m?mm-AWNHowoo?am-thI??O Case 3:06-cv-05i. -MHP Document?l Filed 09/01i J6 Page1 of 24 VALERIE TOOHEY (State Bar No. 101999) JAMES R. (State Bar No. 181397) LLP 1516 Oak Street, Suite 105 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 8 14-3 785 acsunile: (510) 8 1 4-3 795 E-Mail: Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 MARIA PATRISLA RODRIGUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Francisco/Oakland Division) MARLA PATRISIA RODRIGUEZ CASE NO. CIVIL RIGHTS Plaintiff, COMPLAINT V. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF CONTRA MICHAEL HUBBARD, an Individual; PETER CONROY, an Individual; and DAVID HANSON an Individual, CHRISTOPHER SPADARO, an Individual, CHARLES PRANDI, an Individual, GREG GILBERT, an Individual, RICHARD FULLER, an Individual, and DAVID ADAMS, an Individual, Defendants. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff MARLA PATRISLA RODRIGUEZ has been a Deputy Sheriff with the Contra Costa County Sheriff? 8 Department for over 20 years. She brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices and to make COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 1 rCase 3:06-cv-054 MHP Document1 Filed 09/01/; ,6 PageZOf24 her whole. "Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and national origin by failing to prevent, and by permitting, and encouraging its supervisors and employees to subject Plaintiff to hostile work environment sexual and national origin harassment and sex-and national origin-based harassment in violation of Title VH, and that Defendant unlawfully retaliated against her for opposing such harassment and discrimination. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 1343 (to secure relief under acts providing for protection of civil rights), in that this case arises under federal statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000c, et seq. (?Title 2. Jurisdiction in this Court over Plaintiff?s claims arising under the law of the State of California is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) in. that all claims herein arising under both federal and state law are so related that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. 1367 3. Venue is proper in this district as all parties reside inthe Northern District of California and all acts alleged herein occurred in the district. 28 U.S.C. 1391. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 4. Plaintiff ?led charges of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing which issued "Right-to- Sue" letters. All requisite documents were served on Defendants as required by law. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff MARIA PATRISIA RODRIGUEZ is an adult female who has been employed by Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT for twenty years as a Deputy Sheriff. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff resided in El Sobrante, California. Plaintiff is an ?employee? within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e(t). 6. At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of California COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 2 Case 3:06-cv-054 MHP Document 1 Filed 09/01/2 ,6 Page 3 of 24 Government Code section 12940 subdivisions and which obligate employers to provide a work environment free from sexual harassment and to take all steps necessary to prevent and correct sexual harassment and?to refrain from retaliation against those who oppose or report sexual harassment. 7. Defendant WARREN E. RUPF, is the Sheriff, an elected of?cial, of Contra Costa County, and as such, is head of the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department. Defendant has continuously had and does now have at least ?fteen employees. Defendant was at all material times an employer whose Operations affect commerce, subject to the prohibitions contained within Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2 as well as California Government Code section 12940, subdiVisions and These statutes prohibit sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation for opposing sexual harassment and sex discrimination. 8. Defendant COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA is a political subdivision of the State of the State of California and is the employer, co-employer, or joint employer, of Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez, along with the Contra Costa County Sheriff?s? Department. 9. Defendant MICHAEL HUBBARD is a lieutenant with the Defendant Contra Costa Sheriff Department. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant HUBBARD is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all relevant times Defendant HUBBARD was a ?supervisory? employee in relation to Plaintiff. 10. Defendant PETER CONROY is a Sergeant employed by the Defendant Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant CONROY is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all relevant times Defendant Conroy was a ?supervisory? employee in relation to Plaintiff. 11. Defendant DAVID HANSON is a Corporal employed by the Defendant Contra Costa County Sheriff?s Department. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant HANSON is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. Plaintiff is further COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 3 Case 3:06-cv-054, AMHP Document1 Filed 09/01f} 26 Page4of 24 informed and believe that at all relevant times Defendant Hanson was a ?supervisory? employee in relation to Plaintiff. 12. Defendant CHRISTOPHER SPADARO is a Deputy employed by the Defendant Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant SPADARO is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. 13. - Defendant CHARLES PRANDI is a Deputy employed by the Defendant Contra Costa Sheriff?s Department. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant PRANDI is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. 14. Defendant DAVID ADAMS is a Deputy employed by the Defendant Contra C0sta Sheriff? 5 Department. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant ADAMS is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. 15. Defendant GREG GILBERT is a Captain employed by the Defendant Contra Costa Sheriff?s Department. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant GILBERT is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all relevant times Defendant GILBERT was a ?supervisory? employee in relation to Plaintiff. 16. Defendant RICH FULLER was a Deputy employed by the Defendant Contra Costa Sheriffs Department at all relevant times. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant FULLER is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. KEN. 17. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. Section because this is where Defendants and Plaintiff reside, and where the employment records relevant to Defendant?s unlawful employment practices are maintained. FACTS CONLMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 18. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez is a Mexican-American female, a naturalized United States citizen, born in Baj a California, Mexico. 19. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez has been employed by Defendant Contra Costa COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 4 i . Case 3:06-cv-054 MHP Document1 Filed 09/01/a .6 Page50f24 County Sheriffs Department for approximately twenty (20) years. 20. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez was initially hired as a per Diem Deputy Sheriff in 1984 by Defendant. She then took a sworn full?time job as a Deputy Marshal with the Contra Costa County Marshal?s Of?ce which was taken over by the Contra Costa County Sheriff?s Department in approximately 1988. Plaintiff works out the Court Services Division and her position is protected under California Government Code Sections 26625-266259. 21. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez was assigned to the Court Services Division, stationed at the Richmond Superior Court, known as ?Bay Court.? Plaintiff was the only female deputy sheriff permanently assigned to the Richmond Courthouse, as well as the only Hispanic deputy sheriff. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez was the 4?11 in seniority at the Courthouse. Her performance has always been satisfactory. 22. For nearly two decades, in order to keep her job, Plaintiff withstood the garnet of sexual harassment and differential treatment. 23. From the beginning of her employment, Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez was forced to change into her uniform using the same locker room as the men. Later, when a separate locker room was made available to Plaintiff Rodriguez, the male deputies would often walk in. 24. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez has been subjected to numerous sexually? offensive comments by male deputies, including routine remarks about her underwear. For example, male deputies repeatedly stated, ?when are you going to change your underwear? You?ve worn black underwear three days in a row.? 25. The situation became so bad that Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez had to wear her jogging pants under her street clothes to de?ect the comments. 26. Defendant HANSON remarked that while Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez was like a sister to him, he would be ?ok with incest.? 27. Defendant HANSON gave Plaintiff Rodriguez a ?G-string? to wear which he fashioned from an of?cial law enforcement patch. After giving it to Plaintiff Rodriguez, he told COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUFF, et a1. 5 Case 3:06-cv-054' Document1 Filed 09/01/4 16 PageGof 24 her to model it for the men. 28. For years, other women who were hired as Deputy Marshals or Deputy Sheriffs were forced to transfer to another division or to leave the department because the environment was and is so hostile to women. However, Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez had to support her family, so she stayed. 29. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez continued to be subjected to many sexual or sexist comments. 30. In addition, the male deputies, in full view of supervisors, regularly View pornography in the deputies? lounge and make lewd remarks about it. These comments and actions constitute a continuing violation and have created a sexually-hostile working environment. 31. In the past, Plaintiff was subjected to numerous unwelcome overtures and invitations by her then-co-worker, Defendant HUBBARD. He routinely stared at Plaintiff Rodriguez, asked Plaintiff Rodriguez out, asked Plaintiff Rodriguez to eat with him, asked Plaintiff Rodriguez to go places with him after work, and even asked to join Plaintiff Rodriguez when Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez went jogging on her lunch hour. Plaintiff consistently refused his advances. 32. In 2004, Defendant HUBBARD was promoted to Lieutenant and became Plaintiff?s supervisor. 33. In late 2004, Plaintiff was advised that Defendant HUBBARD was bragging that he was going to have Plaintiff transferred out of Court Services. 34. For ?ve (5) years Plaintiffs primary position had been the security deputy. This is a roving position responsible for security of the building, providing back up assistance to other deputies and relief for deputies on ?xed posts. 35. In late October 2004, Defendant CONROY was the assigned supervisor at Bay Court where Plaintiff was employed. 36. On or about March 7, 2005, Defendant CONROY-verbally reprimanded Plaintiff COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et al. 6 Case MHP Document1 Filed 09/01/ 6 Page7of 24 for brie?y watching television and posting a sign at the screening post when it was not busy. Plaintiff apologized and promised not to do this again as he had now informed her this was not acceptable behavior. 37. Watching television is conduct in which male deputies routinely engage Without repercussion. In addition, male deputies engage in far worse conduct, such as the open viewing of pornography and vulgar commentary on it. 38. This is conduct in which?non-Mexican deputies routinely engage without repercussion. In addition, non-Mexican deputies engage in far worse conduct. 39. Plaintiff protested to Defendant CONROY that she felt that he was unfairly singling her out for a verbal reprimand while his ?good old boys? 5-6 male deputies engaged in the same or worse behaviors-- which were routinely overlooked. Plaintiff suggested to Defendant CONROY that if he was going to correct her, he should also correct the male deputies? behavior. 40. Defendant CONROY became irate with Plaintiff, pounding his ?sts and swearing at her in a loud voice. CONROY told Plaintiff that she wasn?t going to win this one and his wife could tell Plaintiff that he didn?t lose arguments. 41. Plaintiff also told Defendant Conroy that she felt he was out of touch with what was happening at Bay Court; that he tended to hide himself away in the jail during the day and mostly associated with the white male deputies at Bay Court. 42. Plaintiff Maria Patrisia Rodriguez also protested that she believed Defendant CONROY was looking for opportunities to ?nd Plaintiff doing anything that could be interpreted as being outside of policies or rules, while relaxing or bending policies or rules to condone behaviors engaged in by the white male deputies which were much worse. 43. At the end of this discussion, Defendant CONROY stated that the matter was resolved with the corrective counseling session. 44. -On or about March 8, 2005, the day after Plaintiff confronted Defendant CONROY about subjecting her to differential treatment, Defendants then began subjecting Plaintiff COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 7 \Oooqam-thl?l Case 3:06-cv-054i MHP Document1 Filed 09/O1i. 16 Page80f24 Rodriguez to an escalating pattern and practice of retaliation and harassment 45. On or about March 8, 2005, Defendant CONROY held a staff meeting, but excluded Plaintiff Rodriguez. During the meeting, he advised the other deputies that Plaintiff was a troublemaker, and that she could cause problems for all of them if she involved or complained to Martinez (Sheriff Headquarters) about Bay Court affairs. He stressed to the deputies that ?we wash our dirty laundry here.? 46. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff was ostracized by most of the white (non- Mexican) and male deputies and courtroom personnel at Bay Court. For example, one of her duties was to provide regular afternoon relief for the deputy serving as jailor, taking over at 4:00 pm. The jail is the usual gathering place for deputies when they have leisure time. After March 8, 2005, when Plaintiff arrived to perform the relief duties, all of the deputies would stop talking and leave the area at once. 47. On or about March 16, 2005, as Plaintiff walked by Defendant CHRISTOPHER SPADARO, another Deputy, she heard a male voice broadcast over the radio in a whisper, ?traitor, traitor? in clear reference to Plaintiff. 