CON1-OliwiLO COPY ORIGINAL FILED Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles JUN Oti2OTh Sherri n. i uiiice/Clerk By: , Deputy ishayla Chambers CaseNo.: BC622587 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR Wrongful Ternimation in Violation of Public Policy Disability Discrimination (Govt Code §12940) Failure to Engage In Interactive Process (Govt Code §12940) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Disability (Govt Code §12940(k)) Failure to Prevent Harassnient and Discthnlnzition (Govt Code §12940(k)) Unlawful Retaliation VIolation of Labor Code §1102.5(c) & Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Unfair Competition (B & P §17200) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Attorneys for PLAINTIFF, LORI DELGADO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Exh. A EXHIBIT A

[and] 2. Plaintiff’s purported First Cause of Action for Retaliation under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(c) shall be and hereby is dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice because the claim is time-barred pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a), which provides for a one-year statute of limitations. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiffs’ First, Second and Third Causes of Action of are Barred, In Part, Because They Are Preempted Under the Garmon Doctrine Plaintiffs assert that they were retaliated against and wrongfully terminated, in part, for making complaints, through their union representative, about hour inequalities, discussing working conditions with fellow union members, making complaints about working conditions to the NLRB and participating in an investigation being conducted by the NLRB. These claims are the basis, in least in part, for Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for Violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5, Second Cause of Action for Violation of California Labor Code section 6310, and Third Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. These specific claims are preempted by federal law as explained in San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) and should be stricken from the Complaint accordingly. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 157, guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection…” Section 8, 29 U.S.C. § 158, makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to “interfere with, retrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in” Section 7 and to discrimination against employees to “encourage or discourage membership in any labor org

To state a claim for retaliation under the FEHA and/or California Labor Code section 1102.5, Plaintiff must show: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he was thereafter subject to adverse employment action by his employer; and (3) there was a causal link between the two. Morgan v. Regents of the University of California, 88 Cal. App. 4th 52, 69 (2001); Edgerly v. City of Oakland, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1191, 1199 (2012). “Protected activity” is defined in the California Government Code as: (1) making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in proceedings or hearings under FEHA, or (2) opposing acts made unlawful by FEHA. See Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(h). “Protected activity” under Labor Code section 1102.5 is defined as “the disclosure of or opposition to ‘a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.” Edgerly, 211 Cal. App. 4th at 1199 (quoting Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) and (c)). Here, Plaintiff’s retaliation claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing that he engaged in protected activity or any facts that establish causation between any protected activity and an adverse action.