Amended Complaint Filed No FeeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 23, 2020CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH B) b) b) b) b) h) h) b) b) ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 200V373933 Santa Clara - Civil JML LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5855 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD., SUITE 300 WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91367 Tel: (818) 610-8800 Fax: (818) 610-3030 JOSEPH M. LOVRETOVICH, STATE BAR NO. 73403 ERIC M. GRUZEN, STATE BAR NO. 222448 RUTH GEWING, STATE BAR NO. 255876 Attorneys for Plaintiff KAREN CAOILFHIONN Y. CI“ Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 12/8/2020 9:21 AM Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Case #20CV373933 Envelope: 5428722 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - DOWNTOWN KAREN CAOILFHIONN, an individual; Case N0.: 20CV373933 Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: vs_ 1. VIOLATION 0F LABOR CODE § 98.6; 2. VIOLATION 0F LABOR CODE § 1102.5; 3. VIOLATION 0F LABOR CODE § 6310; 4. WRONGFUL TERMINATION 1N VIOLATION 0F THE KINSHIP SOCIETY LLC, a California limited liability corporation; AMANDA TAPIA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. PUBLIC POLICY; FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§226.7, 512, AND 558; FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§226.7, 512, AND 558. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AMOUNT DEMANDED EXCEEDS $25,000.00 Plaintiff, KAREN CAOILFHIONN, hereby brings her first amended complaint against the above-named Defendants and states and alleges as follows: PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 1. At all times material herein, PlaintiffKAREN CAOILFHIONN hereinafter referred t0 as “Plaintiff’) was and is a resident 0f the State 0f California, County 0f Santa Clara. 1 aveZ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 2. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant THE KINSHIP SOCIETY LLC (hereinafter referred t0 as “KINSHIP”) is a California limited liability corporation, and was at all times mentioned in this first amended complaint duly licensed t0 d0 business, was and is doing business, under and by Virtue 0f the laws 0f the State 0f California, and in Santa Clara county. 3. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant AMANDA TAPIA, at all relevant times was the owner ofTHE KINSHIP SOCIETY, LLC. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant AMANDA TAPIA is and was an individual residing in the State 0f California, County 0f Santa Clara. At all times mentioned herein, AMANDA TAPIA was Plaintiff” s Manager during her employment with THE KINSHIP SOCIETY, LLC. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that at all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendant AMANDA TAPIA was and is a manager within the meaning 0f California Government Code §§ 129400)(1) and 12926(t) in that she had the discretion and authority t0 hire, direct, transfer, promote, assign, reward, discipline, adjust the grievances 0f, 0r discharge other employees, 0r effectively t0 recommend any 0f these actions with the use 0f independent judgment. 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate 0r otherwise ofDOES 1 through 50 are unknown t0 Plaintiffwho therefore sues these Defendants under said fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each 0f the Defendants named as a DOE Defendant is legally responsible in some manner for the events referred t0 in this first amended complaint, either negligently, willfully, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, strictly liable, statutorily liable 0r otherwise, for the injuries and damages described below to this Plaintiff. Plaintiff will in the future seek leave 0f this court t0 show the true names and capacities 0f these DOE Defendants when it has been ascertained. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each 0f the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for, and proximately caused, the harm and damages alleged herein below. 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each 0f the Defendants named herein acted as the employee, agent, spouse, partner, alter-ego, joint employer, and/or joint venturer 0f each 0f the other Defendants named herein and, in doing the acts and in carrying out the wrongful conduct alleged herein, each 0f said Defendants acted within the scope 0f said relationship and with the permission, consent and ratification 0f each 0f the other Defendants named herein. 7. Hereinafter in the First Amended Complaint, unless otherwise specified, reference t0 a Defendant 0r Defendants shall refer t0 all Defendants, and each 0f them. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants 0n 0r about March 1, 2019 as a teacher. 9. During her time at Defendants, Plaintiffbecame a valued and integral member 0f the staff and at all times performed her job competently. 10. Shortly after beginning her employment with Defendants, Plaintiffbecame increasingly concerned due t0 several unsafe conditions at the school. She began complaining t0 management about the conditions but her complaints fell 0n deaf ears and were not addressed. 11. Plaintiff” s complaints continued through her employment. Plaintiff complained about and suggested solutions for many issues and was largely ignored. Plaintiffs complaints include, but are not limited t0: o A male teen student repeatedly preyed 0n younger students by cornering them in the restroom and talking t0 them about sexually explicit matters. o The Kindergarten-Second Grade classroom was chronically under-staffed. Each student’s Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) mandated a one-to-one student t0 aide ratio. On a daily basis there were only one 0r two teacher’s aides for three t0 four students. There were many occasions where Plaintiffwas the only teacher in the room. Not only did this Violate the language 0f the IEP plans, but also created a safety issue in the classroom which put both teachers and students at risk. 