48. On or about March 17, 2005, as Plaintiff was arriving for work, Defendant CHARLES PRANDI looked at Plaintiff Rodriguez and then toward several male deputies present and commented, ?what?s the matter with her, didn?t she take her medication today?? Defendant SPADARO joined in, stating, ?you mean her Prozac?? They all laughed at Plaintiff. Defendant PRANDI then remarked, ?she must be having female problems.? 49. On or about March 30, 2005, Plaintiff encountered Defendant PRANDI. As she turned down the hallway, the word ?snitch? was again broadcast across the radio slowly and deliberately. 50. On or about April 7, 2005, Defendant CONROY called Plaintiff to his of?ce. There, Defendant HUBBARD, acting in his official capacity as Lieutenant with the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department, served Plaintiff with the ?rst Cause of Action Reprimand concerning the March 7 2005 incident with Defendant CONROY. 51. On or about Friday, April 15, 2005,?P1aintiff ?led a written complaint with COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 8 \DOOQOth-huomi?l Niw r?I P?l r?A r?A n?A Case IMHP Document1 Filed 09/01/57 )6 Page90f24 Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF ?8 DEPARTMENT protesting the sexually- hostile work environment and discriminatory treatment she was receiving at Bay Court in Richmond. Plaintiff hand-delivered the complaint that 'day. 52. On or about Monday, April 18, 2005, Defendant GREG GILBERT and Defendant HUBBARD were waiting for Plaintiff as she arrived to work. Defendant GILBERT served Plaintiff with a Second Letter of Reprimand concerning the March 7 incident. 5 3. On or about May 10, 2005, as Plaintiff was leaving the jail area, a male voice broadcast, ?Snitch? across the radio. 54. On or about May 11, 2005, Defendant PRANDI broadcast across the radio, to Defendant DAVID ADAMS, in clear reference to Plaintiff, and in order to mock her, ?Hey Dave, 20, 66, do you know with whom one has to get permission to get their nails done when the sergeant isn?t here?? 55. On May 1 1, 2005, a deputy advised Plaintiff that Defendant ADAMS had approached him and commented, see you?re talking to the traitor,? after the other deputy had been seen speaking to Plaintiff. 56. On or about May 17, 2005 as Plaintiff was relieving another deputy in a courtroom, Defendant ADAMS glared at her through the glass window of the closed door in the hallway separating the courtroom from another Department. He stayed there staring at Plaintiff with an intimidating gaze for several minutes. It was so obvious that another deputy commented about it to Plaintiff. 57. Also on May 17, 2005, Defendant CONROY advised Plaintiff she would no longer be authorized to have physical therapy for a work-related injury she had suffered earlier and that any time used for physical therapy would be charged off of her sick leave. 58. On or about May 19, 2005 Plaintiff went into a conference room to write notes concerning the incidents of harassment and retaliation as she had been advised to do by Internal Affairs after ?ling her April 15 complaint. Defendant CONROY came in with two investigators from Internal Affairs who were investigating her April 15 complaint. 59. On or about May 24, 2005, Defendant CONROY called Plaintiff into his of?ce COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et al. 9 Case 3:06-cv-054? Document1 Filed 09/01/2?? 3 Page100f24 where Defendant HUBBARD was again waiting. In a loud, angry tone, Defendant HUBBARD accused Plaintiff of taking a break in an unauthorized break area and stated that he was going to return that afternoon and give Plaintiff a written reprimand. Plaintiff advised Defendant HUBBARD that she was not on a break on May 19, 2005; that she was doing what Internal Affairs had advised Plaintiff Rodriguez to do: write notes to keep track of incidents of harassment. and discrimination. 60. The harassment and retaliation caused Plaintiff so much stress that she became ill, and was required to take time off work from May 24, 2005 until June 6, 2005. 61. On or about May 25, 2005, Plaintiff ?led a formal complaint against Defendant HUBBARD for sexually?hostile treatment. 62. On or about June 6, 2005, Plaintiff returned to work. That day, she was again called into Defendant of?ce where Defendant HUBBARD informed Plaintiff that he was reassigning her from her Security position to the screening post, full time. This is the least- desirable assignment at Bay Court, and one which is assigned to deputies with the least seniority. Even then, it is not assigned to a deputy on a full-time basis. 63. Deputy Harrison, a non-Mexican male with far less seniority than Plaintiff Rodriguez, was assigned to her former position. 64. On or about June 7, 2005, Plaintiff reported to her new post. There, she was subjected to almost continual harassment and retaliation by Defendants. For example, Defendant CONROY routinely came to the post and stared at Plaintiff for extended periods of time. Defendants PRANDI and ADAMS approached Plaintiff?s post repeatedly to stare at her in a hostile and intimidating manner. 65. Thereafter, although other deputies were supposed to relieve Plaintiff Rodriguez for restroom breaks or relieve Plaintiff Rodriguez at 5:00 p.m.on Wednesdays to conduct a security building check before her shift ends at 5:30 pm, they repeatedly refused to do so 66. On or about July 5, 2005, at approximately 11:00 am, Plaintiff requested that Defendant CONROY send someone to relieve her for a restroom break as she had her menstrual period. Defendant CONROY refused, stating that he didn?t have anyone to relieve Plaintiff. COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 10 \DOquUl-kmNrCase 3:06-cv-054l MHP Document1 Filed 09/01/1 5 Page11of 24 Later, at 3:30 pm. when Plaintiff again asked Defendant CONROY to send someone to relieve her, CONROY replied that he would get back to Plaintiff, but never did. 67. On or about July 7, 2005, Plaintiff repeatedly called Defendant CONROY to request a restroom break, but he did not answer. Plaintiff was having her menstrual period and desperately needed to use the restroom. Plaintiff spoke with Defendant SPADARO and requested a restroom break, but he did not respond. Plaintiff later called several deputies. on the radio, but none responded. Finally, Plaintiff had to run to a courtroom?and ask the deputy there to come out of the courtroom to relieve Plaintiff so that she could use the restroom. By 4:30 still no relief had shown up, so Plaintiff again called Defendant CONROY and the jail, but no one answered. Plaintiff walked over to of?ce and found Defendants HANSON, SPADARO and Deputy Struth laughing and talking among themselves. When Plaintiff asked Why no one had come to relieve her, Defendant HANSON, who was acting supervisor, stated that he had no one to send, including himself, because he was ??xing the refrigerator.? 68. On or about July 8, 2005, at about 4:20 pm. Plaintiff again called Defendant CONROY for relief so that she could use the restroom. Again, he did not answer her call. Plaintiff called Defendant PRANDI and asked him to send her a relief deputy. He refused. Plaintiff ?nally found a deputy who was going off shift at 5:00 who agreed to relieve her so that she could go to the restroom. These types of incidents occurred repeatedly. 69. Male deputies who need to be relieved for restroom breaks are given them without incident. Most deputies have an assignment that allows them to leave their post at will to use the restroom. 70. On or about July 8, 2005, Plaintiff spoke with Judge Nancy Stark?Davis about being assigned to her courtroom. The Judge stated that she would like Plaintiff to be assigned to her, and would speak to the Captain to make this request. Judge Davis stated that she was not happy with the Deputy assigned to her courtroom. Plaintiff never received this assignment. Plaintiff believes that Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT refused to give her this assignment in retaliation for her complaining of unlawful harassment and discrimination. COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et al. 1 1 Case 3:06-cv-054i Document1 Filed 09/01/f 3 Page12 of 24 71. On or about July 11, 2005 Defendant CONROY called Plaintiff to his of?ce where Defendant HUBBARD and Sergeant Mullinich were also present. Defendant HUBBARD began to lecture her on what a break was and? stated that Defendant was not required to give Plaintiff a scheduled break because Defendant is exempt from federal law. However, Plaintiff did not request a scheduled break; only a break. Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT is required to give employees breaks during the workday. 72. On or about July 12, 2005 Plaintiff was threatened by Defendant SPADARO as she was driving to work. Plaintiff saw Defendant SPADARO in his car on the freeway. After he made contact with Plaintiff, he abruptly maneuvered his vehicle across two lanes so that he was directly behind her. Defendant SPADARO then followed Plaintiff off the freeway, tailgating her, and following her onto side streets. While Plaintiff was stopped at a light, he revved his car engine violently behind Plaintiff. When Plaintiff pulled into the post of?ce, he sped by her, again revving his engine. Plaintiff felt very threatened by these actions. 73. On or about July 14, 2005, Sergeant Mark Williams served Plaintiff Rodriguez with a notice of investigation charging Plaintiff Rodriguez with several violations of policies and procedures, including allegedly sexually harassing Defendant FULLER, conducting personal business on company time, kissing an employee on duty and untruthfulness. This notice was served on Plaintiff just two days before the start of a previously scheduled 5-week vacation. The untruthfulness charge, if upheld, is grounds for termination of a sheriff. The timing of the internal affairs notice held Plaintiff in a state of suspended terror during her ?Ve-week vacation from work. These allegations were made by the same deputies Plaintiff had accused of unlawful harassment, discrimination and retaliation and were clearly brought against her in further retaliation for her complaints. 74. On August 22, 2005, Plaintiff returned to work after a vacation. Thereafter, another deputy acted very surprised to see her and stated that he had heard Plaintiff was not returning to work. 75. After August 22, 2005 Defendants CONROY and PRANDI repeatedly walked by Plaintiff?s post and stared at Plaintiff in an intimidating and hostile manner. COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 12 WQONMAWNHOKDOOQQM-PWNHO Case 3:06-cv-054f .VIHP Document1 Filed 09/01/2 3 Page13 of 24 76. Most of the deputies continue to ignore Plaintiff when she walks into a room and do not respond to her greetings. Defendant SPADARO not only refuses to speak to Plaintiff when she greets him, but he responds to her greetings with a glare. 77. On September 7, 2005, Defendant CONROY asked Plaintiff what aSsignment she wanted to sign up for. Plaintiff requested her former position of security deputy, but he cut Plaintiff off and said he was only taking requests for time schedules. Plaintiff asked about sign- ups for new assignments which always occur during the ?rst week of September but Defendant CONROY replied that this was a change Lieutenant Hubbard had made. Plaintiff believes that Defendant HUBBARD held up the usual position assignments to force Plaintiff to stay in the unfavorable assignment Defendants gave Plaintiff and to favor and protect some of the white (non-Mexican) male Deputies. 78. In late August 2005 Plaintiff?s physician prescribed the use of an H?Wave machine for treatment of work-related injuries to Plaintiff?s back, shoulder and arm. Plaintiff advised Defendants that she was required to use the machine twice a day for 20 minutes, but Defendants only permitted Plaintiff to take one of the two required breaks, and forced her to take this break without pay. 79. On September 7, 2005, Defendant FULLER, the same individual who falsely charged Plaintiff with sexual harassment, was temporarily assigned to work with Plaintiff at Post One. Defendant FULLER made repeated sexual remarks to Plaintiff about the H?Wave machine she had to use, such as see you brought your sex toy, let?s play,? ?Oh yeah, you like rough sex, I?m first,? and ?yeah baby, we?re going to get freaky now; Who?s getting naked first?? On September 7, he also referred to the H?Wave Machine as her HDU (Home Detention Unit), a device used by the Sheriffs Department to monitor convicted criminals. He stated, I thought you were on home detention; isn?t that why you are on Post One?? He then proceeded to laugh at Plaintiff. 80. On September 9 and September 16, 2005 Plaintiff?s rear tires were de?ated at work. 81. On September 12, 2005, Defendant. HUBBARD showed Plaintiff a letter COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et al. 13 Case 3:06-cv-054i .VIHP Document1 Filed 09/01/2 3 Page14 of 24 concerning her sick leave balance. On September 16, Defendant CONROY informed Plaintiff that she had to submit an absent slip for each of the 20 minute breaks she took to use the H?Wave Unit prescribed by her doctor. On September 23, 2005 Plaintiff Was given a memorandum stating that she would be given two unpaid breaks to use the H-Wave machine, but that Defendant would determine when she could take the breaks. 82. On September 17, 21, 22, 2005, Plaintiff observed Defendant SPADARO repeatedly come to the landing above her while she was at her post and glare at Plaintiff for several minutes at a time. 83. On September 29, 2005, Plaintiff was given a memorandum about time off for medical appointments. 84. On or about October 1 1, 2005, Defendant assigned a white male per diem deputy to work for the day in Plaintiff?s former position of ?oating security deputy and on October 12, 2005 to work the morning courtr00m assignment. These positions were 'not offered to Plaintiff even though Plaintiff has far greater seniority. Instead, Defendant continued to assign Plaintiff to the worst post in the courthouse. 85. On or about October 14, 2005, Plaintiff discovered a Spanish language magazine in the female locker room. The magazine was open to a pornographic article, describing sexual acts. Plaintiff is the only Spanish-speaking deputy at Bay Court. 