1 2 3 4 Daniel M. Gilleon (SBN 195200) Samuel A. Clemens (SBN 285919) The Gilleon Law Firm 1320 Columbia Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619.702.8623 Fax:619.702.6337 dan@gilleon.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sandy Naranjo 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (Central Division) 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 CASE NO.: SANDY NARANJO, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. 1. Gender Discrimination; UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 135, a labor union charter; and DOES 1 through 20, 15 2. Retaliation for Political Affiliation; 3. Retaliation for Intent to Pursue Worker’s Compensation; Defendants. 4. Physical Disability Discrimination; 16 5. Failure to Prevent Physical Disability and Gender Discrimination; and 17 18 _________________________________ 6. Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy. 19 20 21 Plaintiff, Sandy Naranjo (“Naranjo”), alleges: 22 1. Defendant, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 135 (“Local 135") is a labor 23 union charter with its principal place of business in San Diego County, California. At all material 24 times, it was fully controlled by its President, Mickey Kasparian ("Kasparian"). 25 2. Naranjo is a female, adult resident of San Diego County, California. At all material 26 times, she was a non-confidential, non-managerial, and non-policymaking employee of Local 135, 27 and Kasparian was her supervisor. At all material times, she was married to Andrew McKercher 28 ("McKercher"), an official with another labor union charter, the IBEW Local 569. Complaint For Damages 1 1 3. The true names and capacities, whether individual or otherwise, of defendants Does 2 1 through 20 are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues them by such fictitious names pursuant 3 to California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the Doe 4 defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts of omissions alleged in this complaint or 5 cause Plaintiff's damages. 6 4. At all material times, all of the defendants named in this complaint were agents, 7 employees, partners, joint-venturers, or co-conspirators of the other defendants and when doing the 8 acts alleged in this complaint they acted within the course and scope of such agency. At all 9 material times, all of the defendants named in this complaint aided and abetted, authorized, and 10 11 ratified all of the acts of the other defendants. 5. Naranjo was hired by Local 135 as an organizer on January 7, 2013, at which time 12 Kasparian became one of her supervisors. From the beginning of her employment until Kasparian 13 fired her on December 9, 2016, Kasparian created a work environment that was particularly hostile 14 toward women. For example, Kasparian demanded quid pro quo sexual relations with at least one 15 female co-worker known to Naranjo, but Naranjo also heard rumors in the workplace regarding 16 another past female employee whose husband had battered Kasparian in approximately 2011, 17 allegedly because of sexually inappropriate and harassing conduct directed toward her by 18 Kasparian. Naranjo also knew of a past female employee who was terminated for having an affair 19 with Local 135's Vice President, who was not similarly disciplined. Another example of Kasparian 20 creating a sexually hostile work environment is his sexual relationship with a member of another 21 labor union with whom Kasparian wines, dines and travels using union funds. 22 6. Although Kasparian always demonstrated–even bragged about--a willingness to 23 attack people who opposed his political views and activities, he was particularly mean-spirited and 24 aggressive when it came to retaliating against women who he perceived had crossed him. For 25 example, in October 2013, in the run up to the post-Filner special mayoral election, Kasparian 26 ordered Naranjo to play the part of a private investigator to uncover evidence that then State 27 Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez was having an affair with mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher, 28 because he wanted to punish Assemblywoman Gonzalez for endorsing Mr. Fletcher (Kasparian was Complaint For Damages 2 1 2 endorsing David Alvarez). 7. Also, in the workplace, Kasparian used particularly degrading words and phrases 3 about women he did not like. Although Kasparin made it clear to his staff that he did not like 4 certain men, such as former State Assembly Member Nathan Fletcher, State Senator Ben Hueso, 5 U.S. Congressman Juan Vargas, State Assembly Member Todd Gloria, U.S. Congressman Scott 6 Peters, and eventually San Diego City Councilmember David Alvarez, he did not use the ugly and 7 demeaning language that he reserved for his female opponents. For example, he would talk about 8 Assemblywoman Gonzalez’ sex life, and refer to her as a “bitch” and a “lush.” Other examples of 9 demeaning rhetoric he used in the workplace to degrade women included the following: 10 a. 11 He openly referred to Francine Busby, the Chair of the San Diego County Democratic Party, as “stupid” and a “dumbass”; 12 b. 13 Kasparian openly referred to Caridad Sanchez, the San Diego and Imperial Counties Regional Director for U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, as “flighty”; 14 c. Kasparian would call Escondido City Councilmember Olga Diaz a “bitch”; 15 d. He also openly referred to Brigette Browning, the President of Unite Here! 16 Local 30, as a “bitch”; 17 e. He told his staff that he would “annihilate” former San Diego City 18 Councilmember Donna Frye and make sure she would not find a job, even 19 as a “dog catcher”; and 20 f. 21 22 Kasparain liked to tell his staff that State Senator Connie Leyva’s achievements were of her “tits.” 8. On or about September 1, 2016, Naranjo was involved in a motor vehicle accident 23 while she was on the job, which she reported to Local 135. Naranjo suffered physical injuries that 24 resulted in physical disabilities that limited her major life activities, although she was still able to 25 perform the essential job duties with reasonable accommodations. Local 135 knew Naranjo had 26 suffered an occupational injury, for which she was entitled to worker’s compensation benefits, and 27 knew that knew that Naranjo had suffered health impairments that affected her job. Naranjo made 28 her intent known to seek all available benefits for her occupational injury, including filing a Complaint For Damages 3 1 worker’s compensation claim. Nonetheless, Local 135 demonstrated its disdain for employees 2 filing claims for worker’s compensation by failing to comply with its legal obligations, e.g., by not 3 informing Naranjo of her rights to worker’s compensation benefits, failing to provide Naranjo with 4 a claim form, and by not authorizing medical treatment under the worker’s compensation system. 5 9. On December 2, 2016, with permission from Local 135, Naranjo attended a medical 6 appointment for her occupational injury, which she had arranged on her own, outside of the 7 worker’s compensation system. 8 10. On the same day, December 2, 2016, Kasparian learned of some political trouble he 9 was facing due to the actions of Councilmember David Alvarez. Due to a violation of the Brown 10 Act on October 18, 2016, which included improper influence exerted by Kasparin on certain City 11 Councilmembers, Councilmember Alvarez demanded a re-vote on the Community Benefits 12 Agreement of the Civic San Diego Project, a plan Kasparian was exploiting for his own political 13 ambitions. The demand for a re-vote angered Kasparian, who then targeted Naranjo whom he 14 noticed was not present at the Local 135 office, and, on information and belief, errantly concluded 15 that Naranjo’s absence meant she was involved in the political trouble he was facing at City Hall. 16 Kasparian had made it known to the staff at Local 135 his disdain not only for Councilmember 17 Alvarez, but also for those who supported Mr. Alvarez, including Naranjo’s husband, Andrew 18 McKercher, and others at his union, IBEW Local 569. Kasparian had even made inappropriate 19 comments to (and about) Naranjo at staff meetings about her husband’s position with IBEW Local 20 569, which he openly criticized. 21 11. For these reasons, and more to be proven at trial, Kasparian employed his favorite 22 weapon–the unfair, abusive, and degrading treatment of women--to punish McKercher for his 23 political activities by terminating his wife, Naranjo, in a humiliating and degrading fashion. The 24 following Monday, December 5, 2016, Kasparian openly and dramatically suspended Naranjo 25 without pay, and made comments showing that he was doing so because she had been missing on 26 Friday. Kasparian’s comments also indicated that he did not realize (or did not care) that Naranjo 27 had been away from the office for medical treatment for her occupational disability. Instead, 28 Kasparian seemed paranoid that Naranjo had been involved in her husband’s support of Complaint For Damages 4 1 Councilmember Alvarez’s recent political activities, including opposition to his support of the 2 Community Benefits Agreement which provided illusory benefits to workers. Immediately 3 following the termination, and continuing, Kasparian began a smear campaign against Naranjo 4 falsely telling others that she had been fired for dishonesty. 5 12. On December 7, 2016, at a labor event, Naranjo was awarded a Certificate of 6 Recognition for "outstanding work and dedication" by the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor 7 Council, which was also led by Kasparian. Naranjo was not present at the event because of her 8 suspension. Her husband McKercher, however, was present and accepted the award for her. 9 McKercher made comments suggesting he believed the suspension by Kasparian was unfair, 10 11 demeaning, and politically motivated. 13. On December 8, 2016, Local 135 told Naranjo to appear the following morning. 12 When Naranjo appeared, on December 9, 2016, she met with Kasparian and two other officials. 13 She was terminated. 14 15 14. On December 15, 2016, Naranjo exhausted her administrative remedy requirements by filing a DFEH complaint and obtaining a Right to Sue letter. 16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Gender Discrimination Against All Defendants) 17 18 15. Naranjo realleges paragraphs 1 through 14. 19 16. Defendant Local 135 was Naranjo’s employer and, through the acts of Kasparian 20 as its managing agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, 21 violated Gov. Code § 12940(a) and wrongfully discriminated against Naranjo by doing the 22 things alleged in this complaint, including terminating her because she was a woman and 23 targeting her in abusive and degrading ways that Kasparian would not have treated a similarly 24 situated man. Naranjo’s gender was a motivating reason for her termination and abusive and 25 abusive treatment. 26 17. As a result of these wrongful acts, plaintiff sustained economic damages for lost 27 wages and benefits, and non-economic damages for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and 28 mental suffering. Complaint For Damages 5 1 18. Kasparian’s conduct and animus toward Naranjo because she was a woman was 2 vile, and he acted with malice, oppression, fraud, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights 3 and well-being, entitling Naranjo to recover punitive damages against Local 135 pursuant to 4 CCP § 3294 because Kasparian was its managing agent. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation for Political Activity and Affiliation Against All Defendants) 6 19. Naranjo realleges paragraphs 1 through 18. 20. Defendant Local 135 was Naranjo’s employer and, through the acts of Kasparian 7 8 as its managing agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, 9 violated Labor Code § 1102 and wrongfully discriminated and retaliated against Naranjo by 10 doing the things alleged in this complaint, including terminating her because she supported her 11 husband who engaged in political activity and held political affiliations that Kasparian did not 12 like. Naranjo’s association with her husband and her support for him was a motivating reason 13 for her termination and the hostile and abusive treatment. 14 21. As a result of these wrongful acts, plaintiff sustained economic damages for lost 15 wages and benefits, and non-economic damages for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and 16 mental suffering. 17 22. Kasparian’s conduct and animus toward Naranjo because of her support of her 18 husband was vile, and he acted with malice, oppression, fraud, and in conscious disregard of 19 plaintiff’s rights and well-being, entitling Naranjo to recover punitive damages against Local 20 135 pursuant to CCP § 3294 because Kasparian was its managing agent. 21 22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation For Intent to Pursue Worker’s Compensation Against All Defendants) 23 23. Naranjo realleges paragraphs 1 through 22. 24. Defendant Local 135 was Naranjo’s employer and, through the acts of Kasparian 24 25 as its managing agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, violated 26 Labor Code § 132a and wrongfully discriminated and retaliated against Naranjo by doing the things 27 alleged in this complaint, including suspending and then terminating her because she had attended 28 Complaint For Damages 6 1 a medical appointment in furtherance of her intent to pursue compensation for a occupational 2 injury. 3 25. As a result of these wrongful acts, plaintiff sustained economic damages for lost 4 wages and benefits, and non-economic damages for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and 5 mental suffering. 6 26. Kasparian’s conduct and animus toward Naranjo because he assumed she was 7 engaged in political activities with her husband when in fact she was just getting treatment for an 8 occupational injury was vile, and he acted with malice, oppression, fraud, and in conscious 9 disregard of plaintiff’s rights and well-being, entitling Naranjo to recover punitive damages against 10 Local 135 pursuant to CCP § 3294 because Kasparian was its managing agent. 11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Physical Disability Discrimination Against All Defendants) 12 13 27. Naranjo realleges paragraphs 1 through 26. 14 28. Defendant Local 135 was Naranjo’s employer and, through the acts of Kasparian 15 as its managing agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, violated 16 Gov. Code § 12940(a) and wrongfully discriminated against Naranjo by doing the things alleged 17 in this complaint, including terminating her because she had been injured in an job-related accident 18 which caused a physical disability which limited Narajo's major life activies, although she could 19 still perform the essential duties of her job with a reasonable accomodation. Naranjo’s resulting 20 physical disability was a motivating reason for her termination and hostile and abusive treatment. 21 29. As a result of these wrongful acts, plaintiff sustained economic damages for lost 22 wages and benefits, and non-economic damages for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and 23 mental suffering. 24 30. Kasparian’s conduct and animus toward Naranjo because he assumed she was 25 engaged in political activities with her husband when in fact she was just getting treatment for an 26 occupational injury was vile, and he acted with malice, oppression, fraud, and in conscious 27 disregard of plaintiff’s rights and well-being, entitling Naranjo to recover punitive damages against 28 Local 135 pursuant to CCP § 3294 because Kasparian was its managing agent. Complaint For Damages 7 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Prevent Discrimination Against All Defendants) 2 3 31. Naranjo realleges paragraphs 1 through 30. 4 32. Defendant Local 135 was Naranjo’s employer and by failing to take all reasonable 5 steps to prevent the discrimination against Naranjo, that it knew or should have known about, based 6 upon her gender and physical disability, violated Gov. Code § 12940(k). 7 33. As a result of these wrongful acts, plaintiff sustained economic damages for lost 8 wages and benefits, and non-economic damages for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and 9 mental suffering. 10 11 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Against All Defendants) 12 34. Naranjo realleges paragraphs 1 through 33. 13 35. Defendant Local 135 was Naranjo’s employer and, through the acts of Kasparian 14 as its managing agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, violated 15 public policy by terminating her for the motivating reasons of her association with, and support of, 16 her husband/s political activities, because she had been injured in an job-related accident, and 17 because she intended to pursue compensation for a occupational injury, in violation of Labor Code 18 § 132a. 19 36. As a result of these wrongful acts, plaintiff sustained economic damages for lost 20 wages and benefits, and non-economic damages for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and 21 mental suffering. 22 37. Kasparian’s conduct and animus toward Naranjo because he assumed she was 23 engaged in political activities with her husband when in fact she was just getting treatment for an 24 occupational injury was vile, and he acted with malice, oppression, fraud, and in conscious 25 disregard of plaintiff’s rights and well-being, entitling Naranjo to recover punitive damages against 26 Local 135 pursuant to CCP § 3294 because Kasparian was its managing agent. 27 /// 28 /// Complaint For Damages 8 1 2 3 REQUEST FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, plaintiff Sandy Naranjo requests a judgment against defendants United Food & Commercial Workers Local 135, a labor union charter, and Does 1 to 20 for: 4 a. Special and general damages according to proof; 5 b. Punitive damages; 6 c. Statutory attorney’s fees and costs of court; and 7 d. Other proper relief. 8 9 10 11 Dated: December 15, 2016 The Gilleon Law Firm __________________________________ Daniel M. Gilleon, Attorneys for Plaintiff Sandy Naranjo 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Complaint For Damages 9