Removal to Federal CourtCal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 7, 2019Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/22/2019 9:50 AM Reviewed By: L. Quach-Marcellana Case #19CV356275 Envelope: 3686312 19CV356275 Santa Clara - Civil 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fraser A. McAlpine (State Bar N0. 248554) Conor J. Dale (State Bar No. 274123) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Fraser.McAlpine@iacksonlewis.com E-mail: Conor.Dale@iacksonlewis‘com Attorneys for Defendants CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC, erroneously sued as CEVA LOGISTICS and TESLA, INC, erroneously sued as TESLA MOTORS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BYRON JACKSON, Case No. 19CV356275 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO ADVERSE PARTY AND STATE COURT RANDSTAD, INC, CEVA LOGISTICS, TESLA MOTORS, and DOES 1-50, inclusive; individually, Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO STATE COURT Case N0. 19CV356275 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF JACKIE PRICE, AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on November 20, 2019, Defendants CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC, erroneously sued as CEVA LOGISTICS (“CEVA”), TESLA, INC, erroneously sued as TESLA MOTORS (“Tesla”) and RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC, erroneously sued as RANDSTAD INC. (“Randstad”) (collectively, “‘Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a), and 1446 (diversityjurisdiction). Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(d), the filing 0f the Notice of Removal with the United States District Court effectuates removal 0f this action. The above-captioned Court may proceed n0 further until and unless the case is remanded. A true and correct copy of the Notice 0f Removal and its supporting documents have been attached t0 this Notice as “Exhibit A” and filed and served herewith. Dated: November 21, 2019 JACKSON LEWIS PC. By: /s/C0n0/”J. Dale Conor J. Dale Attorneys for Defendants CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., and TESLA, INC. NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO STATE COURT Case No. 19CV356275 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Lauretta Adams, declare that I am employed with the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., whose address is 50 California Street, 9th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94111-4615; I am over the age 0f eighteen (18) years and am not a party t0 this action. On November 2 1, 2019, I served the attached document(s): DEFENDANTS CEVA LOGISTICS U.s., INC. AND TESLA, INCRS NOTICE 0F REMOVAL T0 ADVERSE PARTY AND STATE COURT (w/Exhibit A) in this action by placing a copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: §§3¥f§fig§gj§fg§é Attorneys for Plaintiff BENJMIN LAW GROUP BYRON JACKSON 1290 “B” Street, Suite 3 14 Hayward, CA 94541 Telephone: (510) 897 9967 Facsimile: (510) 439 2632 E-mails: nbeniamin@beniaminlawgroupxzom allyssa@beniaminlawgroup£om [X] BY MAIL: United States Postal Service by placing a sealed envelope with the postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California. [( ) Courtesy copy by email.] D BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the above address. I [ ] BY GSO OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope t0 be delivered t0 the above address within 24 hours by overnight delivery service. [ ] BY DESIGNATED ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE: I hereby certify that the above- referenced document(s) were served electronically 0n the parties listed above at their most recent known e-mail address or e-mail 0f record by submitting an electronic version 0f the document(s) to First Legal at eFilinggQfirstlegalcom. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 2 1, 2019, at San Francisco, California. Lauretta Adams PROOF OF SERVICE 3 Case NO. 19CV356275 EXHIBIT A Case 3:19-cv~07657 Document l Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of‘ 13 Fraser A. McAlpine (State Bar No. 248554) Conor J. Dale (State BarNo. 274123) JACKSON LEWIS PC. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4615 '1"eleph0ne: (41 5) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394~9401 E-mail: Fraser.McAIpine@iacksonlewis.com E-mail: Conor.Dale@iacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC, erroneously sued as CEVA LOGISTICS and TESLA, INC, erroneously sued as TESLA MOTORS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BYRON JACKSON Case No. Plaintiff, (Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 19CV356275) v. DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE 0F RANDSTAD, INC, CEVA LOGISTICS, REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES TESLA MOTORS, and DOES 1-50, DISTRICT COURT FOR THE inclusive; individually, NORTHERN DISTRICT ()F CALIFORNIA Defendants. (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) (Filed concurrently with the Supporting Declarations ofCharissa Sebesta and Karen Lubrano and Civil Case Cover Sheet) NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case N0.M____W Case 3:19-Cv-O7657 Document l Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 0f 13 TO PLAINTIFF, HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND THE CLERK ()F THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC, erroneously sued as CEVA LOGISTICS (“CEVA”), TESLA, INC, erroneously sued as TESLA MOTORS (“Tesla”) and RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC, erroneously sued as RANDSTAD INC. (“Randstad”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby invoke this Court’sjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a), and 1446 and remove the above-entitled action to this Court from the Superior Court 0fthe State ofCalifomia for the County of Santa Clara: BACKGROUND 1. On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff Byron Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil complaint (“Complaint”) against the Defendants in Santa Clara County Superior Court, entitled Byron Jackson v. Randstaa’ Ina, et £11., Case No. 19CV356275. (See Plaintiff‘s Complaint, attached as Exhibit l Lo this notice (“Complaint.”)) In the Complaint, Plaintiffnamed Randstad, CEVA, and Tesla as Defendants. (Idat pg. 1.) 2‘ Plaintiff served the Complaint to all Defendants on October 21, 2019. 3. On November 20, 2019, CEVA and Tesla filed answer to the Complaint. (Exhibit 2.) Randstad also filed its answer to the Complaint on November 20, 2019 (Exhibit 3.) 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a true and correct copy ofall pleadings, processes, and orders served 0n Defendants have been filed with this notice as Exhibit 4. 5. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the undersigned counsel certifies that Defendants shall promptly serve Plaintiff a copy 0f this Notice of Removal and all supporting papers and file the same with the Clerk 0f the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Therefore, all procedural requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 will be satisfied TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 6. A defendant must generally file a notice ofremoval within thirty days of service ofa civil complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). NOTICE 0F REMOVAL T0 FEDERAL COURT Case Noumm Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1 Fited 11/20/19 Page 3 of 13 7. Plaintiff served the Complaint to Defendants on October 21, 2019. Thirty days after October 21, 2019 is November 20, 2019. This notice is accordingly timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DIVISION 8. Federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of$75,000” and is between “citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (a)(l). This Court has originaljurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because, as discussed in more detail below, the matter in Controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00 and this case is between citizens ofdifferent states. 9. Any “civil action brought in a State court ofwhich the district courts of‘the United States have original jurisdiction . . . may be removed by the defendant . . . t0 the district court ofthe United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S‘C. § 1441(a). As discussed above, Plaintifffiled the Complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California is the proper venue for this removal as this district “embrac[es] the place where” the action is pending. 28 U.S.C.§ 1441(a). 10. All “civil actions which arise in the count[y] 0f Santa Clara...shall be assigned to the San Jose Division” 0f the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California. N.D.Cal. Civil Local Rule 3~2(e). Removal 0fthis action to the San Joée Division is proper as this matter arose in the county of Santa Clara. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 11. Again, federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction over all Civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 0r value 0f $75,000.00. . .and is between...citizens ofdifferent states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is diversity ofcitizenship between every plaintiff and every defendant at the time the plaintiff files a lawsuit. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Ina, 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005); Dataflux v‘ Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004). 12. A plaintiff is a citizen 0f a state “for diversity purposes" if he is “a citizen of the 3 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case No.___ Case 3:19-Cv~07657 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 13 United States and..‘domicilcd in the state.” Kawar v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd‘, 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). 13. Here, Plaintiff is a Citizen Ofthe United States and domiciled in California. (See the supporting declaration ofKaren Lubrano (“Lubrano Dec”) 1] 5.) He is accordingly a citizen of California for diversity purposes. 14. A corporation “shall be deemed a citizen 0f any State by which it has been incorporated and ofthe State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s principal place of business is where its “high level Officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1186 (2010). 15. Defendant CEVA is a corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware (See the supporting declaration 0f Charissa Sebesta, 1] 3.) Its high~1evel officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities in Houston, Texas. (1d,) Accordingly, CEVA is a Citizen ofDelaware and Texas for diversity purposes. 16. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an unincorporated association, such as a limited liability company, has the Citizenships of all 01‘" its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LR, 437 17.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Randstad is now, and was at the time of‘the filing ofthis action, a limited liability company organized and formed under the laws 0fthe State 0f Delaware, with its headquarters and principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. (Lubrano Dec. fl 6). Randstad’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate Randstad’s corporate activities from its Atlanta, Georgia headquarters. (1d,) Randstad has two members: Randstad Noah America, Inc. holds a 99.9% membership interest, and Randstad General Partner (US), LLC holds a 0.1% membership interest. (1d) l7. Randstad General Partner (US), LLC is a limited liability company organized and formed under the laws ofthe State of Delaware. (Lubrano Dec. 117.) Its headquarters and principal place ofbusiness is in Atlanta, Georgia, where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. 1d. Randstad General Partner (US), LLC’s sole member is Randstad North America, Inc. ([a’.) 18. Randstad North America, 1110., is a corporation organized and formed under the 4 NOTICE 011‘ REMOVAL To FEDERAL COURT Case No._‘__w_w Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document l Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 0f 13 laws ofthe State ofDelaware. (Lubrano Dec. 1] 8.) Its headquarters and principal place ofbusiness is in Atlanta, Georgia, where its high~level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. 1d. l9. Therefore, at all times since Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit, Randstad is and has been a citizen ofa state other than California within the meaning of28 U.S.C. §1332(C)(1). At all relevant times, Randstad is and has been a Citizen 0fthe States of Delaware, Massachusetts, and Georgia. 20. Individual Defendant Tesla has its principal place of business in California and is therefore not diverse from the California citizenship of Plaintiff. However, because Plaintiff fraudulently joined Tesla in this lawsuit for the reasons discussed in more detail below, there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and every defendant in this case. 21. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §l44 1 (a), the residence offictitious and unknown defendants should be disregarded for purposes 0f establishing removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. 171715155 v. Reynolds Metals Ca, 615 F.2d 1209, 12 1 3 (9th Cir. 1980) (unnamed defendants are not required tojoin in a removal petition). Thus, the existence ofDoe defendants in this case does not deprive this Court ofjurisdiction. Accordingly, pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §1332(C), Plaintiff and the real Def‘andants, Randstad, CEVA, and Tesla, have diverse citizenship. FRAUDULENT JOINDER OF TESLA 22. A non-diverse defendant named in a state court action is disregarded for diversity jurisdiction purposes if the Court determines that the defendant’s joinder is a “sham” 01‘ “fraudulent” in that no valid cause of action has been stated against that defendant. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc” 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, if“the plaintiff fails t0 state a cause ofaction against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules 0f the state, thejoinder 0fthe resident defendant is fraudulent.” McCabe v. General Foods C0171, 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987); Calero v. Unisys Corp, 271 F. Supp.2d 1172, 1176 (ND. Cal. 2003) (joinder is fraudulent ifthe plaintiff cannot establish a cause ofaction against the non- diverse defendant). 23. Here, Plaintiff alleged causes of action against Tesla for: (1) discrimination in 5 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case N0. flm Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 0f 13 violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) harassment in violation ofthe FEHA; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. (See Complaint at pgs. 11-13, 16-1731 Plaintiff fi‘audulentlyjoined "1"esla as he does not, and cannot, ever state a cause 0f action against Tesla for these claims. 24. Discrimination in violation 0fthe FEHA 25. To establish a FEHA discrimination Claim, a plaintiff must prove, among Other elements, an employment relationship with the defendant and that the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff. See Guz v. Bechtei Nalional Ina, 24 Cal. 4th 317, 355 (2000). An employee is any “individual under the direction and control of’an employer[.]” 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11008(b). Additionally, “[ailn individual compensated by a temporary service agency for work to be performed for an employer contracting with the temporary service agency may be considered” to be an employee of the temporary service agency and the contracting employer. 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11008(b)(5). 26. Here, Plaintiff “was an employee of" Randstad, “a temporary staffing agency.” (Complaint W 1-2.) CEVA “contracted with” Randstad “for the provision 0f workers”, including Plaintiff. (Id‘ fl] 3.) The facilities in which Plaintiffworked for CEVA “were owned, operated, and controlled” by CEVA. (1d. 1] 4.) Plaintiff was managed and supervised by CEVA and Randstad employees at CEVA’s facilities. (See I‘d. 1H] 9-1 1, 43.) However, the services Plaintiff provided for CEVA and Randstad at these facilities was for the “benefit of” Tesla under a contract between CEVA and Tesla. (Complaint W 6-7.) 27. As a result, Plaintiffdoes not, and cannot, state a cause of action for discrimination against Tesla as Tesla was not Plaintiff’s employer. He was not under Tesla’s control and direction as he was a Randstad employee working at a facility owned and controlled by CEVA under a temporary services contract between CEVA and Randstad (see above). 2 Cal. Code Regs‘ §§ 1 1008(1)), (b)(S). While he alleges that his work at this facility was for the ultimate benefit of Tesla, an employment discrimination claim can only be directed at an employer, not an employer’s 1 While Plaintiff also alleges several causes 0f action based on allegations 0f Randstad failing to reasonably accommodate an alleged disability, these Claims are not alleged against Tesla. 6 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1 FiIed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 13 customers. Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 355; see 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11008 (not including an employer’s customers in the definition 0f“employer” under the FEI-IA). As a result, Plaintiffcannot establish that "1"esla was his employer 01‘ took an adverse employment action against him. His employment discrimination claim against Tesla accordingly fails 28. Hostile work environment harassment in violation of the FEHA 29. I To establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant employed the plaintiff and subjected the plaintiff to a Work environment that was so hostile that it materially altered the terms and conditions ofhis employment. Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp, 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 608 (1 989). Additionally, “an employer may be liable for” harassing “conduct committed by” the employer’s “‘clientele[.]’” Carter v. Dept. 0f Veterans Aflaz’rs, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, 233 (2006)(citations omitted). In such situations, the employee can establish a hostile work environment if‘the employer fails “take action to alleviate..harassment” reported by the employee. Turman v. Turning Poim ofCenlraZ Califiwnia, Ina, 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 58 (2010). 30. Here, Plaintiffsued Tesla for hostile work environment harassment because Tesla’s employees allegedly used slurs in Plaintiff‘s presence. (Complaint fl! 40; pg. 12:12-15.) However, because he was not Tesla’s employee (see above), only CEVA and Randstad could potentially be liable for a hostile work environment allegedly caused by employee's of Tesla, CEVA’s ‘clientele[.]’” Fisher, 214 Cal.App.3d at 608; Carter, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d at 233. Plaintiff‘s harassment claim against Tesla accordingly fails. 3 1. Intentional infliction 0f emotional distress 32. T0 establish an intentional infliction 0f emotional distress claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant subjected him to extreme and outrageous conduct Potter v. Fz'reslone Tire & Rubber C0,, 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001 (1993). “Under the doctrine of respondent superior” a company defendant may only “be held vicariously liable” for a tort committed by its employee if the tort was committed “within the scope of employment.” Mary M. v. City ofLos Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 202, 208 (1991). However, discriminatory “harassment is not a normal incident of employment” and thus cannot be within the scope 0f employment. Nazi)" v. Unil‘edAI'rZ/Tnes, Inca, 7 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case No.___l Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 13 178 Cal.App.4t11 243‘, 288 (2009). 33‘ Here, Plaintiff alleges an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Tesla based on unnamed employees allegedly creating a hostile work environment. (Complaint W 40, 81~84.) He also claims that this conduct “lies outside of the compensation bargain” of employment. (Id. fl 82.) I 34. He accordingly does not, and cannot, establish an intentional infliction ofemotional distress claim against Tesla. The harassing conduct allegedly committed by its employees is outside ofthe scope ofemployment as a matter of law and thus cannot impose respondeat superior liability. See Nazir 178 Ca1.App.4th at 288; MaryM, 54 Ca1.3d at 208. 35‘ Negligent infliction 0f emotional distress 36. To establish a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached a specific “duty to the plaintiff” which caused the plaintiff injury. See Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Ca, 6 Cal.4th 965, 984 (1993). Additionally, the “essence of negligence is carelessness 01‘ inadvertence.” Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC, 76 Cal‘Rptr. 3d 325, 351 (2008). 37. Herc, Plaintiff alleges a cause 0f action against Tesla for negligent infliction 0f emotional distress because its unnamed employees allegedly used racial slurs in his presence. (Complaint 1H] 40, 85-90.) 38. This claim fails on multiple grounds. As a discussed above, Tesla is not Plaintiff‘s employer. It accordingly does not have a duty to prevent discrimination or harassment towards Plaintiff. See Cal. Gov. Code § 1294000 (requiring “an employer”, not a third party, “prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring”) Similarly, because Tesla’s employees’ alleged conduct was intentional rather than negligent, Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action for negligence against Tesla. Blic/cman Tur/cus, LP, 76 Cal‘RptrSd at 351A Finally, Plaintiff cannot ever establish that Tesla is liable for this tort as the alleged actions of its employees are outside of the course and scope ofemployment (see above). Mary M, 54 Cal.3d at 208 39. As a result, Plaintiff’does not and cannot ever establish any ofhis causes 0f action against Tesla. He fraudulently joined Tesla in this case, likely in an intentional effort to destroy 8 NOTICE 0F REMOVAL, To FEDERAL COURT Case No.__m Case 3:19-0v-O7657 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 13 diversity jurisdiction. Calero, 271 F. Supp.2d at 1 176. Because Plaintiff, CEVA, and Randstad are citizens of different states and Plaintiff fraudulently joined Tesla, complete diversity exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants in this case. JOINDER OF ALL DEFENDAN’I‘S 40. CEVA, Tesla, and Randstad have all joined in this notice 0f removal. As a result, all defendants have joined in this removal. Parrino v. FHP, Ina, 146 F‘Bd 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998)‘ AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 41. The “district courts shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00...and is between...citizens of different states‘” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 42. Without conceding that Plaintiff is entitled to damages 0r could recover damages in any amount whatsoever, the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000.00,'echusivc of interest and costs. 43. When a plaintiff’s state civil complaint fails t0 allege a specific amount ofclaimed damages, the removing defendant need only establish that it is more probable than not that the plaintiff seeks more than the jurisdictional minimum. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. C0., 95 F.3d 856, 860-61 (9th Cir. I996). As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “the amount-in-controversy inquiry in the removal context is not confined to the face 0fthe complaint.” Valdez v. Allstate Ins. (70., 372 F.3d 1 l 15, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that the Court may consider facts presented in the removal petition). In determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, a court must presume the plaintiff’will prevail on each ofhis claims. Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F.Supp. 993, 1001 (CD. Cal. 2002), citing Bums v. Windsor Ins. Ca, 31 F.3d 1092, 1096 (1 1th Cir. 1994) (the amount in controhrsy analysis presumes that “plaintiff prevails on liability”) and Angus v. Shiley Ina, 989 F.2d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 1993) (“the amount in controversy is not measured by the low end of an open~ended claim, but rather by reasonable reading 0fthe value ofthe rights being litigated”). 44. The amount in controversy in a case may include compensatory damages, punitive 9 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case N0.*_ Case 3:19-cv~07657 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 10 of 13 damages, and statutory attorney’s fees. Gall G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1 150, 1 155-1 156 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 945 (1982) (attorney’s fees may be taken into account t0 determine jurisdictional amount); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp, 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001); Davefiport v. Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963). 45. , Here, Plaintiff seeks damages in excess 0f $75,000. In his Compliant, he seeks t0 59 Hrecover for “emotional distress and mental anguish , substantial losses in earnings”, “punitive damages”, and “attorney’s fees[.]” (Complaint at 1222-5, 1827-13.) 46. Plaintiff’s request for emotional distress damages alone exceeds thejurisdictional threshold as plaintiffs alleging emotional distress in employment lawsuits regularly seek more than $75,000 for such damages. Ke/jj’er v. Bechtel Corp, 65 Cal.App.4th 893, 895 (1998) (upholding jury award in excess of $75,000.00 for emotional distress damages); Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation, 86 Cal.App.4th 947, 955 (2001) (award in excess of $75,000.00 for non-economic damages upheld in wrongful termination lawsuit); see also Egan v. Premier Scales & Sys., 237 F.Supp2d 774, 776 (WD. Ky. 2002) (holding that the defendant could “easily make the case that” claims involving compensatory damages for embarrassment and humiliation “reach the federal amount in controvetfiy requirement”). A review ofjury verdicts in California demonstrates as much. See, e.g., Silverman v. Stuart F. Cooper Ina, No. BC467464, 2013 WL 5820140 (L03 Angeles Sup. Ct.) (jury awarded $157,001 for emotional distress damages in discrimination case); Aboulqfia v1 GACN Inca, No, BC469940, 2013 WL 81 15991 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct.) (pain and suffering award 0f $250,000, $250,000, $250,000, and $250,267 to four employees in discrimination action); Ward v. Cadbury Schweppes Bottling G171, O9CV03279(DMG), 201 1 WL 7447633 (CD. Cal) (jury award $5,600,000 in non-economic damages in discrimination and retaliation case); Welch v. Ivy Hill Carp, No. BC414667, 2011 WL 3293268 (L05 Angeles Sup. Ct.) (award of$1,270,000 in pain and suffering to employee in a discrimination action); Leimcmdl v. Mega RV Corp, No. 30-2010-OO388086, 2011 WL 2912831 (Orange County Sup. Ct.) (jury awarded $385,000 in pain and suffering t0 employee in a discrimination case); Landau v. Cry. 0f Riverside, 2010 WL 1648442, Case N0. 2:O7«cv-06807 (CD. Cal. Feb. 12, 2010) (award of $1,033,500 t0 employee who brought action against employer based on disability discrimination 10 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case N0.fl__ Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 13 and failure to accommodate); Dodd v. Haighl‘ Brown. & Bonesteel LLP, 2010 WL 4845808, Case No. BC413813 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Oct. 15, 201 0) (award of $410,520 to employee wrongfully terminated based on disability and medical condition); Ybarra v. Dacor Holding Inca, 2010 WL 2404221, Case No. KC-054144 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Feb. 26,‘ 2010) (award of $615,236 to employee in disability discrimination and wrongful termination action); Morales v. L05 Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth, 2008 WL 4488427, Case N0. BC339557 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Aug. 19, 2008) (award of$2,247,1 37 to employee terminated due t0 disability); Ismen v. Beverly Hosp, 2008 WL 4056258, Case No. BC366198 (L03 Angeles Sup. Ct. Aug. 13, 2008) (award of $1,180,164 in disability discrimination and failure to accommodate action where employee lost his position after suffering on the job injury); Vaughn v. CNA Cas. 0f Cal., 2008 WL 4056256, Case No. 06CV00859 (JVS) (CD. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008) (award of $850,000 to employee in disability discrimination action); Orue v. Sears, Roebuck & C0,, 2007 WL 2456108, Ca'se No. BC347252 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Aug. 1, 2007) (award of $173,056 to employee who brought action based 0n disability and age discrimination against employer who wrongfully terminated him); Martin v. Arrow Elect., 2006 WL 2044626, Case N0. SACVO4I 134JVS (CD. Cal. June 12, 2006) (award of $1,500,000 to employee who was wrongfully terminated based upon the disabilities he developed during his employment); Shay v. TG COMM, 1140., 2002 WL 31415020, Case No. 80028511 (Ventura County Sup. Ct. Jan. 1, 2002) (award of $462,500 to employee wrongfully terminated on basis of disability) These awards demonstrate that, for diversity purposes, the value of Plaintiff‘s alleged emotional distress damages exceeds the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. 47. Regarding lost wages, Plaintiff earned approximately $21.50 per hour, worked approximately 40 hours per week, and stopped working for Randstad on or around January 3, 2019. As a result, as of this notice, Plaintiff could seek approximately $$38,7OO in lost wages. (See Lubrano Dec. 1] 9.) 48. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (Complaint at 18:12.) “Where the law entitles the prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney fees, a reasonable estimate 0f fees likely to be incurred to resolution. . .contributes to the amount in controversy.” Brady 1 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case No.__w Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document l Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 13 v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 11/20., 243 F, Supp. 2d 1004, 1011 (N‘D‘ Cal. 2002); Celestino v. Renal Advantage, Ina, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33827, *11 (ND. Cal. 2007)(“ the amount in controversy includes. . .a reasonable assessment of damages likely t0 be accrued after the time ofremoval”) At the minimal rate of $250 per hour, Plaintiff would reach thejurisdictional threshold 0f$75,000 in 300 hours. Tiffany v. O’Rez‘llyAutoA Stores, Inca, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130082, at *9-10 (ED. Cal. Sept. 10, 2013) (estimating future attorney’s fees using rate 0f$250 per hour). Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees alone will accordingly exceed $75,000 ifthe case proceeds to trial. Even afier only 150 hours ofbillable time, Plaintiff‘s attorney’s fees at the minimal rate of$250 per hour ~ would amount to $37,500. Further verdicts in comparable cases show that attorneys’ fees typically exceed $75,000.00. See Denenberg v. Cal. Dep’t 0f Tramp, 2007 WL 2827715, Case No. GIC836582 (San Diego County Sup. Ct. Sept. l4, 2006) (attorney’s fees award 0f$490,000.00 in case alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation); McMillan v. City ofLos Angeles, 2005 WIJ 3729094, Case No. BC298898 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. March 21, 2005) (attorney’s fees award 0f $504,926.00 in case alleging discrimination and retaliation for filing lawsuit to redress discrimination); Gallegos v. Los Angeles City College, 2003 WL 23336379, Case No. SC270424 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2003) (attorney’s fees award of $1 59,277.00 for claim of discrimination and retaliation). Therefore, the inclusion ofa claim for attorneys’ fees also supports the conclusion that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000.00. 49. Plaintiff finally seeks an unspecified amount 0f“punitive damages[.]” (Complaint at pg‘ 18:1 1.) Requests for punitive damages must be taken into account in ascertaining the amount in controversy. Davenport, 325 F‘Zd Vat 787‘ The amount ofpunitive damages awarded is based 0n the financial worth ofthe defendant, and is meant to punish the defendant in such a way that it will have a tangible financial consequence. Without conceding that punitive damages are appropriate or applicable here, for defendants the size 0f Randstad and CEVA, it is probable that a punitive damages award, if assessed, would exceed $75,000‘OO. Further, California juries have given substantial punitive damage awards in employment discrimination lawsuits. Simmons v. PCR 7“echnology, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (ND. Cal. 2002) (“jury verdicts...amp1y demonstrate the potential for large punitive damage awards in employment discrimination cases”) Although 12 > NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document l Filed 11/20/19 Page 13 of 13 Defendants vigorously deny Plaintiff‘s allegations and claims, if Plaintiffwere to prove Defendants acted with malice, oppression, or, or fraud, the potential punitive damages award alone could well exceed $75,000. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. SO. Considering the reasonable aggregate value 0f Plaintiff’s potential lost wage claim (at least $38,700), compensatory damages (above $75,000), punitive damages (above $75,000), and reasonable statutory attorney’s fees (above $75,000), the amount in controversy in this case significantly exceeds the $75,000 threshold for diversityjurisdiction. 28 U.S‘C. § 1332(a). WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the above-described action pending in the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County ofSanta Clara, be removed to this Court. Dated: November 20, 2019 Dated: November 20, 2019 481 601236373, v. 1 JACKSON LEWIS RC. By: /s/C0n.orJ. Dale Attorneys for Defendants CEVA LOGIST1CS U.S., INC, erroneously sued as CEVA LOGISTICS and TESLA, INC, erroneously sued as TESLA MOTORS SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Lindsay Fitch Kiran S. Lopez Attorneys for Defendant RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, IJLC (erroneously sued as Randstad Inc.) NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. Adams, Lauretta (San Francisco) From: ECF-CAND@cand.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 6:28 PM To: efiling@cand.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Jackson v. Ceva Logistics U.S., inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics et a1 Notice of Removal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court California Northern District Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Dale, Conor on 11/20/2019 at 6:27 PM PST and filed on 11/20/2019 'Case Name: Jackson v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics et a! Case Number: 3:19-cv-OZ§§_7_ Filer: Tesla, Inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors Ceva Logistics U54, Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics Document Number:; Doéket Text: NOTICE OF REMOVAL to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Diversity Jurisdiction) from County of Santa Clara Superior Court. Their case number is 19CV356275. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 097143911605). Filed byTesla, Inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors, Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Exhibit 3, # (4) Exhibit 4)(Da|e, Conor) (Filed on 11/20/2019) ~ 3:19-cv-07657 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Byron Jackson nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com ConorJohn Dale conor.dale@jacksonlewis.com, adams!@jac|30. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Fiied 11/20/19 Page 7 of 4O "MIKE” blatantly demonstrated that the racist behavior would be tolerated at sites on which RANDSTND contracted to provide employees for CEVA LOGISTICS, and for the bengfit of TESLA MOTORS. The protected rights include, but are not limited to, the right t0 work in an environmént free oi unlawful, discriminatory, and harassing racist comments, rants, name calling, exposure to racist material on walls in employee common areas, the right to prevent unlawful harassment and retaliation; and the right to engage m protected activity regarding work conditions. Additionally, the rights protected include the righ‘ t0 work free from discrimination on the basis ofa disability, or the perception ofa disability: As a resuh 0fthe conduct perpetrated against PlaintiffJACKSON, and other individuals qufrican descent, Mr. JACKSON was forced t0 resign from the employment. 1n or about February 20l8, PlaintiffJACKSON was hired by RANDSTAD, and assigned to work at the CEVA LOGISTICS facility locamd at 1710 Little Orchard, in San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. PlaintiffJACKSON is informed and based on that information believes that Defendant CEVA LOGISTICS leased a warehouse at that 1ocati0n (0 provide contracted services t0 Defendant TESLA Mmors. PlaintiffJACKSON reponed 10 the worksite at CEVA LOGISTICS, and was assigned to the graveyard shift, working from 10:00 pm. to 6:00 a.m., as a forklift driver. Plaintiff JACKSON was assigned to the site supervisor, “BRITTANY”. Plaintiff is infomued and based on that information believes “BRITTANY” is 2m individual not ofAfrican descent. From thc beginning oer. JACKSON‘S employment by RANDSTAD in February 2018, - Plaintiff‘JACKSON and other African-American employees were daily exposed t0 the use of the terms “nigger”, “nigga”, and ”mallate”. PiaimiffJACKSON is informed, and based 0n that information believes, that the word “mailate” is a derogatory term commonly used to describe peopie ofAfrican descent although it’s titeral meaning is ”a fly“, The terms were used by empmyees 0f RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, and TESLA MOTORS, in a derogamry and offensive manner with the intent ofcreating a hostile work environment for CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES u- JURY TRIAL Case Nu: Lumsm:a 3}. 32. 33. 34. Case 3:19-Cv-O7657 Document 1~4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 4O employess ofAfrican descent This same behavior continued such that PlamtiffJACKSON and oxhers were daily exposed to (he use of the derogatory and offensive, hate speech umil Mr. JACKSON’S employment ending in January 2019. During the course oer. JACKSON‘S employment, “BRITTANY”, an agent of Defendant RANDSTAD, and Plaintiff‘s supervisor, was aware of the discriminatory and racist comments, behavior, postings and other offensive actions ofemployees, agents or assigns of each ofthe Defendants RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, and TESLA. Piaintif‘fis informed, and based 0n that information believes, “BRITTANY" was present, heard, and direcfiy witnessed the offensive conduct in the form of the consistent, daily use of the words 1) H“Nigger , Nigga”, and other derogatory terms, by Non-Afn'can American employees at the worksitc. Plaintif‘fJACKSON directly informed “BRITTANY", on several occasions, from the beginning ofhis employment in February 2018, until PlaintiffJACKSON was forced to resign from employment 'm January 2019, that employees used the offensive words, and other racially hate~filled language, in the presence ofPlaintiff, and that he and others were offended. He specifically requested that she step the assaultive and insulting, offensive behavior. She did noL Plaintifl‘JACKSON aiso sought relief from the conduct by repomng it to other Supervisors working on behalf OFDEFENDANTS RANSTAD and CEVA LOGISTICS. Mr. JACKSON reported the treatment to CEVA LOGISTICS site managers “FRANK”, and “MIKE”. 1n ‘ response to Plaintiff‘s compiaims, “BRYF’I‘ANY” and “FRANK” did nothing. The site manager “MIKE", also an employee, agent 0r assign ofDefendam CEVA LOGISTICS further demdnstrated the employers’ acquiescence to the treatment and stated he “heard ”Nigga” in a ”good way”. Neither 0fthe three defendants, RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, nor TESLA MOTORS, treatcd dther similarly situated employees not in the protected class ofPlaimiff JACKSON the same. CW! L C Case No owmwr FOR DAMAGESMJURV TRIAL ~ 7 24 25 26 27 28 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. W40. Case 3:19-cv~07657 Document 1~4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 4O DeSpite the complaints by PlaintifTJACKSON, the harassment, and intimidation continued. PlaintiffJACKSON is infomed, and based 0n that infommtion believes, the werkers that used the derogatory terms in his presence and the presence ofmher African Americans were not the same race 0r color as PlaintiffJACKSON. PlaintiffJACKSON is informed and based on then information believes that each ofthc DEFENDANT corporations, RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, and TESLA exclude African Americans from positions, pmicularly management and supervisory positions, as well as every level oftheir operations. RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA‘S attitude and beliefs about African Americans was demonstrated in (he presence ofplaintiffJACKSON by Defendants’ collective and individual failure to address and stop the racially hostile words and actions oftheir employees, The daily exposure to the derogatory word “nigger” was so persistent, in the presence ofPlaimiffand other African Americans, it tended t0 pose a threm to those individuals Additionally, the employees, agents or assigns of each ofthe Defendants would publish threatening and demeaning comments on the bathroom walls and the facility to which PlaintifflACKSON, and others, were assigned to work. F'mding the continual onslaught 0f A offehsive conduct unbearable, along with the employer RANDSTAD’S failure to accommodate his workplace injury, PlaintiffJACKSON ceuld no longer bear the conduct and resigned 'm January 2019. In addition to the racially motivated harassment from RANDSTAD and CEVA LOGISTICS employees, PlaintifflACKSON was exposed to similar treatment from the employees of TESLA who worked in the quality inspection area of‘the facility owned by CEVA LOGISTICS. PlaintiffJACKSON is informed, and based on that information believes, that none ofthe employees for TESLA were of African descent. The environment where the TESLA employees worked was equally hostile xowards African Americans CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - JURY TRIAL Case No.: 20 2 l . V.._;;;m- ~ ~ ~==22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RANDSTAD Failed to Accommodate Plaintiff’s workplace injury: ww44r On November 29, 2018, PiaintiffJACKSON sustained a work~related injuxys-vAfter returning CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~- JURY TRIAL CascNo.: 42 43. . In addition to the reports lo supervisors and managers “BRITTANY”, “FRANK”, and .The Defendants, and each of them, are directly responsible for allowing the discriminatow Case 3:19~CV~O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page lO of 4O “MIKE”, PlaintifflACKSON also attempted to remedy the hostiie environment by asking the employees that used the word “Nigger” in his presence not to use the word as it was disrespectful. He made mis request to employees ofRANDSTAD, CEVA, and TESLA. on a regular basis beginning from his initial hire in February 2018, until he was forced to resign in January 2019. The employees ofall three Defendants continued to regularly use the violently offensive words in PlaintiffJACKSON’S and other employees’ presence. The discriminatory, intimidating and harassing treatment continued until Plaintif‘fJACKSON felt increasingly uncomfortable in the work environment and resigned treatment and harassment to occur in the workplace. The Defendant employers were aware of the extremely offensive conduct. The employers failed to mmedy the harm, and in fact encouraged Lhe treatment by failing to mks any reasonable steps to stop the harassment and intimidation, 0r otherwise remedy me hostile work environmem The plaintiffwas harmed as a result ()me Defendant employers, their agents, employees, and assigns conduct When PlaintiFfJACKSON, and other African Americans attempted (o address the mistreatment, inequity, harassment, and unfairness, the RANDSTAD and CEVA LOGISTICS managers, blatantly and without regard 1’0 the civil rights oftheir employees acknowledged they were aware of the conduct, to work and requesting an accommodation, Defendant RANDSTAD refused to accommodate the injury as requested. instead “BRITTANY" assignsd PlaintiffJACKSON to work the day shift, and assigned him the demeaning task of picking up paper around the faciliry. The assignment did not accommodate his injury in that he was required to perform duties contra~ indicated by the injury. PlaintiffJACKSON is informed and based on that infommion believes that “BRITTANY“ intentionally failed to oiTer a reasonable accommodation both in RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA Forced Plaintiff JACKSON to Resign: n CIVIL COMPLAIN'TFOR DAMAGESwJURYTRIAL , , 1Q Case No.1 45. 46, 48. 49. . Mr. JACKSON worked in fear ofincreasing aggressions from his co-workers as a ofthc PlaintiffBYRON Jackson and others were required to endure. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 40 response m his complaints regarding the racial harassmem and discriminatmy treatmem, and in response to his reques‘ for an accommodation. After the failure to accommodate his injury, Plaimiff JACKSON advised ”BRITTANY“ that the change to day shjfi and requiring he pick up paper around the yard did not accommodate his injury. PlaintifTJACKSON requested access {o RANDSTAD’S Human Resources personnel to address his claims. The RANDSTAD site supervisor “BRITTANY”, failed to provide him the appropriate contact to make his claims to RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, and or TESLA MOTORS As a result ofthe abusive harassment, intimidation, and refusal to accommodate his injuries, Plalintif‘fJACKSON was forced to resign; however, he did not have a free choice in the maner. The conduct was unbearable. constam, unabated, use ofthe derogatory, racist, terms. The harassment that Mr. JACKSON experienced as a result ofRANDS’I‘AD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA‘S failure to act placed him in fear offimher harm; Lhus, to avoid the deplorable conditions he was forced to endure in that racist envimnmem, he submitted his resignation to ‘BRJTTANY” on or about January 16, 2019. There was no excuse orjustification for me discriminatory, harassing, and abusive conduct The Defendants, and each ofthem constructively terminated Plaimif’f JACKSON by their refusal to remedy the unlawful conduct, and allow a workplace free from harassment, and discriminatory treatment so abusive it was an act ofviolence. Mr. JACKSON was repeatedly assaulted with the use ofracist terms in the workplace, loud enough for Mr. JACKSON and other employees ofAfrican desasnt to hear, “Nigga”, “Nigger”, and “MaHats”. Additionally, ML JACKSON, and others were exposed to these words written on the walls in the public 20 2 l = -.