g?p?i?ior Cam Wm: RISE LAW FIRM, PC County JANA M. MOSER (SBN 281073) . . . MEGHAN K. MAHER (SBN 317908) NOV 0 mm 5900 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2600 5h .M . . Los Angeles, California 90036-5013 Telephone: (310) 728-6588 Facsimile: (310) 728-6560 Attorneys for Plaintiff YOBANI ISIDRO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES YOBANI ISIDRO, an individual, Case NoPlaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA GOVT. CODE 12940 ET UNITED BUSINESS FREIGHT FORWARDERS LLC, a New Jersey limited 2' RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE . liability corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, FEHA CODE 12940 ET incluswe, 3. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE Defendants. FEHA GOVT. CODE 12940 ET SEQ. 4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1102.5; 5. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY FOR JURY By Fax COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC 10 ll Plaintiff Yobani Isidro (?Plaintiff?) hereby brings this Complaint against Defendant United Business Freight Forwarders LLC (the ?Company? or ?Defendant?) and Does I through 50, inclusive, and alleges the following on knowledge as to himself and his known acts, and on information and belief as to all other matters: I. PARTIES l. At all material times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an individual performing work for Defendant United Business Freight Forwarders LLC within Los Angeles County. The unlawful conduct alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, a resident of Los Angeles County. 2. At all material times mentioned herein, the Company was a New Jersey limited liability corporation. 3. At the relevant times mentioned herein, the Company was an ?employer? of Plaintiff as such term is defined under California Government Code sections 12926(d) in that it regularly employed five or more persons. Therefore, the Company was subject to the Fair Employment Housing Act (the 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES I through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of such Defendants when the same has been ascertained. Each ofthe fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts complained of herein. Unless otherwise stated, all references to named Defendants shall include DOE Defendants as well. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because all ofthe claims alleged herein arose in Los Angeles County and all ofthe Defendants were and/or are residents of Los Angeles County or are doing or did business in Los Angeles County, and/or their principal place of business is -1- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC Los Angeles County, in each case, at all times relevant herein. 6. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Plaintiff worked for the Company as a driver from in or about January 2018 to May 2018. Plaintiff was based out of the Company?s center located at 5829 Smithway Street, Los Angeles, California (the ?Smithway Center?). Plaintiff schedule, hours, and various work messages were communicated to him via text message from the Company?s dispatch team, Jen (last name unknown) and Geo (last name unknown). Plaintiff also received weekly emails from a Company manager, Ivan Mercado, setting forth the schedule for drivers working out of the Smithway Center. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff earned $14.00 per hour. 8. The Company provides delivery services for Amazon through a ?eet of drivers and delivery vehicles. Drivers are responsible for loading packages into his or her assigned vehicle, fueling the vehicle as necessary, and delivering 40 to 50 packages per hour. Consistent with these rigorous delivery goals, the Company advertises driver positions for ?candidates who enjoy working in a fast- paced environment.? In practice, the Company?s ?fast?paced environment? subjects drivers to deplorable conditions in which they are not given time to use the restroom, take breaks, or take lunch; they are instructed not to stop to use the restroom; they are expected to urinate into bottles while making deliveries; they are instructed not to wear seatbelts to maximize their delivery rate; and they are taught how to trick vehicle sensors into registering that the driver is wearing a seatbelt. 9. Not surprisingly, the delivery vehicles reek of urine because drivers are forced to follow Company policy and relieve themselves in bottles rather than risk their delivery rates by taking the time to use a restroom facility. These bottles of urine are frequently left in the vehicles for drivers to find in ensuing shifts, and are littered around the facility in which drivers pick up their delivery vehicle for the day. Plaintiff frequently found bottles of urine in his assigned vehicle and complained about this with his coworkers, including Jose Cej a. Finding the practice of urinating into bottles unsanitary and -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC . hazardous to his and others? health, Plaintiff refused to do so. 10. Due to the Company?s rigorous delivery rate requirements, Plaintiff was consistently unable to take rest breaks or lunch breaks. Although Plaintiff complained about this to one of the dispatchers, the Company did nothing to ensure that he could take breaks and did not pay him for the numerous breaks he had to work through. On or about March 4, 2018, the Company texted Plaintiffhis hours and he realized that he was not being paid for the lunch breaks he was being forced to work through. Plaintiff asked about this discrepancy, stating, ?We don?t get paid the 30 min for lunch?? to which the dispatcher responded, ?No. You?re always supposed to take your lunch.? Accordingly, Plaintiff found himself in a work environment in which he was forced to routinely skip lunch and rest breaks, notwithstanding his complaints. 1 1. From the inception of Plaintiff's employment with the Company, he was criticized for being ?too slow.? The Company?s dispatch team frequently admonished Plaintiff to pick up his pace, texting things like, ?Pick up the pace you are falling behind,? ?Pick it up bro you are falling behind," or ?You are falling behind whats [sic] going on.? When Plaintiff explained that one reason for his slow delivery rate was needing to stOp and use the restroom, the dispatchers simply ignored him or were visibly angry with him when he returned from his shift. As a result, even though Plaintiff was hired to work four days per week, he was only assigned three shifts per week because he was ?too slow.? 12. On or about April 7, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to his left ankle while working. Speci?cally, as Plaintiff was exiting the vehicle to deliver a package, he stepped into a pothole and sprained his ankle. As a result of this injury, Plaintiff filed a workers? compensation claim and had to undergo physical therapy, wear a leg brace, take prescription pain medication, and was placed off work until May 30, 2018. 