To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alameda Page 4 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMTSMITH PATTEN DOW W. PATTEN, ESQ. (SBN: 135931). 888 S. Figueroa St, Suite 2030 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (21-3) 488-1300; 415402-0084 Facsimile: (213) 2608501; 415620?0104 Attorney for Plaintiff SHAZIA MALIK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA SHAZIA MALIK, an individual, Case No: Plaintiff, V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AMY and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. WV I COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INIUNCTIVE RELIEF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (1) SEX HARASSMENT Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq. (FEHA) (2) FAILURE TO PREVENT HARSSMENT Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq. (FEHA) (3) RETALIATION Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq. (FEHA) (4) GENDER DISCRIMINATION Cal. Gov. C0de? 12900, et seq. (FEHA) (5) NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq. (FEHA) (6) RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq. (FEI-IA) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith FILED BY FAX ALAMEDA COUNTY November 17, 2017 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT By Dajuana Turner, Deputy CASE NUMBER: RG17882856 To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alameda Page 5 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith Plaintiff SHAZIA MALIK (?Plaintiff or ?les this Complaint for Damages 2 and Injunctive Relief, and complains of the named Defendants REGENTS OF THE 3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AMY ROSENHAUS and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE (collectively, ??Defendants?), and each of them, jointly and 5 severally, and for causes of action, alleges as follows: 6 7 JURISDICTION VENUE 8 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of Art. VI, 10 of the California 9 Constitution. IO 11 2. Venue is proper in the County of Alameda in that at all relevant times, the unlawful 12 conduct occurred Within the County of Alameda, and the principal place of business of the 13 Regents of the University of California is within Alameda County, California 14 3. Plaintiff has been damaged. in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this Court. 15 16 INTRODUCTION This is an action for damages and il?ljliil?iCllve relief for Sexual Harassment, bailure to 18 Prevent Harassment, Race Discrimination, and Retaliation in Violation of the California Fair- 19 . . . . Employment Act (Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq.). This action arises out 20 of events involving Plaintiff MALIK and her employment at UCSF Medical Center.. 21 22 THE PARTIES 23 5. Plaintiff MALIK is a female employed at the UCSF Medical Center Women?s Health as a 24 Senior Licensed Vocational Nurse 25 6. Defendant REGENTS is an employer Within the meaning of the California Fair 26 Employment and Housing Act because it regularly employs in excess of five 27 employees, and is licensed to and doing business in the State of California. 28 2 . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alameda Page 6 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 7. Defendant ROSENHAUS is a resident of the State of California, and an individual who 2 formerly supervised Plaintiff at the UCSF Medical Center, and. is responsible for the damages 3 suffered by Plaintiff as set forth below. 4 8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sned herein as Does 1~ 5 10, inclusive, and Plaintiff therefore sues such defendants by such ?ctitious narnes. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their tree names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is 8 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these lictitionsly named defendants is 9 responsible in some mannerfor the occurrences, acts, and omissions alleged herein and that 10 Plaintiffs injuries as alleged herein were proximately caused by such aforementioned defendants. I 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that at all times mentioned 12 herein defendants were the agents, servants, employees and/or joint venturers of the other defendants and were, as such, at all times mentioned acting within the scope, course and 15 authority of this agency, employment arid/or joint venture, Plaintiff is further informed and 16. believes and, therefore alleges, that each of the defendants consented to, rati?ed, participated in, 17 or authorized the acts of the remaining defendants. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege 18 their true names and capacities When ascertained. 1'9 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES or ACTION :l 10;" MALIK is a quali?ed and licensed senior LPN, and her employment at the 22' UCSF Medical Center on or about December, 2014. 23 1. At the time MALIK was hired, her immediate supervisor was Defendant ROSENHAUS, 24 the Administrative Director for Women?s Health. 25 12. Commencing almost immediately after her hiring, MALIK has been subjected to a 26 sexually-charged hostile workplace instigated and maintained by Defendants. 27 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alameda Page 7 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 13. On numerous occasions, ROSENHAUS rubbed mid and upper back area 2 rubbed her body against back side, tried to hug her and leaned over her as MALIK 3 was seated. 