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO o The manner by which the three doors 0n the campus were locked created a safety hazard for both staff and students. o The only fire extinguisher and first aid kid were located in the office. o During field trips, the students who were not behaved well enough t0 attend the field trips were left at the school without any credentialed teachers. o Understaffing caused Plaintiff t0 miss meal and rest breaks. o Plaintiff was required t0 use her cellphone t0 show Videos in the classroom and was not compensated. o Despite HIPPA provisions, IEPs were shown t0 all staff in staff meetings, even staff who did not work with the particular students. o In Plaintiff” s classroom, one student repeatedly targeted another student in a Violent manner. 12. Though Plaintiff repeatedly complained and offered Viable solutions, Defendants continued t0 disregard her concerns. In 0r around February, 2020, Plaintiffs mounting concerns about the safety 0f the students came t0 fruition. Due t0 Defendants failure t0 properly staff the classroom, several Violent incidents occurred between two students in Plaintiffs classroom whereby one student consistently attempted t0 harm the other. 13. Due t0 the concern over her student’s safety, Plaintiff wrote over a dozen reports regarding the in-class Violence which she updated t0 Defendant’s one drive. Defendants wiped the one drive clear 0f her reports and failed t0 inform the targeted child’s parents about the danger t0 their child. 14. Eventually, the principal Windy Segretto sent an edited incident report t0 Plaintiff for her approval prior to sending it t0 the parents. Plaintiff informed Defendants it was inaccurate yet Defendant’s sent the incorrect report t0 the parents in an attempt t0 diminish the level 0f Violence in the classroom. Plaintiff spoke with the parents 0f the targeted child in order t0 provide them accurate information regarding the danger posed t0 their child. 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 15. As a direct result, 0n 0r around February 12, 2020, Defendant terminated Plaintiff for speaking t0 the child’s parents and refusing t0 attest t0 an inaccurate incident report that had been edited by the principal, Windy Segretto. 16. During the first semester 0f her employment, Plaintiff was unable t0 take rest 0r meal breaks due t0 the severe understaffing. There was n0 other employee available t0 relieve Plaintiff t0 provide her a break. Additionally, during the student’s lunch breaks, Plaintiffwas required t0 supervise them as they ate in the classroom. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 98.6 (Against THE KINSHIP SOCIETY LLC) 17. Plaintiff hereby repeats and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 18. At all times mentioned herein California Labor Code § 98.6 et seq. were in full force and effect and were binding 0n Defendants and each 0f them. 19. California Labor Code § 98.6 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for exercising any 0f the rights provided under the Labor Code 0r Orders 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission. 20. As set forth above, Plaintiff complained t0 Defendant about issues including, but not limited t0: unpaid use 0f her cellphone, late pay, missed breaks, HIPPA Violations, dangerous conditions 0n campus and most importantly, understaffing and Violence in the classroom. 21. Defendant terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for her complaints. 22. The retaliatory termination was a proximate cause 0f Plaintiffs damages as stated herein. 23. As a proximate result 0f the aforesaid acts 0f Defendants and each 0f them, Plaintiff has lost, and will continue t0 lose, earnings and benefits and has suffered and/or will suffer other actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, in an amount t0 be proven at trial in excess of the jurisdictional minimum 0f this court. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages together 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO with prejudgment interest pursuant t0 California Civil Code §3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision 0f law providing for prejudgment interest. 24. As a proximate result 0f the aforesaid acts 0f Defendants and each 0f them, Plaintiff has become mentally upset, distressed, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated. As a result 0f the actions 0f retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered harm to her reputation. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a sum in excess 0f the jurisdictional minimum 0f this court. 25. As a proximate result 0f the wrongful acts 0f Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced t0 hire attorneys t0 prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected t0 continue t0 incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under California Labor Code section 2699(g) and California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021 .5. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants had in place policies and procedures that specifically forbid Defendants’ managers, officers, and agents from retaliating against employees who complained about Defendants engaging in unethical behavior. Defendants’ managers, officers, and/or agents were aware 0f Defendants’ policies and procedures prohibiting retaliating in this manner. However, Defendants’ managers, officers, and/or agents chose t0 consciously and willfully ignore said policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduct was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights 0f Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant t0 Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired t0 engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount t0 be established that is appropriate t0 punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct. 27. The aforementioned willful and outrageous conduct 0f each Defendant was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant t0 Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired t0 engage in the wrongful conduct alleged 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount t0 be established that is appropriate t0 punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1102.5 (Against THE KINSHIP SOCIETY, LLC) 28. Plaintiff hereby repeats and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 29. At all times mentioned herein California Labor Code section 1102.5, et seq. were in full force and effect and were binding 0n Defendants and each 0f them. 30. California Labor Code § 1102.5(a) provides: “An employer, 0r any person acting 0n behalf 0f the employer, shall not make, adopt, 0r enforce any rule, regulation, 0r policy preventing an employee from disclosing information t0 a government 0r law enforcement agency, t0 a person with authority over the employee, 0r t0 another employee who has authority t0 investigate, discover, 0r correct the Violation 0r noncompliance, or from providing information t0, 0r testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause t0 believe that the information discloses a Violation 0f state 0r federal statute, 0r a Violation 0f 0r noncompliance with a local, state, 0r federal rule 0r regulation, regardless 0f whether disclosing the information is part 0f the employee's job duties.” 