13. When Plaintiff tried to return to work, he met with the site manager, Jorge Reynoso. Plaintiff gave Reynoso a copy of his retum?to-work note and asked why he was no longer on the schedule. Reynoso told Plaintiffit was because he had ?been off for a month,? and said he would call him in two weeks. While Plaintiff never received any termination paperwork from the Company, his employment was clearly terminated following this meeting. Reynoso never called Plaintiff to instruct -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC return to work, and Plaintiff was never again put on the schedule to work, whether by text or by email. Indeed, whereas previously Plaintiff received weekly emails setting forth the schedules for drivers, he stopped receiving these emails after May 26, 2018. Managing Agents 14. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 7-13 above, was performed or rati?ed by managing agents ofthe Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown) (collectively, the ?Managing Agents?). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over Vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages. IS. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 7?13 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. 16. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 17. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7?1 3 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiffs employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff?s career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC IV. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 18. Prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a complaint against each named defendant with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing pursuant to Government Code section 12900 et seq., alleging the claims described in this Complaint. On November 7, 2018, the issued a ?right to sue? letter. True and correct copies of the complaint and the ?right to sue? letter are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit A. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been ful?lled. This action is ?led within one year of the date that the DFEH issued its right to sue letter. V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against the Company) 19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-18, inclusive, ofthis Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 20. As set forth more fully above, Plaintiff suffered from a disability during his employment with the Company. Speci?cally, Plaintiff sprained his left ankle, required subsequent physical therapy and was placed off work through May 30, 2018. This limited his ability to perform major life activities including, but not limited to, his ability to work, sleep and exercise. 21. The Company was made aware of Plaintiff?s disability on an ongoing basis commencing on or about April 7, 2018. 22. The Company discriminated against Plaintiff based in part on his disability by, among other things, terminating Plaintiff?s employment. 23. As a proximate result of the County?s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages in terms of medical expenses and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nervousness, -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiffs damages will be ascertained at trial. 24. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 7?13 above, was performed or ratified by managing agents ofthe Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion ofthe Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making significant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justi?es an award of punitive damages. 25. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 7?13 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. 26. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 27. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7?13 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiffs career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbein g. 28. The FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred by a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the initiation and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs. -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC 1 29. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this 2 Court. 3 VI. 4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 5 (Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA) 6 (On Behalf of Plaintifngainst the Company) 7 30. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1?29, inclusive, of this 8 Complaint as though ?illy set forth herein. 9 31. California Government Code section 12940(m)(2) makes it an unlawful employment 10 practice for an employer to ?retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting an 11 accommodation for disability, regardless of whether the request was granted.? 12 32. As described above, the Company retaliated against Plaintiff for requesting the 13 accommodation ofa medical leave by terminating Plaintiff?s employment. 14 33. As a proximate result ofthe Company?s conduct, Plaintiffsuffered and continues to suffer 15 damages in terms oflost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other pecuniary loss according to proof. 16 Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including 17 nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, 18 and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiffs damages will be ascertained at trial. 19 34. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 7-13 above, was performed or 20 ratified by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan 21 Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each 22 responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each 23 exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making 24 significant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in 25 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages. 26 35. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 7-13 above, the 27 Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff? 5 right to be free from unlawful discrimination, 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC retaliation and wrongful termination. 36. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7?13 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 37. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Speci?cally, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiffs career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. 38. The FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred by a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the initiation and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs. 39. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against the Company) 40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1?39, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 41. Califomia Government Code section 12940(k) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to ?fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment [and retaliation] from occurring.? California courts have held that a plaintiff seeking to recover damages based on a claim for failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation must show that the plaintiff was subjected to discrimination and/or retaliation, the defendant employer failed to take all -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation, and this failure caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or home. See, cg, Leland v. City any. of San Francisco, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1103 (ND. Cal. 2008); Adetuyi v. Cizy and County ofSan Francisco, 2014 WL 3885874, at *14 (ND. Cal. 2014); Vierria v. California Highway Patrol, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (ED. Cal. 2009). 42. As set forth more fully above, the Company discriminated against Plaintiff based in part on his disability by, among other things, terminating his employment. 43. The Company also retaliated against Plaintiff for requesting the accommodation ofa medical leave. 44. Accordingly, the County also violated Govemment Code section 12940(k) by failing to prevent that discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff. 45. As a proximate result of the County?s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages in terms of medical expenses and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff? damages will be ascertained at trial. 46. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 7-13 above, was performed or ratified by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages. 47. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. 48. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents acted dcspicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 49. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 3 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff 8 employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff?s career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. 50. The FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred by a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the initiation and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs. 5 1. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 1102.5) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against the Company) 52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 53. California Labor Code section 1 102.5(b) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for ?disclosing information . . . to a person with authority over the employee . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.? Cal. Lab. Code 54. California Labor Code section 1102.5(c) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for ?refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.? Cal. Lab. Code 55. As set forth in paragraphs 7?13 above, Plaintiff repeatedly disclosed information that he had reasonable cause to believe constituted a violation of state or federal law, including California Labor Code 512 (?Meal periods; requirements . . and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 9- 2001 (?Transportation Industry?). Plaintiff also refused to participate in certain illegal conduct, including creating a hazardous work environment by urinating into bottles in the Company?s delivery vehicles. In response, the Company refused to assign Plaintiff to a fulltime schedule and terminated his employment. The Company?s conduct therefore constituted unlawful retaliation on account of Plaintiffs protected activity in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) and 56. As a proximate result of the conduct of the Company, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nightmares, nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff?s damages will be ascertained at trial. 57. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 7-13 above, was performed or ratified by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making significant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justi?es an award of punitive damages. 58. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. 59. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiffs rights. 60. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and ?nancial injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff 5 career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. 6l. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against the Company) 62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1?61, inclusive, ofthis Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 63. The Company terminated Plaintiffs employment in violation of important and well- established public policies, set forth in various state statutes and provisions including, but not limited to, the EHA and California Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 132a (?Discrimination against workers injured in course of employment . . 64. As a proximate result of the conduct of the Company, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost bene?ts, and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nightmares, nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount ofPlaintift?s damages will be ascertained at trial. 65. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 7-13 above, was performed or -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC rati?ed by managing agents ofthe Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion ofthe Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justi?es an award of punitive damages. 66. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 7?13 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiffs right to be free from unlawful discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. 67. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 68. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 7?13 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and ?nancial injury to Plaintiff. Speci?cally, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff?s career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. 69. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within thejurisdictional limits ofthis Court. X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. For general damages, including emotional distress damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available. 2. For special damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available. 3. For compensatory damages, including emotional distress damages, according to proof -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC each cause of action for which such damages are available. 4. For punitive damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available. 5. For a statutory penalty not exceeding $10,000 pursuant to Labor Code sections 1102.5(1) and 1105. 6. For prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest according to law. 7. For reasonable attorneys? fees incurred in this action pursuant to the FEHA. 8. For costs of suit incun?cd in this action. 9. For such other and further relief that the Court deems propcr and just. Dated: November 7, 2018 RISE LAW FIRM, PC WW JAN -M. MOSER MEG . AN K. MAHER AttornEYs for PlaintiffYOBANl 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Yobani Isidro hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action alleged herein in the Complaint for Damages. Dated: November 7, 2018 RISE LAW FIRM, PC By' RAN M. MOSER EG AN K. MAHER Attorneys for Plaintiff YOBANI ISIDRO -15- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC EXHIBIT A WV GOVERNOR EDMUND DEPARTMENT or FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove CAI 95758 (800) 884-1584 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711 I email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov November 7, 2018 Jana Moser 5900 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, California 90036 RE: Notice to Complainant?s Attorney DFEH Matter Number: 201811-04156507 Right to Sue: Isidro United Business Freight Forwarders LLC Dear Jana Moser: Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue. Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience. Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it meets procedural or statutory requirements. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing a, WWL GOVERNOR EDMUND O, eagwu 43 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING DIRECTOR KEVINKISH (800) 884-1684 (Voice) {800) 700-2320 (TTY) California?s Relay Service at 711 I email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov - \l ., 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove CA I 95758 My! November 7, 2018 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 201811-04156507 Right to Sue: Isidro United Business Freight Forwarders LLC 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. No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing ALE QF EAL EQRN A Business. Consumer Service: and Housing Agencv GOVERNOR EDMUND 6 BROWN JR 3? \5'1 . ii} DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING ?4 1 y; 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove CAI 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 l?l'l'Y) California's Relay Service at 711 November 7, 2018 Yobani Isidro RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 201811-04156507 Right to Sue: Isidro United Business Freight Forwarders LLC Dear Yobani Isidro, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective November 7, 2018 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 contact 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 OLOCONGUTLUJN 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 Yobani Isidro DFEH No. 201811-04156507 Complainant, vs. United Business Freight Forwarders LLC 669 Division Street Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201 Respondents 1. Respondent United Business Freight Forwarders LLC is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant Yobani Isidro, resides in the City of State of. 3. Complainant alleges that on or about May 30, 2018, respondent took the following adverse actions: Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's disability (physical or mental) and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, suspended, demoted, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment bene?t or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work opportunities or assignments. Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant requested or used a disability?related accommodation and as a result was terminated, suspended, demoted, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, failed to give equal considerations in making employment decisions, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability. Additional Complaint Details: Plaintiff worked for the Company as a driver from in or about January 2018 to May 2018. Plaintiff was based out of the Company?s center -1- Complaint DFEH No. 201811-04156507 Date Filed: November 7, 2018 located at 5829 Smithway Street, Los Angeles, California (the ?Smithway Center"). On or about April 7, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to his left ankle while working. Speci?cally, as Plaintiff was exiting the vehicle to deliver a package, he stepped into a pothole and sprained his ankle. As a result of this injury, Plaintiff had to undergo physical therapy, wear a leg brace, take prescription pain medication, and was placed off work until May 30, 2018. When Plaintiff tried to return to work, he met with the site manager, Jorge Reynoso. Plaintiff gave Reynoso a copy of his return-to-work note and asked why he was no longer on the schedule. Reynoso told Plaintiff it was because he had ?been off for a month,? and said he would call him in two weeks. While Plaintiff never received any termination paperwork from the Company, his employment was clearly terminated following this meeting. Reynoso never called Plaintiff to instruct him to return to work, and Plaintiff was never again put on the schedule to work, whether by text or by email. Indeed, whereas previously Plaintiff received weekly emails setting forth the schedules for drivers, he stopped receiving these emails after May 26, 2018. -2- Complaint DFEH No. 201811-04156507 Date Filed: November 7, 2018 VERIFICATION I, Jana M. Moser, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based on information and belief, which I believe to be true. On November 7, 2018, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Los Angeles, California -3- Complaint DFEH No. 201811-04156507 Date Filed: November 7, 2018