0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1K views20 pages

Perla Complaint

The document describes a lawsuit filed by Perla Rodriguez against the Orange County Fire Authority and two of its managers, David Johnson and Joel Brodowski. Rodriguez alleges she was subject to gender discrimination and a hostile work environment while employed at OCFA, and was constructively discharged from her job in January 2023. The complaint provides background on the parties and outlines Rodriguez's positive employment history prior to the alleged discrimination and harassment by her managers.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1K views20 pages

Perla Complaint

The document describes a lawsuit filed by Perla Rodriguez against the Orange County Fire Authority and two of its managers, David Johnson and Joel Brodowski. Rodriguez alleges she was subject to gender discrimination and a hostile work environment while employed at OCFA, and was constructively discharged from her job in January 2023. The complaint provides background on the parties and outlines Rodriguez's positive employment history prior to the alleged discrimination and harassment by her managers.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 03/07/2024 11:07:44 AM.

30-2024-01384524-CU-OE-CJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By R. Baker, Deputy Clerk.

1 Christopher C. Saldaña, Esq. (SBN 269456)


E-mail: [email protected]
2 SHEWRY & SALDAÑA, LLP
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1550
3 San Diego, California 92101
Phone: (619) 233-8824
4 Facsimile: (619) 233-1002

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff PERLA RODRIGUEZ


6

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
9
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
10

11 PERLA RODRIGUEZ, an individual, ) Case No.:


)
)
12 Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
v. ) OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
13 )
) EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING ACT
14 )
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE
)
15 AUTHORITY, a California Joint Powers ) UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
Authority entity; DAVID JOHNSON, an )
16
individual; JOEL BRODOWSKI, an ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
17 individual; and DOES 1 through 25, )
inclusive, )
18 )
)
19 Defendants. )
)
20 )
21

22
Plaintiff PERLA RODRIGUEZ, an individual, by the undersigned attorney,
23
based upon information and belief, and demanding a trial by jury, as against the
24
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY, a California joint powers authority
25
entity; DAVID JOHNSON, an individual; JOEL BRODOWSKI, an individual; and
26
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, alleges the following:
27
///
28

COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS


1 I.
2 THE PARTIES
3 1. Plaintiff, PERLA RODRIGUEZ (hereinafter “Rodriguez” or
4 “Plaintiff”) was employed as an Information Technology (“IT”) Technician for the
5 Orange County Fire Authority (“OCFA”) in Irvine, Orange County, California at
6 all times relevant to this Complaint. Rodriguez was assigned to OCFA’s IT Help
7 Desk and provided technical support throughout the organization’s various
8 departments.
9 2. The OCFA is a joint powers authority, created under the California
10 Government Code by a joint powers authority agreement between the 23 cities in
11 Orange County and all unincorporated areas of Orange County which is services.
12 OCFA is a regional fire authority. OCFA’s headquarters are located in Irvine,
13 Orange County, California.
14 3. DAVID JOHNSON (hereinafter, “Johnson”) was employed by OCFA
15 as a member of the IT Division’s managerial staff at all times relevant to events in
16 this Complaint. Johnson was hired as an assistant manager in 2016 and was later
17 promoted to IT Manager in November of 2021. At all times relevant to the events in
18 this complaint, Johnson held supervisory authority over the division’s employees,
19 which included Ms. Rodriguez. Rodriguez is informed and believes, and on that
20 basis thereon alleges that Johnson resided within Orange County, California.
21 4. JOEL BRODOWSKI (hereinafter, “Brodowski”) was employed by
22 OCFA as a member of the IT Division’s managerial staff at all times relevant to
23 events in this Complaint. Johnson was hired as manager in 2010 and was later
24 promoted to IT Division Manager in November of 2021. At all times relevant to the
25 events in this complaint, Brodowski held supervisory authority over the division’s
26 employees, which included Ms. Rodriguez. Rodriguez is informed and believes,
27 and on that basis thereon alleges that Brodowski resided within Orange County,
28 California.
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 5. Johnson and Brodowski are collectively referred to herein as the
2 “individual defendants.” In addition to the individual defendants, the true names
3 and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants Does 1-
4 25 inclusive, are unknown to Rodriguez, who therefore sues them by such fictitious
5 names. Rodriguez will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true
6 names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Rodriguez is informed and
7 believes, and on that basis thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named
8 defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and
9 that Rodriguez’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those
10 defendants. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants Does 1-25 inclusive were the
11 agents, servants, employees, or attorneys of their co-defendants, and in doing the
12 things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope of their authority
13 as those agents, servants, employees, or attorneys, and with the permission and
14 consent of their co-defendants. Likewise, at all times herein the individual
15 defendants, in addition to conspiring with the fictitiously named defendants,
16 conspired with each other and were the agents, servants, employees, or
17 representatives of their co-defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged,
18 were acting within the course and scope of their authority as those agents, servants,
19 employees, or representatives, and with the permission and consent of their
20 individual co-defendants.
21 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all
22 relevant times, each Defendant was the agent of the other Defendants, and in doing
23 the things herein alleged, each Defendant was acting in the course and scope of
24 such agency with the consent, notification, and permission of each of the other
25 Defendants. Each Defendant ratified the actions of the other Defendants and named
26 employees as alleged herein.
27
28
-3-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 II.
2 JURISDICTION & VENUE
3 7. Venue is proper in this Court in that the facts and circumstances giving
4 rise to Plaintiff’s causes of action occurred in this County and because Defendants
5 do business and are employed, and OCFA is headquartered, in the City of Irvine,
6 County of Orange, State of California. As such, this unlimited civil case should be
7 venued at the Central Justice Center.
8 III.
9 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
10 8. OCFA has a well-documented history of chauvinism and misogyny
11 and has recently been the subject of several suits alleging, as here, gender
12 discrimination. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis thereon alleges,
13 that at the time of her constructive discharge, fewer than 10% of the OCFA
14 workforce were women.
15 9. In her time at OCFA, Ms. Rodriguez was a dedicated employee and
16 excelled in her role as an IT Technician since joining the team in 2015. She was
17 assigned projects within the organization and received numerous overtime
18 opportunities. She was selected to provide support for all levels of staff and was
19 nominated for employee of the year by her manager. Before the events outlined in
20 this Complaint, Rodriguez had loved her job and intended to work at OCFA until
21 she retired. However, Rodriguez was forced to resign in January of 2023 as a result
22 of Defendants’ gender-based discrimination, harassment, defamation, intimidation,
23 retaliation, and their subsequent creation of a hostile work environment.
24 10. As managerial staff, Johnson and Brodowski were collectively and
25 individually responsible for the success and well-being of their employees and
26 possessed authority and control over their division’s assignments, employee
27 rewards, discipline, grievances, promotions, schedules, and their employees’ daily
28 work activities.
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 11. Johnson’s and Brodowski’s misuse of their supervisorial authority
2 created a toxic work environment in which they bullied, intimidated, and belittled
3 employees on a daily basis. Indeed, Defendants targeted female employees in their
4 charge; they subjected them to misogynistic insults and habitually denied their
5 female supervisees the same opportunities and benefits that were afforded to their
6 similarly situated male colleagues.
7 12 In 2019, Johnson and Brodowski wrongfully denied Rodriguez’s
8 request to temporarily change or alter her work schedule to remedy a conflict with
9 her son’s school schedule. Defendants’ conduct towards Rodriguez in this regard
10 varied greatly from the way this rule has been applied to male employees, who are
11 permitted to change their schedules as needed, and often do so for childcare
12 conflicts of their own.
13 13. Rodriguez requested a temporary change to her work schedule so she
14 could take her son to and from daycare after the school changed its hours of
15 operation. Since the change only interfered with one hour of her daily shift, the
16 conflict would have been quickly resolved had Rodriguez been allowed to work
17 remotely or change the structure of the work schedule until the issue resolved itself
18 when her son started kindergarten in the fall.
19 14. As a single mother and her son’s primary caretaker, Rodriguez was her
20 young son’s only means of transportation during weekdays. Pending her managers’
21 response, Rodriguez was directed to use her accumulated compensatory time as a
22 temporary solution. To Rodriguez’s knowledge, her male co-workers had not been
23 forced to use their compensatory time to supplement their work hours because they
24 had been allowed to modify their schedules as needed. During this time, she
25 searched for another daycare that was willing and able to conform to her work
26 schedule. However, she was unable to find one that also complied with the
27 restrictions set forth by the court-ordered custody agreement between her and her
28 son’s father.
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 15. When Johnson and Brodowski eventually addressed Ms. Rodriguez’s
2 request, they refused to modify her schedule, suggested she “find another daycare,”
3 and told her she could no longer use her compensatory time as she had been. When
4 Rodriguez explained their suggestion failed to solve her conflict due to the custody
5 arrangement and court order, Johnson requested a copy of the order and proposed
6 that she simply work an hour later. However, this proposal also failed to resolve her
7 conflict.
8 16. Johnson and Brodowski ultimately denied Rodriguez’s request and
9 refused her access to the existing alternatives used by her colleagues because she
10 was a woman and a single mother. Johnson confirmed his reasoning and the animus
11 behind it to Rodriguez when he told her “Being a single mom is a choice” and that
12 she should “quit her job and be a stay-at-home mom full-time to avoid daycare
13 issues.” In response to her request to work remotely, Johnson told Rodriguez,
14 “Let’s face it, you can’t work from home and babysit.” This conversation was
15 witnessed by IT Division employees Kenneth Green, Thomas Truax, and Suzanne
16 Clayton.
17 17. Following this incident, Defendants routinely chastised, disparaged,
18 harassed, and humiliated Rodriguez for having childcare issues and made
19 derogatory remarks about the same to her, her colleagues, and her superiors until
20 she resigned in 2023.
21 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis thereon alleges
22 that after this incident, Johnson directly told former IT Specialist, Suzanne Clayton
23 (“Clayton”), who was serving in a lead capacity at the time, “Perla should quit her
24 job” and “maybe she shouldn’t be working if she has issues finding daycare.”
25 19. Even though childcare issues were commonplace throughout the IT
26 Division, Defendants disparately weaponized Ms. Rodriguez’s request and her
27 marital status against her for several years. Defendants have granted their male
28 employees flexibility in their schedules to accommodate conflicts related to their
-6-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 children without depriving them of professional opportunities or subjecting them to
2 humiliation, chastisement, or further retaliation.
3 20. Rodriguez’s direct supervisor, Scott Johnson, witnessed Defendants’
4 discrimination and harassment firsthand. Both Rodriguez and Clayton have gone to
5 his office in tears following interactions with Defendants. Scott Johnson sought
6 managerial support and direction from Brodowski about David Johnson’s
7 misconduct. However, Brodowski refused to offer support, investigate the
8 complaints, or report David Johnson to the appropriate department. Rather,
9 Brodowski placed the blame on Scott Johnson and the IT staff.
10 21. On a separate occasion, Johnson and Brodowski discharged Rodriguez
11 from her long-term, after-hours partnership with the Multi-Media Division and then
12 Multimedia Specialist, Kevin Hansen (“Hansen”) where she set up the technology
13 for various OCFA events, including First Responder graduations and OCFA board
14 meetings.
15 22. In September 2019, Rodriguez and Hansen were scheduled to set up a
16 location for a regularly scheduled OCFA board meeting. Despite knowing
17 Rodriguez had been a part of that team since 2016, Johnson shouted at and scolded
18 the two in front of their colleagues and asked her why she was there. He claimed he
19 needed to be notified whenever one of his employees was involved in after-hours
20 events as it was subject to his approval. Brodowski stated to the group the outburst
21 was due to their concerns about Rodriguez’s “childcare issues.” The Defendants
22 then appointed Robert Ho and Damien Medrano to permanently replace Rodriguez.
23 23. Following this incident, any time Rodriguez volunteered for overtime
24 opportunities or was asked by other divisions to provide technical support for after-
25 hours events, Johnson and Brodowski remarked to Rodriguez and other OCFA
26 personnel that “overtime shouldn’t be offered to someone with childcare issues” or
27 that Rodriguez “conveniently didn’t have childcare issues when overtime pay was
28 involved.”
-7-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis thereon alleges
2 that Johnson told her co-worker, Lionel Chavez, “[Rodriguez] has to babysit during
3 the week but not the weekends? How does that work?” in response to Rodriguez
4 being asked to provide technical assistance for a weekend OCFA event.
5 25. In late 2020, Johnson falsely accused Rodriguez of physically
6 assaulting him with a keyboard while she was working on an assignment. Johnson
7 repeated this false accusation to Rodriguez’s colleagues within and outside of the
8 IT division, including OCFA employees Kevin Hansen and Jim Ruane. Johnson
9 created and repeated this false accusation to Rodriguez’s colleagues and supervisors
10 to tarnish her professional reputation and force her to quit her job.
11 26. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the institution of
12 work-from-home protocol, several staff members, including Rodriguez, worked
13 remotely. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis thereon alleges that
14 Johnson commented to Chavez, “We are paying [Rodriguez] all this money to stay
15 just to stay home and babysit and work … That is going to change.”
16 27. In 2022, Rodriguez requested to work from home while her son
17 recovered from surgery. Johnson denied her request and told her, “You can’t work
18 from home and babysit.” Johnson only granted the request after she threatened to
19 use her compensatory time to take the time off. However, Rodriguez was only
20 allowed to work from home for half of the time required. Before Rodriguez
21 submitted her request, Defendants had approved requests to work from home from
22 male employees, Ken Ong, Scott Johnson, Ken Green, and David Vuong.
23 28. Specifically, co-worker, David Vuong was granted flexibility to
24 change his schedule and work from home as needed so he could attend his son’s
25 school events and meet his son’s schedule changes.
26 29. Months before her resignation, Rodriguez notified her direct
27 supervisor, Scott Johnson, human resources, the finance department, and her co-
28 workers that she was looking for new employment because of the Defendants’
-8-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 harassment and discrimination. Rodriguez consistently updated Scott Johnson about
2 her job prospects and helped him prepare for her departure. These early
3 communications allowed Rodriguez to submit her resignation under the two-week
4 notice guideline. Scott Johnson and Rodriguez did not notify Defendants of her
5 preparations out of fear of retaliation.
6 30. In her final days at OCFA, Rodriguez used her unpaid compensatory
7 hours in lieu of reporting for work out of fear of Defendants’ retaliation. Rodriguez
8 believed the Defendants would prematurely shut down her access to the items she
9 needed to work as a retaliatory response to her resignation notice. Rodriguez’s
10 leave request was accepted before her resignation.
11 31. Rodriguez submitted her two-week notice on January 24, 2023.
12 Defendants prematurely shut down her access to her work programs on January 26,
13 2023.
14 32. During her time at OCFA, Rodriguez witnessed two former female co-
15 workers, Clayton, and Pam Jones, suffer the same harassment and discrimination
16 she experienced at the hands of the Defendants. Pam Jones went on stress leave in
17 2021 as a result of the Defendants’ conduct and retired early due to the toxic
18 environment.
19 33. In April of 2022, Clayton retired from OCFA early due to constant
20 discrimination and unequal treatment. Clayton submitted her complaints about
21 Johnson and Brodowski as part of her exit interview. Despite wanting to submit her
22 complaints alongside Clayton, she declined out of fear of the Defendants’
23 retaliation.
24 34. On January 24, 2023, Rodriguez filed a complaint with Human
25 Resources against manager David Johnson for misconduct, citing gender-based
26 discrimination, harassment, defamation, intimidation, and creating a hostile work
27 environment.
28 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis thereon alleges
-9-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 that Johnson continued to spread false and derogatory statements about Rodriguez
2 after she submitted her resignation. Ms. Rodriguez left OCFA on February 10,
3 2023.
4 36. Rodriguez suffered from this course of intentional conduct or conduct
5 that was reckless and undertaken in conscious disregard of her rights under law. In
6 so suffering, Rodriguez experienced special and general damages, all in an amount
7 according to proof and, to the extent allowed by law, seeks the imposition of
8 punitive damages against the individual Defendants and Does 1 through 25,
9 inclusive, and each of them. Rodriguez was eventually constructively terminated
10 from her position and suffered, and continues to suffer, economically from that
11 termination. Specifically, she now makes less money in salary, has fewer benefits
12 for which she pays more, and suffered extensive losses in her retirement benefits.
13 Rodriguez was also forced to hire counsel to undertake this matter for her in the
14 Courts and incurred costs for being put to the task. Rodriguez, therefore, seeks
15 recovery of her attorney’s fees and costs as allowed under law.
16 37. The tactics of the individual Defendants and their design to have
17 OCFA terminate Plaintiff or force Plaintiff to quit are also witnessed first-hand by
18 several other IT Division employees.
19 38. The reason these individual Defendants singled Plaintiff out for this
20 treatment, the fact she is a woman, was well-known within the Division and had
21 also occurred to two former Division employees, Pam Jones and Suzanne Clayton.
22 39. Prior to filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff caused to be filed with the
23 California Civil Rights Department a Charge of Discrimination, which was
24 assigned CRD Matter No: 202403-23873607. On March 6, 2024 Rodriguez
25 received a right-to-sue letter on her charge, a true and correct copy of which is
26 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
27 ///
28 ///
-10-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1

2 IV.
3 CAUSES OF ACTION
4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §12940 — DISCRIMINATION
6 ON THE BASIS OF SEX AND/OR GENDER)
7 (By RODRIGUEZ against Defendant ORANGE COUNTY FIRE
8 AUTHORITY)
9 40. Rodriguez realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
10 allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 39, as set forth above.
11 41. Government Code Section 12940(a) makes it an unlawful employment
12 practice for any employer to discriminate on the basis of sex and/or gender, by
13 making unlawful said discrimination in compensation or in terms, conditions or
14 privileges of employment.
15 42. Defendants violated this prohibition on discriminatory acts or omissions
16 based upon Rodriguez’s sex and/or gender, and its association of her with those
17 characteristics, by, among other things, subjecting Rodriguez to disparate treatment
18 relative to male counterparts as set forth above.
19 43. The California Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) does not
20 require that an employer's discriminatory act constitute one large yet discrete harm,
21 rather than a series of subtle yet damaging injuries. The individual acts of
22 discriminatory conduct as described in this Complaint, as well as the totality of that
23 conduct, constitute at least one adverse employment action. Moreover, FEHA
24 protects an employee against unlawful discrimination with respect not only to
25 “ultimate employment actions” such as termination (or constructive discharge as
26 here) or demotion, but also the entire spectrum of employment actions that are
27 reasonably likely to adversely or materially affect an employee's job performance
28 or opportunity for advancement in her career.
-11-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 44. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct, Rodriguez has
2 suffered both economic and non-economic damages.
3 45. Rodriguez was harmed as a result of the conduct and inaction of all
4 Defendants. She has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and further injuries.
5 46. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Rodriguez’s
6 harm.
7 47. The aforementioned conduct was undertaken by the individual
8 Defendants in a willful, wanton, and malicious manner and with conscious
9 disregard of Rodriguez’s rights to be free from such offense. The individual
10 Defendants acted knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that their conduct
11 would, without defense, cause injury to Rodriguez.
12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12923 & 12940(j) – HOSTILE
14 WORK ENVIRONMENT AGAINST EMPLOYER)
15 (By RODRIGUEZ against Defendant ORANGE COUNTY FIRE
16 AUTHORITY)
17 48. Rodriguez realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
18 allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 47, as set forth above.
19 49. Rodriguez was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, employed by
20 the OCFA.
21 50. As more fully set forth above, Rodriguez was subjected to a harassing
22 environment while working for OCFA because she was a woman.
23 51. The harassing conduct of the Defendants against Rodriguez was
24 continuous, severe, and pervasive. Any reasonable woman in Rodriguez’s
25 circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile,
26 intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive. Rodriguez, for her part, considered
27 her work environment to be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive.
28 Rodriguez communicated her feelings about this conduct to her direct supervisor,
-12-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 Scott Johnson, and Human Resources staff, among others. OCFA took no steps to
2 stop the harassment of Rodriguez, which she continued to suffer from. The conduct
3 and inaction complained of herein made Plaintiff’s working conditions so
4 intolerable that she was no longer able to perform the job at all, resulting in her
5 constructive discharge.
6 52. Rodriguez was harmed by this conduct and inaction and said conduct
7 and inaction were substantial factors in causing Rodriguez’s harm.
8

9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


10 (VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12923 & 12940(j) – HOSTILE
11 WORK ENVIRONMENT AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT)
12 (By RODRIGUEZ against all Individual Defendants &
13 Does 1 through 25, inclusive)
14 53. Rodriguez realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
15 allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 52, as set forth above.
16 54. Rodriguez was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, employed by
17 the OCFA.
18 55. As more fully set forth above, Rodriguez was subjected to a harassing
19 environment while working for OCFA because she was a woman.
20 56. The harassing conduct of the individual Defendants and Does 1
21 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, as against Rodriguez was continuous,
22 severe, and pervasive. Any reasonable woman in Rodriguez’s circumstances would
23 have considered the work environment to be hostile, intimidating, offensive,
24 oppressive, or abusive. Rodriguez, for her part, considered her work environment to
25 be hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive. Rodriguez
26 communicated her feelings about this conduct of the individual Defendants and
27 Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, to her direct supervisor, Scott
28 Johnson, and Human Resources staff, among others. OCFA took no steps to stop
-13-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 the harassment of Rodriguez, which she continued to suffer from. The conduct and
2 inaction complained of herein made Plaintiff’s working conditions so intolerable
3 that she was no longer able to perform the job at all, resulting in her constructive
4 discharge.
5 57. Rodriguez was harmed by this conduct and inaction and said conduct
6 and inaction was a substantial factor in causing Rodriguez’s harm. While engaging
7 in this course of conduct, the individual Defendants and Does 1 through 25,
8 inclusive, and each of them, acted in a willful, wanton, and malicious manner and
9 with conscious disregard of Rodriguez’s rights to be free from such offense. The
10 individual Defendants acted knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that their
11 conduct would, without defense, cause injury to Rodriguez.
12 58. Consequently, Rodriguez is entitled to an award of punitive or
13 exemplary damages to punish or deter such conduct by the individual Defendants
14 and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, and others in the future.
15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 (VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(h) — RETALIATION)
17 (By RODRIGUEZ against Defendants ORANGE COUNTY FIRE
18 AUTHORITY; and Does 1-25)
19 59. Rodriguez realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
20 allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 58, as set forth above.
21 60. California Government Code Section 12940(h) makes it an unlawful
22 employment practice “for any employer ... to discharge, expel, or otherwise
23 discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices
24 forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or
25 assisted in any proceeding under this part.” A retaliation claim under FEHA may be
26 brought by an employee who has been subjected to an adverse employment action
27 for engaging in a protected activity or opposing practices forbidden by FEHA.
28 61. As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff was consistently subjected to
-14-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 conduct that she reasonably believed violated the proscriptions of the FEHA in that
2 she was regularly subjected to discrimination and harassment owing to her gender.
3 Plaintiff complained to her supervisors and Human Resources about this consistent
4 illegal conduct of the individual Defendants and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and
5 each of them.
6 62. Rodriguez’s complaints constituted engagement in protected activities
7 and opposition to these practices forbidden under the FEHA.
8 63. As a result of Plaintiff engaging in the aforementioned protected
9 activities, and opposition to illegal practices, Rodriguez was subjected to retaliation
10 and suffered an adverse employment action in that OCFA’s failure and refusal to
11 timely act on her complaints, ultimately resulted in her constructive termination
12 from her position, which she had always hoped to keep until retirement.
13 64. A clear causal nexus between Rodriguez’s protected activity and the
14 retaliatory conduct of the Defendants and constructive discharge of the Plaintiff by
15 the Defendants exists.
16 65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Rodriguez
17 has suffered both economic and non-economic damages.
18

19 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION


20 (VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(k) —
21 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND/OR
22 RETALIATION)
23 (RODRIGUEZ against Defendants ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY;
24 and
25 Does 1-25)
26 66. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
27 allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, as set forth above.
28 67. California Government Code Section 12940(k) makes it an unlawful
-15-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 employment practice “for an employer ... to fail to take all reasonable steps
2 necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Employers
3 under FEHA are also required to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
4 retaliation from occurring.
5 68. Defendants violated this section by failing to prevent the
6 discrimination, harassment, and retaliation more fully discussed above.
7 69. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered both
8 economic and non-economic damages.
9 V.
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 70. WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ prays for judgment against
12 Defendants ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY, DAVE JOHNSON, JOEL
13 BRODOWSKI, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, jointly and severally to the
14 extent jointly sued, as follows:
15
A. General Damages;
16
B. Special Damages
17
C. Punitive Damages (ONLY as to Defendants JOHNSON,
18
BRODOWSKI, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive);
19
D. Reasonable Attorney Fees;
20
E. Cost of suit; and
21
F. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
22

23
Dated: March 7, 2024 SHEWRY & SALDAÑA, LLP

24

25
By: ____________________________________
26 Christopher C. Saldaña
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff PERLA RODRIGUEZ
28
-16-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
1 VI.
2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff demands a trial by jury against the
4 Defendants, and each of them, for each cause of action so triable.
5

6
Dated: March 7, 2024 SHEWRY & SALDAÑA, LLP

8
By: ____________________________________
9 Christopher C. Saldaña
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff PERLA RODRIGUEZ
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
-17-
COMPLAINT FOR FEHA VIOLATIONS
Exhibit “A”
S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR


Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov | [email protected]

March 6, 2024

Perla Rodriguez
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue


CRD Matter Number: 202403-23873607
Right to Sue: Rodriguez / Orange County Fire Authority et al.

Dear Perla Rodriguez:

This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) has been closed effective March 6, 2024 because an immediate
Right to Sue notice was requested.

This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), 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 U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days
of receipt of this CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged
discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.

Sincerely,

Civil Rights Department

CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/23)


S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR


Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov | [email protected]

March 6, 2024

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint


CRD Matter Number: 202403-23873607
Right to Sue: Rodriguez / Orange County Fire Authority et al.

To All Respondent(s):

Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Civil
Rights Department (CRD) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This
constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The
complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A copy of the Notice of
Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.

Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their
contact information.

No response to CRD is requested or required.

Sincerely,

Civil Rights Department

CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/23)

You might also like