3 1. California Labor Code § 1102.5(b) provides: “An employer, 0r any person acting 0n behalf 0f the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed 0r may disclose information, t0 a government 0r law enforcement agency, t0 a person with authority over the employee 0r another employee who has the authority t0 investigate, discover, 0r correct the Violation 0r noncompliance, or for providing information t0, 0r testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, 0r inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause t0 believe that the information discloses a Violation 0f state 0r federal statute, 0r a Violation 0f 0r noncompliance 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO with a local, state, 0r federal rule 0r regulation, regardless 0f whether disclosing the information is part 0f the employee's job duties.” 32. As set forth above, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under Labor Code Section 1102.5 when she complained t0 Defendants about Defendants’ unsafe work environment, conduct which Plaintiff reasonably believed violated local, state, 0r federal rules 0r regulations. Defendants then retaliated against Plaintiff and wrongfully terminated her. 33. The retaliatory termination was a proximate cause 0f Plaintiffs damages as stated herein. 34. As a proximate result 0f the aforesaid acts 0f Defendants and each 0f them, Plaintiff has lost, and will continue t0 lose earnings and benefits and has suffered and/or will suffer other actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, in an amount t0 be proven at trial in excess of the jurisdictional minimum 0f this court. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant t0 California Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision 0f law providing for prejudgment interest. 35. As a proximate result 0f the aforesaid acts 0f Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff has become mentally, upset, distressed, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated. As a result 0f the acts 0f retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered harm t0 her reputation. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a sum in excess 0f the jurisdictional minimum 0f this court. 36. As a proximate result 0f the wrongful acts 0f Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced t0 hire attorneys t0 prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected t0 continue t0 incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under California Labor Code section 2699(g) and California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021 .5. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants had in place policies and procedures that specifically forbid Defendants’ managers, officers, and agents from retaliating against employees who engaged in protected activity such as opposing 0r complaining about Defendants’ unlawful activity. Defendants’ managers, officers, and/or agents 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO were aware 0f Defendants’ policies and procedures prohibiting retaliating in this manner. However, Defendants’ managers, officers, and/or agents chose t0 consciously and willfully ignore said policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduct was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant t0 Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired t0 engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount t0 be established that is appropriate t0 punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct. 38. Furthermore, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice 0f terminating and/or otherwise retaliating against and harassing employees that complained about 0r opposed Defendants’ unlawful activity. Defendants engaged in this conduct instead 0f informing whistleblowing employees 0f their protections under the law and implementing a plan t0 protect them from retaliation and harassment. 39. The aforementioned willful and outrageous conduct 0f each Defendant was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant t0 Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired t0 engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount t0 be established that is appropriate t0 punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 6310 (Against THE KINSHIP SOCIETY, LLC) 40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs 0f this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth at this place. 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 41. At all times mentioned herein California Labor Code section 63 10 was in full force and effect and was binding 0n Defendants and each 0f them. 42. California Labor Code section 63 10(b) states in pertinent part, “Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, 0r in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions 0f employment by his 0r her employer because the employee has made a bona fide oral 0r written complaint t0 . . . his 0r her employer, or his or her representative, 0f unsafe working conditions, 0r work practices, in his 0r her employment or place 0f employment . . . shall be entitled t0 reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts 0f the employer.” 43. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants retaliated against and wrongfully terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for her protected complaints 0f an unsafe work environment. Plaintiff reasonably believed this conduct t0 be unlawful and t0 constitute Violations 0f state and federal statutes, rules and/or regulations. The above acts 0f Defendants constitute retaliation in Violation 0f California Labor Code section 63 10; such retaliatory termination was a proximate cause 0f Plaintiffs damages as stated below. 