?1 . MARCUS A. MANCINI, ESQ. (State Bar No. 146905) MICHAEL R. FOSTAKOWSKY, ESQ. (State Bar No.258649) ARMANDO M. SOLORZANO, ESQ. (State Bar No. 282650) MANCINI ASSOCIATES A Professional Law Corporation 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 783-5757 Fax: (818)783-7710 Attorneys for Plaintiff ALVIN FUENTES FILED Superior Court of Califoni County of Los Angeles JUL 22 2015- Sherri?Carter, EX?utive Offic By I Raul Sanchez SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ALVIN FUENTES, Plaintiff, vs. BUZZFEED, INC. DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants Case No. BC619873 [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. John P. Doyle, Dept. 58] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (1) (2) (3) (4) FOR PERCEIVED PHYSICAL DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE ?12940 ET FOR PERCEIVED PHYSICAL DISABILITY HARASSMENT IN EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE ?12940 ET FOR PERCEIVED PHYSICAL DISABILITY RETALIATION IN EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE ?12940 ET FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY ia ar/Clerk Deputy FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 252% 26;; 27?- ?3 28=l RIGHTS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE 12945.2]; (5) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC (6) DECLARATORY RELIEF (Permanent Injunction Requested) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNLIMITED JURISDICTION DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $25,000.00 COMES NOW Plaintiff ALVIN FUENTES (referred to as or ?Plaintiff? and complains against the above-named Defendants and for causes of action against the Defendants, and each of them, alleges as follows: I I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Perceived and/or Physical Disability Discrimination in Employment [California Government Code ?12940 et seq.] Against All Defendants and DOES 1 Through 100, Inclusive) 1. Plaintiff (hereinafter ?Plaintiff?) is an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, Defendants BUZZFEED, INC. (hereinafter referred to collectively with other Defendants as ?Defendants?) and Does 1 through 100, were, and now are, business entities authorized to do business in, and conducting business in, the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, Defendants LLC (hereinafter referred to collectively with other Defendants as ?Defenda1:ts?) and Does 1 through 100, were, and now are, business entities authorized to do business in, and conducting business in, the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT rt: 26% 28c: . . 4. 1 Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, successor, alter ego, individual or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants, and each of them, by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to assert the true names and capacities of the ?ctitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant designated as a herein is legally responsible for the events, happenings, acts, occurrences, indebtedness, damages and liabilities hereinafter alleged and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to the plaintiff, as hereinafter alleged. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, eac'n Defendant designated, including DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, herein was the agent, partner, joint venturer, joint employer, special employer, client employer, labor contractor, alter ego, representative, servant, employee, managing agent, managing supervisor and/or co-conspirator of each of the other Defendants, and was at all times mentioned herein acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment, and that all acts or omissions alleged herein were duly committed with the rati?cation, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and consent of each Defendant designated herein. 6. At all times herein mentioned, for approximately two (2) years until his wrongful termination on or about January 26, 2016, Plaintiff was employed as a Production Assistant by Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, and each of them, who were also, at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff?s employers, managers and supervisors. Throughout Plaintiff?s employment with Defendant(s), he met and/or exceeded their performance expectations and was qualified for the position he held. 7. Plaintiff, at all times hereinalleged, had the perceived and/or physical disability(s) of Jbroken ribs, associated conditions and others. M: 8. On or about May 18, 2015, and continuing, Plaintiff sustained and/or aggravated 27%; and/or developed perceived and/or physical disability(s) including, but not limited to, broken ribs, associated conditions and others. Plaintiff was exiting the rear of a production truck when he 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 253i 26:5 2 ,mn .1 28?" slipped on a furniture pad, causing him to fall and land on top of an ice chest (cooler). Plaintiff immediately felt searing pain on the right side of his rib cage. While Plaintiffs coworkers laughed at his accident, Plaintiff reported the injury immediately to Producer Rob Blake (?Blake?) and Senior Producer Trevor Francisco (?Francisco?). Plaintiff was taken for medical treatment at the Emergency Room and kept overnight for observation. 9. By reporting his workplace injury and seeking medical attention for the same, Plaintiff made and/or articulated a Worker?s Compensation claim(s). Unfortunately, Defendants failed to ?le the necessary paperwork and/or incident report causing Plaintiffs treatment to be delayed by 3-weeks. 10. Plaintiff was entitled to and/or requested and/or was granted, full and/or intermittent CF RA and/or other medical and/or other negotiated leave in order to recuperate and heal, through August 4, 2015. 11. While off work, Plaintiff kept Defendants informed of Plaintiff?s physical disability(s) at all relevant times. Plaintiff sent several emails to Producers Blake, Francisco, as well as Amanda, about his condition, what the doctor said would be his return to work date, etc. 12. On or about August 5, 2015, Plaintiff was released to work, without restrictions, I and immediately contacted Defendants, and each of them, to return to work. Tellingly, Plaintiff emailed Blake, Francisco, and Amanda just prior to being released from work to notify them of the same, and again on the date of his release, seeking to be returned to work. 13. Unfortunately, Plaintiff was not offered any work until December 2015. Defendants, and each of them, assigned Plaintiff a project and a daily rate, and Plaintiff accepted. Twenty (20) minutes later, Defendants, and each of them, specifically Producer Steven, called Plaintiff to inform him the job was given to someone else. When Plaintiff asked why it was given to someone else, there was no intelligible response forthcoming. 14. Plaintiff was again not offered any work until January 26, 2016. Defendants, and each of them, Steven, assigned Plaintiff a project and a daily rate, and Plaintiff accepted. Twenty (20) minutes later, Defendants, and each of them, Producer Steven called Plaintiff to inform him the job was given to someone else. When Plaintiff asked Steven why 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 253313 27?; 283' it was given to someone else, there was no intelligible response forthcoming. However, Producer Steven eventually conveyed to Plaintiff that the ?heads don?t want you back? referring to the higher ups at BUZZFEED, possibly including Producers Blake, Francisco, and Amanda. Producer Steven went on to confide in Plaintiff that he (Steven) was told, ?Bring anyone else back, just not him (Plaintiff).? Steven told Plaintiff he had been ?blackballed.? It was at that point Plaintiff became informed that Defendants, and each of them, no longer wanted Plaintiff due to his prior injury(s) and disability(s). 15. On or about January 26, 2016, Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff for no stated reason(s). 16. Defendants, and each of them, in violation of California Unemployment Insurance ?1089 et seq., failed to give Plaintiff written con?rmation of the change in Plaintiffs employment status, in preparation and/or anticipation of arguing false and/or shifting termination reasons, which is further evidence of Defendants? pretext and pretextual reasons and/or motives for Plaintiffs termination. 17. Plaintiff was, and is, at all times hereinalleged, a disabled worker who could perform the essential functions of Plaintiffs position and/or another accommodated position without harm to Plaintiff and/or others, and/or who was entitled to preferential reassignment. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, kept and/or treated more fairly employees with equal or lesser tenure and/or seniority than Plaintiff and/or hired another employee(s) to perform Plaintiffs duties, and who was non-disabled. 19. From May 2015, and continuing at least through January 26, 2016, and continuing, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff?s perceived and/or physical disability(s), or for complaining about said unlawful practices, by the following continuous actions, and conduct, among others: a. Failing to determine the extent of Plaintiffs disability(s) and how they could be accommodated; b. Failing to take any af?rmative steps to inform Plaintiff of any job opportunities 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ZSEffviolation of California Government Code ?12940 et seq. Said statutes impose certain duties upon Pa 2620. within the company; Failing to consider Plaintiff for and move Plaintiff into openings for which Plaintiff was quali?ed and could handle subject to Plaintiff?s Failing to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with Plaintiff to determine effective reasonable accommodations; Harassing, discriminating against and retaliating against Plaintiff based on Plaintiffs perceived and/or physical disability(s), as hereinalleged; Harassing, discriminating against and retaliating against Plaintiff based on Plaintiffs request and/or entitlement to and/or taking of, CFRA, as hereinalleged; On or about January 26, 2016, Defendants, and each of them, retaliating against, defaming and wrongfully terminating Plaintiff for no stated reason(s); Violating California Unemployment Insurance Code ?1089 et seq, by failing to give Plaintiff written confirmation of the change in Plaintiff?s employment status, in preparation and/or anticipation of arguing false and/or shifting termination reasons, which is further evidence of Defendants? pretext and pretextual reasons and/or motives for Plaintiffs termination; In or around late January, Plaintiff became informed that Defendants, and each of - them, no longer wanted Plaintiff due to his prior injury(s) and disability(s), Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, kept and/or treated more fairly employees with equal or lesser tenure and/or seniority than Plaintiff and/or hired another employee(s) to perform Plaintiff?s duties, and who was non-disabled; Failing to re-hire and/or re-employ Plaintiff. The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, was in Defendants, and each of them, concerning harassment, discrimination and retaliation against persons, such as Plaintiff, on the basis of perceived and/or physical disability and the prohibition of perceived and/or physical disability harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Said statutes were 6 PLAINTIFF ?8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT \000?40 intended to prevent the type of injury and damage herein set forth. Plaintiff was, at all times material hereto, an employee with a physical disability(s), and within the protected class covered by California Government Code ?12940, prohibiting physical disability harassment, discrimination and retaliation in employment. 21. By the acts and conduct described above, Defendants, and each of them, in violation of said statutes, knew about, or should have known about, and failed to investigate and/or properly investigate, prevent or remedy the physical disability harassment, retaliation and discrimination and failed to rehire Plaintiff. The acts of discrimination, retaliation and harassment described herein were sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment, and created an abusive working environment. Plaintiff?s perceived and/or physical disability(s) were substantial factors motivating and/or motivating reasdns in Defendants? conduct. 22. Plaintiff filed timely charges and complaints of perceived and physical disability harassment, retaliation and discrimination with the California Department of Pair Employment and Housing and has received Notice(s) of Right to Sue in a California Superior Court pursuant to California Government Code ?12965(b). Plaintiff has therefore exhausted Plaintiff?s administrative remedies under the California Government Code. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Complaints and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Right to Sue Notices and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. 23. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been direc:1y and legally caused to suffer actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3333 including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future, attorneys fees, and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained, for which Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend when ascertained. 24. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them-Plaintiff was rendered sick, sore, lame, disabled and disordered, both internally and externally, and suffered, among other things, numerous internal injuries, severe fright, shock, pain, 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OO discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries are not known to the plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to insert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not at this time know the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that some of the said injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character. 25. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced to incur expenses for medical care, X-rays, and laboratory costs during the period of Plaintiff?s disability, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will in the future be forced to incur additional expenses of the same nature, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 26. Prior to the occurrence of the incidents, Plaintiff was an able-bodied individual, but since said incidents has been unable to engage fully in Plaintiff?s occupation, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will be incapacitated and unable to perform Plaintiff usual work for an inde?nite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiff?s damage in an amount which is at present unascertained. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the total amount of loss of earnings at the time of trial. 27. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused, and did suffer, and continues to suffer seVere and permanent emotional and mental distress and anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 28. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of i this court. 29. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were wilful, wanton, - malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in wilful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, and were done by managerial agents and employees of .: Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and with the express knowledge, consent, and rati?cation of managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, thereby justifying the 8 PLAINTIFF ?8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AWN 283' awarding of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 30. As a result of the discriminatory acts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided in California Government Code 12965(b). II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Perceived and/or Physical Disability Harassment in Employment [California Government Code ?12940 et seq.] Against All Defendants and DOES 1 Through 100, Inclusive) 31. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 30 as though set forth in full herein. 32. At all times herein mentioned, for approximately two (2) years until his wrongful termination on or about January 26, 2016, Plaintiff was employed as a Production Assistant by Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, and each of them, who were also, at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff?s employers, managers and supervisors. Throughout Plaintiff?s employment with Defendant(s), he met and/or exceeded their performance expectations and was quali?ed for the position he held. 33. Plaintiff, at all times hereinalleged, had the perceived and/or physical disability(s) of broken ribs, associated conditions and others. 34. On or about May 18, 2015, and continuing, Plaintiff sustained and/or aggravated and/or developed perceived and/or physical disability(s) including, but not limited to, broken ribs, associated conditions and others. Plaintiff was exiting the rear of a production truck when he slipped on a furniture pad, causing him to fall and land on top of an ice chest (cleer). Plaintiff immediately felt searing pain on the right side of his rib cage. While Plaintiff?s coworkers laughed at his accident, Plaintiff reported the injury immediately to Producer Rob Blake (?Blake?) and 26g; 27-; Senior Producer Trevor Francisco (?Francisco?). Plaintiff was taken for medical treatment at the Emergency Room and kept overnight for observation. 35. By reporting his workplace injury and seeking medical attention for the same, 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT oo~qoxun425a 27-- 283? tea Plaintiff made and/or articulated a Worker?s Compensation claim(s). Unfortunately, Defendants failed to ?le the necessary paperwork and/or incident report causing Plaintiff?s treatment to be delayed by 3-weeks. 36. Plaintiff was entitled to and/or requested and/or was granted, full and/or intermittent CFRA and?or other medical and/or other negotiated leave in order to recuperate and heal, through August 4, 2015. 37. While off work, Plaintiff kept Defendants informed of Plaintiffs physical disability(s) at all relevant times. Plaintiff sent several emails to Producers Blake, Francisco, as well as Amanda, about his condition, what the doctor said would be his return to work date, etc. 38. On or about August 5, 2015, Plaintiff was released to work, without restrictions, and immediately contacted Defendants, and each of them, to return to work. Tellingly, Plaintiff emailed Blake, Francisco, and Amanda just prior to being released from work to notify them of the same, and again on the date of his release, seeking to be returned to work. 39. Unfortunately, Plaintiff was not offered any work until December 2015. Defendants, and each of them, assigned Plaintiff a project and a daily rate, and Plaintiff accepted. Twenty (20) minutes later, Defendants, and each of them, specifically Producer Steven, called I Plaintiff to inform him the job was given to someone else. When Plaintiff asked why it was given to someone else, there was no intelligible response forthcoming. 40. Plaintiff was again not offered any work until January 26, 2016. Defendants, and each of them, speci?cally Producer Steven, assigned Plaintiff a project and a daily rate, and Plaintiff accepted. Twenty (20) minutes later, Defendants, and each of them, Producer Steven called Plaintiff to inform him the job was given to someone else. When Plaintiff asked Steven why it was given to someone else, there was no intelligible response forthcoming. However, Producer Steven eventually conveyed to Plaintiff that the ?heads don?t want you back? referring to the higher ups at BUZZFEED, possibly including Producers Blake, Francisco, and Amanda. Producer Steven went on to con?de in Plaintiff that he (Steven) was told, ?Bring anyone else back, just not him (Plaintiff)? Steven told Plaintiff he had been ?blackballed.? It was at that point Plaintiff became informed that Defendants, and each of them, no longer wanted Plaintiff due to his prior injury(s) a 1 0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT \10\ and disability(s). 41. On or about January 26, 2016, Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff for no stated reason(s). 42. Defendants, and each of them, in violation of California Unemployment Insurance ?1089 et seq._, failed to give Plaintiff written con?rmation of the change in Plaintiffs employment status, in preparation and/or anticipation of arguing false and/or shifting termination reasons, which is further evidence of Defendants? pretext and pretextual reasons and/or motives for 8 Plaintiff? termination25s1 24:3 28?" 43. Plaintiff was, and is, at all times hereinalleged, a disabled worker who could perform the essential functions of Plaintiff?s position and/or another accommodated position without harm to Plaintiff and/or others, and/ or who was entitled to preferential reassignment. 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, kept and/or treated more fairly employees with equal or lesser tenure and/or seniority than Plaintiff and/or hired another employee(s) to perform Plaintiff?s duties, and who was non-disabled. 45. From May 2015, and continuing at least through January 26, 2016, and continuing, Defendants and DOES I through 100, and each of them, discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff perceived and/or physical disability(s), or for complaining about said unlawful practices, by the following continuous actions, and conduct, among others: a. Failing to determine the extent of Plaintiff?s disability(s) and how they could be accommodated; b. Failing to take any affirmative steps to inform Plaintiff of any job opportunities within the company; 0. Failing to consider Plaintiff for and move Plaintiff into openings for which Plaintiff was quali?ed and could handle subject to Plaintiff?s disability(s); d. Failing to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with Plaintiff to determine effective reasonable accommodations; e. Harassing, discriminating against and retaliating against Plaintiff based on 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff?s perceived and/or physical disability(s), as hereinalleged; f. Harassing, discriminating against and retaliating against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff?s request and/or entitlement to and/or taking of, CFRA, as hereinalleged; g. On or about January 26, 2016, Defendants, and each of them, retaliating against, defaming and wrongfully terminating Plaintiff for no stated reason(s); h. Violating California Unemployment Insurance Code ?1089 et seq., by failing to give Plaintiff written confirmation of the change in Plaintiff?s employment status, in preparation and/or anticipation of arguing false and/or shifting termination reasons, which is further evidence of Defendants? pretext and pretextual reasons and/ or motives for Plaintiff?s termination; i. In or around late January, Plaintiff became informed that Defendants, and each of them, no longer wanted Plaintiff due to his prior injury(s) and disability(s); j. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, kept and/or treated more fairly employees with equal or lesser tenure and/or. seniority than Plaintiff and/or hired another employee(s) to perform Plaintiff? duties, and who was non-disabled; k. Failing to re-hire and/or re-employ Plaintiff. 46. The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, was in violation of California Government Code ?12940 et seq. Said statutes impose certain duties upon Defendants, and each of them, concerning harassment, discrimination and retaliation against persons, such as Plaintiff, on the basis of perceived and/or physical disability and the prohibition of perceived and/or physical disability harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Said statutes were 25:13 26:53 27:3; I 23:; intended to prevent the type of injury and damage herein set forth. Plaintiff was, at all times material hereto, an employee with a physical disability(s), and within the protected class covered by California Government Code ?12940, prohibiting physical disability harassment, discrimination and retaliation in employment. 47. By the acts and conduct described above, Defendants, and each of them, in violation ?of said statutes, knew about, or should have known about, and failed to investigate and/or properly 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ?11..24 253 265; 273 28 investigate, prevent or remedy the physical disability harassment, retaliation and discrimination and failed to rehire Plaintiff. The acts of discrimination, retaliation and harassment described herein were suf?ciently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment, and created an ?abusive working environment. Plaintiff?s perceived and/or physical disability(s) were substantial factors motivating and/or motivating reasons in Defendants? conduct. 48. Plaintiff ?led timely charges and complaints of perceived and physical disability harassment, retaliation and discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and 1 Housing and has received Notice(s) of Right to Sue in a California Superior Court pursuant to California Government Code ?12965(b). Plaintiff has therefore exhausted Plaintiffs administrative remedies under the California Government Code. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Complaints and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Right to sue Notices and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. 49. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3333 including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future, attorneys fees, and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained, for which Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend when ascertained. 50. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was rendered sick, sore, lame, disabled and disordered, both internally and externally, and suffered, among other things, numerous internal injuries, severe fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries are not known to the plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to insert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not at this time know the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that some of the said injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character. . 51. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced to incur expenses for medical care, X-rays, and laboratory costs 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 253:: 24?? 271:: 283* . during the period of Plaintiff?s disability, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will in the future be forced to incur additional expenses of the same nature, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 52. Prior to the occurrence of the incidents, Plaintiff was an able-bodied individual, but since said incidents has been unable to engage fully in Plaintiff?s occupation, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will be incapacitated and unable to perform Plaintiff?s usual work for an inde?nite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiff?s damage in an amount it which is at present unascertained. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the total amount of loss of earnings at the time of trial. 53. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused, and did suffer, and continues to suffer severe and permanent emotional and mental distress and anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 54. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court. '55. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were wilful, wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in wilful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, and were done by managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and with the express knowledge, consent, and rati?cation of managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 56. As a result of the discriminatory acts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided in California Government Code 12965(b). 14 PLAINTIFF ?5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Perceived and/or Physical Disability Retaliation in Employment [California Government Code ?12940 et seq.] Against All Defendants and DOES 1 Through 100, Inclusive) 57. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 56 as though set forth in full herein. 58. At all times herein mentioned, for approximately two (2) years until his wrongful termination on or about January 26, 2016, Plaintiff was employed as a Production Assistant by Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, and each of them, who were also, at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff?s employers, managers and supervisors. Throughout Plaintiff?s employment with Defendant(s), he met and/or exceeded their performance expectations and was quali?ed for the position he held. 59.. Plaintiff, at all times hereinalleged, had the perceived and/or physical disability(s) of broken ribs, associated conditions and others. 60. On or about May 18, 2015, and continuing, Plaintiff sustained and/or aggravated and/or developed perceived and/or physical disability(s) including, but not limited to, broken ribs, associated conditions and others. Plaintiff was exiting the rear of a production truck when he slipped on a furniture pad, causing him to fall and land on top of an ice chest (cooler). Plaintiff immediately felt searing pain on the right side of his rib cage. While Plaintiff?s coworkers laughed at his accident, Plaintiff reported the injury immediately to Producer Rob Blake (?Blake?) and Senior Prcducer Trevor Francisco (?Francisco?). Plaintiff was taken for medical treatment at the Emergency Room and kept overnight for observation. 61. By reporting his workplace injury and seeking medical attention for the same, f: Plaintiff made and/or articulated a Worker?s Compensation claim(s). Unfortunately, Defendants failed to ?le the necessary paperwork and/or incident report causing Plaintiff?s treatment to be delayed by 3-weeks. 62. Plaintiff was entitled to and/or requested and/or was granted, full and/0r intermittent 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ?40 . . CFRA and/or other medical and/or other negotiated leave in order to recuperate and heal, through August 4, 2015. 63. While off work, Plaintiff kept Defendants informed of Plaintiff?s physical disability(s) at all relevant times. Plaintiff sent several emails to Producers Blake, Francisco, as well as Amanda, about his condition, what the doctor said would be his return to work date, etc. 64. On or about August 5, 2015, Plaintiff was released to work, without restrictions, and immediately contacted Defendants, and each of them, to return to work. Tellingly, Plaintiff 8 emailed Blake, Francisco, and Amanda just prior to being released from work to notify them of the 9 same, and again on the date of his release, seeking to be returned to work25:33 NM {03' .: 1; ?91 if? 65. Unfortunately, Plaintiff was not offered any work until December 2015. Defendants, and each of them, assigned Plaintiff a project and a daily rate, and Plaintiff accepted. Twenty (20) minutes later, Defendants, and each of them, speci?cally Producer Steven, called Plaintiff to inform him the job was given to someone else. When Plaintiff asked why it was given to someone else, there was no intelligible response forthcoming. 66. Plaintiff was again not offered any work until January 26, 2016. Defendants, and each of them, speci?cally Producer Steven, assigned Plaintiff a project and a daily rate, and Plaintiff accepted. Twenty (20) minutes later, Defendants, and each of them, Producer Steven called Plaintiff to inform him the job was given to someone else. When Plaintiff asked Steven why it was given to someone else, there was no intelligible response forthcoming. However, Producer Steven eventually conveyed to Plaintiff that the ?heads don?t want you back? referring to the higher ups at BUZZFEED, possibly including Producers Blake, Francisco, and Amanda. Producer Steven went on to confide in Plaintiff that he (Steven) was told, ?Bring anyone else back, just not him (Plaintiff).? Steven told Plaintiff he had been ?blackballed.? It was at that point Plaintiff became informed that Defendants, and each of them, no longer wanted Plaintiff due to his prior injury(s) and disability(s). 67. On or about January 26, 2016, Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff for no stated reason(s). 68. Defendants, and each of them, in violation of California Unemployment Insurance 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2551:. h- Qgc? ?1089 et seq., failed to give Plaintiff written con?rmation of the change in Plaintiff 5 employment status, in preparation and/or anticipation of arguing false and/or shifting termination reasons, which is further evidence of Defendants? pretext and pretextual reasons and/or motives for Plaintiff? termination. 69. Plaintiff was, and is, at all times hereinalleged, a disabled worker who could perform the essential functions of Plaintiffs position and/or another accommodated position without harm to Plaintiff and/or others, and/or who was entitled to preferential reassignment. 70. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, kept and/or treated more fairly employees with equal or lesser tenure and/or seniority than Plaintiff and/or hired another employee(s) to perform Plaintiffs duties, and who was non-disabled. 71. From May 2015, and continuing at least through January 26, 2016, and continuing, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff?s perceived and/or physical disability(s), or for complaining about said unlawful practices, by the following continuous actions, and conduct, among others: a. Failing to determine the extent of Plaintiff?s disability(s) and how they could be accommodated; b. Failing to take any af?rmative steps to inform Plaintiff of any job opportunities within the company; 0. Failing to consider Plaintiff for and move Plaintiff into openings for which Plaintiff was qualified and could handle subject to Plaintiffs disability(s); d. Failing to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with Plaintiff to determine effective reasonable accommodations; e. Harassing, discriminating against and retaliating against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff?s perceived and/or physical disability(s), as hereinalleged; f. Harassing, discriminating against and retaliating against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff?s request and/or entitlement to and/or taking of, CFRA, as hereinalleged, g. On or about January 26, 2016, Defendants, and each of them, retaliating against, 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT defaming and wrongfully terminating Plaintiff for no stated reason(s); h. Violating California Unemployment Insurance Code ?1089 et seq., by failing to give Plaintiff written con?rmation of the change in Plaintiffs employment status, in preparation and/or anticipation of arguing false and/or shifting termination reasons, which is further evidence of Defendants? pretext and pretextual reasons and/or motives for Plaintiff? termination; i. In or around late January, Plaintiff became informed that Defendants, and each of them, no longer wanted Plaintiff due to his prior injury(s) and disability(s); j. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, kept and/or treated more fairly employees with equal or lesser tenure and/or seniority than Plaintiff and/or hired another employee(s) to perform Plaintiff?s duties, and who was non-disabled; k. Failing to re-hire and/or re-employ Plaintiff. 72.. The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, was in violation of California Government Code ?12940 et seq. Said statutes impose certain duties upon Defendants, and each of them, concerning harassment, discrimination and retaliation against persons, such as Plaintiff, on the basis of perceived and/or physical disability and the prohibition of perceived and/or physical disability harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Said statutes were intended to prevent the type of injury and damage herein set forth. Plaintiff Was, at all times material hereto, an employee with a physical disability(s), and within the protected class covered by California Government Code ?12940, prohibiting physical disability harassment, discrimination and retaliation in employment. 73. By the acts and conduct described above, Defendants, and each of them, in violation of said statutes, knew about, or should have known about, and failed to investigate and/or properly investigate, prevent or remedy the physical disability harassment, retaliation and discrimination and failed to rehire Plaintiff. The acts of discrimination, retaliation and harassment described herein were sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment, and created an .. abusive working environment. Plaintiff?s perceived and/or physical disability(s) were substantial 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT factors motivating and/or motivating reasons in Defendants? conduct. 74. Plaintiff ?led timely charges and complaints of perceived and physical disability harassment, retaliation and discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and 4 Housing and has received Notice(s) of Right to Sue in a California Superior Court pursuant 2553 26; 27.: 285? California Government Code ?12965(b). Plaintiff has therefore exhausted Plaintiff?s administrative remedies under the California Government Code. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Complaints and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Right to Sue Notices and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. 75. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3333 including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future, attorneys fees, and Other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained, for which Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend when ascertained. 76. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was rendered sick, sore, lame, disabled and disordered, both internally and externally, and suffered, among other things, numerous internal injuries, severe fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries are not known to the plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to insert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not at this time know the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and - thereon alleges, that some of the said injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character. 77. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced to incur expenses for medical care, X-rays, and laboratory costs during the period of Plaintiffs disability, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that k. Plaintiff will in the future be forced to incur additional expenses of the same nature, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to Show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 78. Prior to the occurrence of the incidents, Plaintiff was an able-bodied individual, but since said incidents has been unable to engage fully in Plaintiff?s occupation, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will be incapacitated and unable to perform Plaintiff?s usual work for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiff?s damage in an amount . which is at present unascertained. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the total amount of loss of earnings at the time of trial. 79. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused, and did suffer, and continues to suffer severe and permanent emotional and mental distress and anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 80. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 81. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were wilful, wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in wilful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, and were done by managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and with the express knowledge, consent, and rati?cation of managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 82. As a result of the discriminatory acts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided in California Government Code l2965(b). 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Violation of the California Family Rights Act [California Government Code 12945.2] Against All Defendants and DOES 1 Through 100, Inclusive) 83. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 82 as though set forth in full herein. 84. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants who quali?ed for leave due to a physical disability(s) pursuant to California Government Code Section 12945.2 et seq. 85. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were ?Employer[s]? within the de?nition of Government Code Section 12945.2, in that Defendants regularly employed 50 or more people and/or provided its employees with medical leave equal and/or greater than CFRA. 86. From May 2015, and continuing at least through January 26, 2016, and continuing, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, denied and retaliated against Plaintiff for being entitled to and/or requesting and/or taking Plaintiff?s Family Rights and Family Care and Medical Leave, by the following actions, among others: a. Defendants and each of them, retaliated against and terminated Plaintiff because of Plaintiff?s entitlement and/or request and/or taking of the right to medical leave in violation of Government Code Section 12945.2 et seq; b. Defendants, and each of them, failed to give Plaintiff an opportunity at any time to return to work in violation of Government Code Section 12945.2 et seq. 87. By the acts and conduct described above, Defendants, and each of them, in violation of said statutes, knew about, or should have known about, and failed to investigate and/or properly investigate, preventor remedy the retaliation and discrimination in violation of the Family Rights Act. The acts of discrimination described herein were suf?ciently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment, and created an abusive working environment. Plaintiff?s request and/or taking and?or right to take, Family Medical Leave, was a substantial factor motivating and/or motivating reason in Defendants? conduct. 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MAUJN 25:: 31"} 256?- 27w 88. Plaintiff ?led timely charges and complaints of retaliation, harassment and discrimination in violation of the Family Rights Act with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing pursuant to California Government Code 12965(b), permitting Plaintiff to bring this legal action. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Complaints and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit are said Right to Sue Notices and by reference hereto are made a part hereof. 89. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3333 including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future, attorneys fees, and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained, for which Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend when ascertained. 90. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and'each of them, Plaintiff was rendered sick, sore, lame, disabled and disordered, both internally and externally, and suffered, among other things, numerous internal injuries, severe fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries are not known to the plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to insert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not at this time know the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that some of the said injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character. 91. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of I them, Plaintiff has been forced to incur expenses for medical care, X-rays, and laboratory costs during the period of Plaintiff disability, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she will in the future be forced to incur additional expenses of the same nature, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said "expenses at the time of trial. 92. Prior to the occurrence of the incidents, Plaintiff was an able-bodied individual, but ?ksince said incidents has been unable to engage fully in Plaintiff?s occupation, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will be incapacitated and unable to perform Plaintiff 22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 27;; usual work for an inde?nite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiffs damage in an amount :which is at present unascertained. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show?the total amount of loss of earnings at the time of trial. 93. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused, and did suffer, and continues to suffer severe and permanent Lemotional and mental distress and anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, idiscomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 94. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 95. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were wilful, wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in wilful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, and were done by managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and with the express knowledge, consent, and rati?cation of managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 96. As a result of the discriminatory acts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided in California Government Code 12965(b). V. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Against All Defendants and DOES 1 -100, Inclusive) 97. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 96 as though set f: :forth in full herein. 98. At all times herein mentioned, the public policy of the State of California, as codi?ed, expressed and mandated in California Government Code ?12940 was to prohibit 28? remployers from discriminating and retaliating against any individual based on their perceived 23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MLWN 253 {Jr-9: 0.9m and/or physical disability. This public policy of the State of California is designed to protect all employees and to promote the welfare and well-being of the community at large. Accordingly, the actions of Defendants, and each of them, in discriminating, retaliating and terminating Plaintiff on the grounds of stated above, or for complaining about such discrimination and retaliation, was wrongful and in contravention and violation of the express public policy of the State of California, to wit, the policy set forth in California Government Code ?12940 et seq., and the laand regulations promulgated thereunder. 99. At all times herein mentioned, the public policy of the State of California, as codi?ed, expressed and mandated in California Government Code ?12945.2 was to prohibit employers from discriminating and retaliating against any individual based on their requesting and/or entitlement and/or taking Family Medical Leave. This public policy of the State of California is designed to protect all employees and to promote the welfare and well-being of the community at large. Accordingly, the actions of Defendants, and each of them, in discriminating, retaliating and terminating Plaintiff on the grounds of stated above, or for complaining about such discrimination and retaliation, was wrongful and in contravention and violation of the express public policy of the State of California, to wit, the policy set forth in California Government Code ?12945.2 et seq., and the laws and regulations promulgated thereunder. 100. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code ?3333 including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future, attorneys fees, and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained, for which Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend when ascertained. 101. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was rendered sick, sore, lame, disabled and disordered, both internally and externally, and suffered, among other things, numerous internal injuries, severe fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries are not known to the plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to insert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not at this 24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OOQQMAWN 25:? 2695 time know the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that some of the said injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character. 102. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced to incur expenses for medical care, X-rays, and laboratory costs during the period of Plaintiff?s disability, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that he will in the future be forced to incur additional expenses of the same nature, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 103. Prior to the occurrence of the incidents, Plaintiff was an able-bodied individual, but since said incidents has been unable to engage fully in Plaintiff?s occupation, and is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will be incapacitated and unable to perform Plaintiff?s usual work for an inde?nite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiffs damage in an amount which is at present unascertained. Plaintiff will pray leave of court to show the total amount of loss of earnings at the time of trial. 104. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused, and did suffer, and continues to suffer severe and permanent emotional and mental distress and anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to plaintiff, who will pray leave of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 105. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 106. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were wilful, wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and were done in wilful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, and were done by managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and with the express knowledge, consent,'and rati?cation of L: managerial agents and employees of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, thereby justifying the 27'; warding cf punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 28? 10?. As a result of the discriminatory acts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Uh herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit, as speci?cally provided in California Code of Civil Procedure ?102l .5. VI. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants and DOES 1 -100, Inclusive) 108. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 107 as though set forth in full herein. 109. Depending on the outcome of this lawsuit via dispositive motion and ruling and/or a trial and verdict in this matter, Plaintiff hereby requests this Court issue an affirmative and binding Declaration of Rights and Duties pursuant to the recent ruling in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, (2013) 56 C.4th 203, declaring that Defendants, and each of them, their successors, agents, representatives, employees and all persons who acted alone, or in concert with said Defendants, and each of them, committed acts and conduct of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other similar acts including, but not limited to, the violations alleged in all of the relevant Causes of Action herein, and as proved and/or shown at the time of the ruling(s) and or verdict(s), and as prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code ??12900 - 12996, and any other applicable laws, cases, codes, regulations and statutes. 110. At the tirrie of the request for Declaratory Relief, there exists and/or will exist a present and actual controversy among the parties. 111. This Complaint, and the relevant causes of action herein, speci?cally plead an actual, present controversy, and the facts of the respective and underlying claims. 112. At the time of the request for Declaratory Relief, the facts of this case will have congealed to the point that the Court can determine issues and grant relief through Declaratory Relief and issue a decree of a conclusive character, with the force and effect of a Final Judgment. 113. As a result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, [EJPlaintiff requests that this Court issue an Order and Ruling permanently enjoining Defendants, and a. :each of them, their successors, agents, representatives, employees and all persons who acted alone, in concert with said Defendants,and each of them, from committing acts and conduct of 26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ?ll-ink253 262:5 27* 28s harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other similar acts including, but not limited to, the violations alleged in all of the relevant Causes of Action herein, and as proved and/or shown at the time of the ruling(s) and or verdict(s), and as prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code 12900 - 12996, and any other applicable laws, cases, codes, regulations and statutes. 114. As a result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided in California Government Code 12965(b) and as speci?cally mentioned in Harris v. City ofSanta Monica, (2013) 56 C.4th 203. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ALVIN FUENTES prays for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; 2. For medical expenses and related items of expense, according to proof; 3. For loss of earnings, according to proof; 4. For loss of earning capacity, according to proof; 5. For reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided in California Government Code ?12965 according to proof; 6. For reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided in California Code of Civil Procedure ?1021.5, according to proof; 7. For a permanent injunction against Defendants, and each of them, their successors, agents, representatives, employees and all persons who acted alone, or in concert with said Defendants, and each of them, from committing acts and conduct of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other similar acts including, but not limited to, the violations alleged in all of the relevant Causes of Action herein, and as proved and/or shown at the time of the ruling(s) and or verdict(s), and as prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code ??l2900 - 12996, and any 27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT oochm-bwlx25:1 26? 27w 28*? . _1 10. 11. 12 DATED: July 21, 2016 other applicable laws, cases, codes, regulations and statutes; For reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of said suit as speci?cally provided 4 in California Government Code 12965(b) and as speci?cally mentioned in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, (2013) 56 C.4th 203; For prejudgment interest according to proof; 4 For punitive and exemplary damages, according to proof; For costs of suit incurred herein; and For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. MANCINI ASSOCIATES A Professional Law Corporation By: FOSTAKOWSKY, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff ALVIN FUENTES 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EXHIBIT m: mg 1 N: n! 3 EXHIBIT {5'5 :3 m2 4 Pa DFEH 56231 ?53 3' r; ?a dam-AWN COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.) In the Matter of- the Complaint of DFEH No. 698371-225059 ALVIN FUENTES, Complainant. C/o Mancini And Associates 15303 Ventura Boulevard Suite 600 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 VS. Agent For Service BUZZFEED, INC, ReSpondent. 7323 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90036 Complainant alleges: 1. Respondent BUZZFEED, INC. is a Private Employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). Complainant believes respondent is subject to the FEHA. 2. On or around January 26, 2016, complainant alleges that respondent took the following adverse actions against complainant: Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation Asked impermissible non-job-related questions, Demoted, Denied a good faith interactive process, Denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, Denied employment, Denied family care or medical leave, Denied or forced to transfer, Denied reasonable accommodation, Denied reinstatement, Laid-off, Terminated, Other, harassed discriminated against retaliated against. Complainant believes respondent committed these actions because of their: Disability, Engagement in Protected Activity, Family Care or Medical Leave. 3. Complainant ALVIN FUENTES resides in the City of Sherman Oaks, State of California. If complaint includes co-respondents please see below. .5- Complaint DFEH No. 698371-225059 Date Filed: April 26, 2016 11': Co~ReSpondentsz LLC Agent For Service 2835 Naomi Street Burbank California 91504 -5- Date Filed: April 26, 2016 Complaint - DFEH No. 698371-225059 as .2 Damage-1 it: "a (11-Additional Complaint Details: From 5/2015, and continuing at least through 1/26/16, and continuing. I was harassed. discriminated against and retaliated against based on my perceived and/or physical disability(s) (broken ribs,associated -7- Complaint DFEH N0. 6983 71 -225059 Date Filed: April 26, 2016 7 .f?a p: is; creatingVERIFICATION 1, Marcus A Mancini, am the Attorney for Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters. I believe it to be true. On April 26, 2016, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Sherman Oaks CA Marcus A Mancini Date Filed: April 26, 2016 Complaint DFEH No. 698371-225059 -B r: (33' Pi: 1 EXHIBIT ?33) Ian? VV - i?L-en-?ei? GOVERNOREMWJL 'u DEPARTMENT OF AIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING 33$ b) 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove I CAI 95753 800-884-16 34 TDD 800-700-2320 .53};deng email: contacl.center@dteh.ca.gov April 26, 2016 ALVIN FUENTES C/o Mancini And Associates 15303 Ventura Boulevard Suite 600 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 698371-225059 Right to Sue: FUENTES Agent For Service BUZZFEED, INC. Dear ALVIN FUENTES, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was ?led with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective April 26, 2016 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965 subdivision a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must visit the US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing 0.x . PARTMENT FAIR EM LOYMENT HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive. Suite 100 1 Grove I CAI 95758 800-884-1684 I TDD 800-700-2320 email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov Enclosures cc: LLC Agent For Service 146 GOVERNORW DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH gmt?" lurk? g/r wwm?a {if 1/3 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive. Suite 100 Eik Grove CAI 95753 800-884-1684 I TDD 800-700-2320 I email: contactcenter?dfeh.ca.gov GOVERNOR 50% DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH April 26, 2016 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 698371-225059 Right to Sue: FUENTES Agent For Service BUZZFEED, INC. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to ?le a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. 0 response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing r553 LlDFEFF pol-1 Kit? he ?n a: "a COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.) In the Matter of the Complaint of ALVIN FUENTES, Complainant. C/o Mancini And Associates 15303 Ventura Boulevard Suite 600 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 DFEH No. 698371225059 VS. Agent For Service BUZZFEED, INC, Respondent. I 7323 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90036 Complainant alleges: 1. Respondent BUZZFEED, INC. is a Private Employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). Complainant believes respondent is subject to the FBI-IA. . 2. On or around January 26, 2016, complainant alleges that respondent took the following adverse actions against complainant: Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation Asked impermissible non-job-related questions, Demoted, Denied a good faith interactive process, Denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, Denied employment, Denied family care or medical leave, Deniedor forced to transfer, Denied reasonable accommodation, Denied reinstatement, Laid-off, Terminated, Other, harassed discriminated against retaliated against. Complainant believes respondent committed these actions because of their: Disability, Engagement in Protected Activity, Family Care or Medical Leave. 3. Complainant ALVIN FUENTES resides in the City of Sherman Oaks, State of California. If complaint includes co-respondents please see below. -5- Complaint .- DFEH No. 698371-225059 Date Filed: April 26, 2016 .J [n kl: ?1 mailed-1 till 3 kn. (3.Co-Respondents: LLC Ag :nt For Service 2835 Naomi Street Bu:bank California 91504 -5. Date Filed: April 26, 2016 Complaint - DF EH No. 6983 71 -22505 9 2 Additional Complaint Details: From 5/2015. and continuing at 1/26/16, and continuing, was harassed, 4 discriminated against and retaliated against based on my perceived and/or physical disability(s) (broken ribs,associated r12? 3 will"! in: l- '1 DFEH ao?z-t .. - flit) 7 Hue Complaint DFEH No. 698371-225059 Date Filed: April 26, 2016 [2:1 41 creii?aoz-i as 't -. La! '1 i?tp?Ar?ti?Ii?Ai?to?Ir?Ai?A VERIFICATION 1, Marcus A Mancini, am the Attorney for Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. On April 26, 2016, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. -8- Sherman Oaks CA Marcus A Mancini Date Filed: April 26, 2016 Complaint DFEH No. 6983 71-225059 4st51:26 14 :327 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE or CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF LOS AN GELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles: State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. On April 29, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as RIGHT TO. SUE NOTICE and COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT on the interested party or parties in this action by certi?ed mail, placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Sherman Oaks, California. Executed on April 29, 2016, at Sherman Oaks, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that HERMINA AVAKIAN the foregoing is true and correct. MAILING LIST Buzzfeed, Inc. 7323 Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Buzzfeed, Inc. c/o Corporation Service Company 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N Sacramento, CA 95833 SGS BTL, LLC 2835 N. Naomi Street Burbank, CA 91504 LLC c/o Corporation Service Company 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N Sacramento, CA 95833 .227.1 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 13 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. On July 21, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Sandra Benlevy, Esq. LOEB LOEB 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 I caused such enveIOpe with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Sherman Oaks, California. Executed on July 21, 2016, at Sherman Oaks, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Whaler/Av HERMINA foregoing is true and correct.