Temori v. HBO

1 Michael C. Martinez (Bar No.
188084)
michael@michaelmartinezlaw.com
2 MICHAEL MARTINEZ LAW, APC
155 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
3 Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: 626.993.6750
4 Facsimile: 626.993.6751
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHN DOE
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 JOHN DOE, an individual, ) Case No.
)
12 Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR:
vs. )
13 ) 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a Delaware ) VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
14 corporation; COOLER WATERS ) 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware ) REASONABLE
15 Limited Liability company; WARNER ) ACCOMMODATION
MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware Limited ) 3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN
16 Liability company; WARNERMEDIA ) INTERACTIVE PROCESS
STUDIOS, INC., a Georgia corporation; ) 4. WRONGFUL TERMINATION
17 WARNERMEDIA SERVICES, LLC, a ) 5. UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
Delaware Limited Liability company; ) 6. UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
18 FRANCESCA ORSI, an individual; ) 7. UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT
KATHLEEN MCCAFFREY, an ) 8. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
19 individual; KEVIN TUREN, an individual; ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
REZA FAHIM, an individual; ABEL ) 9. FAILURE TO PREVENT
20 TESFAYE, an individual; and DOES 1 ) HARASSMENT AND
through 50, ) DISCRIMINATION
21 ) [GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940]
Defendants. ) 10. ACTION AND REQUEST FOR
22 ) DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
23 11. WAITING TIME PENALTIES FOR
UNTIMELY PAYMENT OF
24 WAGES
25 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
26
27
28
Michael Martinez Law, 1

APC
Pasadena
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff JOHN DOE alleges as follows:
2 1. Plaintiff JOHN DOE (“Plaintiff”) is an individual, competent to bring this
3 action, and is a resident of the County of Orange, State of California. At all relevant times
4 alleged herein, Plaintiff was a resident and employed in the County of Los Angeles, State
5 of California.
6 2. Defendant HOME BOX OFFICE, INC. (“HBO,” “Defendant” or,
7 collectively with DOE and other named defendants, “Defendants”) is a Delaware
8 corporation, which employed Plaintiff and was at all relevant times engaged in and
9 qualified to do business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The
10 practices and policies which are complained of by way of this Complaint were enforced in
11 the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
12 3. Defendant COOLER WATERS PRODUCTIONS, LLC (“CWP,”
13 “Defendant” or, collectively with DOE and other named defendants, “Defendants”) is a
14 Delaware Limited Liability company, which employed Plaintiff and was at all relevant
15 times engaged in and qualified to do business within the County of Los Angeles, State of
16 California. The practices and policies which are complained of by way of this Complaint
17 were enforced in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
18 4. Defendant WARNER MEDIA, LLC (“WML,” “Defendant” or, collectively
19 with DOE and other named defendants, “Defendants”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
20 company, which employed Plaintiff and was at all relevant times engaged in and qualified
21 to do business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The practices and
22 policies which are complained of by way of this Complaint were enforced in the County of
23 Los Angeles, State of California.
24 5. Defendant WARNERMEDIA STUDIOS, INC. (“WSI,” “Defendant” or,
25 collectively with DOE and other named defendants, “Defendants”) is a Georgia
26 corporation, which employed Plaintiff and was at all relevant times engaged in and
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
3 6. Defendant WARNERMEDIA SERVICES, LLC (“WSL,” “Defendant” or,
4 collectively with DOE and other named defendants, “Defendants”) is a Delaware Limited
5 Liability company, which employed Plaintiff and was at all relevant times engaged in and
9 7. Defendant FRANCESCA ORSI (“ORSI” or, collectively with DOE and
10 other named defendants, “Defendants”) is an individual who, at all relevant times alleged
11 herein, was and is a resident and employed within the County of Los Angeles, State of
12 California.
13 8. Defendant KATHLEEN MCCAFFREY (“MCCAFFREY” or, collectively
14 with DOE and other named defendants, “Defendants”) is an individual who, at all relevant
15 times alleged herein, was and is a resident and employed within the County of Los
16 Angeles, State of California.
17 9. Defendant KEVIN TUREN (“TUREN” or, collectively with DOE and other
18 named defendants, “Defendants”) is an individual who, at all relevant times alleged herein,
19 was and is a resident and employed within the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
20 10. Defendant REZA FAHIM (“FAHIM” or, collectively with DOE and other
21 named defendants, “Defendants”) is an individual who, at all relevant times alleged herein,
22 was and is a resident and employed within the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
23 11. Defendant ABEL TESFAYE (“TESFAYE” or, collectively with DOE and
24 other named defendants, “Defendants”), professionally known as The Weeknd, is an
25 individual who, at all relevant times alleged herein, was and is a resident and employed
26 within the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
27 12. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the defendants
28 named herein as DOES 1 through 50, and Plaintiff, therefore, sues those defendants by

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 said fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and
2 capacities when ascertained.
3 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
4 mentioned, the Defendants, and each person acting on its behalf, was the agent, servant,
5 and/or employee of each and every other defendant, and that all acts and omissions herein
6 complained of were performed within the course and scope of said employment, service,
7 or agency. At all times relevant, the entity Defendants employed or jointly employed
8 Plaintiff.
9 14. This Court is the proper Court, and this action is properly filed in the County
10 of Los Angeles because the Defendants’ obligations and liability arise therein, because
11 Defendants maintain a business location and transact business within the County of Los
12 Angeles, and because work performed by Plaintiff, that makes up the subject of this action,
13 was performed in the County of Los Angeles.
14 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15 15. Plaintiff brings this action to recover, among other things, damages suffered
16 as a result of Defendants’ harassment, discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable
17 accommodation, failure to participate in the interactive process, retaliation, failure to
18 prevent harassment and discrimination, and wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s
19 employment.
20 16. Plaintiff was employed by one or more of the entity Defendants from 2015 to
21 February 2017 as a temporary employee. In February 2017, Plaintiff was hired as an
22 Executive Assistant at one or more of the entity Defendants on a full-time permanent basis.
23 Plaintiff worked in this capacity uninterrupted until August 2018 when Plaintiff required
24 leave for medical reasons. Upon Plaintiff’s return to work in September 2018, Plaintiff’s
25 workload and duties had significantly decreased and Plaintiff began to experience repeated
26 and continued harassment by a managerial junior executive, targeting Plaintiff’s sexual
27 orientation. The harassment was very specific to and targeted Plaintiff’s sexual orientation
28 and sex/gender. It included unwelcome harassing pestering and charged comments about

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff’s dating and sexual activities and frequency. Later, this harassment would also
2 target Plaintiff’s mental health disability. Plaintiff repeatedly complained of this
3 harassment to a supervisory employee and no action was taken to address or abate the
4 harassing conduct. As a result, said unlawful conduct continued throughout the remainder
5 of Plaintiff’s employment with the entity Defendants. Moreover, the problem was
6 compounded when another junior executive in a managerial position began to harass
7 Plaintiff physically and verbally beginning in or about October 2018 on the basis of
8 Plaintiff’s sexual orientation, sex/gender, and later disability. Such harassment included
9 slapping Plaintiff’s buttocks, sitting provocatively on Plaintiff’s desk, and blowing
10 Plaintiff kisses, professing his love for Plaintiff, commenting about Plaintiff’s physical
11 appearance, and commenting about personal and sexual matters. Plaintiff again
12 complained but this conduct continued unabated.
13 17. In or about June 2019, ORSI joined in the discriminatory and harassing
14 treatment of Plaintiff, targeting his mental health disability. ORSI would have Plaintiff
15 perform menial tasks not related to his work duties such as care for found kittens and
16 declaring that he was assigned the menial task to assist with Plaintiff’s mental health
17 disability. Such menial tasks were not a one-time event and continued. ORSI went so far
18 as to direct Plaintiff to sit on the floor of her office and feed the kittens as she conducted
19 meetings and calls with agents, writers, and producers. ORSI disclosed Plaintiff’s
20 disability to several of these individuals and joked about Plaintiff playing with the felines
21 to improve his mental health. ORSI as a department head was permitted to continue her
22 unlawful conduct unabated.
23 18. In or about March 2020, Plaintiff overheard an executive making fun of
24 Plaintiff’s mental health disability with other executives during a conference call in which
25 all believed Plaintiff was not present, insinuating that Plaintiff was making it all up.
26 19. In the summer of 2020, Plaintiff sought an accommodation for leave for
27 shoulder surgery and subsequent recovery. Despite this accommodation being approved,
28 ORSI gave Plaintiff a new assignment on or about the day of his surgery. Plaintiff was

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 then pressured to return to work prior to recovery in order to fulfill the assignment.
2 Plaintiff was advised that accommodations would be made so that he could work but no
3 accommodations were provided and Plaintiff had to incur the expense to be able to work.
4 Plaintiff remotely worked from bed with one hand until December 2020 for fear of losing
5 his job. Plaintiff believes this instance of harassment and discrimination was in retaliation
6 for Plaintiff’s mental health disability and was designed to force Plaintiff to quit or fail and
7 be terminated.
8 20. In October 2020, Plaintiff was harassed by ORSI for having too many hours
9 on his timesheet. Despite knowing that Plaintiff’s assignments required more time,
10 Plaintiff was instructed to reduce his hours. As a result, Plaintiff worked off the clock and
11 unpaid for hours in order to complete his tasks. Again, this conduct by ORSI was because
12 of Plaintiff’s mental health disability and designed to force Plaintiff to quit or to fail and be
13 terminated.
14 21. Beginning in November 2020, Plaintiff began to further experience a
15 decrease in his duties and his duties being reassigned to others for no provided reason.
16 Plaintiff is informed and believes that in and around April 2021, ORSI began a campaign
17 of telling other employees false information about Plaintiff’s mental health and indicating
18 that Plaintiff’s mental health issues were fabricated for attention. Plaintiff discovered that
19 in June 2021, MCCAFFREY harassed Plaintiff by undermining his employment status by
20 commenting that Plaintiff was lying about his mental health disability.
21 22. For his part, during the summer of 2021, TUREN would target Plaintiff for
22 inappropriate duties such as directing Plaintiff to pay for a group of other employees’
23 coffee and lunch, for which Plaintiff was not reimbursed. No one else was targeted in this
24 fashion and it is believed that TUREN’s conduct was to target Plaintiff’s mental health
25 disability and break Plaintiff’s resolve. In or about that same time, TESFAYE and FAHIM
26 would sit closely behind Plaintiff, purportedly to watch him work, and questioned Plaintiff
27 about whether Plaintiff was doing something inappropriate. However, it was clear that this
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 conduct by TESFAYE and FAHIM was done to intimidate and force a reaction out of
2 Plaintiff that would either lead to Plaintiff quitting or provide pretext for termination.
3 23. In August 2021, ORSI induced Plaintiff to resign from his position in order
4 to accept what was supposed to be a better position as a script coordinator. Feeling he did
5 not have a choice, and would face termination if he did not accept the new position,
6 Plaintiff complied. However, this supposedly better position was pretext and Plaintiff
7 discovered that the plan was to place Plaintiff in a position that was worse than the one he
8 relinquished because it was considered entry level and required he give up a position he
9 was in for years.
10 24. In this new position it became clear to Plaintiff that he was being set up for
11 failure. Plaintiff was denied access to information that someone in his position would
12 normally receive. Plaintiff received no training although it was a new position for him.
13 Plaintiff was excluded from communications. Plaintiff was not even provided his expected
14 work schedule or a key to his own office, which remained locked at all times. Plaintiff
15 was singled out and seated in a location away from the rest of the other employees, and
16 was constantly pressured to work from home, although others worked on site.
17 25. TUREN and other producers would wait outside of the building and make
18 comments to Plaintiff such as “nobody wants you here.” In conjunction with everyone’s
19 knowledge and perceptions of Plaintiff’s disability, it was clear that this was continued
20 targeting of Plaintiff. TEFAYE and FAHIM would approach Plaintiff and question him
21 about his mental health, commenting about schizophrenia although it was false, and further
22 harassed Plaintiff by seeking to invade his privacy and inquire about Plaintiff’s
23 medications. FAHIM called Plaintiff a “lunatic” and TEFAYE made false comments
24 about needing to fear being alone with Plaintiff because of his disability. When Plaintiff
25 attempted to complain to a supervisor about this harassing and discriminatory conduct,
26 Plaintiff was told to stop acting “crazy.”
27 26. On or about October 26, 2021, Plaintiff learned that he was purportedly “laid
28 off” and that his last day of employment was October 22, 2022. Plaintiff is informed and

