GERAGOS Ed GERAGOS, APC
HJSTORIC ENGINE CO. No. 28
STREET
NGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA

LOS A

COPY



(fists: m" r, . 795mg.

Conan; {ma Angart??

0C1 15 2015

GERAGOS fa GERAGOS

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS
HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28
644 SOUTH IGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1
TELEPHONE (213) 625-3900
FACSIMILE (213) 232-3255


   

Shem  Carter,  (??'lceritna?k
By Cristir-sa GrIja?wa, Deputy

MARK J. GERAGOS SBN 108325
BEN J. MEISELAS SBN 277412
ZACK V. MULJAT SBN 304531

Attorneys for Plaintiff RAF ESQUITH, individually and
As the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS AN GELES
RAF ESQUITH, individually and as the Case No.:
representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons; CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
FOR:
Plaintiffs,
1. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
[42 U.S.C. 
vs. - . VIOLATION OE-DUE PROCESS

[42 U.S.C. 

. AGE DISCRIMINATION

. WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION

. WRON GF UL DISCHARGE IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
POLICY

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
RAMON C. CORTINES, an
individual; DOE and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive;

01-th

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff Rafe Esquith, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This class action arises out of Defendant Los Angeles Uni?ed School District?s
unconstitutional imprisonment of thousands of its own teachers, executed at the
direction of its superintendent, Defendant Ramon C. Cortines. LAUSD operates as a

criminal cartel, systematically denying its teachers any semblance of due process while

detaining them in nondescript, fenced-in, warehouse facilities throughout Los Angeles

-1-

 

No. 28

4 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

GERAGOS Ed GERAGOS, APC
HISTORIC ENGINE CoCounty which LAUSD refers to as ?Educational Services that teachers and
the media have exposed as ?teacher jails.? teacher jails are expressly designed as
a shrewd cost-cutting tactic, implemented to force its older and better-paid teachers out the
door at the expense of the students these experienced educators serve.

2. Plaintiff Rafe Esquith brings this class action on behalf of the approximately
2,000 teachers unlawfully detained by LAUSD, each of whom LAUSD has deprived of
approximately $500,000.00 in pension and health bene?ts by terminating them or forcing
them to quit following their time in teacher jail. Damages in this class action exceed one
billion dollars The teachers also seek a permanent injunction to ensure
that LAUSD closes its unconstitutional teacher jails immediately.

3. imprisonment of its own teachers follows a remarkably consistent
pattern. An older, experienced, and well-paid teacher will unexpectedly be pulled from the
classroom in dramatic fashion. LAUSD does not provide any opportunity to contest the
removal, nor does it provide any information regarding why the removal is taking place.
LAUSD provides no description of any pending complaint or charges against the teacher
whatsoever. Disturbingly, from the very outset LAUSD administrators label the teachers as
immoral, unethical, thieves, abusers, or criminals, while at the same time LAUSD places the
teacher under a gag order. This is despite the fact that no criminal charges or even civil
lawsuits exist.

4. Most shockingly, the LAUSD administrators leading the witch hunts against
teachers and ruining their lives are the same administrators who have been sanctioned by
courts for concealing, manipulating, and destroying evidence of abuse, who are under FBI
and other governmental investigation for misappropriation, are led by a superintendent who
settled a crotch?grabbing lawsuit for $300,000.00 of taxpayer money, and who argue in
California Superior Courts and to a Court of Appeal (last month) that the age of consent is
the same one endorsed by ISIS.

5. LAUSD orders the teacher to report to one of its numerous teacher jails the

following morning. The teacher is then placed in a cubicle with little or no direction while

-2-

 

No. 28

fo? GERAGOS, APC
HJSTOREC ENGINE Co.
UEROA STREET

644 SOUTH FIG
Los ANGELES. 90017341 1



r?


 

 

administrators patrol the hallways and prevent teachers from talking to each other. The
teacher can be required to report to teacher jail daily for months or even years?some
teachers have been sitting in a cubicle and staring at the wall for over three years, all at
taxpayer expense. Once teacher jails ?lled up, which occurred rapidly, teachers
were told to report to their own homes and regularly phone LAUSD to prove that they are
not doing anything productive. Regrettably, most teachers are ?red or constructively

terminated following their time in teacher jail.

LAUSD provides its no meaningful

6. Moreover, imprisoned teachers
opportunity to contest the unknown charges against them. When LAUSD agents choose to
meet with an incarcerated teacher, no pending charges or complaints are revealed, no
opportunity to contest accusations is provided, and the ?guilty as charged? outcome of the
meeting is wholly predeterrnined?teachers have even received notices stating that the
purpose of these meetings is to ?discuss your inappropriate conduct,? rather than even
considering the possibility that the imprisoned teacher may not have done anything wrong.

7. Sadly, students in Los Angeles County are deprived of their most experienced
teachers so LAUSD can shave numbers off of its bottom line. LAUSD admits that it cannot
fund its bene?ts package for older teachers nearing retirement?who also tend to be at the
top of the pay scale?and has decided to solve its funding shortfall by stripping its seasoned
educators of their bene?ts based on secret, and almost exclusively baseless, allegations
intended to force them to quit rather than endure a life sentence in teacher jail.

