OFFICES OF ODION LESLIE OKOJIE dion L. Okojie, State Bar Number: 164931 80 West First Street, Suite 313 03 Angeles, California 90012 elephone: [213] 626-4100 acsimile: [213] 626-6900 CONFORMED COPY ORIGINAL FILED Sagerior Court of Cahfomla ounty of Los Angeles MAY 02 201?! Shem B. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk By Myrna Beltran, Deputy AW OFFICES OF NNOGO C. OBLAMIWE nogo C. Obiamiwe, State Bar Number: 219160 80 West First Street, Suite 313 Angeles, California 90012 elephone: [213] 626-4100 Facsimile: [213] 626-6900 Attorneys for Plaintiff: ROSA MARQUEZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES caseNQ, BC544666 FOR DAMAGES FOR: DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND RETALIATION ON ACCOUNT OF FOR MAINTENANCE OF A HOSTILE WORK FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL NEGLIGENT INF LICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ROSA MARQUEZ. Plaintiff, ABM SERVICES INC, a California Corporation Doing Business as ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, SALVADOR MURCIA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW PLAINTIFF ROSA MARQUEZ, an adult female and for her causes of action against DEFENDANTS ABM SERVICES INC, a California corporation doing business as ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES (hereina?er referred to and wherever appropriate as or ENTITY and against individual DEFENDANT SALVADOR MURCIA. I. THE PARTIES 1. PLAINTIFF ROSA MARQUEZ is an adult female who has been employed by ABM from approximately April of 2008, until she was terminated on or about July 29, 2013. COMPLAINT FOR DEMACES ii 1.1 PLAINTIFF is now and has at all times herein mentioned been a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. PLAINTIFF is informed, and based upon such information believes that ABM, is now, and was at all times herein mentioned a corporation authorized to, and doing business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. According to DEFENDANT ABM web page, umw.abm.c0m/Janitbrial? Services, (NYSE: ABM) is a leading provider of facility solutions with revenues exceeding $4 billion and 100,000 employees in over 350 of?ces deployed throughout the United States and various international locations. comprehensive capabilities include facilities engineering, commercial cleaning, energy solutions, HVAC, electrical, landscaping, parking and security, provided through stand-alone or integrated solutions. ABM provides custom facility solutions in urban, suburban and rural areas to properties of all sizes from schools and hOSpitals to the largest and most complex facilities, such as manufacturing plants and major airports. ABM Industries Inc., which Operates through its subsidiaries, was founded in 1909.? PLAINTIFF is informed, and based upon such information believes that individual DEFENDANT SALVADOR MURCIA is a male resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California and, at all relevant times to this action, and is and was employed as an ABM Supervisor. PLAINTIFF is informed, and based upon such information believes that any and all presently unnamed individual Defendants are residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were at all relevant times supervisorial and managerial employees of the CORPORATE DEFENDANTS, as well as functioned in supervisorial and management capacities with CORPORATE DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of DEFENDANTS sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by such ?ctitious names. PLAINTIFF will pray leave of this court to amend this Complaint to ELF-INT FOR DAMAGES 10. ll. allege the true names and capacities of these Defendants when such is ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and based upon such information believes that each of the DEFENDANTS named herein were, at all times relevant to this action, the agent, employee, representing partner, or joint venturer of the remaining DEFENDANTS and was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the DEFENDANTS herein gave consent to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein to each of the remaining DEFENDANTS. Therefore. PLAINTIFF is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against business entity and individual DEF ENDANTS in an amount to be determined at trial PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times hereto mentioned, unless hereafter speci?cally otherwise alleged, the DEFENDANTS and their agents and servants employed each of the remaining DEFENDANTS and were at all times relevant hereto acting within the course and scope oftheir authority as such agent, servant and employee and with the permission and consent of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS, or in the alternative, acted individually for their personal advantage and conspired to do the acts alleged herein, and that damages were proximately caused by these DEFENDANTS. ll. ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF At all relevant times to this action, and beginning within the last two years of employment at ABM, DEFENDANT SALVADOR MURCIA would regularly subject PLAINTIFF to numerous harassing, discriminatory, and offensive conduct on account of her gender. For instance: a. While working under DEFENDANT supervision, he would do and say sexually offensive things to PLAINTIFF. b. DEFENDANT MURCIA would repeatedly ask PLAINTIFF to go out on a date COMPLAI NT FOR DAMAGES 12. l4. l1. with him while she performed her duties for DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANT MURCIA would regularly follow PLAINTIFF to the ladies? lavatory and wait outside the door for her. On several occasions, DEFENDANT MURCIA would Spy on PLAINTIFF and other female employees while they were in the women?s lavatory. DEFENDANT MURCIA would frequently make suggestive comments, such as describing in detail how he wanted to have sex with PLAINTIFF. Over the course of working under him and during relevant times to this action, DEFENDANT MURCIA would make many sexually offensive comments about body in particular and about women in general. At all relevant times to this action, DEFENDANT MURCIA would Hang around PLAINTIFF whenever she was performing her duties for DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF would often observe DEFENDANT MURCIA sexually harassing other female employees. PLAINTIFF also frequently observed and witnessed another male employee, Rigoberto Nunez (also known as ?Oscar Ivanez?), directing sexually offensive and demeaning conduct toward Plaintiffs female co-employees. Not long after PLAINTIFF rebuffed DEFENDANT demeaning, unsolicited, and unwanted sexual advances, MURCIA began to refer to PLAINTIFF as lesbian. DEFENDANT MURCIA gradually increased the frequency and the explicitness of these sexual comments and actions toward PLAINTIFF despite repeated requests that he cease and desist from such offensive conduct. PLAINTIFF felt humiliated, violated and insulted, all of the offensive acts she had eXpen'enced at the hands of MURCIA were without consent or invitation from her. PLAINTIFF became emotionally damaged and injured because she visibly and COM PLAINT FOR DAMAGES ib- I9. 15. 16. I7. 18. 20. personally experienced the manner in which Rigoberto Nunez and MURCIA sexually harassed other female co-employees during the course and scope of employment. DEFENDANT MURCIA was not reprimanded for subjecting PLAINTIFF and other female employees to sexually offensive acts. Rather than address the complaints of Plaintiff and the other women-victims of sexual harassment, corporate entity defendants promoted DEFENDANT MURCIA to supervisorial and management positions. COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT At all relevant times to this action, PLAINTIFF repeatedly voiced her concerns regarding the manner in which ABM failed to protect the interests ofits female employees, including PLAINTIFF from egregious sexual harassment. Yet, nothing was done about concerns. Specifically, PLAINTIFF expressed her displeasure to not only to MURC IA and to other ABM Managers. For instance: a. PLAINTIFF complained to Oscar Belloso; b. PLAINTIFF complained to Joe Roman; c. PLAINTIFF complained to Christian Gomez; d. Sometime in June of 2013, PLAINTIFF informed Branch Manager Richard Goffe in a face-to?face conversation about the retaliation she was subjected to such as being deliberately denied the supplies she needed to perform her tasks and yet be reprimanded for not properly doing her job. Although several female employees had knowledge of offensive sexually harassing behavior because they either experienced or observed it, ABM Managers would defend behavior, insinuating that PLAINTIFF invited or consented to it. When she could no longer tolerate the sexually pervasive behavior, PLAINTIFF took her complaints to the Califomia Labor Board. COMPLAINT FOR 5 21. The Labor Board subsequently referred PLAINTIFF to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. 22. Not long after complaints, DEFENDANTS began a campaign of retaliation against PLAINTIFF. For instance: DEF ENDANTS began to deprive PLAINTIFF of the supplies she needed to properly perform her job duties, forcing PLAINTIFF to buy the supplies with her own funds: MU RCIA and Rigoberto Nunez increased the frequency of calling PLAINTIFF derogatory names, including, ?lesbian;? DEFENDANTS began to reprimand PLAINTIFF for unfounded and bogus ?violations;? MURC IA and Rigoberto Nunez would purposely mess up areas that PLAINTIFF had already cleaned; Supervisor Oscar Belloso issued a warning to PLAINTIFF soon after she complained to him; Four days after PLAINTIFF complained to Branch Manager Richard Goffe, she received a warning from Goffe which falsely accused her of not properly doing her job; DEFENDANTS unfairly suspended PLAINTIFF for two days: DEFENDANTS unfairly suspended PLAINTIFF for another three weeks; DEF ENDANTS falsely claimed that PLAINTIFF was a ?no call, no Show? even though she always informed DEFENDANTS if she had to be absent from or late to work; DEFENDANTS would (mis)represent that PLAINTIFF had not completed her duties and reprimand her. The male employees who in fact did not complete their duties were not reprimanded or given warnings; DEF ENDANTS once tried to force PLAINTIFF to use a vacuum with exposed COMPLAINT FOR ZAMAGES 23. 24. 25. 30. and dangerous wiring which use could have led to serious bodily injury or death; I. On or about July 12, 2013, PLAINTIFF met with Human Resources regarding her complaints; and m. On or about July 29, 2013, DEF ENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that DEFENDANT MURCLA and Rigoberto Nunez had a pattern and practice of harassing employees on account of their gender, female. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that knew or should have known of DEFENDANT and Rigoberto Nunez?s sexually demeaning and derogatory conduct toward female employees, including PLAINTIFF. Yet, DEFENDANTS failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The DEFENDANTS engaged in the foregoing actions with the intent of harassing, discriminating, and retaliating against PLAINTIFF on account of sex/ gender. Neither the DEFENDANTS, nor its managers took any reasonable steps to prevent such discrimination and harassment from occurring, either before or a?er they occurred. DEFENDANTS and their managerial and supervisorial agents knew or should have known of these discriminatory, offensive and harassing actions because DEF ENDANTS and their agents personally observed the conduct and PLAINTIFF repeatedly expressed displeasure with the above-described conduct. Despite DEF actual knowledge of the above-mentioned discriminatory and harassing conduct, and the knowledge of its supervisors and agents, all of the DEF ENDANTS failed to take?immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop such conduct. IV. APPLICABLE LAW The claims which are the subject matter of this action arise solely, and exclusively under the laws and constitution of the State of California, as set forth in Article I 1 of COMPLAINT FOR the Constitution of the State of California, at Articles I 8 of the Constitution of the State of California, as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, commonly referred to as California Government Code 12900 et seq., (hereinafter referred to as Under Article I 1 of the Constitution of the State of California "All people . . . inalienable rights [which include] . . . enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Under Article I 8 ofthe Constitution ofthe State of California a person may not be disquali?ed from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of race, color, or national origin. Under the provisions of Government Code 12940(a) it is illegal for any employer within the State of California, to, because of sex/gender of any person, to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Under California Government Code 12940(t) it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate, harass, or retaliate against any person because the person has opposed any practice prohibited under FEHA. Under the provisionsof Government Code 12940(h)(l) it is illegal for any employer, training program or any other person within the State of California, to, because of sex/gender to harass an employee or applicant if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and corrective action. Under the provisions of Government Code 129400) DEFENDANTS, and each of them were at all times herein mentioned obligated to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. PLAINTIFF is guaranteed protection from retaliation and discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment under the provisions of California Labor Code 6310 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES which provides: No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made any oral or written complaint . . . with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative. (2) . . . because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself, herself, or others of any rights afforded him or her." V. EXHAUSTION OF NOTICES ISSUED 38. PLAINTIFF has ?led a timely charges of discrimination and retaliation with the California Department of air Employment and Housing and has received a right?to- sue (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT Thus, PLAINTIFF has exhausted her administrative remedies. Vl. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOVERNMENT CODE ?l2940 et seg., AGAINST EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS 39. PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all ofthe allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, and by this reference incorporates. said allegations as part of this CAUSE OF ACTION. 40. Under the provisions of California Government Code 12940, mg? it is illegal for any employer within the State of alifomia, to, because of the sex/ gender of any person to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 41. Under Government Code 12940(h) it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate, harass, and/or retaliate against any person because the person has opposed any practice prohibited under FEHA. 42. Under the provisions of Government Code l2940(j)(1) it is illegal for any employer or any other person within the State of California, to, because of sex/ gender to discriminate against an employee or applicant if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should COM LA 7. NT FOR DAMAGES have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 43. Under the provisions of Government Code 1294000 DEFENDANTS, and each of them were at all times herein mentioned obligated to, take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring. 44. DEFENDANTS were at all times employers within the meaning of Cal. Govt Code 12926 and, as such, barred from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of sexjgender as set forth in Cal. Govt Code 12940, m. 45. PLAINTIFF was at all material times an employee covered by Government Code 12940 prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sex/gender. 46. Agents of Business Entity DEFENDANTS, especially individual DEFENDANT MURCIA and Rigoberto Nunez, engaged in the above described pattern and practice of discrimination against female employees, including PLAINTIFFS, on the basis of sex/gender in violation of Cal. Govt Code 12940, 1333., by engaging in a course of conduct set forth herein. 