Complaint Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 24, 2020

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Maria Bourn (SBN 269322) maria@attorneytanya.com Michael Brooks (SBN 272053) michael@att0meytanya.com LAW OFFICES OF TANYA GOMERMAN, APC 825 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 502 San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 545-8608 Fax: (855) 545-8608 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-FILED 11/24/2020 2:23 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara ZOCV373984 Reviewed By: R. Tien SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JANE DOE, an individual, Plaintiff, V. RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST, a California corporation, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, ALBERT J CHAVEZ, an individual, CHRISTOPHER GARVIN, an individual, DOES 1 t0 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case N0. 20CV373984 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) Sexual Battery (CiV. Code, § 1708.5) (2) Violation 0f Right t0 Freedom from Sexual Violence (CiV. Code, § 51.7) (3) Gender Violence (Civ. Code, § 52.4) (4) Assault and Battery (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (6) Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention (7) Negligence (8) Employment Discrimination Based on Sex and Disability (Gov. Code, § 12940(a)) (9) Hostile Work Environment Harassment (GOV. Code, § 129400)) (10) Retaliation in Violation 0f the Fair Employment and Housing Act (GOV. Code, § 12940(h)) (1 1) Failure to Accommodate Disability (Gov. Code, § 12940(m)) [Continued 0n Next Page] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (12) Failure t0 Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation (Gov. Code, § 12940(k)) (13) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5 (14) Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PlaintiffJANE DOEl (“Plaintiff”) alleges against defendants RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC., AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., ALBERT J CHAVEZ, and CHRISTOPHER GARVIN (collectively, “Defendants”), and each 0f them, as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff was raped by ALBERT J CHAVEZ (“AJ CHAVEZ”), a paramedic who supervised and directed her work as an emergency medical technician (“EMT”). Plaintiff” s employers- RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC., AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST, and AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. (collectively, “AMR”)- knew or should have known 0fAJ CHAVEZ’S propensity for harassment and sexual Violence but failed t0 act t0 prevent the rape. When Plaintiff later complained to AMR about the rape, AMR management began t0 target her for discipline and termination. After a series of dubious attempts to discipline Plaintiff and paper her file, and after successive complaints by Plaintiff t0 AMR regarding the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation she was being subjected to by AMR management, AMR discharged Plaintiff from her employment Without good cause. THE PARTIES 2. PlaintiffJANE DOE resides in Santa Clara County, California. Throughout the 1 Plaintiff uses the fictious name JANE DOE rather than her given name in order t0 preserve her privacy regarding the sensitive and highly personal nature of the claims alleged herein and t0 protect her from further discrimination, harassment, 0r retaliation in her vocation. To the extent that any 0f the defendants 0r their counsel are unaware of the true identity 0f Plaintiff, counsel for Plaintiff will disclose Plaintiff’s given name t0 defendants and their counsel upon request subject t0 mutually agreeable terms 0f confidentiality. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 period that is relevant t0 this lawsuit, she was employed by AMR in and around Santa Clara County, California. 3. Defendant RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (“RURAL/METRO”) is a Delaware corporation. On information and belief, RURAL/METRO provides 911 Paramedic and Ambulance Services for the County of Santa Clara and is an affiliate 0f the other AMR entities named in this action. Throughout the period that is relevant t0 this lawsuit, RURAL/METRO jointly employed Plaintiff With the other AMR entities named in this action. 4. Defendant AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST (“AMR WEST”) is a California Corporation. On information and belief, AMR WEST provides ambulance services in more than 15 Northern California counties, including Santa Clara county, and is an affiliate 0f the other AMR entities named in this action. Throughout the period that is relevant t0 this lawsuit, AMR WEST jointly employed Plaintiff With the other AMR entities named in this action. 5. Defendant AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. (“AMR INC”) is a Delaware Corporation. On information and belief, AMR INC. is the largest contract provider of 911 emergency response and non-emergency ambulance services in the United States and is an affiliate of the other AMR entities named in this action. Throughout the period that is relevant to this lawsuit, AMR INC. jointly employed Plaintiff with the other AMR entities named in this action. 6. On information and belief, defendant ALBERT J CHAVEZ (“AJ CHAVEZ”) is an individual Who resides in the State 0f California. 7. On information and belief, defendant CHRISTOPHER GARVIN (“Supervisor GARVIN”) is an individual who resides in the State 0f California. 8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise 0f the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown t0 Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff therefore sues these defendants by fictitious names pursuant to section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities 0fDOES 1 through 50, inclusive, when their names are ascertained. Each 0f the DOE defendants is in some manner liable to Plaintiff for the events and 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 actions alleged herein. 9. Each of the Defendants was in some manner responsible for the acts and damages alleged herein, 0r is indebted t0 Plaintiffs as alleged herein, and each defendant participated in the acts alleged herein and, in participating in such acts, each defendant was the agent and co- conspirator of each other defendant, and was acting in the course and scope of such agency and conspiracy. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Under article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution and Section 12965 0f the Government Code, this Court has jurisdiction over the subj ect matter 0f this case. 11. Under Section 12965 0f the Government Code, venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiffworked for AMR in Santa Clara County and the unlawful practices committed by Defendants occurred in Santa Clara County. 12. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum 0f $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 13. In approximately May 2018, Plaintiffbegan working for AMR as an EMT performing emergency and non-emergency ambulance services. 14. On or about November 26, 2018, Plaintiffwas assigned t0 work a shift With ALBERT J CHAVEZ (“AJ Chavez”). Typically, in AMR’S provision 0f ambulance services, the ambulance is staffed by just two crew members. On this shift, the ambulance was staffed by an EMT, Plaintiff, and a paramedic, AJ Chavez. As a paramedic, AJ Chavez possessed supervisory control over Plaintiff, an EMT. AJ Chavez had authority to use his independent judgment t0 direct Plaintiff s work. Just before the shift began, AJ Chavez informed Plaintiff that he intentionally adjusted his schedule s0 that he would be assigned t0 work the shift With her. During the shift, AJ Chavez called management t0 extend their scheduled 10-hour shift by two hours. He also made a point of telling Plaintiff that he was separated from his Wife. The shift ended after midnight and the two agreed t0 meet the next day for breakfast t0 discuss the night’s calls. 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. The next morning, Plaintiffwent t0 AJ Chavez’s apartment t0 get him and g0 t0 breakfast. AJ Chavez answered the door in a towel as if he had just gotten out of the shower. Plaintiff entered the apartment t0 wait for him to get dressed. Moments later AJ Chavez started kissing Plaintiff. Though the physical encounter began consensually, Plaintiff withdrew her consent When AJ Chavez began to touch and take liberties With her that she did not want. She told him t0 stop, but he did not stop. Instead, AJ Chavez held Plaintiff down and forcibly sodomized her against her will. After the rape, Plaintiff asked AJ Chavez, “why did you d0 that?” He replied, “I just wanted t0 see what I could get away with.” 16. In the days and weeks that followed, AJ Chavez tried to romantically pursue Plaintiff. He tried t0 interact With Plaintiff at work, he messaged her 0n Snapchat, and he began t0 pester Plaintiff” s work colleagues about her. Initially, Plaintiff attempted t0 be civil with AJ Chavez while keeping him at a safe distance hoping his interest towards her would abate. Though at that time Plaintiff wanted to simply forget about the rape and move 0n with her life, AJ Chavez made that impossible. Far from being able to move 0n, Plaintiffbegan t0 have panic attacks at work out of fear for her safety due t0 AJ Chavez’s continuing presence and harassment. 17. Plaintiff was very reluctant t0 inform AMR management about the rape and the continuing harassment thereafter because she was aware 0f their history of retaliating against women and others Who report harassment in the workplace. Nonetheless, in or about April 2019, Plaintiff reported the rape and the harassment t0 AMR. An investigation followed, including at least three interviews With Plaintiff. Eventually, in or around May 20 1 9, AMR terminated AJ Chavez’s employment and banned him from the work premises. After he was fired, the union informed Plaintiff that AJ Chavez had worked for AMR previously in other counties and that multiple other individuals had made allegations 0f harassment against him in the past, including a patient. 18. In an attempt t0 move beyond the trauma that the rape and other harassment caused, Plaintiff decided to work towards advancing her career in emergency services. She enrolled in school while working for AMR to obtain a two-year degree and become a 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 paramedic. She hoped that With AJ Chavez n0 longer working at AMR, at least her work life could go back t0 normal. But that hope was misplaced. Rather than embrace her as a dedicated, valued employee, AMR management began t0 target her because she had complained about sexual harassment, just as she had initially feared. 19. In or around June 2019, Plaintiff called out 0fwork for one or more shifts where she was scheduled t0 work with a man who she did not know well enough t0 be alone With Without serious apprehension. As a result of her being raped by AJ Chavez, Plaintiff suffers from post trauma stress and this disabling condition limited her ability to work alone with men she does not already know and trust. During this time period, Plaintiff regularly worked With a female paramedic partner. In 0r around August 2019, AMR supervisor CHRISTOPHER GARVIN (“Supervisor Garvin”) called a meeting with Plaintiff t0 give her a written warning for attendance based 0n her calling out ofwork rather than working With the assigned male. After the meeting, Plaintiff and the shop steward met With AMR Operations Manager David Gallagher (“Manager Gallagher”), a superior t0, and close friend 0f, Supervisor Garvin. Manager Gallagher scoffed and told Plaintiff and the union representative, “I don’t want t0 start a precedent 0f allowing that.” Plaintiff replied, “allowing what? Women who were raped by your male employees to not have t0 work with men they feel unsafe with?” Manager Gallagher responded, “If you want special treatment you can talk to HR and ask them, I am not doing it!” Plaintiff did not further challenge the written warning. 20. In or around September 2019, Supervisor Garvin attempted to give Plaintiff a further written warning regarding her failure t0 attend work When assigned t0 work alone With certain males, Which she had already been disciplined. Plaintiff informed her union representatives 0f Supervisor Garvin’s attempt t0 issue another written warning. After discussion between union representatives and AMR management, the further written warning was withdrawn and not issued. Union representatives again advised Plaintiff t0 “lie 10w” because AMR management had a track record for harassing and retaliating against women Who report sexual harassment. 21. For several months thereafter, Plaintiff was able t0 lay 10w and avoid further 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ire from AMR management. Then, in 0r around March 2020, Plaintiffbecame ill and needed t0 call out 0fwork sick. When Plaintiff reported her illness to Supervisor Garvin at approximately 5 am. before her shift scheduled t0 begin at 7 a.m., he said, “I know you’re less than two hours, but we’ll just forget about that and say it’s more than two hours. Use PTO, it won’t be an occurrence.” Then, in 0r around April 2020, Plaintiff needed to call out 0f work again due t0 nausea and vomiting after being diagnosed with coronavirus. This time Plaintiff reported her illness t0 another supervisor, Nicholas Prentice (“Supervisor Prentice”) who told her, “Use PTO, g0 home, it won’t be an occurrence.” Nonetheless, later in April 2020, Plaintiffwas called in for a disciplinary meeting With Supervisor Prentice regarding her absences. She explained that each 0f the absences had been excused as non-occurrences by her supervisors. Despite this explanation, she was later called back for another disciplinary meeting With another supervisor, Supervisor Boston, wherein she was given a Final Written Warning for Attendance. 