JURISDICTION. VENUE, AND NOTICE

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action because the nature of the claims
and the amounts in controversy meet the requirements for unlimited jurisdiction in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 410.10, as all Defendants are physically present and domiciled within the State of
California.

10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

-3-

 


to


swag


?d<5
HUEE
0WD
zgu

@ngt
CALLIIU
095m
mom
0 
<l?ml-1J
:2qu
HIV
0 9?
U1
0
.1





 

 

395(a) because at least one Defendant resides within the jurisdiction of this Court in the
County of Los Angeles, California.

11. On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff timely served notice of the claims herein alleged
upon Defendants pursuant to California Government Code section 910. Defendants
constructively rejected the claims forty-?ve days later on August 6, 2015. Additionally,
Plaintiff received a Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue letter from the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing on August 13, 2015.

PARTIES

12. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Rafe Esquith was a resident of the County of
Los Angeles, California. Mr. Esquith has taught at Hobart Boulevard Elementary School
since 1984. Located between the Koreatown and Westlake neighborhoods in central Los
Angeles, Hobart Elementary primarily serves ?rst generation Americans as well as students
from underprivileged backgrounds. At the helm of Hobart Elementary?s world-renowned
?Room 56,? Mr. Esquith has garnered international recognition as a breakthrough leader in
innovative teaching. He has been awarded the Disney National Outstanding Teacher of the
Year Award, a Sigma Beta Delta Fellowship from John Hopkins University, Oprah
Winfrey?s $100,000.00 ?Use Your Life Award,? Parents Magazine?s ?As You Grow
Award,? the National Medal of Arts, and was made an honorary member of the Order of the
British Empire in recognition of his exceptional teaching achievements. Mr. Esquith is also
a perennial New York Times Best Selling Author of books relating to his unique educational
and teaching philosophy. Students from Room 56 routinely enroll in top universities and
graduate programs, and both former students and visiting administrators regularly attend his
classes hoping to gain insight into his successful teaching strategies. Since 1989, Mr.
Esquith has also headed a private nonpro?t organization known as the ?Hobart
Shakespeareans,? which provides extracurricular music and arts education to local students.
Mr. Esquith helps to fund the nonpro?t by donating the fees he earns at speaking
engagements.

13. At all relevant times, Defendant Los Angeles Uni?ed School District

-4-

 

GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No, 28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I





 

 

was a uni?ed school district organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the
State of California. LAUSD is the largest public school system in the state of California and
consists of 1,124 schools, 31,748 teachers, and 655,494 students. As of the 2012?13 school
year, operating budget was approximately $6.78 billion. LAUSD is responsible
for the hiring, retention, supervision, and discipline of thousands of employees countywide,
including Plaintiff and all Class Members. LAUSD maintains numerous nondescript,
fenced-in, warehouse facilities throughout Los Angeles County commonly known as
?teacher jails.?

14.

in the County of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Cortines has served as Superintendent of the

At all relevant times, Defendant Ramon C. Cortines was an individual residing

Los Angeles Unified School District since October 20, 2014. Since assuming that role, Mr.
Cortines has not visited Room 56, attended a performance of the Hobart Shakespeareans, nor
even introduced himself to Mr. Esquith.

15.
Ramon C. Cortines will resign as LAUSD Superintendent by the end of 2015. Defendant

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant

DOE SUPERINTENDENT will serve as Mr. Cortines? successor as LAUSD Superintendent
and his or her identity is unknown to Plaintiff at the time of ?ling this Complaint. DOE
SUPERINTENDENT will be named speci?cally herein once his or her identity is
ascertained.

l6.
LAUSD in Los Angeles County, California, in the position of teacher. As such, Class

At all relevant times, Class Members, including Plaintiff, were employees of

Members, including Plaintiff, were the type of persons contemplated to be protected by the
United States Constitution and the California Constitution, and said laws were intended to
apply to LAUSD speci?cally to prevent the type of injury and damage alleged herein. Upon
information and belief, approximately 2,000 Class Members have been unlawfully detained
in ?teacher jails.?

l7.

mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were, and now are, the agents,

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times

-5-

 

GERAGOS GE RAGOS, APC
HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28
644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
L05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017341 1






 

 

employees, servants, of?cers, board members, attorneys, administrators, teachers, assistants,
managers, and/or safety of?cers employed or retained by any or all Defendants.

18. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to
Plaintiff at the time of ?ling this Complaint, who therefore sues said Defendants by such
?ctitious names.

19. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times
mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, employee, co-venturer, and
co-conspirator of each of the remaining Defendants, and was at all times herein mentioned
acting within the course, scope, purpose, consent, knowledge, rati?cation, and authorization
of and for such agency, employment, joint venture and conspiracy.

20. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all
relevant times, each Defendant was completely dominated and controlled by its Co-
Defendants, and each was the alter ego of the other. Whenever and wherever reference is
made in this Complaint to any conduct by Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and
references shall also be deemed to mean the conduct of each of the Defendants, acting
individually, jointly, and severally. Whenever and wherever reference is made to individuals
who are not named as Defendants in this Complaint, but were employees and/or agents of
Defendants, such individuals at all relevant times acted on behalf of Defendants named in
this Complaint within the scope of their respective employments.

21. Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show the true
names and capacities of such Defendants when their names have been ascertained. Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated
herein, including DOES 1 through 50, are responsible in some manner and liable herein by
reason of intentional wrongdoing, negligence, and/or other actionable conduct, and that such
conduct was a substantial factor in causing the injuries to Plaintiff complained herein.




 



h?il-db?dh-db??h-d
meNi??O

HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC
r?A runGENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Rafe Esquith?s Incarceration in Teacher Jail

22. On or around March 19, 2015, Mr. Esquith was unexpectedly called to a
meeting by Hobart Boulevard Elementary School?s Principal. When Mr. Esquith entered the
meeting, a school staff member was also present. The staffer was crying and stated don?t
want this to ruin our friendship.? Mr. Esquith did not understand what she was talking about
or why she was crying. The Principal assured Mr. Esquith that ?you have nothing to worry
about. This is a bump in the road. I need to counsel you that you need to be careful what
you say in front of students.? Mr. Esquith did not understand what he was talking about, and
the Principal abruptly ended the meeting without any other substantive communications.

23. Mr. Esquith heard nothing more of the unusual meeting until nearly a month
later. On or around April 7, 2015, following spring break, the Principal came into Mr.
Esquith?s classroom and informed him that LAUSD had forwarded a complaint regarding
Mr. Esquith to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. The Principal did not
give more details, but again assured Mr. Esquith that ?you have nothing to worry about. I
will help you. This is about nothing.?

24. The very next day, on or around April 8, 2015, the Principal called Mr. Esquith
into his of?ce. The Principal explained that the staffer who had been crying in his of?ce the
previous month had lodged the complaint against Mr. Esquith. Apparently, the complaint
stemmed from a joke about ?nudity? Mr. Esquith made in front of his students.

25. After informing the Principal that he had no idea what he was talking about,
and that he had never before received a complaint about making inappropriate jokes in his
classroom, Mr. Esquith explained that his statements came from, and students understood
them to be, a Mark Twain passage.

26. In discussing lack of funding for the arts, Mr. Esquith told his class
that if fundraising fell short for the annual Shakespearean play, which Mr. Esquith funded
entirely from his own pocket and from private donations, ?we will all have to play the role of

the king in Huckleberry Finn.?

 

44 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS, APC
ENGINE Co. No. 28

6



NNb?dh??h?b?li??r?lb??l?ih?v?i


22

 

 

27. Mr. Esquith then quoted directly from Mark Twain?s The Adventures of

Huckleberry inn:

At last, when he?d built up everyone?s expectations high enough,
he rolled up the curtain. The next minute the king came prancing
out on all fours, naked. He was painted in rings and stripes all
over in all sorts of colors and looked as splendid as a rainbow.
And . . . well, never mind the rest of his outfit?it was just as
wild, but it was really funny. The people nearly died laughing.
And when the king ?nished prancmg around and capered off
stage, they roared and clapped and raged and guffawed until he
came back and did it all over again.

28. The Principal explained that he was receiving ?pressure? from which
was demanding that Mr. Esquith issue an apology. The Principal reiterated that LAUSD
assured him that ?nothing bad was going to happen,? but that LAUSD nevertheless wanted
Mr. Esquith to sign a written apology acknowledging that his statements might be viewed as
?serious? and may have made ?others uncomfortable.?

29. Relying on the Principal?s assurances about intent, Mr. Esquith did
what any reasonable teacher in his position would do and acquiesced to the Principal?s

demand, drafting a formal apology for his quotation of Mark Twain:

I am deeply and sincerely sorry that any comment someone
heard, or thought they heard, has anyone uncomfortable. I am a
teacher who prides himself on professionalism. I dress
immaculately for the job. Over a thousand teachers a year come
to my class to seek my guidance about the profession of teaching.
As a proud teacher, I am deeply saddened by this situation.

30. Following this, Mr. Esquith was told by the Principal that because of his
students? high performance that LAUSD administrators wanted his class to be the ?rst group
of students to take the ?Common Core Test.? Once Mr. Esquith completed supervising his
class, he was told to report to teacher jail. He was thereafter housed in a nondescript, fenced- -
in, warehouse facility located on North Soto Street in an industrial area of Los Angeles.

31. LAUSD simultaneously issued a formal gag order against Mr. Esquith
Mr. Esquith

prohibiting him from communicating with his students or their parents.

subsequently received hundreds of emails and calls each day from parents and students

 

1 This Principal, who spent his entire career at Hobart Boulevard Elementary School,
unexpectedly ?transferred? out of the school in the midst of the persecution of Rafe Esquith.

-3-

 



r??b-Hb??r?lh??h?d


HISTORIC ENGINECO. NO. 28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

GERAGOS GERAGOSregarding his unexplained absence. He was not permitted to respond to a single one.

