1 BARBARA A.

LAWLESS - Bar # 53195

ELECTRONICALLY
EMILY S. McGRATH - Bar # 289624
2 LAWLESS, LAWLESS & McGRATH FILED
354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
3 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 391-7555 08/13/2021
4 Facsimile: (415) 391-4228 Clerk of the Court
BY: JACKIE LAPREVOTTE
E-mails: blawless@lawlesssf.com Deputy Clerk
5 emcgrath@lawlesssf.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
KATY SULLIVAN
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
(Unlimited Jurisdiction)
10 CGC-21-593827
11
KATY SULLIVAN, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ARISING
12 FROM WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION,
Plaintiff, DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
13 DISABILITY AND/OR FAILURE TO
vs. ACCOMMODATE, HARASSMENT BASED
14 ON DISABILITY AND/OR FAILURE TO
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ACCOMMODATE, RETALIATION,
15 FRANCISCO, JULIE ROSENBERG, and FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE, FAILURE
DOES ONE through THIRTY, inclusive, TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE
16 PROCESS, GENDER DISCRIMINATION,
Defendants. GENDER HARASSMENT, SEX
17 DISCRIMINATION IN PAY, AGE
DISCRIMINATION, AGE HARASSMENT,
18 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, FOR
19 ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND
FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
20

21 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

22 Amount Demanded Exceeds
$25,000 (Gov’t. Code § 72055)
23

24 PLAINTIFF KATY SULLIVAN (“PLAINTIFF”) complains against Defendants, and each

25 of them, demands a trial by jury of all issues for causes of action alleges:
26 FACTS COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE CAUSE OF ACTION
27 1. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued here
28 under the fictitious names DOE ONE through DOE THIRTY, inclusive. PLAINTIFF is informed

-1-
COMPLAINT
 1 and believes that each of DOE Defendants was responsible in some manner for the occurrences and
2 injuries alleged in this complaint.
3 2. At all times mentioned in the causes of action into which this paragraph is
4 incorporated by reference, each Defendant was the agent or employee of each and every other
5 Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph is
6 incorporated by reference, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or
7 employment and was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each of the remaining
8 Defendants. All actions of each Defendant alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph
9 is incorporated by reference were ratified and approved by the officers or managing agents of every
10 other Defendant.
11 3. At the pertinent times mentioned in this complaint, Defendant CITY AND COUNTY
12 OF SAN FRANCISCO was a municipality in the State of California. Defendant CITY AND
13 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO will be referred to as “CCSF.”
14 4. At the pertinent times mentioned in this complaint, Defendant JULIE ROSENBERG
15 (hereinafter referred to as “ROSENBERG”) was a resident in the State of California and a manager
16 for CCSF.
17 5. PLAINTIFF is a female who was born on May 16, 1967 and is currently 54 years
18 old.
19 6. On or about September 3, 2014, Defendant CCSF hired PLAINTIFF for the position
20 of Paralegal.
21 7. PLAINTIFF started her employment at CCSF working for the Public Defender’s
22 office on probation and passed that probationary period after her first year of service. After working
23 for the Public Defender’s office for five years, PLAINTIFF transferred to work at the Board of
24 Appeals with ROSENBERG as her immediate supervisor on or about September 30, 2019.
25 8. Once at the Board of Appeals, PLAINTIFF again began a probationary period due
26 to her transfer from the Public Defender’s Office When PLAINTIFF transferred to the Board of
27 Appeals, she was ranked #1 on the eligibility list.
28 9. During her employment and other than any events immediately prior to her

-2-
COMPLAINT
 1 termination, PLAINTIFF received no significant criticism of her work. In fact, PLAINTIFF
2 received consistently positive performance evaluations and has been working for CCSF for over 6
3 years and as a Legal Assistant/Paralegal for over 30 years.
4 10. In or around November 26, 2019 a key exhibit , a photo of a text message between
5 Commissioner Darryl Honda and Dennis Richards from one of the appeals PLAINTIFF was
6 working on went missing so PLAINTIFF sent an email to ROSENBERG and other staff members
7 that called out the fact that documents were missing.
8 11. In or around December 11, 2019 after PLAINTIFF learned that the Exhibit had been
9 improperly removed from the file by Commissioner Honda who had no right to remove it with the
10 assistance of ROSENBERG. PLAINTIFF filed a whistleblower complaint with the Controller’s
11 Office against ROSENBERG and HONDA for deleting critical documents from an appeal in
12 violation of the law and cooperated with investigators who were looking into the actions of
13 ROSENBERG and the other Commissioner.
14 12. Subsequently, PLAINTIFF took a leave of absence for disability, including
15 depression and anxiety. PLAINTIFF also suffered from a cervical nerve disorder.
16 13. PLAINTIFF returned to work from her leave on or around March 13, 2020 and
17 received an email dated January 5, 2020 from the Information Technology (IT) dept. informing her
18 that her email password had been changed. This concerned PLAINTIFF since she sent information
19 about the whistleblower complaint through her work email, and she did not know who had access
20 to her email.
21 14. Upon PLAINTIFF’S return from leave on March 13, 2020, ROSENBERG
22 immediately started to unfairly document PLAINTIFF’S work and on March 16, 2020 PLAINTIFF
23 was asked to immediately sign a form to agree to an extension of her probation without good cause
24 to June 29, 2020 and commenced a practice of subjecting PLAINTIFF to a campaign of exaggerated
25 and false criticism of her work while removing some of her job functions from her and giving those
26 duties to a younger less qualified male.
27 15. On or about March 17, 2020, ROSENBERG sent notice to PLAINTIFF that she
28 would be released from her position if she did not sign and return the probationary extension form

