ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name; State Bar number, and address): Kevin G. Little, SBN 149818 Pos Of?ce Box 8656 Fresno, CA 93 747 TELEPHOIIENO: (559) 342?5800 mm (om-ones: (559) 420-0839 kevinglittle@yahoo.com moi-am FOR {Name}; Plaintiff Nuvia Vanessa Green SUPERIOR COURT or CALIFORNIA, COUNTY or KINGS STREETADDRESS: 1426 South Drive MAILING ADDRESS 1426 South Drive AND ZIP cope: Hanford, CA 93 230 BRANCH NAME: Civil Division TIFF: Nuvia Vanessa Green; Amyl?v?ller DEFENDANT: Adventist Health Care; Dr. Seetharaman Ashok, Richard McGrory, NP DOES1TO 5 Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death AMENDED (Number): FIRST Type (Check all that apply): I: MOTOR VEHICLE OTHER (specify): Sexual Harassment, Etc. Property Damage Wrongful Death Persona! injury Other Damages (special): FOR COURTUSE DNLY Jurisdiction (check all that apply): ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE Amount demanded does not exceed $10,000 exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000 ACTION Is AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000) ACTION lS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint Cl from limited to unlimited 1: from unlimited to limited CASE NUM BER: 15C0208 1. Plaintiff (name or names): Nuvia Vanessa Green; Amy Miller alleges causes of action against defe?dant (name or names}: Adventist Health Care; Dr. Seerharaman Ashok, Richard McGrory, NP 2. This pleading? including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult a. except plaintiff (name): (1) a corporation quali?ed to do business in California (2) an unincorporated entity (describe): a public entity (describe): a minor an adult for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed other (speci?/l: (5) other (specim- b. except plaintiff (name): (1) a corporation quali?ed to do business in California (2) an unincorporated entity (describe): a public entity (describe): (4) a minor an adult (3) for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (5) other (specify): information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California {Rev January 1, 2007] Damage, Wrongful Death injury, Property PageIurs Code of Civil Procodure, 425.12 ccomnfoca gov SHORT CASE NUMBER: Green V. Adventist Health Care 15C0208 4. Plaintiff {name}: is doing business under the ?ctitious name (specify): and has complied with the ?ctitious business name laws. 5. Each defendant named above is a natural person a. except defendant (name): Adventist Health Care c. :l except defendant (name): (.1) a business organization, form unknown (1) a business organization, form unknown (2) a corporation (2) I: a corporation (3) an unincorporated entity (describe); (3) an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) a public entity (4) a public entity (describe): other (specify): (5) other (speci?r): b. exoept defendant (name): d- WHEN defendant (name): (1) a business organization, form unknown (1) a business organization, form unknown (2) El a corporation (2) a corporation (3) I: an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) an unincorporated entity (describe): (4.) i: a public entity (describe): 1: a public entity (describe): (5) I: other :3 other {speci?/y I i information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5. 6, The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff. a. Doe defendants (speci?r Doe numbers): 1?5 were the agents or employees of other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment. b. [3 [Joe defendants (spech Doe numbers): are persons whose capaci?es are unknown to plaintiff. Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): ?Kl i 3. This court is the proper court because a. at least one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area. b. the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area. 0. injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional areal d. other {speciMr 9. Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. :1 is excused from complying because (specify): {Rev Jammy 1? 200?} COM PLAINTmPersonal injury, Property Pagez are Damage, Wrongful Death SHORT case NUMBER: Green v. Adventist Health Care 10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached); a. Motor Vehicle b. [3 General Negligence c. Intentional Tort d. [j Produots Liability e. Premises Liability f. Other (specify): Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; Violation of Civil Code 51.7; Violation of Civil Code 1708.5; Violation of Civil Code 52.4; Sexual Battery; Violation of Civil Code 43. 11. Plaintiff has suffered a. wage loss b. loss of Lise of property . hospital and medical expenses . general damage . property damage loss of earning capacity other damage (specify): All damages that result from the misconduct of Dr. A-shok and NP McGrory, all damages resulting from Adventist Health's failure to intervene and protect plaintiff Green and effectively rati fyingfcondoning individual misconduct. Miller's damages are from retaliation by Dr. Ashok. foreman i2. The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are a. listed in Attachment 12. b. as follows: 13. The relief sought in this complaint is the jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive and penal damages, as well as attorney?s fees, costs and any other relief to which they may be entitled. 14. Plaintiff prays forjudgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for a. compensatory damages (2) punitive damages The amount of damages is (In cases for personal injury or wrongfw? death, you must check (1) according to proof (2) I: in the amount of: 15. The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (speci?