. Ignored PLAINTIFF's request and treated him with hostility for complaining and raising 17 concerns about inadequate, unsafe and unsanitary workplace conditions with respect to 18 lack o f adequate personal protective equipment and proper training in handling pesticides— 19 PLAINTIFF complained many times of experiencing headaches, irritation to his eyes and 20 other respiratory symptoms due to exposure to pesticides and toxic chemical fumes 21 without proper personal protective safety equipment; k. Ultimately terminated PLAINTIFF without good cause, despite his successful 22 performance of duties. 23 41. As a result of the conduct and violations described herein, the workplace was intolerable 24 for PLAINTIFF; the harassment, discrimination and retaliation communicated an offensive message to 25 PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF alleges, on information and belief, that he was targeted by DEFENDANTS 26 due to his status in protected class and engagement in protected activities, set forth in detail hereinabove— 27 despite the fact that he had been a reliable and hardworking employee. Throughout his employment, 28 15 Plainuff s Complaint for Damages PLAINTIFF performed the duties of his work assignments in a competent and proficient manner; he was at all times ready, willing and able to perform his tasks reliably and capably. 42. PLAINTIFF'S employment with DEFENDANTS ended on or about November 5, 2023. DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF without good cause or prior notice. PLAINTIFF alleges, on information and belief, that PLAINTIFF's injury/disability / medical condition health history were substantial factors in DEFENDANTS'ecision to discriminate against and terminate PLAINTIFF. 6 PLAINTIFF further alleges, on information and belief, that PLAINTIFF's engagement in protected 7 activities (i. e, complaining of a lack ofpersonal protective safety equipment when handling pesticides, 8 complaining offailure to fulfill a promise of a raise; reporting a work inj ury and seeking medical care and use and/or request to use reasonable accommodations, among other things) were substantial factors 10 in DEFENDANTS'ecision to retaliate against and terminate PLAINTIFF. 43. PLAINTIFF alleges, on information and belief, that DEFENDANTS had knowledge of 12 the harassment, discrimination and retaliation PLAINTIFF faced. PLAINTIFF alleges on information 13 and belief that DEFENDANTS intentionally refused to act in response to such objections and requests 14 for corrective action — and, instead, aided, encouraged, and/or fostered the harassing and discriminatory conduct. 16 44. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that acts of harassment 17 and discrimination by MIGUEL and JUANITA and others provide evidentiary support for PLAINTIFF's 18 claims by establishing discriminatory animus on the part of these individuals and others — and thereby 19 permit the inference that discriminatory and/or hostile comments and/or behavior by MIGUEL and 20 JUANITA and others were similarly motivated by discriminatory animus. 21 45. PLAINTIFF alleges on information and belief that MIGUEL and JUANITA and others 22 acted within the scope of employment and pursuant to the authority given by DEFENDANTS as PLAINTIFF's manager/supervisor within the meaning of FEHA — and, further, acted for their own 23 personal motives, based on personal bias against PLAINTIFF on the basis of PLAINTIFF's protected 24 class and engagement in protected activines while undertaking the actions and omissions herein alleged. 25 46. All of the defendants'ctions were undertaken for improper purposes as alleged above 26 and were willful, oppressive and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF's rights, and were designed and 27 intended to cause and did, in fact, cause and continue to cause PLAINTIFF to suffer severe emotional 28 16 Plaintiff s Complaint for Damages distress, pain and suffering, and substantial economic damage and, therefore, justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages. 47. The actions and continuing course of the aforesaid conduct amounted to a systematic policy of discrimination and harassment, thereby constituting a continuing violation actionable under, among other things, Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA) which reflects a fundamental public policy against discrimination in employment on account of disability/ medical condition and engaging in 6 protected activities. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Violation of Labor Code $ f 510, 1194, 1198 and IWC Wage Order "Hours and Days of Work" Section) 10 (Alleged by PLAINTIFF against DEFENDANTS, and all applicable DOES 1-30) 11 48. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations in each 12 and every paragraph above, as though fully set forth herein. 13 49. At all relevant times hereto, PLAINTIFF was a non-exempt employee of DEFENDANTS 14 under the laws of the State of California within the meaning of the Labor Code and Wage Order. 15 50. Labor Code II 510 provides in pertinent part: "Eight hours of labor constitutes a day' 16 work. Any work in excess of 8 hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one 17 workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the 20 regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of 21 a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an