-3-
COMPLAINT
 1 by March 23, 2020. PLAINTIFF was not paid as regularly scheduled on March 17, 2020 for the
2 first time in five and a half years as a legal assistant with CCSF.
3 16. PLAINTIFF asked for a reasonable medical accommodation to push a 100–200-
4 pound cart to City Hall and back to assist her in doing her job when the City and County held public
5 meetings.
6 17. On or about June 23, 2020 PLAINTIFF requested to be transferred and /or reinstated
7 to a position in her class in another department (ideally moved back to the Public Defender’s office)
8 in order to remove herself from ROSENBERG’S continued mistreatment, bullying and harassment.
9 18. On or about September 4, 2020, PLAINTIFF had a meeting with ROSENBERG and
10 HR to discuss a 14-page probationary memo that contained the unsubstantiated grounds for
11 ROSENBERG to extend PLAINTIFF’S probationary period. The memo was filled with
12 inaccuracies and false statements and is the first such document to be placed in PLAINTIFF’S file
13 in six years working for CCSF.
14 19. PLAINTIFF’S probationary period was subsequently extended to September 8, 2020
15 and then extended again on September 8, 2020 for another 3-month period to December 2020. This
16 probationary extension was beyond the time proscribed by the Civil Service Rules (Rule 117.6-
17 117.8.2) which states that the duration of a successive probationary period shall not exceed six (6)
18 calendar months.
19 20. On December 3, 2020, one day after PLAINTIFF agreed at CCSF’s request to
20 another extension request regarding her transfer and/or reinstatement, PLAINTIFF was terminated.
21 21. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Claim against the CCSF which is attached hereto
22 as EXHIBIT A. On February 19, 2021, CCSF denied Plaintiff’s Claim.
23
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Whistleblower Retaliation
(Cal. Lab. Code, § 1102.5)
25

26 As a first, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against defendants
27 CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of
28 action alleges:

-4-
COMPLAINT
 1 22. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 inclusive, as
2 though set forth here in full.
3 23. In or around November 26, 2019, PLAINTIFF noticed that legal documents were
4 missing from an appeal with the Board of Appeals and alerted ROSENBERG and other staff
5 members.
6 24. In or around December 2019, PLAINTIFF filed a whistleblower complaint with the
7 Controller’s Office reporting ROSENBERG and another staff member were deleting documents
8 that were part of a legal appeal with the Board of Appeals. In response, the office opened an
9 investigation.
10 25. PLAINTIFF believes and had reasonable cause to believe that her complaints
11 disclosed violations of state and federal laws as well as ethical violations.
12 26. Defendants CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY retaliated
13 against PLAINTIFF for disclosing, complaining about, and/or refusing to participate in CCSF’S
14 illegal activity. The retaliation included but was not limited to extending PLAINTIFF’S
15 probationary period beyond Civil Service Rules; falsely criticizing PLAINTIFF’S job performance;
16 not accommodating PLAINTIFF for her disability; and ultimately terminating PLAINTIFF’S
17 employment on or about December 3, 2020.
18 27. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these defendants’ retaliation as
19 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
20 as if set forth here in full.
21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Discrimination Based on Disability and/or
22 Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
23

24 As a second, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against

25 Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action
26 alleges:
27 28. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
28 though set forth here in full.