44. As a proximate result 0f the aforesaid acts 0f Defendants and each 0f them, Plaintiff has 10st, and will continue t0 lose, earnings and fn'nge benefits and has suffered and/or will suffer other actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, in an amount t0 be proven at trial in excess 0f the jurisdictional minimum 0f this court. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant t0 California Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision 0f law providing for prejudgment interest. 45. As a proximate result 0f the aforesaid acts 0f Defendants and each 0f them, Plaintiff has become mentally upset, distressed, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated. As a result 0f the acts 0f retaliation, Plaintiff suffered harm t0 her reputation. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a sum in excess 0f the jurisdictional minimum of this court. 46. Defendants had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited and 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO required Defendants’ managers, officers, and agents t0 prevent retaliation against and upon employees 0f Defendants. A11 Defendants’ managers, officers, and/or agents 0f Defendants were aware 0f Defendants’ policies and procedures requiring Defendants’ managers, officers, and agents t0 prevent, and investigate retaliation against and upon employees 0f Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants’ managers maintained broad discretionary powers regarding staffing, managing, hiring, firing, contracting, supervising, assessing and establishing 0f corporate policy and practice in the defendant’s facilities. However, Defendants’ managers consciously and willfully ignored said policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduct was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant t0 Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired t0 engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount t0 be established that is appropriate t0 punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct. 47. As a proximate result 0f the wrongful acts 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiff has been forced t0 hire attorneys t0 prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected t0 continue t0 incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled t0 recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the California Labor Code. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Against THE KINSHIP SOCIETY, LLC) 48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth at this place. 49. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. were in full force and effect and were binding 0n Defendants and each 0f them, as Defendants regularly employed five (5) 0r more persons. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code §§ 12940 e. seq., it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer t0 discharge an employee for engaging in a protected activity. 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 50. At all times mentioned, the public policy 0f the State 0f California, as codified, expressed and mandated in Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., is t0 prohibit employers from discriminating, against any individual for engaging in a protected activity as identified in California Government Code § 12940(a)-(0). This public policy 0f the State 0f California is designed t0 protect all employees and t0 promote the welfare and well-being 0f the community at large. Accordingly, the actions 0f Defendants, and each of them, in terminating Plaintiff on the grounds alleged and described herein were wrongful and in contravention 0f the express public policy 0f the State 0f California, t0 wit, the policy set forth in Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., and the laws and regulations promulgated thereunder. 5 1. As a proximate result 0f the aforesaid acts 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiff has suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation, loss 0f salary and benefits, and the intangible loss 0f employment related opportunities in her field and damage t0 her professional reputation, all in an amount subject t0 proof at the time 0f trial. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant t0 Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision 0f law providing for prejudgment interest. 52. As a proximate result 0f the wrongful acts 0f Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues t0 suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment, as well as the manifestation 0f physical symptoms. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that she will continue t0 experience said physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently ascertainable, all in an amount subject t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 53. As a proximate result 0f the wrongful acts 0f Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced t0 hire attorneys t0 prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected t0 continue t0 incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under California Government Code § 12965(b). 54. Defendants chose t0 consciously and willfully ignore policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduct was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights 0f Plaintiff and the rights and duties owed by each Defendant t0 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO Plaintiff. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired t0 engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount t0 be established that is appropriate t0 punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§226.7, 512, AND 558 (Against ALL DEFENDANTS) 55. Plaintiff hereby repeats and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 56. California Labor Code § 226.7 states that “n0 employer shall require any employee t0 work during any meal 0r rest period mandated by an applicable order 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission” and additionally, that “[i]f an employer fails t0 provide an employee a meal period 0r rest period in accordance with an applicable order 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour 0f pay at the employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each work day that the meal 0r rest period is not provided.” 