47. Further, DOE DEF ENDANTS and each of them, aided and abetted individual DEFENDANTS as well as the corporate DEFENDANTS in engaging in illegal discrimination of female employees, including subjecting PLAINTIFF to discrimination and hostility on account of sex/gender, in violation of Gm'ernment Code 12940, m. 36. As a direct, legal and proximate result of all conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered harm, including lost employment benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of this Court, to be shown by evidence at the time of trial. 37. This action has been commenced, and is being pursued by PLAINTIFF under the provisions of Government Code 12965(b). As a result of the foregoing PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover an amount equal to all damages shown by proof at the time of trial plus reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing her claims in this action. 38. The above-recited actions of DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or CONPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 oppression, and in reckless disregard of the PLAINTIFF 8? rights under the laws of the State of California entitling PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary damages in such an amount the trier of fact in this action deems appropriate. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR HARASSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOVERNMENT CODE ?12940 Ct 869., AGAINST EMPLOYER DEFENDANT AND INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT SALVADOR MURCIA 48. PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, and by this reference incorporates said allegations as part of this CAUSE OF ACTION. 49. Under the provisions of Government Code 12940, Mg? it is illegal for any employer within the State of California, to, because of the sex/gender of any person to harass a person. 50. Under Government Code 12940(h) it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to harass any person because the person has opposed any practice prohibited under PEI-IA. 51. Under the provisions of Government Code l2940(j)(1) it is illegal for any employer or any other person within the State of California, to, because of sex/ gender to harass an employee or applicant if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 52. Under the provisions of Government Code 12940(k) DEFENDANTS, and each of them were at all times herein mentioned obligated to, take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. 53. DEFENDANTS were at all times employers within the meaning of Government Code I 12926 and, as such, barred from harassment in employment decisions on the basis of sex/gender as set forth in Cal. Govt Code 12940, et seq. 54. PLAINTIFF was at all material times an employee covered by Government Code 12940 prohibiting harassment in employment on the basis of sex/gender. ll FDR DP-JJIAGES 55. Agents of Business Entity DEFENDANT S, eSpecially individual DEFENDANT MURCIA and Rigoberto Nunez, engaged in the above described pattern and practice of harassing female employees, including PLAINTIFF, on the basis of sex/ gender in violation of Government Code 12940, by engaging in a course of conduct set forth herein. 56. Further, DOE DEF ENDANTS and each of them, aided and abetted individual DBFENDANTS as well as the corporate DEF ENDANTS in engaging in illegal harassment of female employees, including subjecting PLAINTIFF to discrimination and hostility on account of sex/gender, in violation of Government Code [2940, w. 36. As a direct. legal and proximate result of all of conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered harm, including lost employment bene?ts, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of this Court, to be shown by evidence at the time oftrial. 37. This action has been commenced, and is being pursued by PLAINTIFF under the provisions of Government Code 12965(b). As a result of the foregoing PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover an amount equal to all damages shown by proof at the time of trial plus reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing her claims in this action. 38. The above?recited actions of DEF ENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the rights under the laws of the State of Califomia entitling PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary damages in such an amount the trier of fact in this action deems appropriate. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOVERNMENT CODE 12940, et seg., AGAINST EMPLOYER DEF ENDANTS 57. PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by this reference, and makes each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs from above as part of this CAUSE or ACTION. 58. At all relevant times to this action, PLAINTIFF expressed her displeasure concerning sexually harassing and demeaning behavior and a hostile work environment. 59. DEFENDANTS, and each one of them, engaged in the foregoing actions as set forth COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12 60. 61. 63. 64. 65. 