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 Isabel Vasquez 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (Central Division) 9 10 11 ISABEL VASQUEZ, 12 13 14 15 CASE NO.: Plaintiff, v. MICKEY KASPARIAN; UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 135, a labor union charter; and DOES 1 through 20, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Sexual Harassment (Quid Pro Quo); 2. Sexual Harassment (Hostile Environment); 3. Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment; and 4. Constructive Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy. 16 17 Defendants. _________________________________ 18 Plaintiff, Isabel Vasquez ("Vasquez"), alleges: 19 1. 20 21 Defendant, Mickey Kasparian ("Kasparian"), is an adult resident of San Diego County, California. 2. Defendant, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 135 ("Local 135"), is a labor 22 union charter with its principal place of business in San Diego County, California. At all material 23 times, Kasparian was a managing agent for Local 135. 24 3. Vasquez is a female, adult resident of San Diego County, California. At all material 25 times, she was a non-confidential, non-managerial, and non-policymaking employee of Local 135, 26 and Kasparian was her supervisor. 27 28 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual or otherwise, of defendants Does 1 through 20 are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues them by such fictitious names pursuant Complaint For Damages 1 1 to CCP § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the Doe defendants is responsible in 2 some manner for the acts of omissions alleged in this complaint or cause Plaintiff's damages. 3 5. At all material times, all of the defendants named in this complaint were agents, 4 employees, partners, joint-venturers, or co-conspirators of the other defendants and when doing the 5 acts alleged in this complaint they acted within the course and scope of such agency. At all material 6 times, all of the defendants named in this complaint aided and abetted, authorized, and ratified all 7 of the acts of the other defendants. 8 6. Vasquez became an employee of Local 135 in April 2001, but was forced to retire 9 due to sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of Kasparian that began almost immediately after she 10 was hired. The sexual abuse committed by Kasparian included occasional demands for oral sex in 11 his office at Local 135, sexual intercourse in hotels paid for by Local 135, and similar sexual acts 12 at Local 135 events (e.g., in his car outside the event). This abuse was sporadic. Sometimes the 13 abuse would occur upwards of three or four times per year. At other times, Kasparian would not call 14 her into his office, or somewhere else, for a year or two. However, his sexual interest would always 15 return, and he would call her on the phone, demand she come to his office, and when she arrived, 16 she knew she might be required to submit to his sexual demands. After each act of sexual relations, 17 Kasparian would summarily dismiss Vasquez and tell her to get back to work. He would even 18 comment that she must have low self-esteem. This pattern abuse continued such that each day 19 Vasquez came to work, her workday would be filled with constant fear and anxiety that today would 20 be the day she would be called into his office for oral sex. At the end of the day, Vasquez could not 21 find relief, even if she had not been called into his office, because she knew the next day might be 22 different. Vasquez worked each day, every hour, with this fear and anxiety hanging over her, until 23 she decided she could not take it anymore and retired early in July 2016. 24 7. One time, a co-worker walked into Kasparian's office and saw him quickly run into 25 an adjacent space, leaving Vasquez on her knees to face the co-worker in humiliation. Despite this 26 glaring act of harassment in the workplace, Local 135 did nothing to investigate Kasparian, much 27 less take actions to stop the abuse and protect Vasquez. A similar failure by Local 135 to investigate 28 sexual harassment committed by Kasparian occurred in 2011 when another female worker reported Complaint For Damages 2 1 she was being sexually harassed by Kasparian. One Ms. Miner reported to Brian Kelly, Local 135's 2 Comptroller, that Kasparian had used Local 135 funds to take her to dinner, buy her drinks, and 3 proposition her for a sexual relationship. Kasparian told his subordinate he had an open relationship 4 with his wife, and that he knew her husband was not living with her at the time. Brian Kelly and 5 Local 135 did nothing to investigate or take remedial actions, as required by law. As a result, the 6 harassment continued until Ms. Miner's husband discovered the abuse and beat up Kasparian, at 7 which time Ms. Miner was immediately fired. 8 9 10 8. On December 19, 2016, Vasquez exhausted her administrative remedy requirements by filing a Department Of Fair Employment & Housing administrative complaint against Kasparian and Local 135 and obtaining a Right-To-Sue letter from the agency that day. 11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Sexual Harassment–Quid Pro Quo--Against All Defendants) 12 13 9. Vasquez realleges paragraphs 1 through 8. 14 10. Local 135 was Vasquez' employer and, through the acts of Kasparian as its managing 15 agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, violated Gov. Code § 16 12940(j) by making unwanted sexual advances to Vasquez and engaging in unwanted verbal and 17 physical conduct of a sexual nature. Vasquez' continued employment was conditioned, by words 18 and conduct, on Vasquez' acceptance of Kasparian's sexual advances and conduct. 19 11. As a result of these wrongful acts, Vasquez sustained economic damages for lost 20 wages and benefits, and non-economic damages for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and 21 mental suffering. 22 12. Kasparian's conduct was vile, and he acted with malice, oppression or fraud, and in 23 conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights and well-being, entitling Vasquez to recover punitive 24 damages against Kasparian and Local 135 pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 because Kasparian was its 25 managing agent. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Complaint For Damages 3 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Sexual Harassment–Hostile Work Environment-Against All Defendants) 2 3 13. Vasquez realleges paragraphs 1 through 10. 4 14. Local 135 was Vasquez' employer and, through the acts of Kasparian as its managing 5 agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, violated Gov. Code § 6 12940(j) by subjecting Vasquez to unwanted harassing conduct because she was a woman. The 7 harassing conduct was so severe and/or pervasive that Vasquez considered, as any reasonable 8 woman in her circumstances would have, the work environment to be hostile and abusive. 9 15. Vasquez realleges paragraphs 11 and 12. 10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure To Prevent Sexual Harassment Against Local 135) 11 12 16. Vasquez realleges paragraphs 1 through 10 and 14. 13 17. Local 135 was Vasquez' employer and, by failing to take all reasonable steps to 14 prevent the sexual harassment, which it knew or should have known about, violated Gov. Code § 15 12940(k). 16 18. 17 Vasquez realleges paragraph 11. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Discharge In Violation of Public Policy Against Local 135) 18 19 19. Vasquez realleges paragraphs 1 through 10, 14 and 17. 20 20. Local 135 was Vasquez' employer and, through the acts of Kasparian as its managing 21 agent acting in the course and scope of his employment with Local 135, violated public policy by 22 intentionally creating and knowingly permitting the sexual harassment and intolerable working 23 conditions alleged above. These working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person 24 in Vasquez' position would have had no reasonable alternative except to retire early, which she did. 25 21. 26 /// 27 /// Vasquez realleges paragraphs 11 and 12. 28 Complaint For Damages 4 1 2 3 REQUEST FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, plaintiff Isabel Vasquez requests a judgment against defendants Mickey Kasparian, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 135, 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, including expert witness expenses; and 7 d. Other proper relief. 8 Dated: December 19, 2016 The Gilleon Law Firm 9 10 __________________________________ Daniel M. Gilleon, Attorneys for Plaintiff Isabel Vasquez 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Complaint For Damages 5