32. LAUSD investigators then began removing Mr. Esquith?s former students from
their new classes, without their parents? knowledge or consent, to intimidate and interrogate
them.

33. LAUSD investigators also physically and tortured graduates of
Mr. Esquith?s classroom in late August 2015, well after every other attempt at discrediting
Mr. Esquith failed. The investigators, with no jurisdiction, besieged homes and
unexpectedly crept up on former students, begging for negative statements about Mr.
Esquith. In fact, some of these students have retained their own attorneys and intend to bring
legal action against LAUSD based on the harassing conduct, physical intimidation, and
abuse by LAUSD investigators.

34. This ?ts a disturbingly consistent pattern and practice of LAUSD investigators
terrorizing, tormenting, and abusing students in order to extract statements that ?t its
narrative to terminate a targeted teacher. In many cases, investigators provide students with
questionnaires containing loaded questions having nothing to do with why the teacher was
removed from class, such as: ?what creepy things did teacher do?? or ?has teacher ever
looked at you funny?? or ?give examples of how teacher makes you feel uncomfortable?
or ?explain why teacher might be racist.?

35. As discussed above, LAUSD referred Mr. Esquith to the California Comission
on Teacher Credentialing for serious conduct and abuse. On or about May 27, 2015, the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing diligently vetted claims and
closed its investigation of Mr. Esquith having found no evidence of misconduct.

36. Despite the fact that the State of California itself found the complaint
completely baseless, LAUSD was intent on destroying Mr. Esquith?s livelihood. Mr.
Esquith was not returned to his classroom, the harassment escalated, and rather than receive
a Skelly hearing, Mr. Esquith was instead noti?ed in September 2015 that he must attend
something LAUSD labeled a ?your inappropriate conduct? conference.



 

GERAGOS 6i GERAGOS, APC

Co. No. 28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 





 

 

The Conditions of Teacher Jail

37. The story of imprisonment and denial of due process in unlawful
teacher jail is common to the class. Approximately 2,000 other teachers have suffered the
same fate. The vast majority of investigations are based not on student or parent complaints,
but rather upon vague allegations by LAUSD administrators which eventually widen to
encompass a complete audit of a teacher?s life and every association, af?liation, and
relationship the teacher has ever had his or her entire life. Teachers with unblemished and
impeccable records (unlike LAUSD administrators) fear for their lives and reputations, and if
they challenge the district they are publically shamed by an institution with limitless
resources.

38.

?teacher jails? are gated structures spread throughout Los Angeles County where teachers are

While hard to imagine existing anywhere but in countries without due process,

forced to spend their days staring at cubicle walls and are forbidden from using any
electronic device. Gag orders are imposed, teachers? entire lives are pried into by a school
district acting as a rogue regime with its own rules unto itself, devoid of due process, all
because the targeted teacher decided to sacri?ce his or her life to public education. Teachers
have described the experience as torture, where they are deprived of dignity,
and as an experience unlike anything matched in their entire lives.

39.

day in a cubicle where they are allowed to do little more than stare at a wall. Teachers are

While in teacher jail, educators are forced to spend approximately 6 hours each

not allowed to communicate with other jailed teachers or use a computer, and are permitted
only one 30 minute lunch break and additional 20 minute ?stretch breaks.? Ironically, many
teachers who ?nd themselves in teacher jail are told to work on lesson plans that they will
never have the opportunity to utilize in the classroom.

40.

little as one week while others housed for more than three years. Mirroring California?s own

A teacher?s ?sentence? in teacher jail varies, with some teachers held for as

prison issues, overcrowding in teacher jails has forced LAUSD to begin housing the falsely-

accused teachers within their own homes. While in teacher jail at home, teachers are treated

-10-

 

STREET

NGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

GERAGOS r? GERAGUS, APC
HISTORIC ENGINE Co, No. 28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA

LOS A





 

 

like convicted felons and are not allowed to leave their own property until their six-hour
daily housing period ends and must periodically call LAUSD to check in. LAUSD agents
patrol teachers? homes and neighborhoods in hopes of ?nding teachers violating their
draconian sentences, even going so far as to scale fences to spy on teachers.
Teacher Jails Are a Criminal Scheme
to Cut Costs at Students? Expense

41. LAUSD recently reported that it expects to suffer a budget de?cit of over half
a billion dollars over the next three years?a ?gure that does not include an estimated eleven
billion dollars in presently-unfunded future pension and healthcare obligations for retired
teachers.

42. criminal scheme to imprison experienced, veteran teachers is a bald-
faced attempt to reduce its ballooning retiree obligations by intimidating its best educators
into quitting their profession before accruing retiree health care and pension bene?ts.
Tragically, it is the students who suffer most from unconstitutional teacher jails,
as the most quali?ed teachers in the district are forced to languish within fenced-in facilities
rather than serve their communities.

43. It is beyond dispute that nearly every teacher unlawfully detained by LAUSD
in teacher jail is nearing eligibility for lifelong bene?ts. As the District?s own statistics have
shown, the teacher jail system now overwhelmingly targets older, high earning teachers.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION 

44. Plaintiff brings this class action on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated. Such a representative action is necessary to prevent and remedy the
unconstitutional, unlawful, and unfair practices alleged herein.

45. All claims alleged herein arise under California and Federal law for which
Plaintiff seeks relief.





-11-

 

HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28
STREET
NGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA

GERAGOS {d GERAGOS, APC
LOS A






 

 

46.

This action is brought and may be properly maintained as a

class action

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

brings this action on behalf of himself and all members of the class, de?ned as follows:

47.

During the fullest period allowed by law, all natural persons
who were and/or are LAUSD teachers who were denied due
process under the United States Constitution and/or
California Law when LAUSD removed them from their
classrooms and placed them in one of its ?teacher jail?
facilities. This class excludes: (1) any Defendant or any of
Defendants? legal representatives, of?cers, directors, assigns,
and successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned
and any member of the Judge?s staff or immediate family;
and (3) Class Counsel.

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a proposed sub?class (the ?Retirement Age

de?ned as follows:

48.

During the fullest period allowed by law, all natural persons
who were and/or are LAUSD teachers above the age of forty
(40) years old who were discriminated against on the basis of
age by LAUSD. This sub-class excludes: (1) any Defendant
or any of Defendants? legal representatives, of?cers,
directors, assigns, and successors; (2) the Judge to whom this
case is assigned and any member of the Judge?s staff or
immediate family; and (3) Class Counsel.

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a proposed sub-class (the ?Whistleblower Sub-

Class?), de?ned as follows:

49.

During the fullest period allowed by law, all natural persons
who were and/or are LAUSD teachers who suffered
retaliation by LAUSD for reporting misconduct. This sub-
class excludes: (1) any Defendant or any of Defendants? legal
representatives, of?cers, directors, assigns, and successors;
(2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and any member
on the Judge?s staff or immediate family; and (3) Class
ounsel.

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a proposed sub-class (the

Discharged de?ned as follows:

50.

During the fullest period allowed by law, all natural persons
who were LAUSD teachers who were wrongfully discharged
or wrongfully constructively discharged. This sub-class
excludes: (1) any Defendant or any of Defendants? legal
representatives, of?cers, directors, assigns, and successors;
(2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and any member
of the lJudge?s staff or immediate family; and (3) Class
Counse .

?Wrongfully

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class de?nition or any and all sub-class

de?nitions if discovery or further investigations reveal that the class or sub-class should be

-12-

 


09
[x
{.col?v?
sass
0250?
?5 
94002
mUcm:
UM
33!:

(Egan:
anqu
og'sm?
0005'
4:ka
:Qeg

expanded or otherwise modi?ed.
Numerosity and Ascertainability

51. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members would
be impracticable. While the exact number of class members is likely to increase by the
thousands, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that LAUSD
unlawfully imprisoned approximately 2,000 teachers during the Class Period. The precise
number of members can be ascertained through discovery, which will include Defendants?
disciplinary records, termination and resignation information, and other records.

Well-Defined Community of Interest

52. Commonalitv and Predominance: There are common questions of law and fact
that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class.
Defendants? wrongful conduct has harmed each individual teacher in an identical fashion.
Speci?c common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Whether Defendant LAUSD has an of?cial policy and/or custom of
removing teachers from their classrooms and detaining them in teacher
jail without providing any notice of a complaint or charge against them,
and whether such policy and/or custom is and was unlawful;

b) Whether Defendant LAUSD has an of?cial policy and/or custom of
removing teachers from their classrooms and detaining them in teacher
jail without providing any opportunity for hearing, and whether such
policy and/or custom is and was unlawful;

c) Whether Defendant LAUSD has an of?cial policy and/or custom of
removing teachers from their classrooms and detaining them in teacher
jail without providing any opportunity to contest a complaint or charge
against them, and whether such policy and/or custom is and was
unlawful;

d) Whether Defendant LAUSD has an of?cial policy and/or custom of

removing teachers from their classrooms and detaining them in teacher

-13-

 



h?dh??h??r?Ih??l?d


644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

ENGJNECO. No.28

GERAGOS GERAGOSjail in order to deprive them of post-retirement bene?ts, and whether
such policy and/or custom is and was unlawful;

Whether Defendant Ramon C. Cortines is the person responsible for
establishing ?nal policy with respect to the hiring, retention,
discipline, termination, and compensation of teachers, and
whether he personally violated and/or rati?ed the violation of Plaintiffs?
due process rights;

Whether the denial of Plaintiffs? due process rights was a conscious and
deliberate choice to follow a course of action among various
alternatives, and whether Defendants personally committed and/or
rati?ed the aforementioned acts with knowledge that these acts would
result in the denial of Plaintiffs? due process rights;

Whether Defendants? conduct was the moving force behind, and the
direct and proximate cause of, the denial of Plaintiffs? due process
rights;

Whether age was a substantial motivating factor in Defendants?
discriminatory violations of due process targeting members of the
Retirement Age Sub-Class; and

Whether the advanced age and proximity to securing health care and
pension bene?ts of the Retirement Age Sub-Class were a substantial
motivating reason for Defendants to terminate or constructively

terminate all members of the Sub-Class.

Typicality: The representative Plaintiff?s claims are typical of the claims of the




members of the class. Plaintiff and all class members have been injured by the same


.b

unlawful and unconstitutional conduct by Defendants. Plaintiff?s claims arise from the same

NM


practices and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of the class members and are


\1

based on the same legal theories.

Adeguacy: Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert


00

 

 

-14-

 

GERAGOS E6 GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28

44 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
L05 ANGELES, 90017-341 1

6






25
26
27

 

 

and protect the interests of the class, and has retained class counsel who are experienced and
quali?ed in prosecuting class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor his attorneys have any interests
contrary to or con?icting with the class.
Superiority of Class Action

55. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and
ef?cient adjudication of this lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all class
members is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate
damages sustained by the class are substantial, the individual damages incurred by each class
member are too small to warrant the expense of individual suits. The likelihood of
individual class members prosecuting their own separate claims is remote, and even if every
class member could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened
by individual litigation of such cases. Further, individual members of the class do not have a
signi?cant interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions, and
individualized litigation would also result in varying, inconsistent, or contradictory
judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all of the parties and the court
system because of multiple trials of the same factual and legal issues. By contrast, the

conduct of this action as a class action presents fewer management dif?culties, conserves the

resources of the parties, and the court system and protects the rights of each class member.

56. Defendants have access to address information for the class members, which
may be used for the purpose of providing notice of the pendency of this action.
57. Additionally, Defendants have refused to act to close their unconstitutional

teacher jails, return the imprisoned teachers back to their classrooms, and reinstate teachers
unlawfully terminated or constructively terminated. Injunctive relief mandating the

aforementioned remedies would be appropriate for the Class Members as a whole.





-15-

 

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017341 I

GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS, APC
HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28



to 

 

 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS [42 U.S.C. 
(By Plainti?" Rafe Esquith Individually and On Behalf of All Class Members
Against Defendants Ramon C. Cortines, DOE UPERIN ENDEN T,
and DOES 1?5 0, Acting in Their Official Capacities)

58. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
herein.

59. Defendants Ramon C. Cortines, DOE SUPERINTENDENT, and Does 1?50
are employed by LAUSD and at all relevant times were acting under color of state law in
their of?cial capacities.

60. Plaintiff and Class Members have the right of due process guaranteed by the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. State action may not
violate Plaintiffs? due process rights. These due process provisions require that state action
be applied with fundamental fairness. Defendants? conduct in this case amounts to state
action.

61. Defendants have an of?cial policy and/or custom of violating its teachers? due
process rights by depriving them of their ability to pursue their profession and retain post-
retirement bene?ts. This deprivation was accomplished by removing teachers from their
classrooms and detaining them in teacher jail without providing any notice of a complaint or
charge against them, any opportunity for hearing, or any opportunity to contest a complaint
or charge. Defendants? conduct also deprived teachers of post-retirement benefits that they
have worked years or decades to secure by stripping them of their ability to practice their
profession, thereby forcing them to quit and forfeit a primary benefit of the years of work
made towards obtaining their post-retirement healthcare and pension.

62. Pursuant to this policy and/or custom, Defendants violated Plaintiff Rafe
Esquith?s and Class Members? due process rights by detaining them in teacher jail, depriving

them of the right to practice their profession, and depriving them of post-retirement benefits.

-16-

 

GERAGOS Ed GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1






24

 

 

63. Defendant Ramon C. Cortines is the Superintendent of Defendant LAUSD and
is the person responsible for establishing ?nal policy with respect to all aspects of
its operation, including the hiring, retention, discipline, termination, and compensation of
teachers. Mr. Cortines personally violated and/or rati?ed the violation of Plaintiffs? due
process rights as described above. Mr. Cortines? personal involvement in Mr. Esquith?s
imprisonment and the subsequent investigation, by personally hiring a team of investigators,
retaining a law ?rm to assist in the investigation, and issuing a press release, is
demonstrative of his direct involvement in all Class Members? denial of due process.
64. Mr. Cortines? denial of Plaintiffs? due process rights was a conscious and
deliberate choice to follow a course of action among various alternatives, and Mr. Cortines
personally committed and/or rati?ed the aforementioned acts with knowledge that these acts
would result in the denial of Plaintiffs? due process rights.

65.

jail was the moving force behind, and the direct and proximate cause of, the denial of

Through its deliberate conduct, Defendants? detention of Plaintiffs in teacher

Plaintiffs? due process rights.

66.

preclude them from unlawfully stripping Plaintiffs of their classrooms and detaining them in

Plaintiff and Class Members seek injunctive relief against Defendants to

teacher jail without comporting with Plaintiffs? due process rights. Defendants refuse to
cease these constitutional violations and continue to violate Plaintiffs? due process rights.