-5-
COMPLAINT
 1 29. Defendants CCSF, and each of them, and DOES ONE through THIRTY are
2 employers in the State of California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3 (“FEHA”).
4 30. Defendants CCSF, and each of them, and DOES ONE through THIRTY
5 discriminated against PLAINTIFF on the basis of her disability, depression, anxiety and a cervical
6 nerve disorder, and/or failed to accommodate PLAINTIFF because of the depression, anxiety and a
7 cervical nerve disorder and discharged PLAINTIFF because of her disability, depression, anxiety
8 and a cervical nerve disorder, and/or because they did not want to accommodate PLAINTIFF’S
9 depression, anxiety and a cervical nerve disorder in violation of the FEHA. Defendants engaged in
10 a pattern and practice of discrimination. The policies of Defendants which were neutral on their face
11 resulted in a disparate impact on the class of disabled individuals and PLAINTIFF was treated
12 differently because of her depression, anxiety and a cervical nerve disorder.
13 31. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of disability discrimination and/or failure to
14 accommodate with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year of
15 her termination. The Department issued PLAINTIFF a right-to-sue letter within one year of the
16 filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has exhausted her administrative remedies.
17 32. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ discrimination
18 and/or failure to accommodate as stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is
19 incorporated here to the extent pertinent as if set forth here in full.
20
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 Harassment Based on Disability and/or Failure to Accommodate
in Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
22

23 As a third, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against Defendants
24 CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of
25 action alleges:
26 33. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
27 though set forth here in full.
28 34. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of

-6-
COMPLAINT
 1 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Defendant
2 ROSENBERG acted as an agent, directly or indirectly, of Defendant CCSF in violating the FEHA.
3 35. Defendants CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY harassed
4 PLAINTIFF on the basis of her disability, depression, anxiety and a cervical nerve disorder, and/or
5 failed to accommodate PLAINTIFF and harassed PLAINTIFF because of her disability, depression,
6 anxiety and a cervical nerve disorder, and/or because they did not want to accommodate
7 PLAINTIFF’S disability in violation of the FEHA. PLAINTIFF was harassed after her return to
8 work following a medical leave and her request for an accommodation was refused. Defendants
9 engaged in a pattern and practice of harassment as described in paragraphs 14 through 20 of this
10 complaint. The policies of Defendants which were neutral on their face resulted in a disparate impact
11 on the class of disabled individuals and PLAINTIFF was treated differently because of her disability.
12 36. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of harassment with the California Department of Fair
13 Employment and Housing within one year of the harassment. The Department issued PLAINTIFF
14 a right-to-sue letter within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has exhausted her
15 administrative remedies.
16 37. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ harassment as
17 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
18 as if set forth here in full.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Discharge in Violation of
Public Policy
20

21 As a fourth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against Defendants
22 CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of
23 action alleges:
24 38. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
25 though set forth here in full.
26 39. At all times herein mentioned, PLAINTIFF was a person fully competent to perform
27 the duties to which she was assigned.
28 40. Defendants CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY harassed

-7-
COMPLAINT
 1 PLAINTIFF on the basis of her disability, depression, anxiety and a cervical nerve disorder, and/or
2 failed to accommodate PLAINTIFF when ROSENBERG refused PLAINTIFF’S request for
3 accommodation and harassed PLAINTIFF because of her disability and/or disabilities, and/or
4 because they did not want to accommodate PLAINTIFF’S disability in violation of public policy.
5 Defendants figured if they harassed PLAINTIFF enough, she would quit her job.
6 41. Said discharge and harassment violated public policy, California common law and
7 PLAINTIFF’S rights under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
8 42. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ wrongful acts as
9 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
10 as if set forth here in full.
11
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
13

14 As a fifth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against Defendants
15 CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action alleges:
16 43. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
17 though set forth here in full.
18 44. At all times herein mentioned, PLAINTIFF was a person fully competent to perform
19 the duties to which she was assigned.
20 45. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
21 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
22 46. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY denied PLAINTIFF
23 accommodation for her disability, depression, anxiety and a cervical nerve disorder, and discharged
24 PLAINTIFF because they did not want to accommodate her disability in violation of the FEHA.
25 47. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of disability discrimination and denial of reasonable
26 accommodation with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year
27 of the harassment. The Department issued PLAINTIFF a right-to-sue letter within one year of the
28 filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has exhausted her administrative remedies.

-8-
COMPLAINT
 1 48. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ acts as stated in
2 the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent as if set
3 forth here in full.
4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation
5 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
6 As a sixth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against Defendants
7 CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action alleges:
8 49. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
9 though set forth here in full.
10 50. At all times herein mentioned, PLAINTIFF was a person fully competent to perform
11 the duties to which she was assigned.
12 51. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
13 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
14 52. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY failed to engage in the
15 interactive process after learning of PLAINTIFF’S disability, depression, anxiety and a cervical
16 nerve disorder in violation of the FEHA. After PLAINTIFF explained her depression, anxiety and
17 a cervical nerve disorder, which required medical appointments and a medical leave, Defendant did
18 not ask PLAINTIFF questions regarding her condition, what sort of assistance she would need to
19 return to work, or otherwise engage in any sort of interactive process or attempt to provide
20 accommodations. Instead, PLAINTIFF was denied the accommodations she requested. Defendants
21 engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to engage in the interactive process with disabled
22 employees. The policies of Defendants which were neutral on their face resulted in a disparate
23 impact on the class of disabled individuals and PLAINTIFF was treated differently because of her
24 disability.
25 53. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of disability discrimination and failure to engage in the
26 interactive process with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one
27 year of the discrimination and failure. The Department issued PLAINTIFF a right-to-sue letter
28 within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has exhausted her administrative

-9-
COMPLAINT
 1 remedies.
2 54. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ acts as stated in
3 the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent as if set
4 forth here in full.
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of the
6 California Fair Employment and Housing Act
7 As a seventh, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against
8 Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action
9 alleges:
10 55. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
11 though set forth here in full.
12 56. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
13 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
14 57. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY retaliated against PLAINTIFF
15 on the basis of her requesting accommodation for her disability and/or for taking medical leave, and
16 discharged PLAINTIFF because she requested accommodation and/or because she took medical
17 leaves in violation of the FEHA. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of retaliation. The
18 policies of Defendants which were neutral on their face resulted in a disparate impact on the class
19 of individuals who requested accommodation and/or employees who took medical leaves or
20 requested accommodation and PLAINTIFF was treated differently because she requested
21 accommodation and/or took medical leave.
22 58. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of retaliation with the California Department of Fair
23 Employment and Housing within one year of the harassment. The Department issued PLAINTIFF
24 a right-to-sue letter within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has exhausted her
25 administrative remedies.
26 59. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ retaliation as
27 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
28 as if set forth here in full.

-10-
COMPLAINT
 1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of
2 California Family Rights Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2)
3 As an eighth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against
4 Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action
5 alleges:
6 60. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 inclusive, as
7 though set forth here in full.
8 61. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
9 California as defined by the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) because CCSF employs more
10 than 50 people.
11 62. In December 2019, PLAINTIFF was eligible to take CFRA leave because she had
12 been employed by CCSF for over a year.
13 63. In December 2019, PLAINTIFF took CFRA leave for her own serious health
14 condition, depression, anxiety and a cervical nerve disorder that required treatment by physicians.
15 64. In March 2020, Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against PLAINTIFF by
16 issuing an extension to her probation for pretextual reasons within a week of her return to work. If
17 PLAINTIFF did not agree to the probationary extension, it would result in her termination.
18 65. On December 3, 2020, Defendants terminated PLAINTIFF.
19 66. PLAINTIFF’S taking of CFRA leave was a substantial motivating reason for the
20 disciplinary write-ups and eventual termination.
21 67. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ retaliatory
22 conduct as stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the
23 extent pertinent as if set forth here in full.
24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Disability Retaliation (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m)(2))
25

26 As a ninth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against Defendants
27 CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of
28 action alleges:

-11-
COMPLAINT
 1 68. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
2 though set forth here in full.
3 69. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
4 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
5 70. In 2019, PLAINTIFF had a disability under FEHA; she had depression, anxiety and
6 a cervical nerve disorder, which substantially limited her ability to work. In or about December
7 2019, PLAINTIFF sought, received, and used an accommodation, medical leave.
8 71. On March 3, 2020, Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against PLAINTIFF for
9 using the accommodation, medical leave, by extending her probationary period, within a week of
10 her return to work. An extended probationary period could result in termination.
11 72. On December 3, 2020, Defendants fired PLAINTIFF in retaliation for her taking
12 medical leave.
13 73. PLAINTIFF’S taking of medical leave was a substantial motivating reason for the
14 disciplinary coaching and eventual termination.
15 74. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of retaliation. The policies of
16 Defendants which were neutral on their face resulted in a disparate impact on the class of individuals
17 who took medical leaves and PLAINTIFF was treated differently because she took medical leave.
18 75. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of retaliation with the California Department of Fair
19 Employment and Housing within one year of the retaliation. The Department issued PLAINTIFF a
20 right-to-sue letter within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has exhausted her
21 administrative remedies.
22 76. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these defendants’ retaliation as
23 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
24 as if set forth here in full.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Gender Discrimination in Violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
26

27 As a tenth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against Defendants
28 CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action alleges:

-12-
COMPLAINT
 1 77. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
2 though set forth here in full.
3 78. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
4 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
5 79. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY discriminated against
6 PLAINTIFF on the basis of her gender, female, and discharged PLAINTIFF because of her gender,
7 in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The discrimination included, but
8 was not limited to, PLAINTIFF was being treated differently than her male counterparts. The males
9 were not falsely criticized, harassed, bullied, written up or forced to extend their probationary
10 period. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination. The reasonable
11 accommodation policies of Defendants which were neutral on their face resulted in a disparate
12 impact on the class of female employees and PLAINTIFF was treated differently because of her
13 gender.
14 80. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of gender discrimination with the California Department
15 of Fair Employment and Housing within one year of the discrimination. The Department issued
16 PLAINTIFF a right-to-sue letter within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has
17 exhausted her administrative remedies.
18 81. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ discrimination
19 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
20 as if set forth here in full.
21 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Gender Harassment in Violation of the
22 California Fair Employment and Housing Act
23 As an eleventh, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against
24 Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action
25 alleges:
26 82. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
27 though set forth here in full.
28 83. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of

-13-
COMPLAINT
 1 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
2 84. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, through managers and
3 supervisors, harassed and bullied PLAINTIFF on the basis of her gender, female, and demoted and
4 discharged PLAINTIFF because of her gender, in violation of the California Fair Employment and
5 Housing Act. The harassment creation of a hostile work environment included, but not limited to,
6 treating PLAINTIFF differently than her male counterparts by giving her an unwarranted write up
7 when male employees who were performing at the same level were not written up by the supervisor,
8 by forcing PLAINTIFF to work in an environment hostile to women. Defendants engaged in a
9 pattern and practice of harassment. The policies of Defendants which were neutral on their face
10 resulted in a disparate impact on the class of female employees, at PLAINTIFF’S level, and
11 PLAINTIFF was treated differently because of her gender.
12 85. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of gender harassment with the California Department of
13 Fair Employment and Housing within one year of the discrimination. The Department issued
14 PLAINTIFF a right-to-sue letter within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has
15 exhausted her administrative remedies.
16 86. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ harassment as
17 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
18 as if set forth here in full.
19 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Sex Discrimination in Pay in Violation of the
20 California Fair Pay Act (Cal. Lab. Code, § 1197.5)
21 As a twelfth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against
22 Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action
23 alleges:
24 87. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
25 though set forth here in full.
26 88. At all times herein mentioned, California’s Fair Pay Act, California Labor Code
27 section 1197.5, was in full force and effect and fully binding upon Defendant.
28 89. PLAINTIFF, a female Legal Assistant, performed work equal and/or substantially

-14-
COMPLAINT
 1 similar in skill, effort, and responsibility to the work of male Legal Assistants who were paid a
2 higher salary than PLAINTIFF.
3 90. As a Legal Assistant, PLAINTIFF performed work that was previously performed
4 by male Legal Assistants, but PLAINTIFF was paid less than the male Legal Assistants whose work
5 she took over.
6 91. Since PLAINTIFF’S transfer out of the Public Defender’s Office, her salary remains
7 depressed and she continued to be paid less than similarly-situated male co-workers for equal and/or
8 substantially similar work.
9 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFF has
10 sustained damages, including loss of full compensation in an amount to be established at trial.
11 Pursuant to Labor Code section 1197.5, subdivisions (b) and (g), PLAINTIFF is also entitled to
12 recover interest thereon, an additional amount of lost compensation as liquidated damages,
13 reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
14 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Age Discrimination in Violation of the
15 California Fair Employment and Housing Act
16 As a thirteenth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against
17 Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a cause of action
18 alleges:
19 93. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
20 though set forth here in full.
21 94. At all times herein mentioned, PLAINTIFF was a person fully competent to perform
22 the duties to which she was assigned.
23 95. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
24 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
25 96. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY discriminated against
26 PLAINTIFF on the basis of her age 54 and discharged PLAINTIFF because of her age 54, in
27 violation of the FEHA. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination. The policies
28 of Defendants which were neutral on their face resulted in a disparate impact on the class of older

-15-
COMPLAINT
 1 employees and PLAINTIFF was treated differently because of her age.
2 97. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of age discrimination with the California Department of
3 Fair Employment and Housing within one year of the discrimination. The Department issued
4 PLAINTIFF a right-to-sue letter within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has
5 exhausted her administrative remedies.
6 98. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ discrimination
7 as stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent
8 pertinent as if set forth here in full.
9 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Age Harassment in Violation of the
10 California Fair Employment and Housing Act
11 As a fourteenth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against
12 Defendants CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a
13 cause of action alleges:
14 99. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
15 though set forth here in full.
16 100. At all times herein mentioned, PLAINTIFF was a person fully competent to perform
17 the duties to which she was assigned.
18 101. Defendants CCSF and DOES ONE through THIRTY are employers in the State of
19 California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Defendant
20 ROSENBERG acted as an agent, directly or indirectly, of Defendants CCSF in violating the FEHA.
21 102. Defendants CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY harassed
22 PLAINTIFF on the basis of her age, 54 in violation of the FEHA. Defendants treated PLAINTIFF
23 differently than her younger co-workers by criticizing her work which was better than her younger
24 colleagues and not finding fault with their deficient and less competent work and retaining them and
25 not extending their probation. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of harassment. The
26 policies of Defendants which were neutral on their face resulted in a disparate impact on the class
27 of older employees and PLAINTIFF was treated differently because of her age.
28 103. PLAINTIFF filed a charge of age harassment with the California Department of Fair

-16-
COMPLAINT
 1 Employment and Housing within one year of the discrimination. The Department issued
2 PLAINTIFF a right-to-sue letter within one year of the filing of this complaint. PLAINTIFF has
3 exhausted her administrative remedies.
4 104. PLAINTIFF suffered damages legally caused by these Defendants’ harassment as
5 stated in the section below entitled “DAMAGES,” which is incorporated here to the extent pertinent
6 as if set forth here in full.
7
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 Intentional Infliction
of Emotional Distress
9

10 As a fifteenth, separate and distinct cause of action, PLAINTIFF complains against

11 Defendants CCSF, ROSENBERG and DOES ONE through THIRTY, and each of them, and for a
12 cause of action alleges:
13 105. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
14 though set forth here in full.
15 106. Defendants’ conduct as alleged in this Complaint was intended to cause PLAINTIFF
16 emotional distress or was done with reckless disregard of the probability of causing PLAINTIFF
17 emotional distress.
18 107. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, PLAINTIFF suffered severe emotional distress.
19 DAMAGES
20 108. As a legal result of the conduct by Defendants of which PLAINTIFF complains,
21 PLAINTIFF suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employee
22 benefits. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this complaint to state the amount or will proceed
23 according to proof at trial.
24 109. PLAINTIFF suffered emotional distress as a legal result of the conduct by
25 Defendants of which PLAINTIFF complains. PLAINTIFF suffered mental distress, suffering and
26 anguish as a legal result of Defendants’ outrageous conduct, reacting to her treatment at work and
27 discharge with humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment and worry, all of which is
28 substantial and enduring. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this complaint to state the amount

-17-
COMPLAINT
 1 or will proceed according to proof at trial.
2 110. At all material times, Defendants, and each of them, knew that PLAINTIFF
3 depended on her wages and other employee benefits as a source of earned income. At all material
4 times, Defendants were in a position of power over PLAINTIFF, with the potential to abuse that
5 power. PLAINTIFF was in a vulnerable position because of her relative lack of power, because of
6 her reliance on Defendants’ assurances and forbearance of the possibility of becoming employed
7 elsewhere, because she had placed her trust in Defendants, because she depended on her
8 employment for her self-esteem and sense of belonging, because she relied upon her employment
9 as a source of income for her support, because a wrongful termination of PLAINTIFF’S employment
10 would likely harm PLAINTIFF’S ability to find other employment, and because of the great
11 disparity in bargaining power between PLAINTIFF and her employer. Defendants were aware of
12 PLAINTIFF’S vulnerability and the reasons for it.
13 111. Notwithstanding such knowledge, Defendants, and each of them, acted oppressively,
14 fraudulently, and maliciously, in willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights, and with
15 the intention of causing or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing injury and emotional
16 distress to the PLAINTIFF.
17 112. Further, Defendants were informed of the oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious
18 conduct of their employees, agents and subordinates, and ratified, approved, and authorized that
19 conduct.
20 113. The foregoing conduct of Defendants, and each of them, was intentional, willful and
21 malicious and PLAINTIFF is entitled to punitive damages against ROSENBERG and DOES 1- 10
22 in an amount to conform to proof.
23 114. PLAINTIFF also is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Labor
24 Code §1102.5 (j) and as prayed for below.
25 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
26 115. PLAINTIFF has suffered irreparable injury and immediate harm due to Defendants’
27 acts. PLAINTIFF has no other legal remedy. In addition to the other relief requested in this
28 Complaint, PLAINTIFF seeks injunctive relief to ensure that Defendants do not discriminate against

-18-
COMPLAINT
 other employees because of their medical condition or disability and/or retaliate against other

2 employees because they took a leave due to their medical condition or disability.

3 PRAYER

4 Wherefore PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as

5 follows:

6 I. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including lost wages,

7 earnings, retirement benefits and other employee benefits, and all other sums of money, together

8 with interest on these amounts, according to proof;

9 2. For a money judgment for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress, according

IO to proof;

11 3. For an award of punitive damages from ROSENBERG and Does 1-10, according to

12 proof;

13 4. For costs of suit and attorney fees.

14 5. For prejudgment and post judgment interest.

15 6. For injunctive relief.

16 7. For any other relief that is just and proper.

17 8. For attorney fees pursuant to C.C.P. §1021.5 and Labor Code 1102.5 U) and Gov't.

18 Code§12965(b).

19

20 Dated: August 13 , 2021 LAWLESS, LAWLESS & McGRATH

21

22 by

23 Emily S. McGrath
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
24

25 Ill

26 Ill
27 Ill

28 Ill

-19-
COMPLAINT
 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2
3 PLAINTIFF demands trial of all issues by jury .

5 Dated: August 13 , 2021

6
by
7 Barbara A. Lawless
8 Emily S. McGrath
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26
27

28

-20 -
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT A
 CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Before completing this form please read the instructions on the back. Untimely claims will be returned. Please submit
this form and supporting documentation to the Controller's Office, Claims Division, 1390 Market Street, ih Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94102 in person or by mail.
* = REQUIRED ** = REQUIRED IF KNOWN
1. Claimant's Name and Home Address (Please Print Clearly) 2. Send Official Notices and Correspondence to:
* Kat Sullivan * Lawless, Lawless & McGrath
354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
State W!!J Zip lii!•l-11 City San Francisco State CA Zip 941 04
Cellular Telephone Daytime Evening Cellular
Telephon 415 391-7555

13, Date of Birth 4.~mber 5, Date of Incident 6. Time of Incident (AM or PM)

- - - ~1 ~ * 10/03/2020 & before **

7, Location of Incident or Accident 8, Claimant Vehicle License Plate#, Type, Mileage, and Year
**1515 Mision St, Suite 304; 495 Van Ness Ave, Suite 1475 ** N/A

9, Basis of Claim. State in detail all facts and circumstances of the incident. Identify all persons, entities, property and City
departments involved. State why you believe the City is responsible for the alleged injury, property damage orloss.
* laimant w rke .2 ear a a le al a i tant fi r the i and unt f San Franci c . n 12 11 19 laimant filed a
whistleblower complaint with O ice of the Controller. This was after Claimant discovered that critical documents had be
deleted from an appeal in violation of law and cooperated with investigators who were looking into the actions of Julie
Rosenberg (Claimant's boss) and Darryl Honda. Subsequently, Claimant took a leave of absence for disability, including
depression and anxiety. She also suffered from a cervical nerve disorder. (Continued on Insert 1 below).

Name, I.D. Number and City Department Type of City Vehicle Vehicle License Number and Bus or Train Number
of Citv Emolovee who al~edlv caused iniurv or l oss
t"* Jul ie Rosenberg, Board of Appeals, the EEO Office, the tk* tk*
Office of the Controller, OHR, and Civil Service Commissi< n

10, Description of Claimant's injury, property damage or loss 11. Amount of Claimant's property damage or loss and
method of computation. Attach supporting
*Claimant was terminated from her job and lost documentation. (See Instructions)
approximately $101,000 a year in salary; 30% of ITEMS
that in benefit loss; and $300,000 in student loans, • $ _ _ _ _ __

$ _ _ _ _ __
which would be forgiven if employment continued.
$ _ _ _ _ __
Claimant also suffered damages in excess of
$ _ _ _ _ __
$100,000 in emotional distress.
$ _ _ _ _ __
TOTAL AMOUNT
Court Jurisdiction: Limited (up to $25,000) D
Unlimited over $25,000

12. Witnesses (if any) Name Address Telephone

1. Alec Longaway San Francisco Board of Appeals 415-746-0119
2.

13. Do Not Write In This Space

* Catbatatlt4wft,lf
8arb.ra AUwlm (Jan S., 2021 l4:3S PSTI
01 /05/202 1
Signature of Claimant or Representative Date
R~rh;:m~ A I - ■ ~.,. Attorney
Print Name Relationship to
Claimant
CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PRESENTING A FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT CLAIM IS IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OR BOTH.
(PENAL CODE §72) CA/FORM 02/14
Insert 1.
When Claimant returned to work on or around 3/13/20, her boss immediately started to
document her work in retaliation, because of the 12/11/19 whistleblower complaint she filed,
her leave of absence due to her disabilities, and because she needed an accommodation. It was
Julie Rosenberg's goal to harass Claimant into quitting her job or to make a case to terminate
her because of her whistleblowing, for taking a leave, her disabilities, and questioning the pay
disparity between Claimant and her predecessor, who was a male doing the exact same work.
Claimant believes her predecessor may have been paid more because of his gender and so
started to ask questions. As a result of Claimant's bosses intent to inflict emotional distress,
Claimant suffered from emotional distress for the last 6 months and continues to suffer today.
 A COMPLETED CLAIM FORM AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION MUST BE FILED WITH THE
CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, CLAIMS DIVISION, 1390 MARKET STREET, 7TH FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-5402

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A CLAIM

Failure to complete all sections of the Claim form will delay the processing of your claim
and result in the return or denial of your claim.

1. Claimant's Name, Address and Telephone-State the full name, mailing address, and telephone numbers of the person
claiming personal injury, damage or loss.
2. Official Notices and Correspondence-Provide the name, mailing address, and telephone numbers of the person to
whom all official notices and other correspondence should be sent, if other than claimant. This official contact person can
be the claimant or a representative of the claimant. If this section is completed, all official notices and correspondence will
be sent to the person listed.
3. Date of Birth-State claimant's date of birth including month, day, and year.
4. Social Security Number-State the claimant's social security number. The Federal Government requires the City to report
settlements for present or future medical care. This information will be kept confidential and only shared with the Federal
Government. The City is unable to process payment without this information.
5. Date of Incident-State the exact month, day, and year of the incident giving rise to the claim.
6. Time of Incident-State the exact time, including AM. or P.M., of the incident giving rise to the claim.
7. Location of Incident of Accident-Include the city and exact street address or intersection where the incident occurred.
8. Claimant Vehicle License Plate Number-Please provide license plate number of vehicle driven by claimant or in which
claimant was a passenger.
9. Basis of Claim-State in detail all facts supporting your claim, including all facts and circumstances of the incident, all
alleged injuries, property damage and loss, all persons, entities, property and City departments involved, and why you
believe the City is responsible for the alleged injury, property damage or loss. In the appropriate boxes, provide the name,
I.D. number and City department of the City employee(s) who allegedly caused the injury or property damage, the type of
City vehicle involved (if any), and the license and number of the City vehicle involved (if any). For accidents involving a
bus or light rail vehicle, please provide the line and vehicle number.
10. Description of Injury, Property Damage or Loss-Provide in full detail a description of the injury, property damage or
loss that allegedly resulted from the incident. If claimant's vehicle was involved, provide the make, model, mileage, and
year. You may attach additional material.
11. Amount of Loss and Method of Computation-State the total amount of money you claim in damages. Provide a
breakdown of each item of damages and how that amount was computed. You may include future, anticipated expenses
or losses. Please attach copies of all bills, receipts and repair estimates. If the claim involves property damage, please
provide two repair estimates. The Government Code provides that if the claim is for less than $10,000, the claimant must
state the total amount claimed and the basis of this computation. If the claim exceeds $10,000, no dollar amount need be
provided, but the claimant must indicate the applicable court jurisdiction. Limited civil jurisdiction cases are those involving
damages under $25,000; unlimited civil jurisdiction cases are those involving damages of $25,000 or more.
12. Witnesses-State the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any persons who witnessed the incident. Attach list
of additional names if necessary.
13. Signature of Claimant or Representative-Please sign and date. Print name of signatory and relationship to claimant.
The claim must be signed by the claimant or by the official representative of the claimant.
Claims for death or injury to persons or damage to personal property must be filed within six months after the incident
giving rise to the claim. All other claims must be filed within one year.
Personal service of claims can be accomplished during regular business hours, Monday through Friday (excluding
County holidays). If you want a time stamped copy of your claim returned to you, please present an original and copy of
the claim, and include a self-addressed stamped envelope.

For information on the status of your claim, please call the applicable number listed below:
WATER DEPARTMENT 554-3900 PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 554-3900 PUC SEWER 554-3952
MUNICIPAL RAILWAY 554-3900 S.F. INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (650) 821-5073 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 554-3952
OTHER DEPARTMENTS 554-3900 CONTROLLER'S CLAIM DIVISION 554-3833 DEPT. OF BLDG. INSPECTION 554-3952
We Do Not Accept claims for the following agencies:
1. HOUSING AUTHORITY 1815 EgbertAvenue, S.F., CA94124 (415) 715-3280
2. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 555 Franklin Street, 2nd Fl, S.F., CA, 94102 (415) 241-6000
3. SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 33 Gough Street, S.F., CA 94103 (415) 241-2234
Please be advised that the City and County of San Francisco may offset against a claim any amounts owed by the claimant, including unpaid hospital bills,
unpaid parking and traffic tickets and welfare reimbursements or overpayments.