66. above with the intent of retaliating against PLAINTIFF as a result of her complaints as set forth above. DEF ENDANTS were at all times employers within the meaning of Government Code 1292( c) and, were as such, barred from retaliating against employees as a result of their complaints of discrimination, harassment, or other unlawful conduct by DEFENDANTS or their agents. PLAINTIFF was at all material times an employee covered by GOi-ernmem? Code 12940 prohibiting retaliation in employment on the basis of sex/gender or as a result of the employee?s complaints of the employer?s unlawful conduct. DEFENDANTS and each of them engaged in a pattern and practice of retaliating California Government Code 12940, L363. Further, DOE DEFENDANTS and each of them, aided and abetted all of the DEFENDANTS in engaging in illegal retaliation against PLAINTIFF because of her complaints, including the unwanted and demeaning conduct by Individual DEFENDANT MURCIA and Rigoberto Nunez, on account of sex/ gender in violation of-Gow. Code 12940, M. As a proximate result of conduct PLAINTIFFS have suffered harm, including lost employment bene?ts, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of this Court, to be shown by evidence at the time oftrial. This action has been commenced, and is being pursued by PLAINTIFF under the provisions of Govt. Code 12965(b). As a result of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover an amount equal to all damages shown by proof at the time of trial plus reasonable attorney?s fees and costs'incurred in pursuing her claims in this action. The above-recited actions of DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the PLAINTIFF ?8 rights under the laws of the State of California entitling PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary damages in COMPLAINT FOP. 13 such an amount the trier of fact in this action deems appropriate. 67. Agents of DEFENDANTS and each of them engaged in the above described pattern and practice of retaliating against employees, including PLAINTIFF, on account of sex/ gender, in violation of Government Code 12940, et seq. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE T0 T0 INVESTIGATE DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION, IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOVERNMENT CODE 129400)(1) AND 12940(k), AGAINST EMPLOYER DEF ENDANTS PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all of the allegations contained in the 82. preceding paragraphs from above, and by this reference incorporates said allegations as part of this CAUSE OF ACTION- 83. Business Entity DEFENDANTS and its agents, especially DEFENDANT MURCIA and Rigoberto Nunez, and each of them engaged in the above described pattern and practice of sexually harassing, discriminating, and retaliating against female employees, including PLAINTIFF, in violation of Government Code 12940, et_seq. 84. Under the provisions of Government Code it is illegal for any employer, training program or any other person within the State of California, to, because of sex, harass an employee if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 85. Under the provisions of Government Code l2940(k) DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were at all times herein mentioned obli gated to, take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring. 86. Business Entity/Employer DEF ENDANTS and its agents and each of them, knew or should have known of the conduct described herein, and were at all times herein mentioned obligated to, take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring. 87. DEFENDANTS were at all times employers within the meaning of Government Code 12926 and, as such, barred from harassing or retaliating against employees in employment decisions on the basis of sex/ gender as set forth in Government Code 12940, et seq. ib COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 88.. PLAINTIFF was at all material times an employee covered by Government Code 12940 prohibiting discrimination, harassment or retaliation in employment on the basis of sex/gender. 89. DEF ENDANTS and each of them engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination and harassment against employees, especially PLAINTIFF, on the basis of sex/ gender in violation of Government Code 12940, gig}, as set forth herein. 91. As a direct, legal and proximate result of all of the conduct PLAINTIFF has suffered harm, including lost employment bene?ts, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of this Court, to be shown by evidence at the time oftrial. 92. This action has been commenced, and is being pursued by PLAINTIFF under the provisions of Government Code 12965(b). As a result ofthe foregoing, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover an amount equal to all damages shown by proof at the time oftrial plus reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing her claims in this action. 93. The above?recited actions were done with malice, fraud, or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the rights under the laws of the State of California entitling PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary damages in such an amount the trier of fact in this action deems appropriate. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS 68. PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all of the allegations contained in the preceding from above, and by this reference incorporates said allegations as part of this CAUSE OF ACTION. 69. All of the DEFENDANTS and their agents, acting in their capacities as PLAINTIFF superiors during the course of her employment by DEFENDANTS engaged in a course of conduct in which PLAINTIFF was subjected to discriminatory treatment in violation of her rights Under Article I and 8 of the Constitution of the State of California. COMPLAI NT FOR DAMAGES 70.7 71. 72. 74. 75. 76. 