67. Unless enjoined by an Order of the Court, Defendants will continue to violate
Plaintiffs? constitutional rights and Plaintiffs have no adequate and complete remedy at law
to preclude this immediate violation. If Plaintiffs do not seek temporary relief and ultimate
injunction, they will suffer irreparable harm to their reputation as educators and to their
future employability, for which no monetary damage will suf?ce to compensate. Moreover,
granting injunctive relief will not harm Defendants whatsoever, as it would simply allow
teachers to return to the classrooms to which they are assigned to perform educational duties
for which they are already being paid.

68. Due to the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to

-17-

 

GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC
HISTORIC ENGINE Co No.28
644 SOUTH FEGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1



I?d

 

 

incur attorneys' fees, and are entitled to recovery of said fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS [42 U.S.C. 
(By Plaintiff Rafe Esquith Individually and On Behalf of All Class Members
Against Defendants Ramon C. Cortines, DOE UPERIN ENDEN T,
and DOES 1?5 0, Acting in Their Individual Capacities)

69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
herein.

70. Defendants Ramon C. Cortines, DOE SUPERINTENDENT, and Does 1?50
are employed by LAUSD and at all relevant times were acting under color of state law in
their individual capacities.

71. Plaintiff and Class Members have the right of due process guaranteed by the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. State action may not
violate Plaintiffs? due process rights. These due process provisions require that state action
be applied with fundamental fairness. Defendants? conduct in this case amounts to state
action.

72. Defendants violated Plaintiffs and Class Members? due process rights by
depriving them of their ability to pursue their profession and retain post-retirement bene?ts.
This deprivation was accomplished by removing teachers from their classrooms and
detaining them in teacher jail without providing any notice of a complaint or charge against
them, any opportunity for hearing, or any opportunity to contest a complaint or charge.
Defendants? conduct also deprives teachers of post-retirement bene?ts that they have worked
years or decades to secure by stripping them of their ability to practice their profession,
thereby forcing them to quit and forfeit a primary bene?t of the years of work made towards
obtaining their post-retirement healthcare and pension.

73. Mr. Cortines personally violated and/or rati?ed the violation of Plaintiffs? due

process rights as described above. Mr. Cortines? personal involvement in Mr. Esquith?s

-18-

 

GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS, APC
HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28
644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1



Nr?Ih??r?th?th?dr??h??r??I?dbimprisonment and the subsequent investigation, by personally hiring a team of investigators,
retaining a law ?rm to assist in the investigation, and issuing a press release, is
demonstrative of his direct involvement in all Class Members? denial of due process.

74. Defendants? denials of Plaintiffs? due process rights were committed with
knowledge that these acts would result in the denial of Plaintiffs? due process rights.

75. Through its deliberate conduct, Defendants? detention of Plaintiffs in teacher
jail was the moving force behind, and the direct cause of, the denial of Plaintiffs? due process
rights.

76. In acting as alleged herein, Defendants caused Plaintiffs general and special
damages, including pain and suffering, in an amount according to proof.

77. Due to the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to
incur attorneys' fees, and are entitled to recovery of said fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
AGE DISCRIMINATION
(By Plaintiff Rafe Esquith Individually and on Behalf of the
Retirement Age ub-C lass Against All Defendants)

78. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every
allegation contained above and below and incorporates the same herein by this reference as
though set forth in full.

79. California Government Code section 12940(a) states in pertinent part:

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, because
of the race, religious creed, color, age, sexual onentation, or
military and veteran status of any person, to discharge the person
from employment or to discriminate against the person in
compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment.

80. Defendants intentionally created or knowingly permitted the above~described
working conditions to exist.

81. Plaintiffs were subjected to the above-described discrimination in the terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment in violation of Government Code sections 12940(a).

82. Plaintiff Rafe Esquith and members of the Retirement Age Sub-Class were all

-19-

 

GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS. APC

HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I






 

 

over the age of 40 at the time they were subjected to the above-described discrimination and
unlawful treatment by Defendants. Plaintiff received a Notice of Case Closure and Right to
Sue letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on August 13,
2015.

83.

Retirement Age Sub-Class by removing them from their classrooms and detaining them in

Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff Rafe Esquith and members of the

teacher jail without providing notice of any complaint or charge against them, an opportunity
for hearing, or the ability to contest the complaint or charge, all in violation of their rights to
due process.

84.

the Retirement Age Sub-Class by removing them from their Classrooms and detaining them

Defendants also discriminated against Plaintiff Rafe Esquith and members of

in teacher jail in an effort to deprive them of securing post-retirement benefits they worked

years towards earning.
85.

Defendants and their respective agents, servants, employees, and authorized representatives

As a direct and proximate cause of the tortious, unlawful, and wrongful acts of

as aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered past and future special damages and past and future
general damages in an amount according to proof at trial. Plaintiffs have been damaged
emotionally and ?nancially, including but not limited to emotional suffering from emotional
distress and ridicule, as well as loss of income, employment, and career benefits.