86. On or about'October 20, 2005, Plaintiff was called in for questioning by Defendant?s Internal Affairs of?cer Mark Williams. Plaintiff was charged with physical sexual harassment, on-duty kissing, conducting personal business on duty, having personal mail delivered to Work, taking a break in an unauthorized locale, and untruthfulness in describing Defendant angry demeanor in the incident described above. The charges were concocted by the same individuals who have subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment, sex?based harassment, discrimination and retaliation, including Defendants HUBBARD, CONROY, Defendant HANSON, PRANDI, FULLER, and SPADARO. 87. On or about October 28, 2005, Defendant HANSON, who was in charge that day, and another employee, saturated the female locker room, the Sheriff?s Of?ce and Plaintiff?s COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUFF, et a1. 14 Case 3:06-cv-0545 VIHP Document1 Filed_09/O1/f 3 Page15 of 24 screening post with a heavy fragrance. This was done deliberately to make her sick because Plaintiff had previously informed Defendants of her allergy to fragrances in a memorandum she wrote on July 11, 2005. Plaintiff became so ill that she was forced to leave work sick. 88. Plaintiff believes that Defendants have been trying to force her to resign because she opposed Defendants? unlawful conduct. They have made her work conditions so intolerable that she was forced to take a medical leave of absence from October 28, 2005 until April 2006. 89. Plaintiff believes that Defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY failed to implement an @5316 policy against sex- and national origin-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY were at all relevant times aware of their legal obligations regarding such policies policy, but made a conscious decision to ignore the law. The absence of such policies helped foster a discriminatory, retaliatory and hostile working environment at Defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY that led or contributed to the acts of sex-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation that give rise to this Complaint. 90. Defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY failed to establish an effective system or procedure to address, adequately, effectively and responsibly, complaints of sex-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, such as those made by Plaintiff. Again, these Defendants were at all relevant times aware of its legal obligations concerning such a system or procedure, but made a conscious decision to ignore the law. The absence of any such effective complaint system or procedure helped foster a discriminatory and hostile working environment at Defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and directly led or contributed to the acts of harassment, discrimination and retaliation experienced by Plaintiff. 91. Similarly situated male and/or non?Mexican employees received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment as compared to Plaintiff, all to COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et al. 15 00 \l 0\ U1 DJ v?I Case 3:06-cv-054E? .VIHP Document1 Filed 09/01/2 3 Page16 of 24 Plaintiff?s detriment. 92. Although Plaintiff complained repeatedly to Defendants? Internal Affairs Department about the sex-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Defendants failed and refused to take any action. Instead, as noted above, Defendant?s top-level supervisors encouraged other deputies to join in the sexually-hostile and abusive treatment of Plaintiff. 93. The sexual and sex?based harassment and discrimination by Defendants created an unbearably hostile and abusive working environment for Plaintiff. 94. Finally in 'or about August 2005, Plaintiff was forced to hire an attorney to help her with the harassment and retaliation she was continuing to be subjected to by Defendants. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Sexual and Sex-Based Harassment and Discrimination in Violation of Title VII Against Defendants WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT, and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) 95. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 94 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference as through fully set forth herein. 96. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff caused to have ?led a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. The US. Department of Justice issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue notice, and Plaintiff ?led her original complaint in this case within ninety days of her receipt of such right-to-sue notice. 97. Defendants through its agents and supervisors, has engaged in intentional, unlawful employment practices at its business establishment, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections by subjecting Plaintiff to unlawful sexual and sex-based harassment of a continuing nature, which constitutes discrimination because of her sex, female. Similarly-situated male employees are not treated in this fashion. 98. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex, female. COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 1-6 WQQMAWNHOKDOOQQMAUQNHO Case 3:06-cv-054E Document1 Filed 09/01/2" 3 Page17 of 24 99. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentional acts of discrimination against Plaintiff, she has sustained losses in earnings and interest on those losses, as well as losses of other employment bene?ts, recoverable pursuantvto 42 U.S.C. Section 2000c? 100. As a proximate result of Defendants? unlawful and intentional discrimination against her, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof, which may be recovered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a. 101. As a direct result of Defendants? conduct alleged above, Plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney and she has incurred, and continues to incur, legal expenses and attorneys? fees. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (National Origin Harassment and Discrimination in Violation of Title VII Against Defendants WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT, and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) 102. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 101 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference as through fully set forth herein. 103. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff caused to have ?led a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. The US. Department of Justice issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue notice, and Plaintiff filed her original complaint in this case within ninety days of her receipt of such right-to-sue notice. 104. Defendants through its agents and supervisors, has engaged in intentional, unlawful employment practices at its business establishment, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections by subjecting Plaintiff to unlawful national origin-based harassment and discrimination of a continuing nature, which constitutes discrimination because of her national origin, Mexico. Similarly-situated non-Mexican employees are not treated in this fashion. COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et al. 17 Case 3:06-cv-054? VIHP Document1 Filed 09/01/27 3 Page18 of 24 105. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her national origin, Mexico. 106. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentional acts of discrimination against Plaintiff, she has sustained losses in earnings and interest on those losses, as well as losses of other employment bene?ts, recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e- 107. As a proximate result of Defendants? unlawfuland intentional discrimination against her, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof, which may be recovered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a. 108. As a direct result of Defendants? conduct alleged above, Plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney and she has incmred, and continues to incur, legal expenses and attorneys? fees. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Title VII Against Defendants WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT, and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) 109. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 108 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference as through fully set forth herein. 110. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff ?led a charge of retaliation with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue notice, and Plaintiff ?led her original complaint in this case within ninety days or her receipt of such right-to-sue notice. 111. Defendants engaged in intentional, unlawful employment practices at its business establishment, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-3 by subjecting Plaintiff to unlawful retaliation, including but not limited to, wrongful discipline, differential treatment, poor COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 18 Case .VIHP Document1 Filed 09/01/2 3 Page190f24 work assignments, and creating an intolerably hostile and abusive environment for Plaintiff. 112. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because she opposed unlawful sexual harassment, sex-based harassment andsex discrimination. 113. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentional acts of - retaliation against Plaintiff, she has sustained losses in earnings and interest on those losses, as well as losses of other employment benefits, recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e- 114. As a proximate result of Defendants? unlawful and intentional retaliation against her, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof, which may be recovered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 198 la. 115. As a direct result of Defendants? conduct alleged above, Plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney and she has incurred, and continues to incur, legal expenses and attorneys? fees. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Supplemental State Claim - Violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act Government Code Section 12940 - Sexual and Sex-Based Harassment Against All Defendants) 116. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 116 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 117. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (1) and were in full force and effect and were binding on Defendants. These subsections require Defendant to refrain from sexually harassing its employees or co?workers and to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual and sex-based harassment from occurring. 118. The acts of Defendants, as described more fully above, consisting of sexually demeaning and hostile remarks, actions, staring, and threats, constitute sexual and sex-based COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 19 Case Document 1 Filed 09/01/1 3 Page 20 of 24 harassment in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (1), and 119. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff ?led charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging sexual and sex?based harassment against Defendants. The DF EH issued the requisite right-to?sue notices. 120. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentional acts of discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff, she has sustained losses in earnings and other employment bene?ts. 121. As a proximate result of Defendant?s willful, knowing and intentional discrimination and harassment against her, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress and mental pain and anguish. 122. The individual defendants? conduct, as described above, was willful, knowing and intentional. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages against the individual defendants. The individual Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively with the Wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of her rights. Such conduct was carried out, authorized and/or rati?ed by an owner, director or managing agent of Defendant. 123. As a direct result of the acts alleged above, Plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys? fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Supplemental State Claim - Violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act Government Code Section 12940 - National Origin Discrimination and National Origin-Based Harassment Against All Defendants) 124. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 123 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 125. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code section 12940, subdivisions COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et al. 20 Case 3:06-cv-054= VIHP Document1 Filed 09/01/22 3 Page 21 of 24 (1) and were in full force and effect and were binding on Defendants. These subsections require Defendant to refrain from harassing its employees or co-workers because of national origin and to take all reasonable steps to prevent national origin discrimination and harassment from occurring. 126. The acts of Defendants, as described more fully above, consisting of demeaning and hostile remarks, actions, staring, and threats, constitute national origin- based harassment and discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (1), and 127. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff ?led charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging national origin discrimination and harassment against Defendants. The DFEH issued the requisite right-to-sue notices. 128. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentional acts of discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff, she has sustained losses in earnings and other employment bene?ts. 129. As a proximate result of Defendant?s willful, knowing and intentional discrimination and harassment against her, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress and mental pain and anguish. 130. The individual defendants? conduct, as described above, was willful, knowing and intentional. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages against the individual defendants. The individual Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of her rights. Such conduct was carried out, authorized and/or rati?ed by an owner, director or managing agent of Defendant. 131. As a direct result of the acts alleged above, Plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys? fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b). COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 21 Ix.) i?t r?t r?n r?A i?A P?l Case 3:06-cv-054i leP Document1 Filed 09/01/2 3 Page 22 of24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Supplemental State Claim - Violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act Government Code Section 12940, subdivision - Retaliation Against All Defendants) 132. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 131 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 133. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code section 12940, subdivision was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants. This subsection makes it an unlawful act for Defendants to discriminate or retaliate against an employee because she has opposed any practices forbidden under that part or because the person has ?led a complaint, testi?ed or assisted in any proceeding under that part. 134. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff caused to have ?led charges with the DFEH alleging unlawful retaliation. The DFEH issued the requisite right-to?sue notices. 135. After Plaintiff complained to Defendants about sexual and national origin-based harassment and discrimination by Defendants, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff, by actions which include, but are not limited to, creating a hostile and abusive work environment for Plaintiff, assigning her to the least-desirable post, refusing to relieve her for restroom breaks, denying her favorable job assignments, hostile and threatening actions such as staring, following her in her automobile, damaging her automobile, referring to her as ?snitch,? saturating her work environment with heavy fragrance in order to make her sick. 136. As a proximate result of Defendant?s willful, knowing and intentional acts of retaliation against Plaintiff, she has sustained losses in earnings and other employment bene?ts. 137. As a proximate result of Defendant?s willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against her, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress and mental pain and anguish. 138. Defendant?s conduct, as described above, was willful, knowing and intentional. Accordingly, as to the individual defendants, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages. The individual Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 22 Case 3:06-cv-054r? VIHP Document1 Filed 09/01/2 3 Page 23 of 24 and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of her rights. Such conduct was carried out, authorized and/or ratified by a director or managing agent of Defendant. 139. As a direct cause of the acts alleged above, Plaintiff has had to hire the services of an attorney. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys? fees, and is entitled to an award of attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b). DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 1. For an order enjoining Defendant, and its employees, agents and any and all other persons acting on Defendant?s behalf or under Defendant?s control from violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000c et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Sections 12940 et seq. 2. For an order that Defendants institute and implement policies and practices to insure that employees are not subjected to sexual and national origin-based harassment, sex or national origin discrimination or retaliation. 3. For an order awarding Plaintiff actual and compensatory damages for violations of her civil rights pursuant to Title VH of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000c et seq. 4. For an order awarding Plaintiff actual and compensatory, and with respect to the individual defendants, punitive damages for violations of her civil rights pursuant to the California air Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Sections 12940 et seq. 5. For an order awarding interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 6. For an order awarding attomey?s fees; 7. For an order awarding costs of suit incurred; and COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 23 Case MHP Document1 Filed 8 Page 24 of 24 8. For an order awarding such other and further relief as the comt deems just and proper. Dated: September 1, 2006 By: s/ Valerie Toohey O?Dell Valerie Toohey O?Dell James R. O?Dell LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff MARIA PATRISLA RODRIGUEZ COMPLAINT RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, et a1. 24 RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MARIA PA RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, ETAL. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. COB-05410 MHP RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Release and Settlement Agreement is entered into as of March 3, 2008, and is made by and between the Plaintiff MARIA PATRISIA RODRIGUEZ and Defendants WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, MICHAEL HUBBARD, PETER CONROY, DAVID HANSON, CHRISTOPHER SPADARO, CHARLES PRANDI, GREG GILBERT, RICH FULLER and DAVID ADAMS A. RECITALS WHEREAS the Action, defined in Paragraph below, has been filed and claims have been asserted against the DEFENDANTS and others for damages arising out of claims of sexual, sex-based and national origin-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation during the employment of RODRIGUEZ with Contra Costa County at the Richmond courthouse during the 19803, 19903 and up to and including 2007; WHEREAS the DEFENDANTS and RODRIGUEZ wish to terminate this action in its entirety by settlement and release of claims; NOW THEREFORE, for good and-valuable consideration, it is hereby agreed as follows: B. DEFINITIONS 1. ?Action? means and refers to the action known as MARIA PATRISIA RODRIGUEZ v. WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, ETAL., United States District Court Case No. COS-05410 MHP. 2. ?Agreement? means this Release and Settlement Agreement. 3. means all defendants in this action and identified as WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, MICHAEL HUBBARD, PETER CONROY, DAVID HANSON, CHRISTOPHER SPADARO, CHARLES PRANDI, GREG GILBERT, RICH FULLER and DAVID ADAMS. 4. ?Court? means and refers to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 5. ?Parties? means the DEFENDANTS and RODRIGUEZ. 6. ?Person? means and refers to any individual, minor, proprietorship, corporation, partnership, association, trust, public entity, or any other type of legal entity with the capacity to sue or be sued in any proceeding of any type whatever. 7. ?Released Claims? means all claims of any kind released by RODRIGUEZ in Paragraph of this Agreement 8. ?Released Parties? means the DEFENDANTS, and their employers, successors, heirs, attorneys, agents, assigns, and any other Person or Persons who may be legally responsible for the actions or omissions of the DEFENDANTS. 9. ?Stipulation? means the Stipulation and Request for Dismissal with PrejudiCe in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. C. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION 1. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement settles all claims for damages, equitable relief, costs, attorney fees, and any other form of relief that was claimed or could have been claimed in the Action against DEFENDANTS. 