-.;=a=..A;-n.~v-: 2 2 V 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19~Cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 4O bathrooms shared with empleees ofRANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS and TESLA. Mr. JACKSON was repeatedly subjected to language so vile it was an assauh given that an Afn'can American male had to listen to co-workers, and manager(s) use the racially offensive words on a regular basis. This 90nduct was unbearable, and Plaintiff JACKSON could no longer endure it; thus, he was constructively discharged. 50. I’laintiffJACKSON did not have an option Ln continued employment. The extremely racist, violent, and offensive conduct threatened his ability to continue to peacefully work in that environment; thus, after the Defendant demonstrated his refusal lo correct the conduct, Plaintiffresigned. _ I 5L Additionally, RANDSTAD‘S failure to reasonably accommodam his on thejob injury rendered PlaintiffJACKSON’S continued employment impossible. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON RACE (FEHA) (Against RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA) 52, Plaintiffre-allegcs and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set fomh herein‘ 53. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Were and are employers within the meaning of the FEHA, and as such, were barred from discriminating, and retaliating against employees on the mzmmbasis of, inter alia, race, as set forth in Govemment Code Sections 12940 et seq.“ 4wmn~ 54‘ At all relevant ximes herein, Plaintiff was an employee covered by Government Code s'ections 12940 et seq. Plaintiff‘worked at a facility with employees ofeach Defendant company. Employees of each ofthe Defendant employers engaged in the discrimination that created a racially hostile work environment for Plaintiff. By their conduct, Defendants discm‘minated and harassed Plaintiffon the basis ofhjs race, and color, due to his membership inlthe protected classes ofa Black, African-American male. n CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - JURY TRIAL H Case No.1 N 28‘ n CWILCOMPLAINTFOR DAMAGESmJURYTRIAL l" CaseNo‘: ' 55. 56‘ 57. 58. 59. M 60. 61. Case 3:19~Cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 13 of 4O As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in eam‘mgs and other employment benefits in‘an amount according to proof at the time thrial. As a further proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct ofDefendants, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, lack 0f self- confidence, embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard ofthe rights ofPlaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial, Plaintifi‘is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant x0 Government Code §12965(b)4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE FEHA (Against Defendants RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA) Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through S7, inclusive, of this Complaint és though fully set forth herein. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were and are employers within the meaning of the FEHA, and as such, were barred from discriminating and harassing employees on the basis of, inter alia, race and or color, as set forth in Government Code Sections 12940 ct seq. At all relevam times herein, Piaintif‘f was an employee covered by Governmcm Code sections 12940 et seq. By their conduct, Defendants discriminated and harassed Plaintiffon the bizsis ofhis race. AdditiOnally,'Defendants individuaHy and collectively, as employers at the shared worksim are subject to the anti-harassment provisions of FEHA. Accordingly, Defendants are liable for the harassing acts oftheir own employees, agentsand assigns under FEHA, and ihe harassment by the respective non-employeex y .zxmwamz 2' 23 24 ZS 26 27 66. n CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES w JURY TRIAL CascNo‘: 62. 63. 64. 65. 67. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page l4 of 4O At al) relevant times herein, Plaimiffwas rm employee covered by Government Code sections 12940 et seq. Plaintiffworked at a facility with employees ofeach Defendant company. Employees of each ofthe Defendant employers engaged 'm the discrimination that created a racially hostile work environment for Plaintiff. By their conduct, Defendants discriminated and harassed Plaintiffon the basis of‘his race, and color, due to his membership in the protected classes ofa Black, African~American male. As a proximate result ofthe wrongfu! conduct ofDefendams, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at the time oft'rial. As a further proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, lack ofself‘ confidence, embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all to his damage in em amount according to proof at the time of‘rial. Ln doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard othe rights ofPlainiif‘f, and Plaimiff is therefore entitled to puni‘ive damages in an amount according to proof at the time oftrial. Plaintiffis entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code §12965(b). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE T0 ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (Against Defendant RANDSTAD) Plaintiffre-alleges and incarporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65 above inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set fonh herein. The FEHA, Gov. Code sections 12900 e1 seq, requires the employer to engage in a good faith interactive process to assess the empioyee’s work restrictions and reasonabie accommodations available. The employer’s duty is triggered by a rcquestfrom the employee or whenever the employer knows or should have known ofthe need for accommodations. n:nm-zL-z: ‘ r. Case 8:19-cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 15 of 4O 68. PlaintiffJACKSON suffered a physical injury that required accommodation in November 2018. Defendant RANDSTAD was aware of Plaintiff‘s need for accommodations as he provided the request from his physician to the employer’s agent. Plaintiff JACKSON also explicitly informed “BRITTANY", the accommodation ofa transfer to the dayshift, picking up papers andjanitorial services, was not a reasonable accommodation given his injury and his work status as a forklift driver. 69. Defendant RANDSTAD never engaged in 2m interactive process with Plaintiff. JACKSON and, instead, continued to ignore his request, similar to the lack ofremédy to Lhe complaints 0f racial harassment and the racially hostile work environment. . 70. In doing {he acts herein alleged, Defendant RANDSTAD acted with Oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard othe rights oer. JACKSON, and Mr. JACKSON is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof‘at the time of m'al. Mr. JACKSON is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code section 12965 (b), FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE 1N VIOLATION OF FEHA (Against Defendant RANDSTAD) 71. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 70 above inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 72. The FEHA, Gov. Code sech’ons 12900 e! seq, requires the employer to provide reasonable w-z-mr-waccommodations that will allow an employee to continue to perfonn the essential functions of hiSjob‘ The empioyer’s duty is triggered by a request from the employee or whenever the employer knows or should have known ofthe need for accommodations, 73. Mr. JACKSON suffered a phySical injmy, on thejob, that the employer RANDSTAD was ‘ aware required accommodation 'm November 2018. Defendant RANDSTAD was aware of Plaintiff’s need for accommodations as he provided the request from his physician to the emponer’s agent. u CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES w JURY TRIAL l Case No.: ‘. 74. 75. 76. 77. . Based 0n the above-alleged conduct, Defendants discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff, Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 16 of 4O Defendant RANDSTAD never engaged in an interactive process with Mr. JACKSON and, instead, continued to ignore his request, similar to the lack ofremedy to the complaints of racial harassment and the racially hostile work environmem I In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendant RANDSTAD acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard ()me rights oer. JACKSON, and Mr. JACKSON is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proéf at the time oftrial‘ Mr‘ JACKSON is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code section 12965 (b). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTTVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBILC POLICY (Against Defendant RANDSTAD) Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 Lhrough 75, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 1t is me public policy ofthe State ofCalifomia, codified, and mandated in the FEHA and other applicable law, to make it an unlawful employment practice for employees to be subjected to the unlawful conducx ofharassmem and discrimination experienced by Plaintiff JACKSON, described herein. The public policy explicitly and implicitly stated by Lhe FEHA is designed t0 protect all employees and non-employees from the conduct experienced by Plaintiff. to such a degree it threatened him; thus, its complicity 'Ln the conduct, and failure to Cure it resulted in a constructive discharge ofPlaintifffrom employment with RANDSTAD. The actions were taken based on grounds that violate California fundamental public policies prohibiting discrimination against employees based upon their race or color, and prohibiting interfering With and harassing employees for membership in a protected class, as mandated by Govemment Code §§ 12940, er saq, and 12945.2. CIVILCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESMJURYTRIAL IS Case No; -::.:::-.‘._-:::~.;.L Case 3:19-Cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 17 of 4O 79‘ As a proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct ofDefendants, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earhings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof‘at the time oftrial. As a funher proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct ofDef'bndams, Plaintit‘f‘has sufl‘ered and cominues to suffer humiliation, lack ofself- confidence, embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all to his damage in an amount according t0 proof at (he time ofm'al. 80. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendant's acted with oppression, fraud, malice and in conscious disregard ofthe rights ofi’iaintiff, and Plaintiffis therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proofat me time oftrial. Insofar as the actions alleged are attributable to employees of Defendant, Defendant was aware ofthe unfimess ofthe employees and/or they continued to employ the employees after notice with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. Thus, Defendants ratified the wrongful conduct entitling I’laintiffto the recovery ofexemplary and punitive damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against all Defendants, RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, AND TESLA) 81. Plaintif‘fre-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 80, inclusive, of this Complaint as though Fully set forth herein. V 82‘ The condum of Defendants as set forth above was so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded the boundaries of a decent society and lies outside the compensation bargain. Said conduct -- ~~«---:m-was intended to cause Plaintiff‘savcre emotional distress or was done in conscious disrcgard ofthe probability ofcausing severe emotional distress; Said conduct was also in direct violation ofCalifomia public policy. 83‘ As a proximate resutt ofthc wrongful conduct ofDefendants, Plaintifl’has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount ‘ according to proofat the time oftrial. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct 0f Defendants, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, u CIVILCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESwJURY TRIAL [(1 Case No.; 20 2] . . gran”: 23 24 25 u 84. 851 86. 87. 88. i! 89. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 12-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 18 of 4O emotional distress and mental anguish! all t0 his damage in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. 1n doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice and in conscious disregard oflhe rights ofPlaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according lo proofat the time ofm‘al. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEG‘LIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against All Defendants RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, AND ’I‘ESLA) Plaintiff rc»alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 throug’h'82, inclusi'vc, 0f this Complaint as though fully set fonh herein. At a1] relevant times herein, Defendantswere and are employers within the meaning ofthe FEHA, and as such, were barred from harassing employees on the basié of, inter alia, race and color, as set forth in Government Code Sections 12940 ct seq. At a1] relevant times herein, Plaintiffwas an employee covered by Government Code sections 12940 et seq] By their conduct, Defendams harassed Plaintiffon the basis ofhis race and/or color, because ofhis race and color, an African American male. As a proximata result of‘the wrongful conduct ofDefendams, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in eamings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proofat the time ofm’al‘ As a further proximate resuit ofthe wrongful conduct of Defendant's; Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, lack of self- -confldence, Embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all to his damage in anr-w " ' amount according to proofat the xime oftrial. Ln doing flue acts herein alleged, Defendants negligently acted 0r failed t0 am without regard t0 the impact of the oppression, fraud, malice, and hatred inflicted upon Plaintiff, and negligently disregarded the rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to damages in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES v- JURY TRIAL 1’ Case No,: 20 21 22 23 Case 3:19~cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 19 of 4O 90. Plaintit‘fis entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant t0 Government Code §12965(b). PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfully prays forjudgment against Defendants, am} each ofthem, according to proof, as follows: a. For general and special damages, including 10st wages, in a sum in excess oflhe minimumjurisdictional limit ofmis Court, according t0 proofat trial; b. For interest at the maximum legal rate; c. For punitive damagas; d. For reasonable attorney's fees; e. For costs ofsuil incurred herein; and h. For such other and further relief as {he Court may deemjust and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffhereby requests ajury trial on the claims so triable. Dated: October 7 ,2019 BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P‘c. Na‘il Benjamin Attorney for Plaintiff, BYRON JACKSON #5 . u CIVIL. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES n- JURV TRIAL l Case No; Case 3:19-Cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 20 of 4O CM~010 dmss: F~R‘K‘Wfia?H‘J'XKA” “°?§A”°9W3‘§’3{"°I§x'°flB'”v”§§°;§"WL‘TY‘AI3UEV/\ (SEN 312935) ”WWWWW BENJAMIN LAW GROUP I290 B Street Ste. 1314 Hayward CA 9454 mmnmwo. 51o 897 9967 mo 51o 439 2632 E'ec‘mmf‘a'w F‘md AHORNEVFORMW. PlaimiffBYRON JACKSON y super'or CCU“ 0f CA. summon count or mumnmmouun 0F SANTA CLARA ounty of Santa Clara, smeemooRsss: {8% 11:3 )Ejm gtreet n 10/7/2019 3:45 PMmums Aooness: '1rst treet 4 . CA w BRANCH NAME: nvelope: 3489234 n‘ammg CASE NAME: Byron Jackson v. Randsband Inc., er. al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Deslgnaklon MSENUMBER‘1QCV356275 Unlimited [:1 leued C3 Counter D Joinder(Amoum (Amoum JUDGE, demanded- demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant ‘ exceeds $25000) $25.000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31402) DEW: Hams 7~6 below must be completed (see inslrucn‘ons on page 2). 1. Check one box below for me case type mat best describes this case: Aum Ton Contract Provlslonalty Complex Clvll Llngatlon Am 22> [:3 8mm 0, comaCWmmnw (08) (cm. Rules o: Com rules s.aoo~s.403) [3 Uninsured melon s! (48) [:3 Rum 3.740 collections (09) C] Antllmsl/Trade regulmion (03) 0mm PllPD/WO (Personallnjury/Propony [:3 Other collecllons (O9) m Conslruction defeck ($0) Damage/Wrongful Death) Ton Insurance covarage (13) [:3 Mass mn (40) [:3 Asbestos (04) 0mg, comma (37) [:3 Secunues Hugmmn (28) E3 PFOdVCl “ab““y (24) Real Property [:3 'Environmentalfl‘oxic ion (30)C] Medical mammal“; (45) Emme’“ domaw'nVerse D Insurance coverage claims adslng from lhe {:3 0mm PIIPD/WD (23) condemfiflllon (1 4) above listed provisionally complex wse NonM/Po/wo (0mm) Ton C] Wrongrul evmlon (33) W998 (41) [:3 Business lort/unfmr business pumice (07) C] Othe’ real pmpem/ (26) Emmmmom °' ”dame“ [:2] Civflrigms (08) Unlawful Detalner (:3 Enforcemenlofjudgmenl(20)D Delemellon (13) Commercm (3‘) Mlscollaneous Clvll Comptalnt [:3 Freud (1e) [j Residentiai (32) D Rico (27)a mmneclualpropertyUQ) C3 ONES (35) Olhercomplalm(notspecified ab0ve)(42) [:3 P‘OYBSS'OV‘B' “CQHBEV‘C‘? (25) Juan!“ ROVIO‘” Mlscallnnews Civil Potluon E3 OW" non'W/PD/WD l0“ (35) [:1 ASS“ {menu’s (05) Partnership and corporate govemanoe (21) em loymem {:3 Pemlon re: ammam?” award (1 1) [:3 Olher petonn (no! specifiedabove) (48) Wrongtw termination [38) [:3 Writ of mandate (02) [j Other employment (15) C] omerjudlclal review (39) 2. This case U is CZ] is'no‘ complex under rule 3 400 of me California Rules of Coun. I! the case {s complex mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a‘ [:3 Large number of separately represented parties d. [:1 Large number of witnesses b.D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel i95ues that will be time consuming to resolve =--c [:3 Substantiai amount of documentary evidence e. [:3 Coordinaxion wim related amicna pending in one or more courts in other counties, states. or counm‘es. or in a federai coufl ""“f. [:3 Substantial posuudgment judicial supervision “' Remedies sought (check al/(haf apply): a. Z monetary hm nonmonetary; deciaratory or injuncuve {elief c. .pun‘mve Number ofcauses of action (specify): SEVEN This case [:3 is - is not a class action suit If there are any known related cases file and serve a notice of related case. {You may use falm CM-O15) Date: October 7, 2019 Ab ' ALLYSSA VILLANUEVA g MN‘V (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) @9199» (SIGNATURE 0Fme 0n Anormev FOR mm) NOTICE e Plaimifl must file this cover sheet with the firs( paper filed In me action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code) (C31 Rules of Court rule 3 220. ) Failure to file may result in sanctions a File this cover sheet In addifion to any cover sheet required by locai court rule. a 1f this case is compiex under rum 3.400 e1 seq. of me California Rules of Courtl you must sawe a copy of this cover sheet on all Omar parfies (o the action or pioceeding. e Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover Shem will be used for statistical purposes onl’y mo 1 o! 2 Fonn Adoplw lot Mundalory Uso Cal. Ruins 01 Conn Mos 2,30, 3.220. 3.400(“03. 3.740: JudidMCoundlol Camomm I CIVH" CASE COVER SHEET Ca!‘ Smndnms oi Juuia‘e! Aumnlsuaum. am. 3.10 CM-Olo (Rov Jv‘ly \. 2007) mnvoouu/nlo‘cagov Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 21 of 4O C INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET M410 To Plaintiffs and Others Fillng Firs! Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example. a complamt) in a clvil case. you mus! complete and file, along with your firs! paper. the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. Thls Informatlon will be used to compile statistics about me types and numbers of cases filed. You must comple‘e Hems 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more speclfic type o! case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. lf me case has multiple causes of action. check the box that hem indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing {he sheet. examples of the cases that be1ong under each case type 1n item 1 are provided beiow. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. FaiIure to file a cover sheet with the first paper flled in a clvll case may subject a party. its counsel. or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties In Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “coilections case" under ruie 3.740 ls defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000. exclusive of interest and attorney's fees. arising from a transaction in which property, services. or money was acquired on cred“, A collections case does not Include an action seeking the foll0wing: (1) ton damages. (2) punitive damagest (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3‘740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time‘for-servioe requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject lo the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Panles in Complex Cases. In complex cases only. parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet (o designate whether me case is complex. 1f a plaintifl believes the case ls compiex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court ‘hts mum be indicated by compieting (he approprlate boxes (n Items 1 and 2. l! a piaintlff designates a case as complex. the cover sheet must be Served With me comptalm on a1) parties to (he action. A defendant may file and serve no la‘er than the time of Rs first appearance a joinder in (he plaimiff’s designation. a coumerdesignation that the case is not complex. or. if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Ton Auto (22Wersoma! anury/Propeny Damage/Wmngful Death UninSured Motorist (46) (lithe case Involves (m uninsured malon‘st claim subject (o arbitration, check this item Instead o/Aum) 0mm PUPDIWD (Pomona! Injury! Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Ton . Asbestos (04) Asbestos Pmperty Damage Asbestos Pemonm Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or onlc/envlmnmanlul) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpraclice- Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Heallh Cara Maipractlce Other PllPD/WD (23) Premises Llablmy (e.gq slip and fall) lntemional Bodily lnjury/PONVD (e.gu assaun. vandalism) [ntenlional (nfllctlon n! Emolional Distress Negligent InflicUon of Emotional Distress Other PI/PDNVD Non-PllPD/WD (Oxhar) Ton Business Ton/Unfeh Business Practice (07) Civll Rights (8.9., dlsodmlnallon‘ (alse arrest) (nor civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e.g.. slander. libel) 13 Fraud ($6) lntelleclua! Property (19) Professionai Negllgence (25) Legal Maipractlce O(her Professional Malpracflce (nor medical or legal) 0mm Non-Pl/PD/WD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Terminauon (86) O&her Emptoymenl (15) CMr0\0(Rav‘ JW 1, 2007) CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Conlrack Breach of ConlracWVarranty (06) Breach of Renlnl/Lease Contract (no! unlawful detalner or wmngru/ eviction) ConlracWVarramy BreacHeller Plaintiff (no! fmud ornegligence) Negligent Bleach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contrack/Warramy Conecflons (9.9.. money owed. open book accounts) (09) Collectlon Case~Sel|er Plalnmf Omar Promissory NoleJCollecHons Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Aulo Subrogau‘on Other Coverage Other Contracl (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domalnllnverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (38) Other Rea! Property (0.9.. qmet tltle) (26) Wrn o! Possession oi Real Property 'Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Tine omer Rem Property (no! ema‘nenr domain, landlom/tenam, or foreclosure} Untawfui Domlner Cummerclai (31) Residential (32) Drugs. (38) (i! the casa involves illegal drugs, check (h/s Item; omeIw/se, repon as Commarc/a/ or Residential) Judiclai Rovkow Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitrakion Award (\ 1) Wn'l of Mandate (02) wm-Admlnlsxmtlve Mandamus Wn'l-Mandamus on Limited Coun Case Manet Wril~Othar Urnlled Coun Case Review (?\her Judldal Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Nance of AppeaL-Labor Commiasloner Appeats CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provisionalry Complex Clvll Llugatlon (Cal. Rules of Cmm Ruins S.AOMAOB) Amnmsl/dee Regulann (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Llllgmlon (28) Environmental/Toxlc Tun (30) lnswanoe Coverage Claims (an‘slng (mm provisionally complex case type listed above) (4 1) Enlorcamam o! Judgmem Enforcemem of Judgment (20) Abstrac! o! Judgment (Om of County) Confession of Judgmem (norr domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Admmistrmive Agency Award (no! unpaid laxas) Pellllon/Cemficalion of EMry of Judgment on Unpald Taxes OthEéaEnforcemenl of Judgmem se Mlsceilaneous CMI Complalnt RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (r12) Declaratory Relief Only Injuncllva Rene! Only (non harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commechal Complaint Case (non-Iorl/non-complex) Other CIvH Complamt rnon-tort/non-comp/ex) MiscoHanooua Clvll Petition Partnership and Corporate Govemence (21) Other Petition (nor specified abova) (48) CM! Harassment Workplace Violence EIder/Dependenl Aduh Abuse Election Comesl Pamlon for Name Change Pelmon (or Rene! me Lale Claim Other CM! Petition Pane a UH Case 3:19-cvu07657 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 22 of4O ATTACHMENT cv-so12 CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE ' Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara CASE NUMBER: 19CV356275 797 North First 5L, San Jose, CA 95173 PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE FORM PLAINTIFF (me person‘suing): Wimin 60 days after filing the lawsuit, you must serve each Defendant th (he Complaint. Summons an AI(ernazive Dispuze Resoluu’on (ADR) Information Sheel, and a copy of this Civil Lawsuit Nou‘ce, and you must file written pmof of such service I DEFENDANT;\C| Plane 4 4 Cilizcn ol‘Anomchlalc 2 2 | - - omhi /P-' “) IP12 ‘c 5 5 2 U.S.Govcrnmcn| Defendant X4 [Dilycrsibén I_ P I _ / ”I ‘ X OnggigmcxyiI(‘llxnoill::|.‘g?mc m x ' (m mm mm,“ ”p “f "Hm m m" ) Cilizcn or Subject of'u 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Counuy xv. NATURE O F SU IT (P/(IL‘U (III ”X” in 0w liux Only) CONTRACT 'I‘ORTS FORFEI’FURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY ’ OTHER STATUTES llO Insurance 1110 Marine I30 Miller ACI MO Ncgminhlc lnslrumcnl ISO Recovcly of Overpayment 0f Veteran‘s Bcncfils . l5) Mcdicmc Acl I52 Rccuvmy of Defaulted Sludcm Luans (Excludes Wlurzms) 153 I(ccovuxy of Ovcrpnymcm anclcuun's Bcncms PERSONAL INJURY 3|O Airplane 313 Airplane l’roducl Liability 320 Assauh. l,ihcl 8L Shmdct' 330 chcml Employcrs' Liability 340 Mm inc M5 Marinc Producl Liability 350 Mumr Vehicle 355 Motor Vehiclc [’rodum l,iabilily 360 Ouhcr Personal Injury 362 I’cl'sonal lnjmy ~Mc25 Drug Rclnlcd Seizure of Propumy 2| USC § K8] 690 Olhcr 422 Appeal 28 USC§ I58 £823 \Vilhdluwzll 28 USC § 157 LABOR 710 Fuir Labor Smndnrdx Act 720 Labur/Mnnagumcnl Rclminns 740 Ruilwuy Labor Ack 7Sl Family and Medical Lcavc Act 790 Other Labor Lilignlion 79! Empmycc Relircmcnl Income Security Acl R20 Cupyrighls MO Pamm 835 Palcm~Abbrcviatcd New i Drug Appliumion { x40 'I‘radcnwk 3 f mommy mcn'rs } E ) socmLSEcukrW 86l H!A “395”) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DiwC/DIWW (405(g)) 8M SSlD ‘l'illc XVI 865 RS] (405m)) I FEDERAL TAX surrswj i s i . 870 Taxes (U.S. l’iuimifl‘or Dcf‘cndanl) 87] lRS~Thir Sacramento, California 958 144428 Telephone; (916)448-0159 Facsimile: (91 6) 558-4839 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Kiran S. Lopez (SEN 252467) klopez@seyfarth.com 560 Mission Street, 3 lst Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397~8549 Attorneys for Defendant RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC (enormously sued as Randstad, Inc.) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BYRON JACKSON, an individual, Plaintiff, V. RANDSTAD INC, CEVA LOGISTICS, TESLA MOTORS, and DOES 1~SO, inclusive; individually, Defendants. Case No. 19cv356275 DECLARATION OF KAREN LUBRANO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CEVA LOGISTICS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL Complainth‘Zed: October 7, .2019 Trial Date: None. DECLARATION OF KAREN LUBRANQ 1N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CEVA LOGESTHCS’ NQTICE (NF REMOVAL 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv~07657 Document 3 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 0f 3 DECLARATION 0F KAREN LUBRANO I, Kayen Lubrano, declare as follows: 1. I have'personal knowledge 'ofthe facts contained in this declaration, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify as to their accuracy. 2. I am a Paralegal for Randstad US, LLC, which is a limited liability company wherein 99.9% of the membership interest is held by‘ Randstad Nomh America, Luc., and 0.1% of the membership interest is held by Randstad General Partner (US), LLC. Randstad North America, Inc. holds a 99.9% membership interest in Randstad InhOuse Services, LLC, a Defendant in this action (“Randstad”). 3. 1n my capacity as a Paralegal for Randstad US, LLC, I am familiar with and have access to payroll, employment, and personnel records of current and former employees of Randstad in California, including Plaintiff Byron Jackson (“Plaintiff’), which are kept in Randstad’s payroll, timekeeping, and human resources management systems in the ordinary course of business. I also have access to Randstad’s electronic payroll systems and electronic databases regarding Randstad’s employees. Also in this capacity, I am familiar with the comorate and organizational structure, as well as the operations, 0f Randstad. 