86. In engaging in the conduct as hereinabove alleged, Defendants and their
agents, servants, employees, and authorized representatives acted with malice, fraud, and
oppression and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? health, rights, and well-being, and
intended to subject Plaintiffs to unjust hardship, thereby warranting an assessment of
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter others from
engaging in similar conduct.

87. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees against Defendants pursuant

to Government Code section 12965.



-20-

 



r?il?Hr?i


O, 28

4 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

i?tr?ah?
UI-D-UJ

HISTORIC ENGINE Co. 

64

GERAGOS GERAGOSFOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
(By Plaintiff Rafe Esquith Individually and on Behalf of the
Whistleblower Sub-Class Against All Defendants)

88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
herein.

89. Plaintiff and members of the Whistleblower Sub-Class engaged in protected
activity by reporting illegal, economically wasteful, inef?cient, and/or incompetent conduct
by Defendants, and/or Defendants believed that Plaintiff and members of the Whistleblower
Sub-Class would engage in such protected activity.

90. Plaintiff Rafe Esquith, for example, has been an outspoken critic of 
collusion with big business and of its wasteful spending on ill-advised programs. He has
publicly opposed many of recent policies and initiatives, including its disastrous
?iPad for every student? program, and on August 27, 2013 was the featured speaker at
?Crawford Family Forum,? in which Mr. Esquith publically stated that 
policies were making good teachers an ?endangered species.?

91. As a result of this disclosure and/or reporting, Plaintiff and the Whistleblower
Sub-Class members suffered adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, being
stripped of their classrooms and con?ned to teacher jail, denied bene?ts, and termination
and/or constructive discharge. Defendants? retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in
causing Plaintiff?s and the Sub?Class members? harm.

92. By taking the above described adverse employment actions against Plaintiff
and the Whistleblower Sub-Class, Defendants violated Labor Code section 1102.5 and
Education Code section 441 13.

93. This protected activity was a contributing factor in Defendants? decision to
take the adverse employment actions described above. Defendants cannot and will not be

able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that such adverse employment actions as set

-21-

 

APC

ROA STREET

Co. No.28
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1

HISTORIC ENGINE
SOUTH FIGUE

GERAGOS 8 GERAGOSforth above would have been taken in the absence of Plaintiffs and Sub-Class members?
protected activity.

94. In acting as alleged herein, Defendants caused Plaintiffs general and special
damages, including pain and suffering, in an amount according to proof.

95. In engaging in the conduct as hereinabove alleged, Defendants acted with
malice, fraud, and oppression and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? health, rights, and
well-being, and intended to subject Plaintiffs to unjust hardship, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount suf?cient to punish Defendants and deter
others from engaging in similar conduct.

96. Due to the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to
incur attomeys' fees, and are entitled to recovery of said fees pursuant to Education Code
section 44114(c).

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGF UL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
(By Plaintiff Rafe Esquith on Behalf of the
Wrongfully Discharged Sub? Class Against All Defendants)

97. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
herein.

98. It is a violation of public policy to terminate an employee on the basis of that
employee?s advanced age.

99. All members of the Retirement Age Sub-Class were employed by Defendants
as teachers and subsequently terminated or constructively terminated by Defendants.

100. The advanced age and proximity to securing health care and pension benefits
of the Retirement Age Sub-Class were a substantial motivating reason for Defendants to
terminate or constructively terminate all members of the Sub-Class.

101.

In acting as alleged herein, Defendants caused Plaintiffs general and special

damages, including pain and suffering, in an amount according to proof.

-22-

 

LOSA



[x
1mm"
swag
. 0'1?
02mm
330'?

ammo
231.1.
693
@2145:
mmIQ
055m
U005

19v?
mIvz
?102. In engaging in the conduct as hereinabove alleged, Defendants acted with
malice, fraud, and oppression and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? health, rights, and
well-being, and intended to subject Plaintiffs to unjust hardship, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount suf?cient to punish Defendants and deter
others from engaging in similar conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on his own behalf, and on behalf of the Class Members

and Sub-Class Members, prays for judgment as follows:

1. For an order certifying the proposed Classes and Sub-Classes;

2 That Plaintiff be appointed as the representative of the Classes and Sub-Classes;

3 That counsel for Plaintiff be appointed as Class Counsel;

4. For all general and special damages in an amount according to proof;

5 For all actual, consequential, and incidental damages in an amount according to
proof;

6. For all punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof;

7. That the Court enjoin Defendants from holding any of its employees in its teacher
jail facilities without providing them due process;

8. For attorney?s fees where applicable;

9. For costs of suit herein incurred; and

10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: October 15, 2015 GERAGO

 
 
 

Ed GERAGOS, APC

  

(I . 



MAWS
BEN J. MEISELAS
ZACK V. MULJAT
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAFE ESQUITH,
individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons.

    

 

-23-

 

GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE Co, No. 28

644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff RAFE ESQUITH, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-

situated persons, hereby demands a jury trial.

DATED: October 15, 2015

GERAGOS 6f GERAGOSMEISELAS
ZACK V. MULJ AT
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAF ESQUITH,
individually and as the re resentative of a
class of similarly-situate persons



 

-24-