57. California Labor Code § 5 12 (a) states in full, “An employer may not employ an employee for a work period 0f more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period 0f not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day 0f the employee is n0 more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent 0f both the employer and employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period 0f more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period 0f not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is n0 more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent 0f the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. 58. California Labor Code § 2699 provides for a civil penalty 0f one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial Violation and two hundred 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent Violation 0f this Labor Code. 59. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed t0 authorize and permit Plaintiff to take meal breaks. Plaintiffwas required t0 work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period, and was also required t0 work for more than 10 hours without receiving a second meal period. 60. Defendants also had n0 policy and/or practice t0 pay a premium when meal periods were missed and thus failed t0 pay Plaintiff the full meal period premium due. As such, Plaintiff and did not receive compensation at the rate 0f one hour’s pay for each day they did not receive a meal period. 61. Plaintiff has been deprived 0f her right t0 meal periods as a direct and proximate result 0f Defendants’ failure and refusal t0 recognize said breaks. 62. Based 0n Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are liable for statutory penalties pursuant t0 California Labor Code § 226.7 for their Violations 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders regarding meal periods. Plaintiff is entitled t0 one (1) additional hour 0fpay per day that Defendants denied her an uninterrupted meal period. 63. Plaintiff is further entitled t0 a penalty 0f one hundred dollars ($100) for each initial Violation in each pay period, and two hundred dollars ($200) for pay period for each subsequent Violation. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§226.7, 512, AND 558 (Against ALL DEFENDANTS) 64. Plaintiff hereby repeats and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 65. California Labor Code § 226.7 states that “n0 employer shall require any employee t0 work during any meal 0r rest period mandated by an applicable order 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission” and additionally, that “[i]f an employer fails t0 provide an employee a meal period 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 0r rest period in accordance with an applicable order 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour 0f pay at the employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each work day that the meal 0r rest period is not provided.” 66. During the relevant time period, Employer Defendants willfully required Plaintiff to work four (4) or more hours without authorizing 0r permitting a ten (10) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked. Employer Defendants also had n0 policy and/or practice t0 pay a premium when rest periods were missed, and thus failed t0 pay Plaintiff the full rest period premiums due t0 her. 67. As such, Plaintiff did not receive ten (10) minute rest periods for every four (4) hours 0fwork 0r maj 0r fraction thereof, as mandated by the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not receive compensation at the rate 0f one hour’s pay for each day she was deprived 0f their rest peri0d(s). 68. Labor Code § 558 provides that: “(a) Any employer 0r other person acting on behalf 0f an employer who violates, 0r causes t0 be violated, a section 0f this chapter 0r any provision regulating hours and days 0fwork in any order 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subj ect t0 a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial Violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition t0 an amount sufficient t0 recover underpaid wages. (2) For each subsequent Violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition t0 an amount sufficient t0 recover underpaid wages. (3) Wages recovered pursuant t0 this section shall be paid t0 the affected employee.” 69. As set forth above, Plaintiff was not permitted t0 take a rest period 0n a daily basis. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled t0 a penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each underpaid employee for each initial Violation in each pay period, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each subsequent Violation. 70. Based 0n Defendants ‘conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are also liable for statutory penalties pursuant t0 California Labor Code § 226.7 for their Violations 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders regarding rest periods. 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CA 91367 JML LAW A Professional Law Coxporation 5855 Topanga Canyon B1Vd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNwwwwwwb-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ab-A OONONMJ>WNHOKOOONONMJ>WNHO 71. Plaintiff is entitled t0 one (1) additional hour 0f pay per day that Defendants denied her an uninterrupted rest period. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 1. 99°99‘995’9N For general damages, according t0 proof; For special damages, according t0 proof; For loss 0f earnings, according t0 proof; For attorneys’ fees, according t0 proof; For prejudgment interest, according t0 proof; For punitive and exemplary damages, according t0 proof; For costs 0f suit incurred herein; For interest accrued t0 date; For such other relief that the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. DATED : December 8, 2020 JML LAW, A Professional Law Corporation MASK:- JOSEPH M. LOVRETOVICH ERIC M. GRUZEN RUTH GEWING Attorneys for Plaintiff 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT