hill 24 25 26 28 Darren J. Campball, Bar No. 2330881 A Chris M. Hcikaus Weaver, Bar Nu"; Ii Aitlmn Campbell Heikaus Weaver; I i 2030 Main St, Suite 1300 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: (949) 23 6-4626 Facsimile: (949) 271-4046 Attorneys for Plaintiff LORAN CANDELAS SUPERIOR COURT OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE $995210 LORAN CANDELAS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CITY, 3 public: entity; TRAVIS WALKER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL . HARASSMENT CODE l2940 ET . SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION (GOVT cone 1294:} HT . FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION (GOVT con1a?? 12940 ET . VIOLATION OF THE RALPH ACT (CIVIL . INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL and . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FDR JURY TRIM. Bill? 6% ?ill? Darren]. Campbell, Bar NB 223083. I'll? ChrisM. Hcikaus Weaver Harbin 23Wi Aitlum Campbell Heikaus eril IV 2030 Main St, Suite 1300 Irvine, California 92614 Telephcme: (949) 236-4626 Facsimile: (949)2'314046 Attorneys for Plaintiff LORAN CANDELAS LII-II 'ammI?m SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LORAN an individual, Case NoPlaintiff, v. CITY OF CITY, II public: cntity; TRAVIS WALKER, an individual; and DUES 1 through 150, inclusive, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL . SEX-BASED HARASSMENT (GOVT CODE memo ET . SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION (GOVT CODE 12940 ET FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION (GOVT 1294.0 ET VIOLATION 01? THE RALPH (CIVIL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL and COMPLAINT FOR ISAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIM, a a 5m: 6% 'an Ln ch'l r?i h-ll?llFurthermore, each of the Defendants are sued as the principals, agents, partners, servants, the actions mentioned below was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such agent, servant, partner, and employee with the permission and consent of the other I?lel?endants. 7. From August 2010 until June 2017, Plaintiff worked as a Dispatcher for the Cathedral City Police 1. At all times material to this Complaint, PlaintiffLoi?an Candelae was a resident of Riverside County, Califowia (hereinafter ?Plaintiff?}. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant City of Cathedral City is a public entity in Riverside County, California (hereinafter ?Cathedral City?). 3. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant Travis Walker (hereinafter ?Walke?j, Plaintiff is i in?amed and believes and based thereon alleges was a resident of at Riverside County (collectively, Cadredral City and Walker are referred to as ?Defendants"j. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each ofihem, including: those designated herein as DOES through 150, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for the I occurrences and happenings, as well as such acts and emissions as are more fully alleged herein, and that Plaintiff?s injuries, damages and losses, as alleged below, were and are the direct and proximate result of the actions or omissions of said Defendants. employees, of?cers, directors, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, alter egos, conspirators and eo-conspitntors, joint ventures ofeach of the remaining Defendants. Each of the Defendants were acting within the course, scope and authority of such relationship, and with the knowledge, consent, approval or rati?cation of the remaining Defendants. 6. Does I through 150 are sued under the ?ctitious names pursuant to the Code of Civil Prooedure section 474. Plaintiff is inf?onned and believes and on that basis alleges, that each Defendant sued under such ?ctitious names is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages as alleged below, and in so acting was functioning as the agent, servant, partner and employee oi" the other Defendants and in doing Depa?ment. Plaintiff voluntarily resigned and moved out of California with her family in 201?. 3- in January 2m 8, after having spent several months out ot?t'Ialiiornia with her family, Defendant, Chiei?oi' Police Travis Walker recruited to the (.iathetlral City Police Department. Defendant ?11131,: by: 11.: :jI-l W??mM-?wmw i-J i 13? Walker explained to Plaintitf that he had idnaa for positions at the police department that he wanted to open up and thought she would lit into some of those positions as he stated he would be creating new opportunities. He even encouraged Plaintiff to obtain a degree: in Public.- Administration if she wanted to he considered for a futon: supervisor or manager position. 9. Plaintiff returned to the Cathedral City Police Department as a Dispatcher in February 2013. At the time of her return, Plainti?? was working night shifts. In trying to be a thoughtful co-worket?. she brought in stress relief items for the: diapatch group on her shill. She also boought a gift bag for Defendant Walker and a thank you card. The gift bag that she gave to Defendant Walker contained a ?S?hook,? which is intended to be used by a person to stretch their own back. Instead of using it to snatch his own back, Defendant Walker placed the S-hook betwoan Plaintiff legs and rubbed her with it. Plaintiff was shocked by Defendant Walker?s actions and walked away to begin her shift. 10. As the year progressed, on at least 6 to 8 separate occasions, Defendant Walker would to fondle Plaintiff over and under her shirt. On another occasion, Defendant Walker pulled his penis out and. placed it in Plaintiff?s hand. Defendant Walker would make up reasons that he needed to set: Plaintiff" in his of?ce alone and Plaintiff had no choice but to comply with Defendant Walker?s demands because he was the Chief of Police. Defendant Walker w0uld grab Plaintiff?s hands and force her to unveil him. 11. Due to the harassment that she was su?ering, the daeisino to try and ?nd new employment at another local police: agency. Since, she was applying with other pnlioe departments, Plaintiff wanted to speak to Defendant Walker to let him know she was going to start background checks at other police departments and was considering leaving the Cathedral City Folios Department. Due to the ongoing . sexual harassment, l?lainlill?wantud to have this conversation in a puhlio place outside I 12. On October 3, 2018. Dafendnni Walker tented Plaintiff that in: was at a Law Enforcement conference at the Hotel Miramonle in Indian Wells, CA. In the text message. she saw that Defendant Walker Was outside the hotel in front of some the pits and there were other law chromoinent personnel present. 13. However. when she arrived, she tented Defendant Walker to con?rm when: to park. Dolhndant Walker than l?laintil?i?lo his hots] room. When she not to his room, Defendant \?v?nlltur was wearing only honor shorts and a shirt. When Plaintil?lhnicrcd Lin: rinmi, thihndam immediateb? led her right ii??hi'i?li?iisnnti than .tNii in .ii?flif?i?iiliit. Defendants. On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff received notice from representatives of Defendant that her claims fully set forth herein. liable for harassment carried out by supervisors. like Deihndanl Walker, in the workplace. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Cathedral City is qualified employer subject to the to the bed, he tried to pull off her clothes and he won loemgw aggressive and rough with Plaintiff. 14. Since her shoes were still on, it [invented Harland-till! Walker from taking off her pants, but Defmdant Walker was able to pull damn Plnihtl?? underwent ?nd he cut himself inside her. Plaintiff pushed him off. and she left the hotel. 15. Alia: the encounter at Defendant Walker?s hotelIlloIll,F Plaintiff was numb. She did not know what to do. Because she needed her job, she continued to workyi?or the Cathedral City Police Depc?ment. And, Defendant Walker continued to sexually harass Plaintiff by mobbing and fondling her, including placing hisI penis in her hand in his office. OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND VERNMENT 16. On or about June 3, 2019, Plaintiff had a complaint filed against Defendants with California?s Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging multiple violations of California?s Fair Employment end Housing Act Plaintiff immediately leceived a Right To Sue letter from tho DFEH. 17. On July 3. 2019, Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant regarding her potential claims against ofluly 3, 2019 were rejected. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT (GOVT CODE [2941] ET SEQ) (Against All Defendants and DGES 1-159) 18. Plaintiff reallcges and incorporates herein by n: feroncc each of the allegations set folth above as if 19. At all times herein mentionod, the PEI 1A, embodied in Government Code section 129%, was in i?IIlli force and effect. This Act prohibits harassment hosed on sex. Employers, like Cathedral City, are strictly 2i}. Defendant Walkerscxually harassed Plaintiff us sol forth show-o. Further, Defendant Walker?s horassmont of Plaintiff was both seven?: and pervasive. 4 customIn?l?soli ?md andfm malma und?r Califurma Civil (3MB 5 3294 Wallwr s: mndu?t, WNW Blame, was named But by him In his uf?cial napalm? as Cathadrai City 3 ?hlafm??uhn? ?r Plaintiff i3 Buii?tled En punitive dmnagas an amount pumah ami maka?ian exampl: ?f ?eEBndant Waiknr. 30. Plainti?? further believes and alleges that Cathedral City discriminated against her on the basis ofher 2 sex. The discrimination included Defendant Walketls egregious sexual harassment of her. Plaintiff is 3 infonnod and believes and hosed dtereon she was not promoted as previously promised by 4 Defendant Walker because she would not. slim to his sexual As a direct and proximate cause of Cannot City" condudt, Plainti? has su?'eted and continues to 6 suffer general, compensatory, and special damages, including lost wages and bene?ts, future loss of wages 7 and bene?ts, and emotional distress and physical illness in an amount unknown, but according to proof at 8 trial. 9 32. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to attomcys' fees and costs for bringing suit alleging these violstions. 10 Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attomeys? fees as a result of her FRI-IA 11 claims against Cathedral City and the other defendants. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount 12 of these expenses and fees, but seeks an award of attomeys? fees and costs according to proof at trial. l3 14 FAILURE PREVENT DISCRIMINATION GOVT COD 15 - {Against Defendant Cathedral City and DOES 1-150] 16 33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth above as if 17 fully set forth herein. 18 34. At all times herein mentioned, the FEE-M, embodied in Government Code section 12940, was in full 19 force and effect. This Act requims that employers present discrimination in the workplace. i 20 35. Plaintitt believes, and thereon alleges, that City is a quali?ed employer subject to the 2] requirements ofthe ii'El-lA. 22 36. Cathedral City pennittod and engaged in discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff. Cathedral 23 City has actively engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff, including, among other things, allowing its 24 male employees to sexually harass Plaintiff. including Plaintifl?s direct supervisor, Defendant Walker. 25 37. Cathedral City failed to take any reasonable steps to prevent discrimination against Plaintiff, which 26 resulted in Cathedral City's continued discrimination and unfavorable treatment of Plainti?? compared to her 27 male comparators, including sexual harassment. ?23 38. As a result of Cathedral City?s failure to prevent disrriminstimr, Plaintift?wss discriminated against COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR .111thr TRIAL. - Lure-e? as: II I ?1 based on her sex. PlaintilT has suffered from stress and anxiety which has negatively impacted her physical 2 and motions] oond ition due to City?s failure lo'ptevem; discrimination. 3 39. Plaintiff believes and (hermit ans-gs that any nlitinte ofmisoonduct or perfonnaooe issues as 4 Cathedral City?s basis for any disciplinary actions enamel Plainti?'are pretexmal and meant to disguise the 5 discriminator)r lessons fut-her treatment. i; 5 40. As it direct and lim?mate cause ofthe discrimination, Plaintift'hns centered and continues to suffer 7 general, compensatory, and special damages, including lost?wages and bene?ts, future loss ofwnges and 8 bene?ts, and emotional distress and physical illness in an amount unknown, but according to proof at trial. 9 41. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to nttorneys? fees and costs for bringing suit alleging these violations. 10 Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attomeye? fees as a result of her PEHA 1 1 claims against Cathedral City and the other defendants. Pleintilf is presently unaware of the precise amount 12 of these expenses and fees, but seeks an awmd of fees and costs according to proof at trial. 13 14 i OF THE RALPH ACT (CIVIL coon 15 (Against All Defendants and DOES 1-150} 15 i 42. Plaintiff toslleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth above as if fully :set forth herein. 18 59. Defendant Walker committed multiple violent acts against Plaintiff as described in detail above. i 19 6D. Defendant Walker?s perception of Plaintiff1 5 sex was a substantial motivating renson for 20 conduct and a reasonable person in Plaintiff?s position would believe that Defendant 21 Walker would carry out his threats. 22 61. Plaintiff was intimidated by the threats of Defendant Walker and a reasonable person in 23 Plaintiff?s position would have been intimidated by Defendant Walker?s conduct. 24 62. Defendant Walker?s threats were a subs-mono] factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. 25 63. As a result ol?the threats perpetrated against Plaintiff she has suffered From stress and 26 anxiety which has negatively impacted her physical emotional condition. 27 64. As a direct and proximate cause olthc sonunl Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 23 suffer general, compensatory-1 and special including lust Whites and bene?ts, future loss of wages FUR .titt: DEMAND t-?tnt JURY ?Int-woodman-humm? and bene?ts, and emotional distress and physical illness in an amount unlmown, but according to proof at trial. 65. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys" fees and costs for bringing suit alleging these violations. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal and attorneys? fees as a result of her Ralph not claims. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and lens, but seeks an award of attorneys? fees and oosts according to proof at trial. 66. The oonduot of Defendant Walker was willful and malicious and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s ?ghts with the intent to vex, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute oppression, fraud studior malioe under California Civil Code 3294. Defendant Walker?s oonduct, as described above, was carried out by him in his official capacity as Cathedral City?s Chief of Police. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Defendant Walker. FIFTH CAUSE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against Defendant Walker and DOES 1-150) 67. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference caoh of the allegations set forth above as it" . fully set forth herein. I 68. In perpetuating the harassment and diserimi nation against Plaintiff and other offensive conduct described herein, Defendant Walker and each of the DOE Defendants, abused the special positions they held in relation to Plaintiff. Defendant Walker and each of the DOE Defendants, acted. with the knowledge that they could manipulate and damage Plaintiff's interest and well~being. 69. Plaintiff was able to and did perform the essential functions of her position. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Walker and each of the DOE Defendants, intended to and did cause Plaintiff to suffer from emotional distress because she was harassed and discriminated against. 70. As a result of these acts, Plaintili? suffered from suuss and anxiety which negatively impacted her physical and emotional condition. 71. . Through Defendant Walker?s and each of the DDE Defendants" outrageous and unprivileged conduct as described herein and above, Defendant idealism and cash ol~ the DOE Defendants, acted with the intent to cause, or with a reckless disregard for the probability of causing, Plaintii?fto suitor humiliation, COMPLAINT FDR DANIAGES DEMAND FUR JURY TRIAL- :5 . . Lnisolation, mental mantish, 1053 ofioh ?alttl: We: physical and emotional distress. I. . 72. As a direct and proximate rEsuIt ofDel?enrlant Walker 3, and each uf?teir acts, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer general, oompelisatm?y, and Special damages, lost Wages and bene?ts future loss of wages and benefits, loss ofemear opportunities, prejudgmeitt' Interest, consequential and incidental . damages, plus tort damages including humiliation, ilolatioti, emotional distress and physical Injuries in an amount unknown, but according to pmofat trial. 74. Based on Defendant Walker?s, and each oflheir course of conduct, which was malicious, Idiot-ring, intentional, and in conscious disregaltl for Plaintiff?s rights and safety, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and enranpdarg,r damages in an amount according to proof at trial to punish Defendant Walker, and deter similar conduct in the future. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BATTERY (Against Defendant Walker and DOES. 43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by refemnae each oftiie allegations set forth above as if - ?tll?y set forth herein. 44. Defendant Walker, in the course and scope of her employment as Chief of Police of Cathedral City, touched Plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend Plaintiff. 45. Plaintiff did not consent to this touching. 46. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant Walker?s conduct and has strifered damage in an amount to be proven at trial. I 47. Defendant Walker?s battery of Plaintiff was willful and malicious and in conscious disregatd of Plaintiff?s rights with the intent to was, injure and annoy her, such as to constitute oppression, fraud andfor malice under California Civil Code 3294. Accordingly, Plaintiifis entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Defendant ll?alker. WUERFFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: I. General and compensator) damages including all lost wages, in a sum according to proof at time of trial; 0 minaret) wooqmm-h-mpu Consequmtial and inerdental damages in a sum awarding to proofat time oftrial; 2. 3. Damages for mental and emetioml dimes In a aura awarding to pmefat time of trial; 4. General and special damages in a sum according to proof at time of trial; 5. Penalties in a sum according to proof at time of trial; 6. Payment of Plaintiff's reasonable and actual attorney fees in a sum according to preofat time of trial; 7. For coats ofsuit herein incurred; 8. lnjunetive relief against Defendant Cathedral City; 9. Prejudgment interest attire legal prevailing rate; 10. Punitive and exemplary damages in a sum according to proof at time of trial as against Defendant Walker; 1 1. Statutory penalties; and l2. For such other and further relief as the Court deemsjust and proper. Dated: July 29, 2019 AITKEN CALEB ELLHEIKAUS MAYER, LLP 33' 1. Campbell Earner for Plaintiff LORAN CANDELAS ll] COMPLAINT FUR DAMAGES AND FOR URY TRIAL Plaintiff Wit? dammit: trial bf her alum-is bwury In ?1115 #u?l?imd by law. 9? 3 Dated: July 39, 30197 mm CWEELL WEAVER..W Attorn day for Plaintiff LURAN CANDELAS ii FDR DEMAND FGR .sum' Tan-u;