4 14. On more than one occasion, ROSENHAUS grabbed and pulled the zipper of the clothes 5 MALIK was wearing.- 6 15. On multiple occasions, ROSENHAUS ?irtatiously touched and commented on the 7 . 8 MALIK?shair, including telling her that her hair smelled good. 9 16. One more than one occasion, ROSENHAUS ?sat very closely to chair While 10 straddling the chair in between spread legs and placing her arm around the back 11 of chair. When MALIK asked for some space, ROSENHAUS laughed and moved in 12 closer. l3 l7. 111 February or March 2015, ROSENHAUS told MALIK that she ?looked hot? with her 14 15 glasses on. 1.5 18. ROSENHAUS shared with MALIK that She was sexually attracted to women. 17 19. ROSENHAUS frequently leered at MALIK for long periods of time. 18 20. ROSENHAUS reached into the thigh pocket of thin scrub pants MALIK were and pulled 19 out her phone. 29 21 21. ROSENHAUS also gave MALIK a disgusted look when she were a hijab during Muslim 22 Holy Month of Ramadan and exclaimed, ?What is that?!? 23 22. ROSENHAUS also asked MALIK if she know anyone in the terrorist organization ISIS. 24 23. MALIK was shocked and distraught by behavior and has sought and 25 costinues to seek treatment for the severe emotional and harm she has suffered 26 from conduct. 27 - 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alameda Page 8 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415?520-0104 From: Angela Smith 24. In or about annary 2016, exasperated hythe ongoing harassing conduct, MALIK 2 attempted to distance herSelf from ROSENHAUS. Following that, ROSENHAUS engaged in a 3 series of retaliatory acts toward MALIK: unjustly criticizing her work, requiring her to attend 4 weekly one-onuone meetings which ROSENI-IAUS called ?operational meetings? but which 5 were used to berate performance, unenrolling her item a professional development class without informing her, and giving her a negative reference for another position. 8 25. On or about February 5, 2016, MALIK complained about unwelcome 9 . sexual behavior and retaliation by filing a formal complaint with the Of?ce for the Prevention of 10 Harassment and Discrimination MALIK also-took a medical leave of absence due to the stress caused by behavior. Ms. MALIK returned to work in April 2016. 12 26. Upon information and belief, since February 5, 2016 complaint, other 13 employees of UCSF Women's Health have made complaints regarding the unlawful behavior, 14 is hostile work environment, and retaliation at UCSF Women?s Health maintained by 16 ROSENHAUS and rati?ed and condoned by REGENTS and DOE DEFENDANTS. l? 27. On or about April 12, 2016, MALIK escalated her complaint about 18 behavior to University of California President Janet Napolitano. 19 28. complaint was eventually investigated by Sandra McIntyre, who interviewed nrnnerons individuals at the UCSF Women?s Health Center. 22 29. Ms. McIntyre issued a report on or about September 23, 2016 that complaint 23 of sexual harassment was well?foundcd. 24 30. In May 2016, thirteen staff and physicians in the Women?s Health department, including 25 MALIK, submitted a letter or petition outlining the harassment and retaliation they had been 26subjected to after participating at the investigation regarding sexual harassment, 27 23 discrimination, and hostile work environment complaints. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alameda Page 9 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 31. The May, 2016 letter described numerous policy violatihns and adverse retaliatory 2 actions, including soliciting information from staff concerning con?dential investigatory 3 meetings, falsifying allegations against staff, falsifying information regarding time off requests, 4 changing staff assignments Without consulting the union, delaying pay to staff, stalking and 5 harassing MALIK, and instructing ?oating LVNs not to speak with staff who had participated in the investigation: 8 32. After the submission of the petition on May I, 2016, on May 3, 2016, Human Resources 9 requested time off for MALIK. by messaging Auda Okutani and Eva Turner, and stating that the It) reason for the time off was for a meeting with Sejal Friday (OPHD Attorney Investigator) ii regarding "a retaliation complaint?; thereby disclosing participation in this protected 12 activity to the individuals who were retaliating against MALIK. 13 33. Immediately after the May 1, 2016 petition about the unlawful retaliation was submitted 14 5 to key U0 and UCSF leadership, further unlawful retaliation continued. The staff-and physicians 16 also documented these unlawful events in a further I7 34. This further Mentorandurn was also sent to key UC and UCSF leadership. 18 35. Rather than investigate and take corrective action against the retaliator, Auda Okutani, 19 REGENTS promoted Okutani to another supervisory position as supervisor in 36. Other Women?s Health Center staff, including Martha Lechinski, have suffered retaliation 22 by Eva Turner and Anda Okutani, and rather than take such complaints, OPHD personnel have 23 requested staff to not press harassment and retaliation charges against Auda Okntani and Eva 24 Turner because Auda Okutani was allegedly leaving the Medical center, which was false. 25 37. REGENTS failed to investigate claims in a timely fashion, extending the investigatlon period on multiple occas1ons; thereby provrding an opportunity for 27 . superiors to retaliate. 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 10 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 38. On July 28, 2016, Eva Turner fabricated a misconduct allegation against MALIK in order 2 to initiate a retaliatory investigatory meeting immediately after MALIK returned from a pre~ 3 planned vacation. 4 39. On July 28, 2016, MALIK contacted the OPHD Investigator Sandra Mcintyre regarding 5 the ongoing unlawful retaliation. Ms. McIntyre directed. MALIK to Maureen Brodie, who in 6 . response to complaints of ongoing retaliation, told MALIK ?maybe you should leave? or words to that effect. 9 40. The fact that MALIK was engaging in protected activity was widely known throughout it) the UCSF Women's Health Center, and the University of California Office of the President. 11 41. Each and every person within chain of command at least as of February, 2016, 12 . . . has had knowledge of protected activraes as set forth above. 13 . 42. Rather than take corrective action to remedy the dangers posed by the hostile work 14 . 1 5 environment, Defendants, consistent with a pattern and practice of retaliation, begana campaign 16 of retaliation against not only MALIK, but against other staff and physicians in the Women?s i7 Health Center who had corroborated and validated harassment, discrimination and 18 hostile work enviroinnent complaints. 19 43. The pattern and practice at UCSF Medical Center regarding staff who complain of 20 21 violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act in the workplace is to create false 22 perfonnance issues for the employees who participate in protected activity, and to commence 23 documenting those issues; use so~called ?con?dential investigations? to both silence staffs 24 legitimate complaints of unlawful workplace practices, and to find potential misconduct or 25 performance issues with the complainant; and materially change the terms and conditions of 26 employment such that the complaining and participating employees 27 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INIUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 11 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 44. MALIK has been subjected to retaliation by various individuals including but not limited 2 to Amy Rosenhaus, Eva Turner, Aoda Okatani, Dixie Homing, Rosanna Segovia, Aurora 3 Slasher, and Elizabeth Bauer. The retaliatory acts include unwarranted and heightened scrutiny 4 of Plaintiffs work performance, includes but is not limited to unfair criticisms of 5 performance, reduction in her duties, increased scrutiny of her work, avoidance of her, and denial of a promotion. 8 45. On August 2, 2016 MALIK ?led a whistleblower retaliation complaint pursuant to UC 9 policy. 10 46. At various times from July, 2016 through January 18, 2017, MALI-K emailed University of California Office of the President, Janet Napolitano for assistance in stopping the ongoing 12 retaliation, and updating her August 2, 2016 whistlehlower retaliation complaint. REGENTS i3 did nothing to remedy the ongoing retaliation. 14 15 47. On annary 10, 2017, UCSF OPHD contracted with Hirsch?eld Kramer attorney, 16 Eaphemia Thornopulos to investigate Whistlehlower retaliation complaint after 17 numerous months of aon~response from UCOP. 18 48. Ms. Thomopulos amended the notice of formal investigation, attempting to limit the 19 . . . . . scope of the investigation, which MALIK quickly corrected. MALIK has been cooperattve' and 20 responsive to all requests for information and meetings regarding her Whistleblower retaliation 21 22 complaint. 23 49. On March 8, 2017, MALIK again inquired as to the status of the investigation into her 24 whistleblower retaliation complaint, emailing Nyoki Sacramento and Joan Doherty 25 about status of investigation. 26 50. On April 3, 2017, MALIK again inquired as to the status of the investigation into her 27 Whistleblower retaliation complaint, contacting the UCSF Care Advocate Denise to inquire if she 28 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 12 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith knew the status of the investigation, who responded the next day stating that she had spoken to 2 Nyoki Sacramento who was assigning another investigator. 3 51. On April 12, 2017, Hirsch?eld Kramer attorney Erin Dolly emailed MALIK stating that she?was taking over the investigation into whistleblowing complaint. 52. On May 11, 2017, WLIK was interviewed by Dolly with her attorney present for several hours, and provided additional documentation after the interview. 53. On May 18, 2017, OPHD Nyoki Sacramento again extended the deadline for the 9 investigation to Jane 23, 2017. it) 54. Ms. MALIK continues to be retaliated against. For example on June 22, 2017, MALIK 11 was denied an education leave request she had submitted in April, 2017. Although a similar 12 request was approved by Julia Ly, Elizabeth Bauer would not approve educational 13 I leave. 14 . 1 55. On one 23, 2017 Kramer attorney Erin Dolly issued an investigation report 15 claiming that MALIK was not being retaliated against. 17 56. As of June 29, 2017 Defendant REGENTS instituted a revised sexual harassment policy 13 in the wake of numerous nits-handled sexual harassment complaints and allegations. Despite l9 UCOP President Napolitano?s assurances, REGENTS have ignored pleas for assistance 20 - 21 and has, upon information and belief, authorized the ongoing retaliation against MALIK as set 22 forth herein. 23 57. In August 2017, Woman?s Health management presented an organizational chart to all 24 staff members with a revised date of August 3, 2017. In presenting this organizational chart, 25 management informed the Medical Assistants that Medical Assistants were to start performing 26 the functions that the LVNs had previously provided for many years. Most notably, LVNs were . 27 - I 28 removed from the organizational chart, demonstrating that REGENTS would cover for its 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAWGES AND INTUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 13 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith repeated failures to address discrimination, retaliation and harassment in the workplace by 2 eliminating other LVNs along with Plaintiff MALIK. 3 58. When MALIK pressed management for clari?cation regarding her job duties and what 4 appeared to be the elimination of her job as the LVN, management neither clarified the job duties 5 nor corrected the perception diet job as the LVN was going to be eliminated. 6 . 59. As of the tiling of this action, Women's Health staff continue to labor under the 7 . 8 perception created by management that MALIK will no longer have a job because management 9 failed to correct the organization chart. to 60. On August 21, 2017, MALIK discussed with her supervisors Aurora Slasher, manager 11 and Elizabeth Bauer, manger, that MALIK would pitch in and be the relief for the coordinator for her vacation in October doing Rx Prior Authorlzations. MALIK requested a 3 week of training with Jennifer Moran to which Ms. Slasher and Ms. Bauer both agreed. 14 15 61. On August 22, 2017, MALIK received an email from her supervisor indicating that 16 MALIK would not be simply covering for the Rx coordinator, but would be doing the Rx Prior l7 Authorization work full time. This was a demotion. Despite requests for formal 18 training to do Rx Prior Authorizations, MALIK received only a few hours training for this 19 demoted position. 20 1 62. On September 25, 2017, MALIK complained that she was being demoted to 2 22 administrative functions, not the LVN work she was hired to do. 23 63. On September 29, 2017, management handed MALIK a retaliatory coaching memo. 24 64. Throughout October, 2017, REGENTS continued to retaliate against MALIK by refusing 25 to accommodate workplace restrictions, and ultimately putting her out on leave. 26 - 65. MALIK duly exhausted her administrative remedies, ?ling charges with the Department 27 28 of Fair Employment and Housing, and receiving a Right~To~Sue Letter on November 18, 2016. 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 14 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith This matter is filed within the time proscribed for ?ling under the California Fair Employment 2 and Housing Act. 3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEX HARASSMENT 4 - (Cal. Gov. Code 12900, etseq.) 5 (Alleged Against All Defendants) 6 66. As a first, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and for 7 a cause of action, alleges: 67. The factual allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 65 above, are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 10 68. The FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code 12940(a)) provides that it is an unlawful employment ll 12 practice. for an employer, to permit sexual harassment in the workplace. 23 69. Plaintiff is a member of a class protected by FBI-IA: she is fernale. 14 . 70. As demonstrated above, Plaintiff MALIK was subjected to unwanted sexually~charged 15 unwelcome conduct in the workplace, which she protested. 16 71. Defendants, through their agents and employees, are strictly liable based on the fact that l7 18 ROSENHAU was direct supervisor. 19 72. At all relevant times, Defendants and their supervisors, agents, and/or officers, engaged 20 in andfor rati?ed by their actions and/or inaction through. their employees aridfor supervisors, 31 acts of sexual harassment against Plaintiff IMALIK based upon her protected class. 22 73. As a direct result of the acts and conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff 23 . MALIK has suffered a loss of earnings "and related employment bene?ts in an amount to be 24 25 proyen at trial herein. 26 74. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knoadng, sexual harassment, Plaintiff has 27 suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. She is thereby entitled to general and 23 compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. ll COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 15 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 75. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was executed 2 with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, and 3 further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. - 4 76. Defendants, through its of?cers, managing agents, employees and/or its supervisors, authorized, condoned arid/or rati?ed the unlawful conduct described herein above. By reason 6 thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against ROSENHAUS in an amount 7 8 according to proof at the time of trial. 9 77. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and willfully, with the to wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, from improper motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover 12 . . . nomlnal, actual, and compensatory damages an attorneys? fees in amounts according to proof at 13 time of trial, in addition to any other remedies and damages allowable by law. 14 i 5 78. As pleaded above, Plaintiff has duly exhausted her administrative remedies, obtaining a 16 Right to Sue on November 18, 2016. 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged and prays judgment as set forth below. ?3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 19 FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT (Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq.) 20 (Alleged Defendant REGENTS and DOES 1?10) 2] 79. As a second, separate and. distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and 22 for a cause of action, alleges: 23 I 80. The factual allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 78 above, are re~alleged and incorporated 24 . 25 herein by reference. 26 81. The (Cal. GOV. Code 12940(a)) provides that it is an unlawful employment 27 practice for an employer, to fail to take all steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment in the 23 workplace. .12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 16 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 82. Plaintiff is a member of a class protected by FEHA: she is female; 2 83. As demonstrated above, Plaintiff MALIK performed the duties of her job competently, 3 and at the time she suffered the sexual harassment set forth above, was quali?ed and competent 4 to perform the essential job functions of her position. 5 84. Defendants, through their agents and employees, failed to take all reasonable steps to identify and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace by failing to properly vet and supervise 8 ROSENHAUS, failing to ensure that ROSENHAUS and others were provided the mandatory 9 sexual harassment training required by California law, and turning a blind to obvious 10 and harassing behavior by ROSENHAU in the workplace. Ii 85. At all relevant times, Defendants and their supervisors, agents, and/or officers, engaged 12 in and/or rati?ed by their actions and/or inaction through their employees and/or supervisors, 13 acts of harassment against Plaintiff MALIK and other females in the workplacedirect and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, 16' Plaintiff MALIK has suffered a loss of earnings and related employment bene?ts in an amount to 17 be proven at trial herein. is 87. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, lmondng, and intentional harassment against her, Plaintiff has suffered mental distress, anguish, and 1ndignatron. She is thereby 20 - entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 21 22 83. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its supervisors, 23 authorized, condoned and/or rati?ed the unlawful conduct described herein above. 24 89. As pleaded above, Plaintiff has duly exhausted her administrative remedies, obtaining a 25 Right to Sue on November 18, 2016. 26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged and. prays judgment as set forth below. 27 28 13 COMPLAINT OR DAMAGES AND INIUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 17 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 1 - RETALIATION 2 (Cal. Gov. Code? 12900, et seq.) (Alleged Against REGENTS and DOES 1-10third, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and . 5 for a cause of action, alleges: 6 91. The factual allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 89 above, are re~alleged and incorporated 7 herein by reference. 8 92. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 12965, as amended, seeking injunctiye relief and. damages for Violations of the Plaintiffs employment rights as protected by 10 the FEHA, Cal. Gov. Code 12940, et seq, which prohibits retaliation against an employee for it 12 making complaints and protesting or refusing to participate in discriminatory employment 13 practices prohibited by the FEHA. 14 93. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants and is a person protected by the provisions of 15 the FEHA as she engaged in the protected activity by complaining of a hostile work 16 . environment, and further being associated with females within REGENTS Twho had filed formal 17 18 charges with the EEOC concerning the hostile work environment at REGENTS and the failure of 19 REGENTS to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. 20 94. Defendants are employers, covered by and subject to the FEHA, as they are licensed to 21 and doing business in the State of California County of Alameda, and has at least ?ve (5) 22 employeesalleged harem, Plaintiff engaged in protected activ1ty, including part1c1pating in 24 25 investigations, and complaining to management concerning the treatment of females in the 26 workplace. 27 96. Following Plaintiff protected activity, She was subjected to a pattern of adverse 23 employment actions, including demotion. 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 18 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415?520-0104 From: Angela Smith 97. At all relevant times, Defendants and its supervisors, agents, and/or of?cers, engaged in 2 and/or rati?ed by their actions and/or- inaction through. their employees and/or supervisors, acts 3 of retaliation against based upon Plaintiffs protected activities. 4 98. In so doing the act and engaging in the activities alleged herein, Defendants, through their officers, employees, and agents, did intend to retaliate against Plaintiff for her exercise of rights under the FEHA and cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional and distress, pain suffering, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of self-esteem, 9 99. As a direct and proximate result. of the willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the loss of earnings and related employment bene?ts, mental distress, anguish, and indignation. She is thereby entitled to 12 . . general and compensatory damages Hi an amount to be proven at trial. 13 100. Defendants, through its of?cers, managing agents, employees and/or its supervisors, . 14 15 authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described. herein above. 16 101. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and willfully, with the 17 wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, from improper motives amounting 18 to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff 3 rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover 19 nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages in amounts according to proof 3: at time of trial, in addition to any other remedies and damages allowable by law. 22 102. As pleaded above, Plaintiff has duly exhausted her administrative remedies, obtaining a 23 Right to Sue on November 18, 2016. 24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged and prays judgment as set" forth below. 25 26 27 28 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE-S AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 19 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415?520-0104 From: Angela Smith 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION (DISPARATE TREATMENT) 2 (Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq.) (Alleged Defendant REGENTS and DOES 1-10) 3 4 103. As a fourth, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and 5 for a cause of action, alleges: 5 104. The factual allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 102 above, are re~alleged and 7 incorporated herein by reference. 8 105. The FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code 12940(a)) provides that it is an unlawful employment 9 practice for an employer, because of the gender of any person to bar or to discharge the person it} 21 from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against 12 the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 13 106. Plaintiff is a member of a class protected by FEHA: she is female. 14 107. As demonstrated above, Plaintiff MALIK performed the duties of her job competently, 15 and at the time she suffered the adverse employment actions set forth above, was quali?ed and I6 competent to perform the essential job functions of her position. 17 18 108. Defendants, through their agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practice of 19 unlawtirl gender discrimination in violation of EHA in connection with its disparate treatment 20 of Plaintiff, and the terms and conditions of her employment, including demotion. 31 109. At all relevant times, Defendants and their supervisors, agents, andfor officers, engaged 22 in and/or rati?ed by their actions and/or inaction through their employees and/or supervisors, 23 acts of discrimination against Plaintiff MALIK based upon her protected class. 24 25 110. As a direct result of the acts and conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff 26 MALIK has suffered a loss of earnings and related employment bene?ts in an amount to be 27 proven at trial herein. 28 16 FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 20 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) . 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 111. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination 2 against her, Plaintiff has soffered?niental distress, anguish, and indignation. She is thereby 3 entitled to general. and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 4 112. Defendants, through its of?cers, managing agents, employees and/or its supervisors, 5 authorized, condoned. and/or rati?ed the unlawful conduct described herein above. 6 113. As pleaded above, Plaintiff has duly exhausted her administrative remedies, obtaining a 7 . 8 Right to Sue on November 18, 2016. 9 WEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged and prays judgment as set forth below. 10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION (DISPARATE TREATMENT) ti (Cal. Gov. Code 12900, et seq.) 12 (Alleged Defendant REGENTS and DOES 1-40) 13 114. As a fifth, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and 14 for a cause of action, alleges: 15 115. The factual allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 113 above, are re-alleged and 16 incorporated herein by reference. l7 18 116. The FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code 12940020) provides that it is an unlawful employment ,9 practice for an employer, because of the gender of any personto bar or to discharge the person 20 from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against 21 the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 22 11?. Plaintiff is a member of a class protected by FEHA: she is of Pakistani National Origin. 23 118. As demonstrated above, Plaintiff MALIK performed the duties of her job competently, 24 25 and at the time she suffered the adverse employment actions set forth above, was quali?ed and 26 competent to perform the essential job functions of her position. 27 28 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 21 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 119. Defendants, through their agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practice of 2 unlawful national origin discrimination in violation of EHA in connection with its disparate 3 treatment of Plaintiff, and the terms and conditions of her employment, including demotion. 4 120. At all relevant tirnes, Defendants and their supervisors, agents, and/or of?cers, engaged 5 in and/or rati?ed by their actions and/or inaetion through their employees andfor supervisors, acts of discrimination against Plaintiff MALIK based upon her protected class. 8 121. As a direct result of the acts and conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff 9 MALIK has suffered a loss of earnings and related employment bene?ts in an amount to be 10 proven at trial herein. 122. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against her, Plaintiff has suffered mental distress, and indignation. She 1s thereby l3 . entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 14 - 15 123. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its supervisors, 15 audiorized, condoned and/or rati?ed the unlawful conduct described herein above. 17 124. As pleaded above, Plaintiff has duly exhausted her administrative remedies, obtaining a ?3 Right to Sue on November 18, 2016. l9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged and prays judgment as set forth below. 20 SIXTH CAUSE OF. ACTION 3} RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION (DISPARATE TREATMENT) 22 (Cal. Gov. Code? 12900, et seq.) (Alleged Defendant REGENTS and DOES 1-10) 23 125. As a fifth, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and 24 25 for a cause of action, alleges: 26 126. The factual allegations of Paragraphs 1 through-124 above, are re~alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 28 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 22 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 127. The FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code 12940(a)) provides that it is an unlawful employment 2 practice for an employer, because of the gender of any person to bar or to discharge the person 3 from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against 4 the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 5 128. Plaintiff is a member of a class protected by EHA: she practices the religion of Islam. 129. As demonstrated above, Plaintiff MALIK performed the duties of her job competently, 8 and at the time she suffered the adverse employment actions set forth above, was quali?ed and 9 competent to perform the essential job functions of her position. 10 130. Defendants, through their agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful national origin discrimination in violation of FEHA in connection with its disparate treatment of and the terms and conditions of her employment, including demotion. 13 131. At all relevant times, Defendants and their supervisors, agents, and/or of?cers, engaged 14 . - 1 5 in and/or rati?ed by their actions and/or inaction through their employees and/or supervisors, 15 acts of discrimination against Plaintiff MALIK based upon her protected class. 17 132. As a direct result of the acts and conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff ?8 MALIK has suffered a loss of earnings and related employment benefits in an arnohnt to be 19 proven at trial herein. :1 133. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination 22 against her, Plaintiff has suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. She is thereby 23 entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 24 134. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its supervisors, 25 authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above. 26 135. As pleaded above, Plaintiff has duly exhausted her administrative remedies, obtaining a 27 28 Right to See on November 18, 2016. I9 COMPLAINT OR. DAMAGES AND IN JUNCTIVE RELIEF To: Alameda Superior Court Clerk Alamed Page 23 of 24 2017-11-17 00:21 :53 (GMT) 1-415-520-0104 From: Angela Smith 1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged and prays judgment as set forth below. 2 3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 5 1. For a mandatory injunction, requiring Defendants to take affirmative steps to 6 remedy discriminatory and retaliatory behavior at Defendants, 7 2. For general and compensatory damages in amounts according to proof and in no 8 event in an amount less than the jurisdictional limit of this Court; 9 3. For Special damages in amounts according to proof; 10 4. For punitive and exemplary damages to deter future unlawful conduct, against 1} Defendant ROSENHAUS, 12 5. For attorneys? fees as provided. by law; 13 6. For interest as provided by law; 7. For mists of suit herein; and 15 I 8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just. 16 . 17 Dated: November Lg, 2017 SMIT. PATTEN 18 19 WW W. PATTEN Attorney for Plaintiff .20 . DAVID MALIK 21 22 WM 23 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all matters so triable. 24 25 Dated: November lg, 2016 SMIT PATTEN 25 27 (90w w. PATTEN Attorney for Plaintiff 28 DAVID MALIK 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIV RELIEF