/ paragraph numbers): 5 and 6 Date: 10?27?15 Kevin G. Little (TYPE DR (SIGNATURE OF 0R [Rev January 1, 2mm Injury, Property Pages ?3 Damage, Wrongful Death Page 4 of 14 FIRST CLAIM OR RELIEF: FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT Plamn? Green Against All Defendants PIaintr?Mt?ller A gainsr Dr. Ashok 16. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation stated above, as though fully stated herein. 17. Between late 2013 and July 2014, defendant Dr. Ashok engaged in a pattern of harassment of plaintiff Green, which included inappropriate remarks, sexual overtures, and unconsented sexualized touching. This unconsented touching including forcibly kissing plaintiff Green, wantonly smacking and grabbing her in a sexual manner in erogenous zones, and pushing his private areas against her. When plaintiff Green reported Dr, Ashok?s misconduct to management at defendant Adventist Medical Center?Hanford, no immediate and effective remedial measures were taken, and Dr. Ashok instead began retaliating against the plaintiff by spreading false rumors of her alleged consent to his sexual misconduct, and by going out of his way to make plaintiff Green feel uncomfortable and unsafe at work. Dr. Ashok?s conduct included stalking plaintiff Green in the parking lot and also driving by her person in the parking lot in close proximity and at an unreasonable rate of speed. This misconduct continued until plaintiff took leave from work in September 2015. Defendant Adventist Medical Center?Hanford had the ability to restrict defendant Dr. Ashok?s practice at its facilities but chose to do nothing. Defendant Adventist Medical Center?Hanford also failed to cooperate with plaintiff Green when she attempted to report Dr. Ashok?s sexual misconduct to law enfOrcement. Defendant Adventist Medical Center~Hanford also failed to accommodate plaintiff Green to address the retaliation she was subjected to by Dr. Ashok and other staff and employees. Defendant Adventist Medical Center~Hanford also failed to accommodate plaintiff Green when she required medical leave and treatment as a result of the harassment and retaliation she was suffering. 18. In approximately May 2015, Dr. Ashok also retaliated against plaintiff Miller, who is known to be a friend of plaintiff Green. Dr. Ashok made false allegations of misconduct and incompetence regarding Miller, a MRI and imaging technician, that resulted in her being involuntarily excused from a surgery. Miller was extremely embarrassed by this action, which has adversely affected her professional reputation and made her fear?ll of further reprisal. Page 5 of 14 19. Beginning in approximately July 2015 and continuing to September 2-015, defendant McGrory began to harass plaintiff Green by inappropriately exposing himself to her in the workplace and also by making inappropriate comments that plaintiff Green made clear were unwelcome. These inappropriate exposures of defendant McGrory?s genitalia occurred during surgical procedures and included his ejaculating to orgasm directly in her view and close proximity! Plaintiff assigned duties as a surgical. assistant/technician required her to remain .in positions where defendant McGrory?s genitalia were visible to her. 20. Plainti? Green believes that defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hanford?s inappropriate handling of the issues alleged above pertaining to Dr. Ashok contributed to the occurrence of defendant McGrory?s misconduct, since those inclined to commit sexual misconduct after Dr. Ashok could readily anticipate that there would be no real repercussions for their similar misconduct. Indeed, defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hanford did not investigate defendant McGrory?s misconduct, make an e?ort to determine the affected patients or employees, and instead permitted him to resign under ostensibly favorable conditions with favorable recommendations. Nor did Adventist Medical Center?Hartford do anything to dissipate the rumors that spread throughout the workplace that plaintiff Green was initially a willing participant .in defendant McG-rory?s misconduct and then attempted to blackmail him for it. Defendant Green has been severely distressed as a result. and took leave from work as a result in September 2015. Defendant Adventist Medical Center?Hanford has attempted to make plaintiff Green?s ability to remain out on medical leave more dif?cult and nothing has been done to make the workplace less hostile so that plaintiff Green would feel more welcome to return. 21.. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that a substantial or motivating factors in Defendants? discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation as to plaintiff Green, was her gender and her participation in protected activity, all in violation of California Government Code ?12900, et seq. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that a substantial or motivating factor in Defendant Ashok?s discrimination and retaliation as to plaintiff Miller, was her perceived status as a witness in support of plaintiff Green?s sexual harassment complaint, in violation of California Government Code ?12900, et seq. 22. Under California Government Code ?12940(k), Defendants, Adventist Health, Page 6 of 14 Ashok, and McGrory, all had a duty to refrain from and to prevent discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation against Plaintiffs and to provide them with a workplace which was free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation against Plaintiffs. 23. As a proximate result of the Defendants? acts of discrimination, harassment andfor retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic losses and interest thereon. Plaintiffs also have suffered and continue to suffer both physical and non-physical injuries, including severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish all to her damage in an amount to be proven at trial. 24. In doing the acts and/or failing to do the acts alleged herein above, the Defendants, and each of them, engaged in discriminatory acts and conduct with malice towards Plaintiffs and/or a reckless indifference to their statutorily protected rights and in conscious disregard of their rights, both statutory and common law guaranteed Plaintiff by the State of California. As such, Defendants are guilty of oppression and malice for winch Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. California Code of Civil Procedure ?102l provides that attorneys? fees are recoverable in an action for which they are speci?cally provided by statute. California Government Code ?12965(b) provides that reasonable attorneys? fees and costs are recoverable herein by the prevailing party, Within the discretion of the court. Plaintiffs have retained attorneys for the prosecution of this action. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred. Page 7 of 14 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: SEXUAL HARASSMENT (Civil Code 8 51.7) Plar?mg? Green Against All Defendants 25. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation stated above, as though ?illy stated herein. 26. Between late 2013 and July 2014, defendant Dr. Ashok engaged in a pattern of harassment of plaintiff Green, which included inappropriate remarks, sexual overtures, and unconsented sexualized touching. This unconsented touching including forcibly kissing plaintiff Green, wantonly smacking and grabbing her in a sexual manner in erogenous zones, and pushing his private areas against her. These actions are sufficiently violent and/or harm?il and/or threatening to come within the purview of California Civil Code 51.7, since defendant Dr. Ashok?s conduct suggested to plaintiff Green that he was capable of engaging in forcible, unconsented sexual acts against her. (See Lantern v. ABM Judas-tries Incorporated (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 267-268.) When plaintiff Green reported Dr. Ashok?s misconduct to management at defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hanford, no immediate and effective remedial measures were taken, and Dr. Ashok instead began retaliating again st the plaintiff by spreading false rumors of her alleged consent to his sexual misconduct, and by going out of his way to make plaintiff Green feel uncomfortable and unsafe at work. Dr. Ashok?s conduct included stalking plaintiff Green in the parking lot and also driving by her person in the parking lot in close proximity and at an unreasonable rate of speed. This misconduct continued until plaintiff took leave from work in September 2015. Defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hanford had the ability to restrict defendant Dr. Ashok?s practice at its facilities but chose to do nothing. Defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hanford also failed to cooperate with plaintiff Green when she attempted to report Dr. Ashok?s sexual misconduct to law enforcement. Defendant Adventist Medical Center?Hanford also failed to accommodate plaintiff Green to address the retaliation she was subjected to by Dr. Ashok and other staff and employees. Defendant Adventist Medical Center?Hanford also failed to accommodate plaintiff Green when she required medical leave and treatment as a result of the harassment and retaliation she was suffering. 27. Beginning in approximately July 2015 and continuing to September 2015, defendant McGrory began to harass plaintiff Green by inapprOpriately exposing himself to her in Page 3 of 14 the workplace and also by making inappropriate comments that plaintiff Green made clear were unwelcome. These inappropriate exposures of defendant IMcGrory?s genitalia occurred during Surgical procedures and included his ejaculating to orgasm directly in her view and close proximity! These actions are sufficiently violent and/or harmful and/or threatening to come within the purview of California Civil Code 51.7, since defendant McGrory?s conduct suggested to plaintiff Green that he was capable of engaging in forcible, unconsented sexual acts against her. These inappropriate exposures of defendant McGrory?s genitalia occurred during surgical proceduresl Plaintiff?s assigned duties as a surgical assistant/technician required her to remain in positions where defendant McGrory? genitalia were visible to her. 28. Plaintiff Green believes that defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hanford?s inappropriate handling of the issues alleged above pertaining to Dr. Ashok contributed to the occurrence of defendant McGrory?s misconduct, since those inclined to commit sexual misconduct after Dr. Ashok could readily anticipate that there would be no real repercussions for their similar misconduct. Indeed, defendant Adventist Medical Center?Hanford did not investigate defendant McGrory?s misconduct, make an effort to determine the affected patients or employees, and instead permitted him to resign under ostensibly favorable conditions with favorable recommendations. Nor did Adventist Medical Center~Hanford do anything to dissipate the rumors that spread throughout the workplace that plaintiff Green was initially a willing participant in defendant McGrory?s misconduct and then attempted to blackmail him for it. Defendant Green has been severely distressed as a result and took leave from work as a result in September 2015. Defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hanford has attempted to make plaintiff Green?s ability to remain out on medical leave more dif?cult and nothing has been done to make the workplace less hostile so that plaintiff Green would feel more welcome to return. 29. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that a substantial or motivating factors in Defendants? discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation as to plaintiff Green, was her gender and her participation in protected activity, all in violation of California Civil Code 51.7, er. seq. 30. Under California Civil Code 51.7, et seq, Defendants, Adventist Health, Ashok, and McGrory, all had a duty to refrain from and to prevent sexual harassment against Page 9 of 14 plaintiff Green. Defendants all failed to refrain from and to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation against Plaintiffs. 31. As a proximate result of the Defendants? acts of sexual harassment plaintiff Green su??ered and continues to suffer economic losses and interest thereon. Plaintiff Green also has suffered and continues to suffer both physical and non-physical injuries, including severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish all to her damage in an amount to be proven at trial. 32. In doing the acts and/or failing to do the acts alleged herein above, the Defendants, and each of them, engaged in wrong?il acts and conduct with malice towards plaintiff Green and/or a reckless indifference to her statutorily protected rights and in conscious disregard of her rights, both statutory and common law guaranteed Plaintiff by the State of California. As such, Defendants are guilty of oppression and malice for which plaintiff Green is entitled to punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. California Civil Code 52, and California Code of Civil Procedure ?1021 provide that attorneys? fees are recoverable in an action for which they are speci?cally provided by statute. Plaintiff Green has retained attorneys for the prosecution of this action. As a result, plaintiff Green is entitled to her reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred. Page 10 of 14 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE $17085 Plaintz? Green Against Defendam Dr. Ashok 33. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation stated above, as though fully stated herein. 34, Defendant Dr, Ashok subjected Plaintiff to unlawful sexual battery in the workplace in violation of California Civil Code ?1708.5. From late 2013 through June 2014, Defendant Dr. Ashok repeatedly acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiff?s body, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff resulted. Speci?cally, between late 201.3 and July 2014, defendant Dr. Ashok engaged in a pattern of unconsented sexual ized touchng of plaintiff Green. This unconsented touching including forcibly kissing plaintiff Green, wantonly smacking and grabbing her in a sexual manner in erogenous zones, and pushing his private areas against her. 35, Dr. Ashok is therefore liable to plaintiff under Civil Code 1708.5, including for compensatory, punitive, and penal damages, as well as legal fees, expenses and ancillary relief Page 11 of 14 FOURTH CLAM FOR RELIEF: CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3 52.4 Plaintiff Green A gains: Dr. Ashok 36. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation stated above, as though fully stated herein. 37. From late 2013 through 2014, defendant Dr. Ashok performed acts that constituted a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction. Speci?cally, between late 2013 and July 2014, defendant Dr. Ashok engaged in a pattern of unconsented sexualized touching of plaintiff Green. This unconsented touching including forcibly kissing plaintiff Green, wantonly smacking and grabbing her in a sexual manner in erogenous zones, and pushing his private areas against her. 38. In engaging in this misconduct, Defendant Dr. Ashok engaged in acts of gender violence violated Plaintiffs rights under California Civil Code? 52.4. 39. As an actual, legal and proximate cause of the mong?il conduct of Defendant Dr. Ashok, Plaintiff has suffered and incurred damages for: physical, mental, and emotional injuries and emotional distress, and the loss of wages, salary, bene?ts, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received. 40. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorneys' fees pursuant to California Civil Code? 41. Plaintiff is entitled to and requests an award of punitive and penal damages. Page 12 of 14 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: SEXUAL BATTERY Plaintt? Green A gab-25: D?endant Dr. Ashe}: 42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation stated above, as though ?illy stated herein. 43. In engaging in and performing the misconduct alleged above, Defendant Dr. Ashok intentionally subjected plaintiff Green to a harm?il or offensive touching which actually, legally and proximately caused plaintiff Green to Suffer the injuries and damages alleged herein. Speci?cally, between late 2013 and July 2014, defendant Dr. Ashok engaged in a pattern of unconsented sexualized touching of plaintiff Green. This unconsented touching including forcibly kissing plaintiff Green, wantonly smacking and grabbing her in a sexual manner in erogenous zones, and pushing his private areas against her. 44. As an actual, legal and proximate cause of this wrong?il conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and incurred damages for: physical, mental, and emotional injuries and emotional distress; and the loss of wages, salary, bene?ts, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received. 