77. Despite repeated complaints, ability to pursue her emplOyment with DEFENDANTS was continuously frustrated by the sexually offensive, hostile, and discriminatory comments and conduct in the work place. DEF actions impeded ability to pursue her vocation and employment on account of sex/gender. As a proximate result of conduct PLAINTIFF has suffered harm, including lost employment bene?ts. humiliation, embarrassment. and mental anguish in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of this Court, to be shown by evidence at the time oftrial. I The above-recited actions of these DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, and oppression, and in reckless disregard of the rights under the laws and constitution ofthe State of California entitling PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary damages in an amount as the trier?of?fact may deem appropriate. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES AS RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs above. and by this reference incorporates said allegations as part ofthis CAUSE OF ACTION. In acting as herein alleged, the conduct of all the DEFENDANTS, including DOES l- 20, by and through their agents and employees, as described above was intentional, extreme, outrageous, and malicious. The conduct complained of herein was outside the conduct expected to exist in the workplace and was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. DEF ENDANTS and each of their conduct, in con?rming and ratifying the complained of conduct was done with the knowledge that emotional and physical distress would thereby increase, and was done with wanton and reckless disregard of FOP. the consequences to PLAINTIFF. and each of their conduct as alleged above, were intended to, and did cause PLAINTIFF severe and serious embarrassment, humiliation, anguish and emotional and physical distress. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of and each of their, conduct, as alleged above, PLAINTIFF suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not limited to, past and future wage loss and other employment benefits, humiliation, physical distress, and mental anguish in amounts to be determined at the trial of this matter. The above-recited actions of were done with malice, fraud. and/0r oppression, and in reckless disregard of rights under the laws of the State of California entitling PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary damages in such an amount the trier of fact in this action deems appropriate. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs above, and by this reference incorporates said allegations as part ofthis CAUSE OF ACTION. In acting as herein alleged, the conduct of DEFENDANTS, including DOES 1-20, by and through their agents and employees, as described above if not intentional, extreme, outrageous, and malicious, was alternatively negligent. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to general damages for negligent in?iction of emotional distress. VII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF respectfully requests a jury trial in this action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays udgrnent against DEFENDANTS, and each of them as follows: COMPLAINT FOP. DAMAGES l7 Dated: May 1, 2014 For general damages, in an amount in excess of the threshold for this Court's jurisdiction, according to proof; For compensatory damages according to proof, including lost earnings (past and future) and other employee bene?ts; For Special damages in a sum be determined at the time of trial herein; For punitive damages in an amount apprOpriate to punish DEFENDANTS and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct; For reasonable attorney's fees incurred by PLAINTIFF pursuant to law; For costs of suit incurred by That DEFENDANTS be ordered to take appropriate affirmative action to ensure that the activities complained of above are not engaged in again by them or any of their agents; For actual, consequential and incidental ?nancial losses, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings, employee bene?ts, according to proof, together with prejudgment interest pursuant to all relevant statutes; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper. LAW OFFIC Odi L. Okojie BY: Odion L. (Mme, kttd?ieyyr Plaintiff TOM PLAINT FOR DII-EAGES 8 EXHIBIT Q. 2. sure or uttoam i Business. CommrSeraims and Housing Agar! cove-anon emuwoo. seem JR DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT ti HOUSING We? mum-?m 2218 Kausen Drive. Suzie 100 Elk Grove CAI 95758 . 800384?1684 lVideoohone 916-22652851UY BOO-T092320 dteh ca gov lemail' contact centomjdieh ca gov Nov 13, 2013 ROSA MARQUEZ c/o LAW OFFICES OF NNOGO OBIAMIWE AND ODION OKOJIE 880 W. FIRST STREET, SUITE 313 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 186524-78826-R Right to Sue: MARQUEZ ABM SERVICES, DBA ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, ABM SERVICES INC. Dear ROSA MARQUEZ: This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was ?led with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective Nov 13, 2013 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 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 ?led within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must visit the US, Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (EEOC) to ?le a complaint within 30 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 Enclosures CC: ABM SERVICES, INC, DBA ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES SALVADOR MURCIA ABM SERVICES, INC, DBA ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES