SUM-100 (assessors, NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (A VISO AL DEMANDADO): San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency; City and County of San Francisco; John Haley, an individual, and Does 1-15, inclusive, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Lee Summerlott You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and iegal papers are served on you to ?le a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center courtinfo. ca. gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the ?ling fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not ?le your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site lawhelpcalifornia. org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center courtinfo. ca. gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corie puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci?n a continuacion. Trene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despu?s de que le entreguen esla cilaci?n papeles legales para presenter una respuesta por escrilo en esta corle hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta una llamao?a teiefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesla por escrito liene que eslar en formalo legal correclo si desea que procesen su caso en la cone. Es posibie que haya un formulario que usled pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede enconlrar estos formularios de la corte mas informacion en 9! Centro de Ayucla de las Cortes de California en la biblioteca de [eyes de su condado 0 en la con?e que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pager la cuota de presentacion, pida ai secretario de la cort'e que le d? un formuiario de exenci?n de page do cuolas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimienfo la corte ie podra quitar su sueldo, dinero bienes sin mas adverfencia. Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que ilame a un abogado inmedialamenfe. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posibie que cumpla con los requisites para obfener servicios Iegales gratuilos de un programa de servicios legaies sin ?nes de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin ?nes de lucro en el silio web de California Legal Services, en ei Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, poni?ndose en contacto con la corte 0 el coiegio do abogados locales. AVISO: Por iey, la corte liene derecho a reclamar las cuotas los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperaci?n o?e $10,000 0 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Trene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER: (El nombre ydireccion de la corte es): Superior Court of California, County of (iN?e??enf?mCalifornia, County of San Francisco, 400 McAllister Street, San . Francisco, CA 941 10. The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff?s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion el numero de tel?fono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Arlo Uriarte, Liberation Law Group, P.C., 2760 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94110. (415) 695-1000. DATE: Clerk, . Deputy (Fecha) 1 6 20% Clerk 0i ihe COUPE (Secretgrio) - 1% (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form (Para prueba de enfrega de esta citalic?m use el formulario Proof of Service of Summon ANGELICA SUNGA NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served I: as an individual defendant. 2. as the person Sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3_ i:l on behalf of (specify): under: Cl cop 416.10 (corporation) cop 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) :1 GOP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) Ci other (specify): 4. by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure 412.20. 465 Judicial Council of California SUMMONS SUM-100 [Rev July 1. 2009] OO-JONUIL Arlo G. Un'arte, SBN 231764 Daniel P. Iannitelli, SBN 203388 LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C. . 2760 Mission Street a, 9 San Francisco, CA 94110 . SUPERIOR COURT Telephone: (415) 695?1000 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Facsimile: (415) 695-1006 MAR 1 6' 2020 CLE T, 5 0281131? Attorneys for Plaintiff . Deputy Clerk ANGELICA SUNGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LeeSummerlott, CaseNo? Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF vs. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency; City and County of San Francisco; John Haley, an individual, and Does 1-15, inclusive, Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff Lee Summerlott hereby alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court is the proper Court because the alleged damages exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 2. Venue is proper because the Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, and the conduct underlying the alleged violations of law, occurred within the City County of San Francisco. (See Cal. Gov. Code 12965, subd. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Lee Summerlott (hereinafter referred to as Summerlott or ?Plaintiff?) is a natural person who is a resident of the State of California. 4. Defendant City and County of San Francisco is a municipal corporation organized under the laws and Constitution of the State of California and is an entity capable of suing and being sued. 5. Defendant San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is a department and/or agency controlled and operated by Defendant CITY and is an entity capable of suing and being sued. 6. Defendant John Haley is an individual and, at all times relevant herein, the Director of Transit for SFMTA and a CITY employee. Defendant John HALEY is sued for damages in his individual capacity for harassment (Govt. Code and intentional in?iction of emotional distress. 7. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 15, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such ?ctitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each ?ctitiously-named Defendant is re5ponsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, that the damages as alleged herein were directly and proximately caused by each such ?ctitiously?named defendant, and that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested herein against each such ?ctitiously-named defendant. .2 COMPLAINT Reference herein to ?Defendant? without other limitation shall include all speci?cally and ?ctitiously named Defendant, including Defendant who were the of?cers, directors, and/or managing agents of other Defendant. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to Defendant, such reference shall include each and every speci?cally and ?ctitiously named defendant individually, jointly, and severally. 9. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, each of Defendant was the agent, employee, and/or partner of, and/or was working in concert with, each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, each was acting Within the course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, and/or concerted activity. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereupon alleges that to the extent certain acts and/or omissions were undertaken by certain Defendants and each and every other Defendants knew of such acts and/or omissions and authorized, consented to, con?rmed, adopted, approved, and/or rati?ed each and every such act and/0r omission. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. At all times relevant, Plaintiff Lee Summerlott was employed as the Deputy Director of Rail Maintenance for Defendant SFMTA. 11. Prior to joining SFMTA, Plaintiff enjoyed a highly successful, 30-year career in light rail vehicle (LRV) rail maintenance for the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. During his career, Plaintiff?s dedication, skills and management ability lead his rise from a trolley apprentice in 1984 to the Superintendent of Light Weight Rail Maintenance in 2007. During his tenure as Superintendent, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System was consistently recognized as one of the best-maintained large-city rail systems in the North American transit industry. 12. Following a recruitment process by SFMTA and CITY to ?nd a candidate to ?x is notoriously poor rail maintenance record, Plaintiff began his employment as the Deputy Director of Rail Maintenance for SFMTA in December 2014. 13. During his tenure, Plaintiff? reorganization and leadership of rail maintenance division lead to signi?cant improvement in railcar maintenance and the miles driven between repairs. During his ?rst year, alone he was able to?increase in-service miles by 3 COMPLAINT approximately thirty percent (3 and consistently received positive ratings and feedback in his annual evaluations by his superior, Defendant HALEY. 14. At all times relevant, Plaintiff suffered from a qualified spine disability that impacted major life functions, including walking, which Defendants were aware of and for which he required intermittent leave for treatment. Additionally, in or around August 2017, Plaintiff slipped on grease in a repair pit sustaining serious injury to his back. Over the following year, Plaintiff?s mobility was substantially limited by his disability and injury, requiring further treatment and leave. 15. In or around January 2018, Plaintiff was contacted by Equal Employment Opportunity Of?ce (EEO) regarding allegations of sexual harassment against Defendant HALEY by a female employee. At, the request of investigating EEO member, Plaintiff submitted to an interview regarding the allegations against Defendant HALEY. 16. In or around February 2018, Defendant HALEY sent an email to Plaintiff highly critical of his performance and instructed Plaintiff to create a performance improvement plan for himself. 17. The performance critique by Defendant HALEY was baseless and made in response to Plaintiff? 3 interview with the EEO investigator. It did not re?ect the work performed by Plaintiff and the increased maintenance performance he achieved during?his tenure. The critique was contrary to the performance evaluation Defendant HALEY issued for Plaintiff only seven-months earlier during his annual performance review. And the surprise and unsubstantiated performance review occurred ?ve months prior to Plaintiff?s regularly scheduled review. 18. Shortly after the email, Plaintiff and Defendant HALEY met to discuss the alleged performance issues and improvement plan. Although Plaintiff did not believe the criticism were meritorious, he was eager to resolve any concerns of Defendant HALEY and agreed to an improvement plan that contemplated regular updates to, and meetings with, Defendant HALEY. 19. Despite Plaintiff? efforts, Defendant HALEY ignored the reports, emails and repeated requests to meet by Plaintiff regarding the alleged performance issues in the months that followed their meeting. 4 COMPLAINT 20. Based on his experience observing Defendant HALEY and his management of employees, including Defendant retaliatory conduct toward employees, Plaintiff was concerned that Defendant HALEY was attempting to set?up Plaintiff for a termination. In addition to the false performance issues and refusal to meet with Plaintiff, Defendant HALEY excluded Plaintiff from important meetings and assigned some of Plaintiff?s duties to other employees. 21. In or around April 2018, Plaintiff met with the EEO investigator who interviewed him and complained about the retaliatory treatment he was receiving from Defendant HALEY since the interview. Despite expressly telling the EEO investigator that he was being retaliated against and that it was causing him emotional distress, no action was taken by Defendants CITY and SFMTA in response to his complaint. 22. Faced with the retaliatory and harassing conduct of Defendant HALEY, and the fact that the CITY and SFMTA failed to take any action on his complaint, Plaintiff knew it was only a matter of time before Defendant HALEY terminated him. Concerned for his reputation and ?arther career aspirations, Plaintiff looked at early retirement as a means to exit the toxic culture at SF MTA fostered by Defendant HALEY and not be terminated before he could ?nd a new job. 23. Due to the harassing conduct of Defendant HALEY, and the failure of SFMTA and CITY to investigate and address his complaints, Plaintiff, although he did not want to retire, began the retirement process ultimately targeting October 2018 for his retirement date. 24. In or around August 2018, Plaintiff was ordered-off work for treatments related to his work-place injury. Plaintiff? 3 physician extended the leave until September 14, 2018, which was accepted by Defendants CITY and SFMTA. Due to his poor condition, Plaintiff?s physician subsequently ordered that he take further time-off to recover. DeSpite Plaintiff physician?s order, Defendant HALEY denied the extension of leave and required Plaintiff to return to work. 25. On September ?14, 2018, Plaintiff returned to work and was met with surprise by subordinates who stated they had been previously advised he had been terminated. Humiliated, Plaintiff gathered his belongings and quietly left. The next day, he received a letter advising him that he had been terminated. Defendant HALEY, knowing Plaintiff had was to retire the 5 COMPLAINT following month, sought to both punish Plaintiff and make an example of him, ordered, directed and/or caused Plaintiff?s termination. The punishment was retaliation for his protected activities and the example was made to show others in his department what happens when you assist in an investigation against Defendant HALEY. Defendants CITY and SFMTA rati?ed the actions of Defendant HALEY. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Unlawful Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against Defendants CITY and 26. By this reference, Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph set forth above as though fully set forth at this place. 27. Pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereinafter the it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge a person from employment or to discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee?s sex, age, disability, or perceived disability. (Cal. Gov. Code 12940, subd. 28. Pursuant to the FEHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against any person who has opposed any practice forbidden by FEHA, including discrimination and harassment based on gender. (Cal. Gov. Code 12940, subd. 29. As alleged herein, Plaintiff opposed Defendant harassment and discrimination based on the gender of other employees and agreed to provide information to EEO investigator. Defendants SFMTA, CITY and HALEY subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, harassment, termination and refusal to reinstate. 30. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and on that basis, alleges Defendant conduct of harassment and discrimination based on the gender of other employees, were a substantial and motivating factor in Defendants? adverse employment actions taken against Plaintiff. 31. Defendants? discriminatory actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, constituted unlawful discrimination in employment on account of the gender of a co-worker. 6 COMPLAINT 32. At'all relevant times, Plaintiff suffered from physical disabilities and medical conditions protected under the EHA, of which Defendants had knowledge. Additionally, Defendant CITY and SMFTA knew that, in or around August 2017, Plaintiff suffered a work- place accident resulting in injuries impacting his ability to work. 33. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of Plaintiff 3 physical disabilities and medical conditions, and perceived Plaintiff to have physical disabilities and medical conditions. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties of his position with reasonable accommodations. 34. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions that include, but not limited to unlawful termination, refusal to promote, refusal to extend medical leave, refusal to reinstate and adverse changes in working conditions. . 35. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and on that basis, alleges that Plaintiff actual disabilities and/or medical conditions, and perceived disabilities and/or medical conditions, were each a substantial and motivating factor in Defendants? adverse employment actions taken against him. Defendants? discriminatory actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, constituted unlawful discrimination in employment on account of actual physical disability and/ or medical conditions, and perceived physical disability and/or medical conditions. 36. As a proximate result of Defendants? adverse employment actions, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the loss of wages and bene?ts; has suffered and continues to suffer mental and emotional distress, and discomfort; and has suffered the loss of additional amounts of money she would have received if he had not suffered discriminatory discharge and discrimination in the terms of his employment by Defendants. As a result of such discrimination and harm, Plaintiff has suffered damages according to proof at trial, 37. On March 18, 2019, and within one year of the date of the last discriminatory acts alleged here against Defendants by Plaintiff, Plaintiff ?led charges of discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). On March 18, 2019, the DFEH issued a right to sue letter to Plaintiff. A copy of the charge, as well as the right-to-sue notice on behalf of Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference. 7 COMPLAINT September 1 1, 2019, and withing one year of the date of the last discriminatory acts alleged herein against Defendants by Plaintiff, Plaintiff emended his charges of discrimination with the DFEH. A copy of the amended complaint of discrimination is attached hereto as Exhibit and is incorporated herein by reference. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION [Retaliation in Violation of the EEHA Against Defendants CITY and 39. By this reference, Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph set forth above as though fully set forth at this place. I 40. Pursuant to the EHA, Plaintiff?s participation as a witness in a sexual harassment investigation is a protected activity (Cal. Gov. Code 12940, subd. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff, as alleged herein, for participating as a witness in a sexual harassment and discrimination investigation conducted by the EEO. 41. Pursuant to the FEHA, Plaintiff? 3 request for accommodations for his physical disabilities, medical condition, and/or perceived disabilities and medical condition, is a protected activity. Defendants retailed against Plaintiff, as alleged herein, for requesting and obtaining accommodations/medical leave for his physical his physical disabilities, medical condition, and/or perceived disabilities and medical condition. 42. As a proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff suffered loss of wages, salary, bene?ts, intangible loss of such employment-related opportunities such as experience in the positions sought by Plaintiff, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received if Plaintiff had been properly employed, promoted, and received proper wage increases. Because of such discrimination and consequent harm, Plaintiff suffered such damages in an amount according to proof. 43. As a proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff suffered anxiety, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish, and accompanying physical manifestations. Plaintiff will prove his damages at trial. 8 COMPLAINT 44. Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Gov?t. Code ?12965(b); and request interest in the amount permitted under Cal. Civil Code 3287 and 3288. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION [Harassment/Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA Against All Defendants] 45. By this reference, Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph set forth above as though fully set forth at this place. 46. Pursuant to the FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to harass an employee because of sex, gender, age and physical disability (Cal. Gov. Code 12940, subd. 47. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct by Defendant HALEY because Plaintiff participated in a sexual harassment investigation by the EEO and because of Plaintiff?s physical disability and medical leave requests. 48. The above described conduct was severe and pervasive such that reasonable or persons in Plaintiff? circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. As alleged above, Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 49. Defendant HALEY ceased and abandoned his working relationship with Plaintiff and constructively demoted Plaintiff by assigning his responsibilities to Plaintiff?s subordinates and re?lsing to meet with Plaintiff on operational matters or the alleged performance concerns he raised. 50. Defendants CITY and SFMTA had actual notice of Defendant harassing and retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff but failed to take immediate and appropriate action. . Furthermore, Defendant CITY and SFMTA were aware of many complaints against Defendant HALEY by employees of SFMTA for abusive and illegal conduct, both prior to and after Plaintiff was hired, yet did nothing to stop Defendant HALEY from harming employees with impunity. 51. As a proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff suffered loss of wages, salary, bene?ts, intangible loss of such employment-related opportunities such as experience in 9 COMPLAINT the positions sought by Plaintiff, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received if Plaintiff had been properly employed, promoted, and received proper wage increases. Because of such discrimination and consequent harm, Plaintiff suffered such damages in an amount according to proof. 52. As a proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff suffered anxiety, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish, and accompanying physical manifestations. Plaintiff will prove their damages at trial. 5 3. The conduct of Defendant HALEY was oppressive, malicious, deliberate, willful, and with conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendant HALEY, only, in order to deter him from such conduct in the future. 54. Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Gov?t. Code ?12965(b) against all Defendants; and request interest in the amount permitted under Cal. Civil Code 3287 and 3288. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION [Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Against Defendants CITY and 55. By this reference, Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph set forth above as though fully set forth at this place. 56. California Government Code Section 12940(k) requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. Defendant CITY and SFMTA violated this subsection by failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring in violation of section 12940(k). Defendant CITY and SMF TA are required to provide a workplace free of discrimination and harassment on the basis of participating in internal sexual harassment investigations, physical disability, sex and gender discrimination, and to correct and prevent such conditions once they are known. 57. As alleged herein, Plaintiff complained to Defendant CITY and SFMTA about the harassment and discrimination he was subjected to on the basis of his participation in the internal 10 COMPLAINT sexual harassment investigation against Defendant HALEY, but Defendant CITY and SFMTA failed to adequately investigate and correct the discrimination and harassment. Defendants CITY and SFMTA had actual notice of Defendant harassing and retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff but failed to take immediate and appropriate action. Furthermore, Defendant CITY and SFMTA were aware of many complaints against Defendant HALEY by employees of SFMTA for abusive and illegal conduct, both prior to and after Plaintiff was hired, yet did nothing stop Defendant HALEY from harming employees with impunity. 58. Defendant CITY and SFMTA failed to adequately investigate Defendant conduct, failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent him from further discrimination and harassment. 59. As a proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff suffered loss of wages, salary, bene?ts, intangible loss of such employment?related opportunities such as experience in the positions sought by Plaintiff, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received if Plaintiff had been properly employed, promoted, and received proper wage increases. Because of such discrimination and consequent harm, Plaintiff suffered such damages in an amount according to proof. 60. As a proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff suffered anxiety, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish, and accompanying physical manifestations. Plaintiff will prove their damages at trial. 61. Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Gov?t. Code ?12965(b). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION [Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the FEHA against Defendants CITY and 62. The allegations set out in all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated here by reference. 63. Pursuant to FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to make reasonable accommodations for a person with a known physical disability, in response to 11 COMPLAINT OOKJON request for reasonable accommodation by an employee applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. 64. Despite Defendants? awareness of Plaintiff?s disabilities, Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate his needs based on his physical disabilities, including, but not limited to providing Plaintiff reasonable time off for medical treatments and recover. 65. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the duties and functions of the position if reasonable accommodations had been made by Defendants. 66. Accommodation of Plaintiffs needs based on his physical disabilities would not have imposed an undue hardship on Defendants. 67. As a proximate result of Defendants? failure to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff, she has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered the loss of wages and bene?ts; has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort; and has suffered the loss of additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received if he had not suffered a failure to reasonably accommodate by Defendants. As a result of such discrimination and harm, Plaintiff has suffered damages according to proof at trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION [Failure to Engage in Interactive Process in Violation 1 of the FEHA against Defendants SFMTA and 68. The allegations set out in all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated here by reference. 69. Pursuant to FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. 70. Defendant SFMTA and CITY knew about Plaintiff?s disability and medical condition and his physician?s orders to place him on medical leave. Plaintiff sought and requested 12 COMPLAINT leave as required by his physician, but was denied and required to return to work prior to the expiration of the medical leave. 71. Plaintiff was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made. 72. Defendants failed to participate in a good-faith interactive process with Plaintiff to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be continued or made. 73. As a proximate result of Defendant CITY and SFMTA actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff suffered the loss of wages, salary, bene?ts, intangible loss of such employment?related Opportunities such as experience in the positions held and sought by Plaintiff, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received if Plaintiff had been properly promoted, received proper wage increases. As a result of Defendant CITY and actions and consequent harm, Plaintiff has suffered such damages in an amount according to proof. 