2. Jurisdiction. The Court has, and shall continue to have, jurisdiction to make any orders as may be proper and necessary to effectuate, and enforce, on a continuing basis, the terms and conditions of this Agreement. D. SETTLEMENT TERMS 1. Terms. Within 14 days of the full execution of this Agreement and the Stipulation and Request for Dismissal attached as Exhibit A, DEFENDANTS, by and through their counsel, will tender to RODRIGUEZ, by and through her counsel, a Check made payable to Maria Patrisia Rodriguez and her attorneys of record, O?Dell O?Dell in the amount of 9857.38 The check shall be delivered to the office of attorney by first class mail, or other method agreed to by both counsel g3 2. Additional Terms. RODRIGUEZ shall remain on PAID Leave of Absence from March 3, 2008 until her retirement from County employment on or before October 12, 2009, with RODRIGUEZ continuing to accrue her employment benefits until her retirement on or before October 12, 2009, and the County continuing to pay its share of employer paid benefits costs (retirement, medica and dental), until her retirement on or before October 12, 2009. RODRIGUEZ will tender forthwith, as a condition of this settlement, an irrevocable letter of resignation of employment with effective date of October 12, 2009. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit B. RODRIGUEZ will sign and tender to counsel her letter of resignation in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E. FEES AND COSTS RODRIGUEZ specifically agrees that by executing this Agreement and accepting payment under this Agreement, in addition to and not in derogation of any other release given under this Agreement, she releases all claims for attorney fees, costs, and any other expenses of claims, suits or litigation whatsoever arising out of or relating to the claims, against DEFENDANTS only, in this Action. DEFENDANTS also release all claims for attorney fees and costs related to defense of this Action. F. RELEASE OF CLAIMS 1. Release. RODRIGUEZ hereby releases and forever discharges the DEFENDANTS and the Released Parties from any and all actions, suits at law or in equity, litigation, claims, demands or damages, of whatsoever kind or nature, including but not limited to attorney fees and costs, whether or not known, suspected or claimed, which RODRIGUEZ ever raised in this Action or could have raised in this Action, which she had or may have by reason of any act, omission or occurrence in any manner relating to, concerning or arising out of any act or omission by the DEFENDANTS. 2. Civil Code Section 1542. To the fullest extent permitted by law, RODRIGUEZ waives any and all rights or benefits she has or may have under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, or any comparable provision of state or federal law, with regard to the Released Claims. Section 1542 provides: A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his agreement with the debtor. RODRIGUEZ acknowledges that she is aware that she may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those now known or believed to be true with respect to the Released Claims, the DEFENDANTS, or the subject matter of this Agreement. RODRIGUEZ acknowledges that she intends to and does fully, finally and forever settle and release by this Agreement any and all claims described herein relating to DEFENDANTS, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts. 3. Warranty re Transfer of Claims. RODRIGUEZ warrants that she has made no assignment, transfer, conveyance or other disposition of any of the Released Claims and she is fully entitled to give a full and complete release of all such Released Claims. 4. Warranty re Advice. RODRIGUEZ warrants that she has been fully advised regarding the terms of this Agreement and has agreed thereto. RODRIGUEZ hereby acknowledges that she has been represented by counsel throughout all negotiations which preceded the execution of this Agreement and that this Agreement has been executed with the consent and advice of said counsel. G. DENIAL OF LIABILITY By entering into this Agreement, it is understood that the DEFENDANTS do not admit, and to the contrary, expressly deny that they have breached any duty, obligation or agreement, or engaged in any tortious or wrongful activity, or that they are liable to RODRIGUEZ or any other Person, or that any injuries, damages or harms of any kind have been sustained by RODRIGUEZ. H. NOTICES All notices, requests, demands and other communications required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be delivered personally or mailed, postage prepaid, by first class mail to the undersigned persons at their respective addresses as set forth below. Counsel for RODRIGUEZ: 887 Island Drive, Suite Alameda, CA 95402 Counsel for the DEFENDANTS: Silvano B. Marchesi, County Counsel Janet L. Holmes, Deputy County Counsel 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553. I. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement supersedes any and all other prior agreements and all negotiations leading up to the execution of this Agreement, whether oral or in writing, between the Parties with respect to settlement. The Parties acknowledge that no representations, inducements, promises or statements, oral otherwise, have been made by any of the Parties or by anyone 8 acting on behalf of the Parties which are not embodied or incorporated by reference herein and further agree that no other covenant, representation, inducement, promise or statement not set forth in this shall be valid or binding. J. MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT This Agreement may not be modified or amended except in a writing signed by counsel for RODRIGUEZ and counsel for the DEFENDANTS. K. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION This Agreement shall be construed, enforced and administered in accordance with California law. The drafting and negotiating of this Agreement have been participated in by counsel for each of the Parties, and any rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguity is to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied to the interpretation of this Agreement. L. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. M. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of RODRIGUEZ, the DEFENDANTS, the Released Parties and their respective assigns, heirs, predecessors and successors in interest, trustees and any trustee in bankruptcy or debtor in possession. N. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS The headings of the sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not be deemed to constitute part of this Agreement or to affect its construction. O. DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS AND THE RELEASED PARTIES Within 10 days of execution of this Agreement by the Parties, RODRIGUEZ shall file or caused to be filed in the Action a Stipulation and Request for Dismissal With Prejudice in the form provided in Exhibit A to this Agreement. WHEREFORE, the undersigned acknowledge and agree to the terms of the Agreement. DATED: 03/ /0 8? DATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY COUNSEL: Dated: Silvano B. Marchesi I I UK Lf County ounsel By: Janet L. Holmes . Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for DEFENDANTS Dated: 3&9w I . By: gfg?uowe do?hg (9 Valerie O?Dell *9 Attorneys for Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ Maria Patrisia Rodriguez Contra Cost County Employee Number Contra Costa County Human Resources Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes notice of my resignation from my position as a County Costa County Deputy Sheriff, effective October 12, 2009, at which time I will take advantage of the County?s retirement program. Dated: cox/g/ 2008 Signed: VU QTERMARK HEB ATTY RODRIGUES, -. . vonb?six? -7 ig?l?E-S?DCi??ng 7 DATEOFISSQE A '94502 7 1 w?wr CQUNTY AUDITOR LEES DETELLW