22. Bewildered by the actions 0f her superiors in disciplining her for absences that were justified due t0 illness and that had already been approved, Plaintiff contacted the AMR corporate ethics hotline to report that she was being harassed and retaliated against by Supervisor Garvin and Manager Gallagher. Plaintiff also reported the same concerns t0 AMR Regional Manager Doug Patrick (“Regional Manager Patrick”). 23. In or around May 2020, Plaintiff s Final Written Warning was reduced by Regional Manager Petrick t0 a non-final written warning. Meanwhile, Manager Gallagher was fired by AMR. According to union representatives, several other female employees in addition t0 Plaintiff had complained about him harassing and retaliating against them for their reporting of sexual harassment, and that the other woman had also been similarly subjected t0 adverse action by Manager Gallagher directly and indirectly through his subordinate supervisors. 24. Despite Manager Gallagher’s termination, the harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff continued and intensified. In 0r around June 2020, Plaintiff and her crew partner were briefly delayed in their response t0 a 10W amount 0f ambulances alert because 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff needed a break t0 use the restroom. Afterwards trying to be proactive and avoid further accusations by management, Plaintiff called and informed a supervisor that her crew had been delayed in responding to the alert and why. Later, in or around July 2020, Plaintiff was called into a disciplinary meeting with AMR Supervisor Jeremy Boston (“Supervisor Boston”) who was investigating the incident. Supervisor Boston was verbally aggressive With Plaintiff during the meeting and accused her of lying. Supervisor Boston claimed that he and Supervisor Garvin had watched the surveillance Video from the time of the incident and that the Video allegedly showed she was lying. 25. Later the same month, Supervisor Boston contacted PlaintiffWhen she was off duty and informed her that she had t0 come in 0n her day off for further questioning. Supervisor Boston refused t0 conduct the interview 0n Plaintiff” s scheduled workdays. Concerned regarding the continuing efforts 0f Supervisor Boston and Supervisor Garvin t0 unfairly scrutinize her work and impose discipline, Plaintiff contacted AMR human resources and complained regarding their harassment and retaliation to HR Manager Terri Shong (“HR Manager Shong”) and Regional Manager Patrick. 26. On or about September 14, 2020, Plaintiff and her crew partner, paramedic Nick Drummond (“Paramedic Drummond”) were performing a crew exchange with the night crew during a 10W amount 0f ambulances alert When an emergency call came in from dispatch. Though the call was technically dispatched to Plaintiff and Paramedic Drummond, they informed the night crew 0f the call and the night crew responded t0 the call. Again, trying to be proactive and avoid further accusations by management, Plaintiff reported the incident t0 a supervisor, was told to complete and incident report, and did so. The very next day, Plaintiff was interviewed by Supervisors Gizyicki and Prentice. On or about, September 18, 2020, AMR fired Plaintiff for alleged dishonesty. Plaintiff’s crew partner, Paramedic Drummond, was not fired. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 27. On 0r about November 24, 2020, by and through counsel, Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint against Defendants alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0n the basis 0f sex, gender, and disability in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and obtained an immediate right to sue notice. Copies 0f the same documents are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Battery (Civ. Code, § 1708.5) (Against defendant AJ CHAVEZ) 28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 29. On or about November 27, 2018, defendant AJ CHAVEZ forcibly sodomized Plaintiff intending to cause a harmful 0r offensive contact with Plaintiff’s buttocks and anus, and a sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff resulted. 30. Plaintiff did not consent t0 the offensive contact. 3 1. Plaintiff was harmed and offended by the offensive contact. 32. As a result of being subjected t0 sexual battery, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award of said damages. 33. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled t0 an award of compensatory damages against AJ CHAVEZ for said suffering in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 34. Exemplary and punitive damages against AJ CHAVEZ in an amount to be proven at trial are warranted because his conduct in subjecting Plaintiff t0 sexual battery constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Right to Freedom from Sexual Violence (Civ. Code, § 51.7) (Against all Defendants except Supervisor GARVIN) 35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 36. On 0r about November 27, 2018, defendant AJ CHAVEZ committed a Violent act against Plaintiffby forcibly sodomizing her without her consent. 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 37. A substantial motivating reason for AJ CHAVEZ’S act 0f Violence against Plaintiff was that Plaintiff is a woman. 38. AMR aided, incited 0r conspired in the denial of Plaintiff’s right to freedom from sexual Violence through its failure t0 take appropriate actions against AJ CHAVEZ prior t0 the occurrence 0f the sexual Violence against Plaintiff and their implicit support and encouragement 0f employees towards sexual harassment and the subjugation 0fwomen. 39. By the time the sexual Violence against Plaintiff occurred, AMR knew 0r should have known ofAJ CHAVEZ’S propensity for sexual harassment and Violence and had a duty t0 act to prevent harassment and sexual Violence. AMR failed to take appropriate actions t0 prevent AJ CHAVEZ from engaging in harassment and sexual Violence and thereby aided, incited, 0r conspired with him in the denial 0f Plaintiff” s rights. 40. Plaintiff was harmed by the Violation 0f her right t0 be free from sexual Violence and the conduct 0fAJ CHAVEZ and AMR was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff s harm. 41. As a result of being subjected to sexual Violence, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award of said damages. 42. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against all Defendants except Supervisor GARVIN for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 43. Exemplary and punitive damages against all Defendants except Supervisor GARVIN in an amount t0 be proven at trial are warranted because AJ CHAVEZ’S conduct in denying Plaintiff” s right t0 be free from sexual Violence and AMR’S conduct in aiding, inciting, or conspiring in that denial constitutes oppression, fraud, 0r malice. 44. Plaintiff is further entitled t0 an award against each 0f the Defendants except Supervisor GARVIN for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs 0f the action. / / / / / / / / / 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Gender Violence (Civ. Code, § 52.4) (Against defendant AJ CHAVEZ) 45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 46. On 0r about November 27, 2018, defendant AJ CHAVEZ forcibly sodomized Plaintiff against her Will using physical force subj ecting her to gender Violence. 47. Plaintiff did not consent to the offensive contact. 48. Plaintiff was harmed and offended by the offensive contact. 49. As a result 0f being subjected t0 gender Violence, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount to be proven at trial and is entitled to an award of said damages. 50. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled t0 an award 0f compensatory damages against AJ CHAVEZ for said suffering in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 5 1. Exemplary and punitive damages against AJ CHAVEZ in an amount t0 be proven at trial are warranted because his conduct in subjecting Plaintiff to gender Violence constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. 52. Plaintiff is further entitled t0 an award against AJ CHAVEZ for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs 0f the action. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Assault and Battery (Against defendant AJ CHAVEZ) 53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 54. On or about November 27, 2018, defendant AJ CHAVEZ forcibly sodomized Plaintiff against her will with intent to harm 0r offend her. 55. Plaintiff did not consent to the offensive touching. 56. Plaintiff was harmed and offended by the offensive touching. 1 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 57. A reasonable person in Plaintiff” s situation would have been offended by the touching. 58. As a result of being subjected t0 battery, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled to an award 0f said damages. 59. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled to an award 0f compensatory damages against AJ CHAVEZ for said suffering in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 60. Exemplary and punitive damages against AJ CHAVEZ in an amount t0 be proven at trial are warranted because his conduct in subjecting Plaintiff t0 battery constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction 0f Emotional Distress (Against defendant AJ CHAVEZ) 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 62. On or about November 27, 2018, defendant AJ CHAVEZ forcibly sodomized Plaintiff against her will with intent t0 cause her emotional distress 0r with reckless disregard of the probability that she would suffer emotional distress. 63. Defendant AJ CHAVEZ’S conduct in raping Plaintiff was outrageous. 64. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. 65. Defendant AJ CHAVEZ’S conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. 66. Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award 0f said damages. 67. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled t0 an award of compensatory damages against AJ CHAVEZ for said suffering in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 68. Exemplary and punitive damages against AJ CHAVEZ in an amount t0 be proven 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 at trial are warranted because his conduct in subjecting Plaintiff t0 battery constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention (Against AMR only) 69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 70. At the time of his hiring or retention by AMR to perform work in Santa Clara county, AJ CHAVEZ presented an unacceptable risk 0fharm t0 co-workers and patients. 71. When AMR hired 0r retained AJ CHAVEZ t0 work in Santa Clara county, they knew 0r should have known that AJ CHAVEZ presented an unacceptable risk 0fharm t0 co- workers and patients. 72. When AMR assigned AJ CHAVEZ t0 work with Plaintiff, they knew 0r should have known that AJ CHAVEZ presented an unacceptable risk 0fharm to Plaintiff. 73. On or about November 27, 2018, defendant AJ CHAVEZ harmed Plaintiffby forcibly sodomizing her against her will. 74. AMR’S negligence in hiring, supervisor and retaining AJ CHAVEZ was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 75. As a result of the negligence ofAMR, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award 0f said damages. 76. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against AMR for said suffering in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 77. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount to be proven at trial are warranted because his conduct in subj ecting Plaintiff to battery constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. / / / / / / 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (Against AMR only) 78. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 79. AMR was negligent and Plaintiff has been harmed. 80. As a result 0f the negligence 0fAMR, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount to be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award of said damages. 81. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled t0 an award 0f compensatory damages against AMR for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 82. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount t0 be proven at trial are warranted because his conduct in subj ecting Plaintiff t0 battery constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Employment Discrimination Based 0n Sex and Disability (Gov. Code, § 12940(a))) (Against AMR only) 83. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 84. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a), declares it an unlawful employment practice for an employer t0 discharge a person from employment, 0r discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions 0r privileges of employment, because 0f race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, 0r military and veteran status. 85. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed by AMR. 86. Prior t0 terminating Plaintiff s employment, AMR was aware that Plaintiff was a woman Who suffered from a post-traumatic stress condition that made it difficult or impossible 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for her t0 work alone With male co-workers that she did know well. 87. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties ofjob With 0r without accommodation 0f her disability. 88. AMR discharged Plaintiff from employment and otherwise discriminated against her in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 89. Plaintiff’s sex 0r disability were a substantial motivating reason for AMR’S decision to discharge Plaintiff and discrimination against her in the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment. 90. As a result of being subjected to unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award 0f said damages. 91. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer lost wages and other benefits of employment and is entitled to an award 0f compensatory damages against AMR for said damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 92. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against AMR for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 93. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount t0 be proven at trial are warranted because their conduct in unlawfully discriminating against Plaintiff constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. 94. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award against AMR for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of the action. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Hostile Work Environment Harassment (Gov. Code, § 12940(j)) (Against all Defendants) 95. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 96. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j), declares it an unlawful 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 employment practice for an employer 0r any other person t0 harass an employee because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, 0r military and veteran status. 97. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed by AMR. 98. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to harassing conduct because she is a woman and because she has a disability. 99. A reasonable person in Plaintiff” s circumstances would have considered the work environment t0 be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, and abusive. 100. Plaintiff considered the work environment t0 be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, and abusive. 101. The harassing conduct complained 0f herein was engaged in by supervisors employed by AMR, 0r was known 0r should have been known by AMR, Which failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it became, or should have become, aware. 102. As a result 0f being subjected to unlawful harassment, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount to be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award of said damages. 103. Plaintiff has and continues t0 suffer 10st wages and other benefits 0f employment and is entitled t0 an award of compensatory damages against Defendants for said damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 104. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against Defendants for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 105. Exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial are warranted because their conduct in unlawfully harassing Plaintiff constitutes oppression, fraud, 0r malice. 106. Plaintiff is further entitled t0 an award against Defendants for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs 0f the action. 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation 0f the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940(h)) (Against AMR only) 107. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 108. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h), declares it an unlawful employment practice for an employer t0 discharge, expel, 0r otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under the FEHA. 109. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by reporting acts 0f discrimination, harassment, and retaliation Violative 0f the FEHA t0 AMR. 110. Plaintiff also engaged in protective activity by requesting reasonable accommodation 0f her post traumatic stress disability. 111. AMR took multiple adverse actions against Plaintiff and ultimately discharged her from employment. 112. Plaintiff” s protected activity was a substantial motivating reason for AMR’S decision to take adverse actions against Plaintiff and ultimately discharge her from employment. 113. As a result of being subjected t0 unlawful retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award 0f said damages. 114. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer lost wages and other benefits of employment and is entitled t0 an award 0f compensatory damages against AMR for said damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 115. Plaintiff has and continues t0 suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled t0 an award 0f compensatory damages against AMR for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 116. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount t0 be proven at trial are warranted because their conduct in unlawfillly harassing Plaintiff constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 117 . Plaintiff is further entitled to an award against AMR for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs 0f the action. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure t0 Accommodate Disability (Gov. Code, § 12940(m)) (Against AMR only) 118. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 119. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m), declares it an unlawful employment practice for an employer t0 fail t0 make reasonable accommodation for the known physical 0r mental disability 0f an employee. 120. AMR knew 0r should have known 0f Plaintiff s disabling condition limiting her ability t0 work alone With male co-workers she did not know well. 121. Plaintiff was able t0 perform the essential duties 0f her job With a reasonable accommodation. 122. AMR refused t0 provide Plaintiff With a reasonable accommodation that would excuse her from being assigned to work alone with male co-workers she did not know well. 123. As a result of being denied reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award against AMR of said damages. 124. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount to be proven at trial are warranted because their conduct in unlawfully harassing Plaintiff constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. 125. Plaintiff is further entitled t0 an award against AMR for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs 0f the action. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure t0 Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation (Gov. Code, § 12940(k)) (Against AMR only) 126. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 though set forth herein. 127. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), declares it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary t0 prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. 128. Plaintiff was subjected to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the course 0f her employment with AMR. 129. AMR failed t0 take all reasonable steps t0 prevent the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation suffered by Plaintiff. 130. Plaintiff was harmed by AMR’S failure t0 take all reasonable steps t0 prevent the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation from occurring. 13 1. AMR’S failure was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 132. As a result ofAMR’S failure, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award 0f said damages. 133. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer 10st wages and other benefits 0f employment and is entitled t0 an award 0f compensatory damages against AMR for said damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 134. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled t0 an award of compensatory damages against AMR for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 135. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount to be proven at trial are warranted because their conduct in unlawfully harassing Plaintiff constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. 136. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award against AMR for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs 0f the action. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5 (Against AMR only) 137. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as 19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 though set forth herein. 138. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected under Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5 by reporting acts 0f discrimination, harassment, and retaliation Violative of the FEHA and other state or federal laws and regulations t0 AMR. 139. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the information she provided t0 AMR (and agents ofAMR with authority over Plaintiff and With authority t0 investigate, discover, 0r correct the legal Violation complained about) disclosed Violations of the FEHA and other state or federal laws and regulations. 140. AMR took multiple adverse actions against Plaintiff and ultimately discharged her from employment. 141. Plaintiff’s protected activity was a substantial motivating reason for AMR’S decisions to take adverse actions against Plaintiff and ultimately discharge her from employment. 142. As a result 0f being subjected t0 unlawful retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial and is entitled t0 an award 0f said damages. 143. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer lost wages and other benefits of employment and is entitled t0 an award of compensatory damages against AMR for said damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 144. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against AMR for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 145. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount to be proven at trial are warranted because their conduct in unlawfully harassing Plaintiff constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. 146. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award against AMR for her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of the action. / / / / / / 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Against AMR only) 147. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth herein. 148. The FEHA delineates a fundamental, substantial, and well-established public policy against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation 0n the basis 0f sex and disability in the employment context. 149. Labor Code section 1102.5 similarly embodies a fundamental, substantial, and well-established public policy prohibiting retaliation against employees Who disclose unlawful activity in the employment context. 150. AMR’S retaliatory termination 0f Plaintiff” s employment because she engaged in activity protected under the FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5 violates the fundamental, substantial, and well-established public policy delineated in the FEHA and Labor Code section 1 102.5. 15 1. AMR’s Violation of the public policy embodied in the FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5 was a substantial motivating reason for Plaintiff s discharge. 152. As a result 0f being discharged by AMR, Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages in an amount to be proven at trial and is entitled to an award of said damages. 153. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer 10st wages and other benefits 0f employment and is entitled t0 an award 0f compensatory damages against AMR for said damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 154. Plaintiff has and continues t0 suffer emotional distress, suffering, grief, sadness, worry, shock, humiliation, frustration, anguish and nervousness and is entitled t0 an award 0f compensatory damages against AMR for said suffering in an amount to be proven at trial. 155. Exemplary and punitive damages against AMR in an amount t0 be proven at trial are warranted because their conduct in unlawfillly harassing Plaintiff constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. 21 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UI-hbJN KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: A. Compensatory damages according to proof; General damages according t0 proof; Special damages according to proof; Statutory damages, liquidated damages, and penalties according t0 proof; Punitive damages; Prejudgment interest according to law; Costs of suit, including attorney’s fees authorized by statute; :pwwpom Equitable relief, including injunctive relief and declaratory relief; and H Any other and further relief that the Court considers just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury 0n all issues triable by jury. DATED: November 24, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF TANYA GOMERMAN, APC mf’m‘ By: Michael Brooks Attorneys for Plaintiffs 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Exhibit 1 nw GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVINKISHDIRECTOR 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) | (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California‘s Relay Service at 711 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov November 24, 2020 Michael Brooks 825 Van Ness Ave, Suite 502 San Francisco, CA 94109 RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney DFEH Matter Number: 20201 1-1 1908324 Right to Sue: DOE / RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC. et al. Dear Michael Brooks: Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue. Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience. Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it meets procedural or statutory requirements. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing §TATE QF QALIFQRNIA nginggg anggmgr §§Ni§§ gng Hggging Aggncv GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVINKISHDIRECTOR 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) | (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California‘s Relay Service at 711 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov November 24, 2020 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 20201 1-1 1908324 Right to Sue: DOE / RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC. et al. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing nw GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVINKISHDIRECTOR 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) | (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California‘s Relay Service at 711 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov November 24, 2020 JANE DOE c/o Law Offices of Tanya Gomerman, 825 Van Ness Ave, Ste 502 San Francisco, California 94109 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 20201 1-1 1908324 Right to Sue: DOE / RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC. et al. Dear JANE DOE: This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective November 24, 2020 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 3O days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing OLOOONOU‘l-POONA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mNmU‘l-POONAOQWNQU‘I-POONA COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) In the Matter of the Complaint of JANE DOE DFEH No. 20201 1-1 1908324 Complainant, vs. RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 6363 S Fiddler's Green Circle, Suite 1400 Greenwood Village, Colorado 801 11 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST 6363 S Fiddler's Green Circle, Suite 1400 Greenwood Village, Colorado 801 11 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. 6363 S Fiddler's Green Circle, Suite 1400 Greenwood Village, Colorado 801 11 ALBERT CHAVEZ , California CHRISTOPHER GARVIN , California Respondents 1. Respondent RURALIMETRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC. is an employer RURALIMETRO OF CALIFORNIA, INC. subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant is naming AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST as individual Co- Respondent(s). Complainant is naming AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. as individual Co- Respondent(s). Complainant is naming ALBERT CHAVEZ as individual Co-Respondent(s). Complainant is naming CHRISTOPHER GARVIN as individual Co-Respondent(s). -1- Complaint - DFEH No. 20201 1-1 1908324 Date Filed: November 24, 2020 OLOOONOU‘l-POONA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mNmU‘l-POONAOQWNQU‘I-POONA 3. Complainant JANE DOE, resides in the City of San Francisco, State of California. 4. Complainant alleges that on or about September 18, 2020, respondent took the following adverse actions: Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, disability (physical or mental), sexual harassment- hostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo. Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender, disability (physical or mental), sexual harassment- hostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, reprimanded, demoted, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work opportunities or assignments. Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint and as a result was terminated, reprimanded, demoted, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work opportunities or assignments. Additional Complaint Details: On information and belief: In approximately May 2018, JANE DOE (“Plaintiff”) began working for RURAL/METRO OF CALIFORNIA, |NC., AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST, and AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. (collectively, “AMR”) as an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) performing emergency and non-emergency ambulance services. On or about November 26, 201 8, Plaintiff was assigned to work a shift with ALBERT J CHAVEZ (“AJ Chavez”). Typically, in AMR’s provision of ambulance services, the ambulance is staffed byjust two crew members. On this shift, the ambulance was staffed by an EMT, Plaintiff, and a paramedic, AJ Chavez. As a paramedic, AJ Chavez possessed supervisory control over Plaintiff, an EMT. AJ Chavez had authority to use his independent judgment to direct Plaintiff’s work. Just before the shift began, AJ Chavez informed Plaintiff that he intentionally adjusted his schedule so that he would be assigned to work the shift with her. During the shift, AJ Chavez called management to extend their scheduled 10-hour shift by two hours. He also made a point of telling Plaintiff that he was separated from his wife. The shift ended after midnight and the two agreed to meet the next day for breakfast to discuss the night’s calls. The next morning, Plaintiff went to AJ Chavez’s apartment to get him and go to breakfast. AJ Chavez answered the door in a towel as if he had just gotten out of the shower. Plaintiff entered the apartment to wait for him to get dressed. Moments later AJ Chavez started kissing Plaintiff. Though the physical encounter began consensually, Plaintiff withdrew her consent when AJ Chavez began to touch and take liberties with her that she did not want. She told him to stop, but he did not stop. Instead, AJ Chavez held Plaintiff down and forcibly -2- Complaint - DFEH No. 20201 1-1 1908324 Date Filed: November 24, 2020 OLOOONOU‘l-POONA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mNmU‘l-POONAOQWNQU‘I-POONA sodomized her against her will. After the rape, Plaintiff asked AJ Chavez, “why did you do that?” He replied, “I just wanted to see what | could get away with.” In the days and weeks that followed, AJ Chavez tried to romantically pursue Plaintiff. He tried to interact with Plaintiff at work, he messaged her on Snapchat, and he began to pester Plaintiff’s work colleagues about her. Initially, Plaintiff attempted to be civil with AJ Chavez while keeping him at a safe distance hoping his interest towards her would abate. Though at that time Plaintiff wanted to simply forget about the rape and move on with her life, AJ Chavez made that impossible. Far from being able to move on, Plaintiff began to have panic attacks at work out of fear for her safety due to AJ Chavez’s continuing presence and harassment. Plaintiff was very reluctant to inform AMR management about the rape and the continuing harassment thereafter because she was aware of their history of retaliating against women and others who report harassment in the workplace. Nonetheless, in or about April 2019, Plaintiff reported the rape and the harassment to AMR. An investigation followed, including at least three interviews with Plaintiff. Eventually, in or around May 2019, AMR terminated AJ Chavez’s employment and banned him from the work premises. After he was fired, the union informed Plaintiff that AJ Chavez had worked for AMR previously in other counties and that multiple other individuals had made allegations of harassment against him in the past, including a patient. In an attempt to move beyond the trauma that the rape and other harassment caused, Plaintiff decided to work towards advancing her career in emergency services. She enrolled in school while working for AMR to obtain a two-year degree and become a paramedic. She hoped that with AJ Chavez no longer working at AMR, at least her work life could go back to normal. But that hope was misplaced. Rather than embrace her as a dedicated, valued employee, AMR management began to target her because she had complained about sexual harassment, just as she had initially feared. In or around June 2019, Plaintiff called out of work for one or more shifts where she was scheduled to work with a man who she did not know well enough to be alone with without serious apprehension. As a result of her being raped by AJ Chavez, Plaintiff suffers from post trauma stress and this disabling condition limited her ability to work alone with men she does not already know and trust. During this time period, Plaintiff regularly worked with a female paramedic partner. In or around August 2019, AMR supervisor CHRISTOPHER GARVIN (“Supervisor Garvin”) called a meeting with Plaintiff to give her a written warning for attendance based on her calling out of work rather than working with the assigned male. After the meeting, Plaintiff and the shop steward met with AMR Operations Manager David Gallagher (“Manager Gallagher”), a superior to, and close friend of, Supervisor Garvin. Manager Gallagher scoffed and told Plaintiff and the union representative, “I don’t want to start a precedent of allowing that.” Plaintiff replied, “allowing what? Women who were raped by your male employees to not have to work with men they feel unsafe with?” Manager Gallagher responded, “If you want special treatment you can talk to HR and ask them, | am not doing it!” Plaintiff did not further challenge the written warning. -3- Complaint - DFEH No. 20201 1-1 1908324 Date Filed: November 24, 2020 OLOOONOU‘l-POONA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mNmU‘l-POONAOQWNQU‘I-POONA In or around September 2019, Supervisor Garvin attempted to give Plaintiff a further written warning regarding her failure to attend work when assigned to work alone with certain males, which she had already been disciplined. Plaintiff informed her union representatives of Supervisor Garvin’s attempt to issue another written warning. After discussion between union representatives and AMR management, the further written warning was withdrawn and not issued. Union representatives again advised Plaintiff to “lie low” because AMR management had a track record for harassing and retaliating against women who report sexual harassment. For several months thereafter, Plaintiff was able to lay low and avoid further ire from AMR management. Then, in or around March 2020, Plaintiff became i|| and needed to call out of work sick. When Plaintiff reported her illness to Supervisor Garvin at approximately 5 a.m. before her shift scheduled to begin at 7 a.m., he said, “I know you’re less than two hours, but we’ll just forget about that and say it’s more than two hours. Use PTO, it won’t be an occurrence.” Then, in or around April 2020, Plaintiff needed to call out of work again due to nausea and vomiting after being diagnosed with coronavirus. This time Plaintiff reported her illness to another supervisor, Nicholas Prentice (“Supervisor Prentice”) who told her, “Use PTO, go home, it won’t be an occurrence.” Nonetheless, later in April 2020, Plaintiff was called in for a disciplinary meeting with Supervisor Prentice regarding her absences. She explained that each of the absences had been excused as non-occurrences by her supervisors. Despite this explanation, she was later called back for another disciplinary meeting with another supervisor, Supervisor Boston, wherein she was given a Final Written Warning for Attendance. Bewildered by the actions of her superiors in disciplining her for absences that were justified due to illness and that had already been approved, Plaintiff contacted the AMR corporate ethics hotline to report that she was being harassed and retaliated against by Supervisor Garvin and Manager Gallagher. Plaintiff also reported the same concerns to AMR Regional Manager Doug Petrick (“Regional Manager Petrick”). In or around May 2020, Plaintiff’s Final Written Warning was reduced by Regional Manager Petrick to a non-final written warning. Meanwhile, Manager Gallagher was fired by AMR. According to union representatives, several other female employees in addition to Plaintiff had complained about him harassing and retaliating against them for their reporting of sexual harassment, and that the other woman had also been similarly subjected to adverse action by Manager Gallagher directly and indirectly through his subordinate supervisors. Despite Manager Gallagher’s termination, the harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff continued and intensified. In or around June 2020, Plaintiff and her crew partner were briefly delayed in their response to a low amount of ambulances alert because Plaintiff needed a break to use the restroom. Afterwards trying to be proactive and avoid further accusations by management, Plaintiff called and informed a supervisor that her crew had been delayed in responding to the alert and why. Later, in or around July 2020, Plaintiff was called into a disciplinary meeting with AMR Supervisor Jeremy Boston (“Supervisor Boston”) who was investigating the incident. Supervisor Boston was verbally aggressive with Plaintiff during the meeting and accused her of lying. Supervisor Boston claimed that he and Supervisor -4- Complaint - DFEH No. 20201 1-1 1908324 Date Filed: November 24, 2020 OLOOONOU‘l-POONA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mNmU‘l-POONAOQWNQU‘I-POONA Garvin had watched the surveillance video from the time of the incident and that the video allegedly showed she was lying. Later the same month, Supervisor Boston contacted Plaintiff when she was off duty and informed her that she had to come in on her day off for further questioning. Supervisor Boston refused to conduct the interview on Plaintiff’s scheduled workdays. Concerned regarding the continuing efforts of Supervisor Boston and Supervisor Garvin to unfairly scrutinize her work and impose discipline, Plaintiff contacted AMR human resources and complained regarding their harassment and retaliation to HR Manager Terri Shong (“HR Manager Shong”) and Regional Manager Petrick. On or about September 14, 2020, Plaintiff and her crew partner, Paramedic Nick Drummond (“Paramedic Drummond”) were performing a crew exchange with the night crew during a low amount of ambulances alert when an emergency call came in from dispatch. Though the call was technically dispatched to Plaintiff and Paramedic Drummond, they informed the night crew of the call and the night crew responded to the call. Again, trying to be proactive and avoid further accusations by management, Plaintiff reported the incident to a supervisor, was told to complete and incident report, and did so. The very next day, Plaintiff was interviewed by Supervisors Gizyicki and Prentice. On or about, September 18, 2020, AMR fired Plaintiff for alleged dishonesty. Plaintiff’s crew partner, Paramedic Drummond, was not fired. -5- Complaint - DFEH No. 20201 1-1 1908324 Date Filed: November 24, 2020 OLOOONOU‘l-POONA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mNmU‘l-POONAOQWNQU‘I-POONA VERIFICATION I, Michael Brooks, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. | have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based on information and belief, which | believe to be true. On November 24, 2020, | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. -5- Visalia, CA Complaint - DFEH No. 20201 1-1 1908324 Date Filed: November 24, 2020