45. Plaintiff is entitled to and requests an award of punitive and penal damages. Page 13 of 14 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: PROTECTION FROM PERSONAL INSULT Plafnn? Green Against Defendants Dr. Ashok and McGrory Dr. Ashe}: 46. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation stated above, as though fully stated herein. Between late 2013 and July 2014, defendant Dr. Ashok engaged in a. pattern of insulting conduct toward plaintiff Green, 'whi ch included inappropriate remarks, sexual overtures, and unconsented sexualized touching. This unconsented touching including forcibly kissing plaintiff Green, wantonly smacking and grabbing her in a sexual manner in erogenous zones, and pushing his private areas against her. When plaintiff Green reported Dr. Ashok?s misconduct to management at defendant Adventist Medical Center-Hartford, Dr. Ashok then began retaliating against the plaintiff by Spreading false rumors of her alleged consent to his sexual misconduct, and by going out of his way to make plaintiff Green feel uncomfortable and unsafe at work. Dr. Ashok?s conduct included stalking plaintiff Green in the parking lot and also driving by her person in the parking lot in close proximity and at an unreasonable rate of speed. This misconduct continued until plaintiff took leave from work in September 2015. Plaintiff Green took medical as a result of Dr. Ashok?s misconduct, 48. In approximately May 2015, Dr. Ashok also acted in an insulting manner toward plaintiff Miller, who is known to be a friend of plaintiff Green. Dr. Ashok made false allegations of misconduct and incompetence regarding Miller, a MRI and imaging technician, that resulted in her being involuntarily excused from a surgery. Miller was extremely embarrassed by this action, which has adversely affected her professional reputation and made her fear?-Jl of further reprisal. 49. Beginning in approximately July 2015 and continuing to September 2015, defendant McGrory began to act in an insulting manner toward plaintiff Green by inappropriately exposing himself to her in the workplace and also by making inappropriate comments that plaintiff Green made clear were unwelcome. These inappropriate exposures of defendant McGrory?s genitalia occurred during surgical procedures and included his ejaculating to orgasm directly in her View and close proximityl Plaintiffs assigned duties as a surgical assistant/technician required her to remain in positions where defendant McGrony?s genitalia were Page 14 of 14 visible to her. Subsequent to defendant McGrory?s resignation, rumors spread throughout the workplace that plaintiff Green was initially a willing participant in defendant McGrory?s misconduct and then attempted to blackmail him for it. Defendant Green has been severely distressed as a result and took leave from work as a result in September 2015. 50. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants Dr, Ashok and McGrory violated their rights against unreasonable insult under California Civil Code 43, either as a result of intentional or negligent conduct. Plainti??s rights under Civil Code 43 have been pronounced as actionable by the California Supreme Court. (See Jones v. Kmart (1998) 17 Cal.4th 329, 334.) 51. As a proximate result of the defendants? acts, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic losses and interest thereon. Plaintiffs also have suffered and continue to suffer both physical and non-physical injuries, including severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish all to her damage in an amount to be proven at trial. SHORT TITLE: Green; Miller V. Adventist Health Care, etc. CASE UM 15C0208 Exemplary Damages Attachment Page 15 ATTACHMENTTO Complaint l:l Cross-Complaint As additional damages against defendant (name): Adventist Health Care, Dr. Seetharainan Ashok, and Richard .McGrory, NP. Plaintiff alleges defendant was guilty of malice fraud oppression as de?ned in Civil Code Section 3294, and plaintiff should recover. in addition to actual damages. damages to make an example of and to punish defendant. The facts supporting plaintiff's claim are as follows: As to defendant Adventist Health Care: Adventist Health Care is liable for punitiveiiexemplary damages based on its role in permitting sexual harassment and misconduct to occur after it received notice and for failing to take effective and timely remedial measures, as required by Gov't Code 12940 and Civil Code 51.7. Plaintiff Green is entitled to an award of punitivez?exeniplary damages under those statutes if she proves liability against this defendant. As to Defendant Dr. Asbok: Defendant Dr. Ashok committed intentional. sexual and retaliatmy misconduct against plaintiff Green, and he also committed intentional retaliatory misconduct against plaintiff Millet. As a result of these actions, and based upon the substantive law supporting the plaintiffs' claims against Dr. Ashok, he is liable for punitivefexetnplary damages. As to Defendant McGrory: Defendant McGrory committed intentional sexual misconduct against plaintiff Green. As a result of these actions, and based upon the substantive law supporting this plaintiff?s claims against defendant .McGrory, he is liable for damages. EX-3. The amount of eXemplary damages sought is a. not shown, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10. b. I Page of ?1 Form Acumen for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure, 425.12 Judicial Council of California W?oumn?lcaygov [Rem January 1. 200?]