4. On October 21, 201 9, Randstad was served with copies 0f the Complaint through its California agent for service of process, CSCHLawyers Incorporating Service in Sacramento, California. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5‘ I have reviewed the employment and personnel records for Plaintiff, t0 which I have access in my capacity as a Paralegal for Randstad US, LLC. The only home address listed for Plaintiff was in San Jose, California. Plaintiff provided Randstad with his home address during the course ofhis employment for purposes of his personnel file, payroll checks, state payroll, and tax withholdings. Randstad’s employees are required to keep their contact information current. 6. In my capacity as a Paralegal for Randstad US, LLC, I am familiar with the entity structure 0f Randstad and its member associations. I am also familiar with the states in which those associations are organized. For the same reason, I am familiar with where Randstad and its member associations maintain their headquarters. Defendant Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC is a limited liability company organized and formed under the laws of the State 0f Delaware. Randstad’s principal place of business and headquarters are in Atlanta, Georgia, where its high»level officers direct, control, and coordinate 2 DEELARA'MQN 01F KAREN I‘IUBRANO TIN SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANT CEVA LOGISTECS’ NUTKCE OI“ REMQ‘VAL ®\}O\ H. 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv~07657 Document 3 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 0f 3 Randstad’s corporate activities. Randstad has two members: Randstad North America, Inc. holds a 99.9% membership interest; and Randstad General Partner (US), LLC holds a 0.1% membership interest. 7. Randstad General Palmer (US), LLC is a limited liability company organized and formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. Its headquamers and principal place of business is in Atlanta, Georgia, where its high~leve1 officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities4 Randstad General. Partner (US), LLC’s sole member is Randstad North America, Inc. 8. Randstad North America, Inc. is a, corporation organized and formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. Its headquarters and principal place ofbusiness is in Atlanta, Georgia, where its high~ leVel officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. 9. As noted above, I have reviewed the employment and personnel records for Plaintiff, to which I have access in my capacity as a Paralegal for Randstad US, LLC. Plaintiff‘s last day worked with Randstad was Ianuaw 3, 2019. A1 that Lime, Plaintiff earned $21.50 per hour, and worked 4O hours per week‘ X daclare under penalty of pexjjury under the laws ofthe State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20th day ofNovember, 2019 at Ft. Lauderdal e, Florida.%W®WW KAREN LUBRANO 3 DECIARATKON OF KAREN LUHRAND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CEVA LOGRSTICS’ NOTLKCE OF REMOVAL Adams, Lauretta (San Francisco) From: ECF-CAND@cand.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 6:32 PM To: efiling@cand.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 3:19~cv-O76S7 Jackson v. Ceva Logistics U.S., inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics et al Declaration in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please D0 NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free eIectronIc copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District CoUrt California Northern District Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Dale, Conor on 11/20/2019 at 6:31 PM PST and filed on 11/20/2019 Case Name: Jackson v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics et a! Case Number: 3:19*cv-O7657 Filer: Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics Tesla, inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors Document Number2§ Docket Text: Declaration of Karen Lubrano in Support of [1] Notice of Removal, filed byCeva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics, Tesla, Inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Re|ated document(s)[1]) (Dale, Conor) (Filed on 11/20/2019) 3:19~cv-O7657 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Byron Jackson nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com ConorJohn Dale conor.da|e@jacksonlewis.com, adamsl@jacksonlewis.com, SanFranciscoDocketing@JacksonLewis.com 3:19-cv-07657 Please see Local Rule 5~5; Notice has NOT been eiectronically mailed to: The foilowing document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Origina! filename:C:\Users\adamsl\Desktop\Dec of Lubrano |SO Notice of Removalpdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP CANDStamp_lD=97733613O [Date=1l/20/2019] [FileNumber=16444866-O ][7bO1399482953fdd3€25b504aa2d7bf34228c16c5c36651dc8c19f043a1013ca0dc f0ee6f6d93008b91b3a725a3090fe624e8b2c7c3c25bcb6l110d5a3d40806]] Document description:Exhibit A Original filename:C:\Users\adams|\Desktop\Ex‘ A to Dec of Lubrano ISO Notice 0f Remova|.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP CANDStamp_|D=97733613O [Date=11/20/2019] [FileNumber=16444866-1 ][07d17b209e3142Cf6454226df8€da901d262d1226b50c61a23984caa83bddef9fbf 9fOOde8d315b3fd07d6621495129900e32f4dda386c2f143a09f6fb673150]] CAND-ECF Page 1 0f] Other Supporting Documents 3:19-cv-O7657 Jackson v. Ceva Loqistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Loqistics et al U.S. District Count California Northern District Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Dale, Conor on 1 1/20/20 19 at 6:31 PM PST and filed on 1 1/20/2019 Case Name: Jackson v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics et a1 Case Number: 3:19~cv-07657 Filer: Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics Tesla, Inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors Document Number: Q Docket Text: Declaration of Karen Lubrano in Support of [1] Notice of Removal filed byCeva Logistics U. 8., Inc erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics, Tesla, Inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors (.Attachments # (1) Exhibit A)(Re|ated document(ss)[1]) (Dale, Conor) (Filed on 11/20/2019) 3:19~cv-07657 Notice has been electronically mailed t0: Byron Jackson nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com Conor John Dale conor.dale@jacksonlewis.com, adamsl@jacksonlewis.com, SanFranciscoDocketing@JacksonLewis.com 3:19-cv~07657 Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed t0: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document descriptionzMain Document Original filename:C:\Users\adamsl\Desktop\DeC ofLubrano ISO Notice of Removallpdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP CANDStamp_ID=97733613O [Datesl 1/20/2019] [FileNumber=16444866-O ] [7b0139946295afdd3625b504aa2d7bf‘3422801605036651dc8cl9f043a1013ca0dc ere6f6d93008b91 b3a725a3O90f6624e8b2c7c3c25bcb61 1 10d5a3d40806]] Document description: Exhibit A Original filename: C:\UseIs\adamsl\Desktop\Bx. A to Dec of Lublano ISO Notice of Removal.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP CANDStamp__ID=977336130 [Date=1 1/20/2019] [FileNumberx16444866-1 ] [O7d17b209e31420f6454226df80da901d262d1226b50061a23984caa83bddef9fbf 9f00de8d31Sb3fd07d66214951299008321‘4ddaa8602f143a09f6fb673150]] https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi~bin/Dispatch.pl?4032082006978 1 8 11/20/201 9 Case 3:19~cv~07657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 19 NA' IL BENJAMIN ESQ. (SBN 240354) ALLYSSA VILLANUEVA, ESQ (SBN 31 2935) BENJAMIN LAW G I,{OUP P.C 1290 B Stteet, Suite 314 Ha ward CA 94541 Te ephone. (510) 897-9965 Facmmile: (510) 439~2632 Email. nbeniamin@beniaminlawgroupcom allyssaabbeniaminlawgroupxom Attorneys for Plaintiff BYRON JACKSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE BYRON JACKSON CASE NO: Plaintiff, _ .UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR: vs. RANDS"1“AD 1N0, CEVA LOGISTICS, 1. DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON fl x ~ , a _ ' ‘ u ‘ RACE (FEHA)|1I3'SL'A M01 ORS, and DOES 1 SO, inclusive, 2. HARASSMENT BASED 0N RACEmdmdually, _(FEIIA) 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE Defendants} GOOD FAITH-INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; 4. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODA'I‘E IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; 5. WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 7‘ NEGLIGENT INFLIC'I‘ION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff‘BYRON JACKSON (“PlaintiffJACKSON” or “MR. JACKSON"), an individual, hereby brings his Complaint against Defendants RANDSTAD INC, CEVA LOGISTICS, AND TESLA MOTORS (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants", or individually as CIVIL CONH’LAIN'J" FOR DAMAGES -- JURY TRIAL Case No: 1‘) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 19 “RANDSTAD” or “Defendant RANDS’I‘AD”; “CEVA” or “Defendant CEVA”; and “TESLA” 01' “Defendant TESLA”) and, DOES 1-50, and states and alleges as follows: 1 . PARTIES Plaimifl‘BYRON JACKSON is an African American man. At all relevant times, he was an employee of RANDS'I‘AD. Defendant RANDSTAD is a temporary staffing agency that contracts t0 provide workers t0 various industries throughout California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based 0n that information alleges, that RANDSTAD contracted with CEVA LOGIS'HCS to provide employees and workers t0 CEVA LOGISTICS. RA'NDSTAD is registered t0 do business in the state of‘Calif‘oxénia and maintains a principal place(s) ofbusiness in California. CEVA LOGISTICS, is a world-widc supply chain management company that designs and implements solutions for freight management and contract logistics, specializing in the needs of'automotive and other sectors. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information alleges, that CIBVA LOGISTICS contracted with RANDSTAD for the provision ofworkers to its various facilities in the State of‘Calif‘omia. Thus, CEVA LOGISTICS contracted with RANDSTAD for the services ofPlaintiffJACKSON in the relevant times alleged herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information alleges, that the facilities in which he worked for his employer RANDSTAD were owned, operated or controllcd by CEVA LOGISTICS. Additionally, then employees that committed the acts alleged herein were also employed by CEVA LOGISTICS. CEVA LOGISTICS is registered to do business in the state 0f California and maintains a principal place(s) ofbus'mess in California. CIVIL, COMPLAINI‘ 150R DAMAGES ~- JURY TRIAL Case No; 19 20 2! 22 23 2/1 25 26 27 28 6. Case 3:19-Cv~07657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 19 Plaintiff is informed, and based on that information alleges, that the work by Plaintiff BYRON JACKSON was performed at facilities owned and operated by CEVA LOGISTICS, for the benefit ofTESLA MOTORS. Defendant TESLA MOTORS, is an automobile manufacturing company that specializes in the manufacture of vehicles with an emphasis 0n maintaining sustainable energy. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information alleges, that TESLA MOTORS contracted with CEVA LOGISTICS and RANDSTAD, directly or indirectly f‘or yhe services of‘Plaintiff BYRON JACKSON a1 facilities engaged in the manufacture and production of "I‘ESLA MOTOR products. TESLA is registered to do business in the state of California and maintains a principal place(s) ofbusiness 'm California. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based on that. beliefaileges, that at all relevant times “BRITTANY” {last name unknown] was and now is an individual employed at RANDSTAD as a manager or supervisor, RANDSTAD contracted to provide employees t0 work at CEVA Logistics, directly or indirectly for the benefit ofTESLA MOTORS. . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based 0n that beliefalleges that at all relevant times “FRANK” [last name unknown] was and now is an individual employed at the worksite owned and maintained by CEVA Logistics, directly 0r indirectly for the benefit of’TESLA MOTORS. . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that beliefalleges that at all relevant times “MIKE” [last name unknown] was and now is an individual employed at the worksite owned and maintained by CEVA Logistics, directly 01‘ indirectly for the benefit ofTESLA MOTORS. ' . Defendants, Doe 1 through Doe 50, inciusive, are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities arc unknown to Plaintiff". When their true names and capacities am CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL Case No: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 n CIVIL COMPLAIN'I‘ FOR DAMACES ~ JURY TRIAL Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 19 ascertained, Plaintiff wiH amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and behaves, and on that basis alleges, that each ofthe fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff‘s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those defendants. . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times mcntioned in this Complaint, each defendant was the employee 01‘ agent 01' assign of its co-defendemts and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint, was acting within the course and scope ofsuch agency and employment and assignment, and acted in such manner as to ratify the conduct of its oo-def‘endant, and each ofthem. . “Defendants" shall mean all Ofthem and each ofthem, unless stated otherwise. VENUE & JURISDICTION . Venue is proper in Santa Clara County as Plaintiff‘at all relevant times worked for the Defendant(s) RANDSTAD, for the benefit 0f Defendants CEVA and TESLA MOTORS, at a site in Santa Clara County, California. ‘ Venue is proper in Santa Clara County as the actions alleged herein all occurred in Santa Clara County, California. Jurisdiction is proper because Defendant RA'NDSTAD, was doing business in the State 0f California. The subject matter ofthis suit is properly within thejurisdiction ofthis Court, as the action incorporates an amount in controversy as set forth in the Complaint, which exceeds $25,000.00 Jurisdiction is proper because Defendant CIZVA LOGIS’HCS, was doing business in the State of‘CalH’omia. The subject matter oi‘this suit is properly within thejurisdiction ofthis Court, Case No.: 20 2 I 22 23 24 7.5 26 27 28 20. 22. 23. 244 25, 26. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Fited 11/20/19 Page 6 of 19 as the action incorporates an amount in controversy as set forth in the Complaint, which exceeds $25,000.00. .Jurisdiction is proper because Defendant TESLA, was doing business in the State 0F California. The subject matter ofthis suit is properly within thejurisdidion ofthis Court, as the action incorporates an amount in controversy as set forth in the Complaint, which exceeds $25,000.00. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Plaintif‘f‘JACKSON, has complied with Lhe FEHA and EEOC’S administratiw exhaustion requirements, in that I’laintif‘fJACKSON timely filed a complaint (the “DFIEH” Complaint) with the California Department ofFair Employment and Housing (DFEH). .The DFEH Complaint was filed within the requisite time limits following the unlawful conduct described in this Complaint. Plaintiff‘JACKSON received a right t0 sue notice from DFEH. This action is timely filed after the requisite right to sue notice was received by Plaintiff JACKSON. Any and a1] other prerequisites to the filing Ofthis suit have been met. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Defendants RANDSTAD, CBVA, and TESLA, and each co-defcndant, named and DOES, have allowed a racially hostile environment t0 exist 0n its worksite, wikhout restraint. The Defendants demonstrated that a culture of“ extreme hatred, disrespect) t0 the point 0f severe emotional damage to African American employees was invited and tolerated. Defendants’ employees, agents, or assigns, each individually and collectively, “BRITTANY”, “FRANK”, and “MIKE”, were cmpkoyed in a supervisory capacity by €ach DEFENDANT business. Bach ofme individual supervisors 0r managers, “BR1”I"'1"/~\NY”, “FRANK”, and CIVIL COMPLAIN'I' FOR DAMAGES - JURY TRIAL Case No.1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 u 27. 28, 29. 30. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 19 “MIKE" blatantly demonstrated that the racist behavior would be tolerated at sites 0n which RANDSTAD contracted to provide employees for CEVA LOGISTICS, and'for the benefit of TESLA MOTORS The protected rights include, but are not limited to, the right to work in an envirom'nent free oi unlawful, discriminatory, and harassing racist comments, rants, name calling, exposure to racist material on walls in employee common areas, the right to prevent unlawful harassment and retaliation; and the right to engage in protected activity regarding work conditimm Additionally, the rights protected include the right t0 work free from discrimination on the basis ofa disability, or the perception ofa disability. As a result OFthe conduct perpetrated against PlaintifflACKSON, and other individuals ofAfrican descent, Mr. JACKSON was fdrced to resign from the employment. In or about February 201 8, PlaintiffJACKSON was hired by RANDSTAD, and assigned to work at the CEVA LOGISTICS facility located at 1710 Little Orchard, in San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, Plaintiff’JACKSON is informed and based on that information believes that Defendant CEVA LOGISTICS leased a warehouse at that location t0 provide contracted services to Defendant TESLA Motors, PlaintifflACKSON reported t0 the worksite at CEVA LOGISTICS, and was assigned t0 the, graveyard shift, working from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., as a forklift driver. Plaintiff JACKSON was‘assigned to the site supervisor, “BRITTANY”. Piaintif‘f is informed and based 0n that information believes “BRITTANY” is an individual not of’Af‘rican descent. From the beginning oer. JACKSON’S employment by RANDSTAD in February 2018, PlaintiffJACKSON and other African~American employees were daily exposed to the use 0f the terms “nigger”, “nigga”, and “mallate”. Plaintiff‘JACKSON is informed, and based on that information believes, that the word “mallate” is a derogatory term commonly used t0 describe people ofAfrican descent although it’s literal meaning is “a fly”. The terms were used by employees ofRANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, and TESLA MOTORS, in a derogatory and of’f‘bnsive manner with the intent Ofcreating a hostile work environment for CIVIL, COMI’LAIN'I‘ FOR DAMAGES * JURY TRIAL Case N0: 20 7.1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3). 32. 33. 34. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 19 employees ofAfrican descent. This same behavior continued such that I’IaintiffJAC1(SC)N and others were daily exposed to the use 0fthe derogatory and offensive, hate speech until Mr. JACKSON’S employment ending in January 2019. During the course of Mr. JACKSON’S employment, “BRITTANY”, an agent ofDefendam RANDSTAD, and Plaintiff‘s supervisor, was aware of‘the discriminatory and racist comments, behavior, postings and other offensive actions ofemployees, agents or assigns of" each Ofthe Defendants RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, and TESLA. Plaintiff is informed, and based on that information believes, “BRITTANY” was present, heard, and directly witnessed the offensive conduct in the form ofthe consistent, daily use ofthe words “Nigger”, “Nigga”, and other derogatory terms, by Non~African American employees at the worksite. Plaintif’fJACKSON directly informed “BRITTANY”, on several occasions, from the beginning ofhis employment in February 2018, until PlaintiffJACKSON was forced to resign from employment in January 2019, that employees used the offensive words, and other racially hate-fllled language, in the presence of Plaintiff, and that he and others were offended. He specifically requested that she stop the assaultive and insulting, offensive behaviou She did not. Plaintif’f‘JACKSON also sought relief from the conduct by reporting it to other Supervisors working on behalfof‘DEFENDANTS RANSTAD and CEVA LOGISTICS. Mr. JACKSON . reported the treatment t0 CEVA LOGISTICS site managers “FRANK”, and “MIKE”. In response to Plaintiff‘s complaints, “BRITTANY” and “FRANK” did nothing. The site manager “MIKE”, also an employee, agent 0r assign of Defendant CEVA LOGISTICS further demonstrated the cmploycrs’ acquiescence to Lhe treatment and stated he “heard “Nigga” in a “good way’? Neither OFthc three defendants, RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, nor "l‘EESLA MOTORS, treated Other similarly situated employees not in the protected class of‘ PlaintiffJACKSON the samfi. CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES w JURY TRIAL Case Nu: 20 2) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 19 Despite the complaints by Piainti‘l’f’JACKSON, the harassment, and intimidation continued. PlaintiffJACKSON is informed, and based on that information believes, the workers that used the derogatory terms in his presence and the presence ofother African Americans were not the same race 01' color as PlaintiffJACKSON. I PlaintifHACKSON is informed and based on that information believes that each ofthe DEFENDANT corporations, RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, and TESLA exclude African Americans from positions, particularly management and supervisory positions, as well as every Ievei oftheir operations‘ RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA'S attitude and beliefs about African Americans was demonstrated in the presence 0f plaintiffJACKSON by Defendants’ collective and individual failure to address and stop the racially hostile words and actions 0ftheir employees. The daily exposure to the derogatory word “nigger” was so persistent, in the presence of Plaintiffand other African Americans, it tended to pose a threat to those individuais. Additionally, the employees, agents 01' assigns of‘each ofthe Defendants would publish threatening and demeaning comments on the bamroom walls and the facility L0 which PlaintiffJACKSON, and others, were assigned t0 work. Finding the continual onslaught 0f offensive conduct unbearable, along with the employer RANDSTAD’S failure t0 accommodate his workplace injury, PiaintifflACKS’ON could no longer bear the conduct and resigned in January 201 9. In addition to the racially motivated harassment from RANDSTAD and CBVA LOGISTICS employees, PlaintifHACKSON was exposed to similar treatment from the employees 0f TESLA who worked in the quality inspection area ofthe facility owned by CEVA LOGISTICS. Plaintiff‘JACKSON is informed, and based on that information believes, that none ofthe employees for TESLA were of‘Af‘rican descent. "l“he environment where the TESIJA employees worked was equally hostile towards African Americans. CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL Case No.1 20 2| 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 10 of 19 41. In addition to the reports to supervisors and managers “BRITTANY”, “FRANK”, and “MIKE”, Plaintiff JACKSON also attempted to remedy the hostile environment by asking the employees that used the word “Nigger” in his presence not to use the word as it was disrespectful. He made this request to employees of RANDSTAD, CBVA, and TESLA, on a regular basis beginning from his initial hire in February 2018, until he was forced to resign in January 2019. The employees ofall three Defendants continued to regularly use the violently offensive words in Plaintif‘fJACKSON’S and other employees’ presence. The discriminatory, intimidating and harassing treatment continued until Plaintiff’JACKSON Felt increasingly uncomfortable in the work environment and resigned. 42. The Defendants, and each 0fthem, are directly responsible for allowing the discriminatory treatment and harassment t0 occur in the workplace. The Defendant employers were aware of the extremely offensive conduct. The émpioyers failed to remedy the harm, and in fact encouraged the treatment by failing to take any reasonable steps to stop the harassment and intimidation, 0r otherwise remedy the hostile work environment The plaintiffwas harmed as a result 0fthe Defendant employers, their agents, employees, and assigns conduct. 43 When Plaintif‘fJACKSON, and other African Americans attempted to address the mistreatment, inequity, harassment, and unfairness, the RANDSTAD and CEVA LOGISTICS managers, blatantly and without regard to the civil rights 0ftheir employees acknowledged they were aware of the conduct. RANDS’I‘AD Failed to Accommodate Plaintiff’s workplace injury: ‘44. On November 29, 201 8, PlaintiffJACKSON sustained a work-related injury. After returning t0 work and requesting an accommodation, Defendant RANDSTAD refused to accommodate the injury as requested. Instead “BRIT"I"ANY” assigned PlaintiffJACKSON to work tho day shift, and assigned him the demeaning task ofpicking up paper around the facility. The assignmem did not accommodate his injury in that he was required to perfon'n duties contra- indicated by the injury. PlaintiffJACKSON is informed and based 0n that information believes that “BRITTANY” intentionaliy failed to offer a reasonable accommodation both in (,‘lVll, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -~ JURY "I“RIAL ‘ Case No.: 20 2 I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45, Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3‘1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 19 response to his complaints regarding the racial harassment and discriminatory treatment, and in response Lo his request for an accommodation, After the failure t0 accommodate his injury, PlaintiffJACKSON advised “BRI'Y'I‘ANY” that the Change to day shift and requiring he pick up paper around the yard did not accommodate his injury. PlaintiffJACKSON requested access to RANDSTAD’S Human Resources personnel to address his claims. The RANDSTAD site supervisor ”BRITTANY”, failed to provide him the appropriate contact t0 make his claims t0 RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS and 01‘ TESLA MOTORS ) RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA Forced PlaintiffJACKSON t0 Resign: 46. 47. 48. 49, As a result of the abusive harassment, intimidation, and refusal to accommodate his injuries, PlaintifflACKSON was forced to resign; however, he did not have a free choice in the matter. The conduct was unbearable. Mix JACKSON worked in fear of increasing aggressions from his coworkers as a of’Lhe constant, unabated, use ofthe derogatory, racist, terms. "Hm harassment that Mr. JACKSON experienced as a result of RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA'S failure t0 act placed him in fear of further harm; thus, to avoid the deplorable conditions he was forced 10 endure in that racist environment, he submitted his resignation to ‘BRITTANY” on 01‘ about January 16, 201 9. There was no excuse Ol‘justification for the discriminatory, harassing, and abusive conduct Plaintiff’BYRON Jackson and others were required to endure. The Defendants, and each ofthem constructively terminated Plaintiff‘JACKSON by their refusal to remedy the unlawful conduct, and allow a workplace free from harassment, and discriminatory treatment solabusive it was an act of" violence. M1 JACKSON was repeatedly assaulted with the use 0f racist terms in the workplace, loud enough for Mr. JACKSON and other employees of African descent to hear, “Nigga”, “Nigger”, and “Mallate”. Additionally, Mr. JACKSON, and others were exposed to these words written on the walls in the public CIVIL (TOMI’LAIN'I‘ FOR DAMAGES -- JURY TRIAL l Case No.2 20 2 I 22 23 24 25 2(7 27 28 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 19 bathrooms shared with employees 0f RANDSTAD, CIBVA LOGISTICS and TESLA. Mr. JACKSON was repeatediy subjected t0 language so vile it was an assault given that an African American male had t0 listen to co-workers, and manager(s) use the racially offensive words 0n a regular basis. This conduct was unbearable, and PlaintiffJACKSON could no longer endure it; thus, he was constructively discharged. PlaintiffJACKSON did not have an option in continued employment. The extremely racist, violent, and offensive conduct threatened his ability to contihue t0 peacefully work in that environment; thus, after the Defendant demonstrated his refusal to correct the conduct, Plaintiffresigned. Additionally, RANDSTAD’S failure to reasonably accommodate his on thejob injury rendered Plaintiff JACKSON‘S continued employment impossible. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON RACE (FEHA) (Against RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA) Piaintiffle-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs l through 51, inclusive, of this Complain't as though fully set forth herein. At ail relevant times herein, Defendants were and arc employers within the meaning ofthc FEHA, and as such, were barred from discriminating and retaliating against employees on the basis 0f, inter alia, race, as set forth in Government Code Sections 12940 ct seq. At, all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an employee covered by Government Code sections 12940 ct seq. Plaintiff worked at a facility with employees ofeach Defendant company. Employees of each ofthe Defendant employers engaged in the discrimination that created a racially hostile work environment for Plaintiff. By their conduct, Defendants discriminated and harassed Plaintiffon the baéis of his race, and color, due t0 his membership in the protected classes ofa Black, Af‘riczmuAmerican male. CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - JURY TRIAL H Case N0; 2 0 2l 22 23 25 26 27 28 55. 56‘ S7. 58. S9. 60. At all relevant times herein, [Defendants were and arc employers within the meaning ofthe Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 13 of 19 As a proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct 0f Defendants, Plaintif‘fhas suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. As a further proximate result of‘the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, lack ofselfi confidence, embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proof at the time ofmal. 1n doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard ofthe rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time oftrial. Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Governmem Code §12965(b). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE FEI-IA (Against Defendants RANDSTAD, CEVA Logistics, and TESLA) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive, of this Cemplaint as though quy set forth herein. FEHA, and as such, were barred from discriminating and harassing employees on the basis of, inter alia, race and or color, as set forth in Government Code Sections 12940 et seq, AL all relevant Limes herein, Plaintiff was an employee covered by Government Code sections 12940 et seq. By their conduct, Defendants discriminated and harassed Plaintiffon the basis of‘his race. 61. Additionally, Defendants individuaily and collectively, as employers at the shared worksite are subject t0 the anti-harassment provisions of lf’EHA. Accordingly, Defendants are liable for the harassing acts of‘their own employees, agents and assigns under FE‘ZHA, and the harassment by the respective nomemployees. CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -- JURY TRIAL 12 Case No.: 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 14 Of 19 Al all relevant times herein, Plaintif‘f’was an employee covered by Government Code sections 12940 et seq. Plaintiff worked at a facility with employees ofeach Defendant company. Employees ofeach 0fthe Defendant employers engaged in the discrimination that created a racially hostile work environment 1’01‘ Plaintiff". By their conduct, Defendants discriminated and harassed Plaintiffon the basis ofhis race, and color, due to his membership in the protected classes ofa Black, African-American male. As a proximate result ofthc Wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintif‘fhas suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to pl‘oofat the time oftrial. As a further proximate result ofme wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, lack ofselfl confidence, embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. 1n doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard ofthe rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according t0 proofat the time oftrial. Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney‘s fees pursuant t0 Government Code §12965(b). I THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (Against Defendant RANDSTAD) Plaintiff re~alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65 above inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein The FBHA, Gov. Code sections 12900 er xeq., requires the employer to engage in a good faith interactive process t0 assess the employee’s work restrictions and reasonable accommodations available. The employer’s duty is triggered by a request from the employee 01‘ whenever the employer knows 0r should have known ofthe need for accommodations. ClVIL COMPLAIN'I" FOR DAMAGES ~ JURY ”l‘RlAL l3 Case No; 2O 2) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. Case 3:19-0v-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 15 of 19 PlaintifHACKSON suffered a physical injury that required accommodation in November 2018. Defendant RANDSTAD was aware of Plaintiff‘s need for accommodations as he provided the request from his physician to the employer’s agent. PlaintiffJACKSON also explicitly informed “BRWTANY”, the accommodation ofa transfer t0 the dayshifl, picking up papers and janitorial services, was not a reasonable accommodation given his injury and his work status as a forklift driver. Defendant RANDSTAD never engaged in an interactive process with Plaintiff”. JACKSON and, instead, continued t0 ignore his request, similar to the lack of remedy to the complaints of racial harassment and the racially hostile work environment. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendant RANDSTAD acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard of‘the rights 0f Mr. JACKSON, and M12 JACKSON is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof’at the time 0ftrial. Mr. JACKSON is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code section 12965 (b). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (Against Defendant RANDSTAD) Plaintifflc~chges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through '70 above inclusive, of this Complaint as though Fully set forth herein. The FEHA, Gov. Code sections 12900 et seq‘, requires the employer to provide reasonable accommodations that will allow an employee t0 continue to perform the essential functions of his job. The employer’s duty is triggered by a request from the employee or whenever the employer knows 01‘ should have known ofthe need for accommodations, Mr, JACKSON suffered a physical injury, on thejob, that the employer RANDSTAD was aware required accommodation in November 201 8. Defendant RANDS’T‘AD was aware of Plaintiff’s need for accommodations as he provided the request from his physician Lo the employer’s agent. CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES w JURY TRIAL 14 Case No.: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 16 of 19 Defendant RANDSTAD never engaged 'm an interactive process with Mr. JACKSON and, instead, continued to ignore his request, similar to the lack 0f remédy to the complaints of racial harassment and the racially hostile work environment. 1n doing the acts herein alleged, Defendant RANDSTAD acted with oppression, fraud, _ malice, and in the conscious disregard ofthe rights oer. JACKSON, and Mr. JACKSON is therefore entitled to punitive damages 'm an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. Mr. JACKSON is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code section 12965 (b).‘ FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBILC POLICY (Against Defendant RANDSTAD) Plaintiffre~alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 75, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. It is the public policy ofthe State of CaHf’omia, codified, and mandated in the FEHA and other applicable law, to make it an unlawful employment practice for empioyecs to be subjected to the unlawful conduct of harassment and discrimination experienced by Plaintiff JACKSON, described herein The public policy explicitly and implicitly stated by the FEHA is designed to protect all employees and nomemployces from the conduct experienced by Plaintiff. Based on the above~alleged conduct, Defendants discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff, to such a degree it threatened him; thus, its complicity in the conduct, and failure (o cure it resulted in a constructive discharge Of Plaintiff from employment with RANDSTAD. The actions were taken based on grounds that violate California fundamental public policies prohibiting discrimination against employees based upon their race or color, and prohibiting interfering with and harassing employees for membership in a protected class, as mandated by Government Code §§ 12940, ct seq, and 12945.2. CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES w JURY TRIAL l5 Case No.2 20 2 l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 n CIVIL (IOMI‘LAIN'I‘ HJR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL l Case No.: 79. 80‘ 82. 83. . PIaintiffre-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 80, inclusive, 0f Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 17 of 19 As a proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffhas suffsred and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. As a further proximate result ofthe wrongful conducl of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, lack ofself- confidence, embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all t0 h‘is damage in an amount according t0 proof at the time oftrial. In doing the, acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice and in conscious disregard of‘the righté of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled 10 punitive damages in an amount According 1:0 proofal the time 0ft1‘ial. Insofar as the actions alleged are attributable to employees ofDef‘endant, Defendant was aware of‘the unfitness of‘the employees and/Ol‘ they continued to employ the employees after notice wiih a conscious disregard for the rights 0f Plaintiff. Thus, Defendants ratified the wrongful conduct entitling Plaintifflo the recovery of‘exemplary and punitive damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Agains‘t all Defendants, RANDSTAD, CEVA LOGISTICS, AND TESLA) this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. The conduct of Defendants as set forth above was so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded the boundaries ofa decent society and lies outside the compensation bargain. Said conduct was intended to caUse Plaintiff severe emotional distress or was done in conscious disregard ofthe probability ofcausing severe emotional distress Said conduct was aiso in direct violation ofCalifomia public policy. As a proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintifl‘has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according t0 proof at the time of‘trial. As a further proximate result 0ftl’1c wrongful conduct 0f Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, 20 21 22 23 24 25 2f) 27 28 n CIVIL, (.‘OWU’I,./\1NT FOR DAMAGES ~ JURY TRIAL Case N0.: 84‘ 85. 864 87. 88. 89. Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 18 0f 19 emotional diStress and mental anguish, all t0 his damage in an amount according to proofat the time oftriaL In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice and in conscious disregard ofthe rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time oftrial. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against All Defendants RANDS’I‘AD, CEVA LOGISTICS, AND TESLA) Plaintif‘fre-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 82, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were and are employers within the meaning of‘the FEHA, and as such, were barred fi‘om harassing employees on the basis of, inter alia, race and color, as set fomh in Government Code Sections 12940 et seq. At aH relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an employee covered by Government Code sections 12940 ct seq. By their conduct, Defendants harassed Plaintiffon the basis ofhis race and/or color, because of his race and color, an African American male. As a proximate result ofthe wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff‘has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according t0 proof at the time ol‘n‘ial. As a further proximate result 0fthe wrongful conduct of‘ Defendants, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues t0 suffer humiliation, lack ofseH’- confidence, embarrassment, emotional distress and mental anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proofat the time oftrial. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants negligently acted 01‘ failed to act without regard to the impact 0fthe oppression, fraud, malice, and hatred inflicted upon Plaintiff, and negligently disregarded the rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to damages 1n 2m amount according to proof at the time 0ft1‘ial. 20 2] 22 23 Z4 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 3-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 19 of 19 90A Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney‘s fees pursuant t0 Government Code §12965(b). PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfully prays forjudgment against Defendants, and each 0fthem, according to proof, as follows: a. For general and special damages, including lost wages, in a sum in excess ofthe minimumjurisdictional limit ofthis Court, according to proof at trial; b. For interest at the maximum legal rate; c. For punitive damages; d. For reasonabie attorney's fees; e. 1701‘ costs ofsuit incurred herein; and h. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffhereby requests ajury trial on the claims so triable. Dated: October 7 ,2019 BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, PC. X Mcnpfim)M Na'il Benjamin Attorney for Plaintiff, BYRON JACKSON CIVIL COMPLAIN'I' FOR DAMAGES -- JURY TRIAL, Case No.2 Case 3:19~Cv-O7657 Document 4 Filed 11/20/19 Page l of 3 Fraser A. MoAlpine (State Bar No. 248554) Conor J. Dale (State Bar No. 274123) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Fraser.MCAlpine@iacksonlewis.com E-mail: Conor.Dale@iacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC, erroneously sued as CEVA LOGISTICS and TESLA, INC, erroneously sued as TESLA MOTORS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BYRON JACKSON Case N0. Plaintiff, (Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 19CV356275) v. DECLARATION OF CHARISSA RANDSTAD, INC, CEVA LOGISTICS, SEBESTA IN SUPPORT OF TESLA MOTORS, and DOES 1-50, DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE 0F inclusive; individually, REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Defendants NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DECLARATION OF SEBESTA ISO NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No._M_ Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Document 4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 3 481601236373, V. 1 DECLARATION OF SEBBSTA ISO NO'I‘ICE OF REMOVAL Case NO. > Q \DOCQONM Case 3:19~cv-07657 Document 4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 3 l, Charissa Sebesta, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age 0f 18. "l‘he information contained herein is true and correct and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. l am authorized and competent t0 testify to the matters listed in this declaration, and unless otherwise indicated, l make this declaration on personal knowledge, 2. l am employed by CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. as Legal Counsel. Based on my work as Legal Counsel, l have knowledge ofand am familiar with CEVA Logistics U.S., Incx‘s corporate structure and business operations. 3. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. is a corporation incorporated in the state of Delawarc. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc.’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities in Houston, 'l‘exas. I declare under penalty ot‘perjury ofihe laws 0fthe state ofCalifomia and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on November 1&0“) it » flonwTexas /@j /\_// Chaxissu Sebesta 4820-001 9-2429. V. 1 DEC. 0F SEBES'I‘A ISO . NO'I'ICE 01? REMOVAL Case No. Adams, Lauretta (San Francisco) From: ECF-CAND@cand.uscourts‘gov Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 6:34 PM To: efiling@cand.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 3:19-cv-O7657 Jackson v. Ceva Logistics U.S‘, Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics et al Declaration in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of ail documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by iaw or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to aH other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court California Northern District Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Dale, Conor on 11/20/2019 at 6:33 PM PST and filed on 11/20/2019 Case Name: Jackson v‘ Ceva Logistics U.S‘, Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics et al Case Number: 3:19-cv-O7657 Filer: Ceva Logistics U.S., inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics Tesfa, Inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors Document Number:_4_ Docket Text: Declaration in Support of [1] Notice of Removal, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California filed byCeva Logistics U.S., Inc. erroneously sued as Ceva Logistics, Tesla, Inc. erroneously sued as Tesla Motors. (Related document(s)[1]) (Dale, Conor) (Filed on 11/20/2019) 3:19-cv-O7657 Notice has been electronically mailed to: ByronJackson nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com ConorJohn Dale conor.dale@jacksonlewis.com, adamsl@jacksonlewis.com, SanFranciscoDocketing@JacksonLewis.com 3:19-cv-07657 Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document descriptionzMain Document Original filename:C:\Users\adamsl\Desl