74. As a proximate result of Defendant CITY and SF actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, including humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body. 75. Plaintiff request an award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to Gov?t. Code ?12965(b); and request interest in the amount permitted under Cal. Civil Code 3287 and 3288. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION [Retaliation in Violation of California Family Rights Act against CITY and 76. By this reference, Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph set forth above as though fully set forth at this place. 77. Pursuant to the California Family Rights Act (hereinafter CFRA), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, ?ne, suspend, or discriminate against an 13 COMPLAINT employee for exercising their right to family care and medical leave. (Cal. Gov. Code subd. 78. In response to Plaintiffs request, use and request for additional leave under the CRFRA, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions by denying him further leave as directed by his physician and terminating his employment, in part, on the basis of his disability. 79. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and on that basis, alleges that Plaintiff 3 request for medical leave was a substantial and motivating factor for Defendants taking adverse employment actions against him. 80. As a proximate result of Defendants? adverse employment action, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the loss of wages and bene?ts; has suffered and continues to suffer mental and emotional distress, and discomfort; and has suffered the loss of additional amounts of money he would have received if he had not suffered termination. As a result of such harm, Plaintiff has suffered damages according to proof at trial. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION [Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against All Defendants] 81. By this reference, Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph set forth above as though fully set forth at this place. 82. Defendants? conduct in the manner in which Defendant HALEY orchestrated the termination of Plaintiff was outrageous conduct. Defendant HALEY wanted to in?ict the maximum amount of humiliation on Plaintiff. Defendant HALEY wanted to make an example of Plaintiff and show his supervised department what happens when you assist in an investigation against Defendant HALEY. Defendant HALEY knew that Plaintiff was planning to retire in the months that followed. Such manner of leaving SFMTA would have resulted in a less stressful, face saving, career af?rming exit for Plaintiff from SFMTA. Instead, Defendant HALEY wanted to stain the career of Plaintiff and cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. Disgracefully, the actions of Defendant HALEY were rati?ed by all other Defendants. l4 COMPLAINT 83. The actions alleged in the preceding paragraphs related to terminating, discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff was outrageous conduct and was intentional and/or done with reckless disregard toward Plaintiff. 84. As a result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff lost his job and income, lost career opportunities and caused him to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, and severe mental and emotional anguish and distress. 85. As a proximate result of Defendants? outrageous conduct towards Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages from anxiety, emotional distress, mental anguish, and accompanying physical manifestations in an amount to be proven at trial. 86. Defendant actions in in?icting emotional distress on Plaintiff were taken with oppression and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Through this exploitation of Plaintiff, Defendant HALEY engaged in despicable conduct, amounting to malice, oppression, or fraud that subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages ?'om Defendant HALEY only in an amount according to proof. PRAYER Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: a. For compensatory damages as follows: i. For back pay, and other monetary relief according to proof at trial; ii. For general damages according to proof at trial; b. For punitive damages, only against Defendant JOHN HALEY in an amount suf?cient to punish and deter his conduct, and to set an example for others; 15 COMPLAINT For reasonable attorneys? fees and costs, including expert witness fees, pursuant to Government Code section 12965, in an amount according to proof; d. e. f. Dated: March 6, 2020 Interest available, past and post judgment; For costs of suit; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 COMPLAINT "?3555 N. f3 ?35? gm DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING $351 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove CA I 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) 1 (800) 700-2320 (TTY) California's Relay Service at 711 (?Eagyg? Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov March 18, 2019 Lee Summerlott 15650 Indian Head Ramona, California 92065 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 201903-05491919 Right to Sue: Summerlott City and County of San Francisco et al. Dear Lee Summerlott, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective March 18, 2019 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 N-N _x A .4 _t 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 Lee Summerlott DFEH N0. 201903-05491919 Complainant, vs. City and County of San Francisco 1 Dr. Carlton Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 1 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94103 Respondents 1. Respondent City and County of San Francisco is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant Lee Summerlott,_resides in the City of Ramona State of California. 3. Complainant alleges that on or about September 14, 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, reprimanded, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability. Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint, requested or used leave under the california family rights act or fmla (employers of 50 or more people) and as a result was terminated, reprimanded, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability. -1 Complaint DF EH No. 201903-05491919 Date Filed: March 18, 2019 Additional Complaint Details: Claimant Lee Summerlott was the Deputy Director of Rail Maintenance for Respondents City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and reported to Defendant John Haley, from December 2014 until his termination on September 14, 2018. Claimant exceeded benchmarks with respect to the performance of his duties and consistently received positive annual reviews for his work in improving maintenance performance of aging railcar fleet. In multiple instances, Claimant engaged in legally protected activity, including taking medical/disability leave, assisting subordinates investigate claims of discrimination and for participating in the investigation of sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Haley by SFMTA employee Sabrina Suzuki. Almost immediately after Claimant was interviewed with respect to the harassment allegations, Mr. Haley began retaliating against claimant. lVlr. Haley issued a highly critical performance review of Claimant, six months before his official review period and entirely contradictory to the positive review lVlr. Haley previously provided. The criticisms were unfounded, and Mr. Haley thereafter refused to meet with Claimant in furtherance of the improvement plan stated in the review. Shortly thereafter, Claimant was on medical leave due to a workplace injury and his disability. Immediately upon his return from medical leave, Claimant was terminated. Claimant was retaliated against and terminated for engaging in protected activity, including but not limited to, taking medical leave and taking time off due to a disability, taking medical leave for a workplace injury and disability, assisting co- workers with investigation claims of discrimination, participating in the investigation of sexual harassment claims against John Haley and for opposing all forms of discrimination, retaliation and harassment. As a proximate result of the retaliation, constructive and actual unlawful discharge, Claimant has suffered the loss of wages, benefits, earning capacity, decreased retirement benefits and other economic damages. Claimant also suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort. As a result of such harm, Plaintiff has suffered damages according to proof. -2- Complaint DFEH NO. 201903-05491919 Date Filed: March 18, 2019 VERIFICATION I, Daniel Iannitelli, 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 March ?18, 2019, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. San Francisco, California -3- Compiaint - DFEH NO. 201903?05491919 Date Filed: March ?18, 2019 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 Lee Summerlott DFEH No. 201903-05491919 Complainant, vs. City and County of San Francisco 1 Dr. Carlton Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 1 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94103 John Haley 1 South Van Ness Ave San Francisco, California 94103 I Respondents 1. Respondent City and County of San Francisco is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant Lee Summerlott, resides in the City of Ramona State of California. 3. Complainant alleges that on or about September 14, 2018, respondent took the following adverse actions: Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), disability (physical or mental), other, sexual harassment- hostile environment. Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's disability (physical or mental) and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, reprimanded, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability. ?1 Complaint DFEH N0. 207903-05497919 Date Filed: March 18, 2019 Date Amended: September 11, 2019 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint, requested or used leave under the california family rights act or fmla (employers of 50 or more people) and as a result was terminated, reprimanded, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability. Additional Complaint Details: Claimant Lee Summerlott was the Deputy Director of Rail Maintenance for Respondents City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and reported to Defendant John Haley, from December 2014 until his termination on September 14, 2018. Claimant exceeded benchmarks with respect to the performance of his duties and consistently received positive annual reviews for his work in improving maintenance performance of aging railcar fleet. In multiple instances, Claimant engaged in legally protected activity, including taking medical/disability leave, assisting subordinates investigate claims of discrimination and for participating in the investigation of sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Haley by SFMTA employee Sabrina Suzuki. Almost immediately after Claimant was interviewed with respect to the harassment allegations, Mr. Haley began harassing and retaliating against Claimant on the basis of his harassment of Ms. Suzuki and Claimant?s involvement in the investigation. Mr. Haley issued a highly critical performance review of Claimant, six months before his official review period and entirely contradictory to the positive review Mr. Haley previously provided. The criticisms were unfounded, and Mr. Haley thereafter refused to meet with Claimant in furtherance of the improvement plan stated in the review. Shortly thereafter, Claimant was on medical leave due to a workplace injury. Mr. Haley harassed Claimant on account of his disability, dismissing his condition and refused to extend his leave as requested by Claimant?s physician. Immediately upon his return from medical leave, Claimant was terminated, purportedly for the performance issues asserted by Mr. Haley and the false assertion that Claimant was determined to have retaliated against a subordinate. There was never an investigation of the unsubstantiated claim of retaliation by Claimant, nor was he ever formally advised of the claim, interviewed or presented with any evidence of the claim or a finding that he retaliated against the subordinate. Claimant was harassed, retaliated against and terminated for engaging in protected activity, including but not limited to, taking medical leave due to a disability, taking -2- Complaint DFEH No. 201903-05491919 Date Filed: March 18, 2019 Date Amended: September 11, 2019 medical leave for a workplace injury, assisting subordinates with investigation claims of discrimination. assisting in the investigation of sexual harassment claims against John Haley and for opposing all forms of discrimination, retaliation and harassment. As a proximate result of the retaliation, constructive and actual unlawful discharge, Claimant has suffered the loss of wages, benefits, earning capacity, decreased retirement benefits and other economic damages. Claimant also suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort. As a result of such harm, Plaintiff has suffered damages according to proof. -3- Complaint DFEH N0. 201903-05491919 Date Filed: March 18, 2019 Date Amended: September 11, 2019 VERIFICATION I, Daniel Iannitelli, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. 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 September 11, 2019, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. San Francisco, California -4- Complaint DFEH N0. 201903-05497919 Date Filed: March 18, 2019 Date Amended: September 11, 2019 CM-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY Wame State Barnumber, and address). FOR COURT USE ONLY ?Arlo Uriarte, SBN 231764 LIBERATION LAW GROUP, RC. 2760 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 ilEglgRE??mUR-r TELEPHONE No.- ?415) 695- 1000 FAX NO.: (415) 695-1006 "S?fi 5E: SAN ATTORNEYFOR (Name): Lee Summerlott SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF AN FRANCISCO STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street MAR 1 6 2020 MAILING ADDRESS: 400 Street 721321.. I crrY AND ZIP CODE San Franc1sc0 94102 .- .. BRANCH NAME Bi: CASE NAME: Lee Summerlott v. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency et a1 ANGELICA SUNGA CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: ?5 Unlimited l:l Limited l:l Counter Joinder (Amount (Amount JUDGE i demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation :1 Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules Of Court, rules 3.400?3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal lnjuryiProperty DamageIWrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other collections (09) Insurance coverage (18) Other contract (37) Real Property Eminent Antitnist/Trade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) Securities litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Insurance coverage claims arising from the l:l Other (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort l:l Wrongful eviction (33) 13/995141) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment l:l Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer l:l Enforcement ofjudgmenl (20) l:l Defamation (13) :1 Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint l: Fraud (16) l:l Residential (32) RICO (27) l:l Intellectual property (19) El Drugs (38) Other complaint (notspeci?ed above) (42) l:l Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) El Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment l:l Petition re: arbitration award (11) I: Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) I: Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (1 5) El Otherjudicial review (39) 2. This case l:l is ill is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. lfthe case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. El Large number of separately represented parties d. El Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. l:l Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. l:l Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. l:l Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. monetary b-El nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief C. punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): 8 5. This case l:l is - is not a class action suit. ., 6 If there are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related case. (You a form a Date. March 6, 2020 Daniel P. Iannitelli . 1- -- - (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) FOR PARTY) NOTICE 0 Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. 0 File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onllya.g 91 on Form Adopted for Mandabry Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30. 3.220, 3.400?3.403, 3.740; Judicial Counci of California CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 CM-010 [Rev July 1,2007]