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 believes that the layoff was pretext and it was actually as a result of his disability and
2 continued complaints of harassment.
3 27. Moreover, Defendants, by and through its managing agents, retaliated
4 against and terminated Plaintiff because of said disability and complaints of harassment.
5 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, by and through their
6 managers, agents, employees and personnel, harassed and discriminated and retaliated
7 against Plaintiff by denying Plaintiff any reasonable accommodation for his mental health
8 disability, failing and refusing to participate in the interactive process with Plaintiff to
9 determine a reasonable accommodation, and terminating Plaintiff due to his disability and
10 complaints of harassment.
11 29. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent said
12 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Defendants’ managing agents even facilitated
13 and participated in the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
14 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times
15 relevant hereto Defendants, their officers, directors or shareholders were acting on behalf
16 of each other defendant in the establishment of, or ratification of the illegal practices or
17 policies, unlawful conduct, and wrongful termination alleged herein.
18 31. Plaintiff properly and timely filed a complaint with the Department of Fair
19 Employment and Housing, has received a Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue letter,
20 and has commenced this action in a timely manner.
21 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the acts
22 and omissions alleged herein were performed by, and/or attributable to, Defendants and
23 unknown defendants, each acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction
24 and control of each of the other Defendants, and that said acts and failures to act were
25 within the course and scope of said agency, employment and/or direction and control.
26 33. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants,
27 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from economic and non-economic damages,
28 including loss of earnings and emotional distress in an amount subject to proof at trial, plus

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 interest and other allowable relief, in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirements of
2 this Court.
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
5 (Against Defendants HBO, CWP, WML, WSI, and WSL)
6 34. Plaintiff hereby restates and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs 1
7 through 33 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
8 35. California has a public policy which protects employees who suffer from a
9 disability or request an accommodation for a disability by prohibiting discrimination or
10 retaliation against any such employee. California also has a public policy protecting
11 employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Under Government Code § 12940, “It shall
12 be an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
13 qualification…[f]or an employer, because of…sex, gender,…mental disability [or] sexual
14 orientation…to discharge the person from employment, or to discriminate against the
15 person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” The code
16 also provides that it shall be unlawful for an employer “because of…sex, gender,…mental
17 disability [or] sexual orientation…to harass an employee.” As alleged above, Defendants,
18 by and through their employees and agents, are charged with discriminating and retaliating
19 against Plaintiff based upon his disability, need for accommodation, and request for
20 reasonable accommodation. Defendants’ conduct and termination of Plaintiff’s
21 employment was in violation of California’s public policy.
22 36. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional
23 unlawful conduct against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered adverse employment actions, and
24 sustained and continues to sustain losses in earnings and other employment benefits, in an
25 amount exceeding the minimal jurisdiction of this Court and to be proven at trial.
26 37. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, intentional, and outrageous
27 unlawful acts against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation,
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a
2 sum according to proof.
3 38. Based on Defendants’ willful, malicious, despicable, and oppressive
4 unlawful acts against Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of other special damages, including
5 punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
6 39. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’
7 fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of said expenses and fees and
8 prays for leave of court to amend this complaint when said amounts are more fully known
9 in order to recover said expenses and fees as allowed by statute.
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
15 41. California Government Code § 12940(m) provides that it shall be an
16 unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodation
17 for the known disability of an employee. As alleged above, Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s
18 disability, need for accommodation, and failed to make the appropriate reasonable
19 accommodation to allow Plaintiff to perform his essential job duties or return to work,
20 although a reasonable accommodation was available, namely provide an environment free
21 of harassment so that Plaintiff could perform his essential job duties without suffering
22 further damage to his mental health and/or other accommodation.
23 42. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
24 sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings and
25 other employment benefits in amounts to be proven at trial, which are in excess of the
26 Court’s minimum jurisdictional limits. Plaintiff’s damages include all consequential,
27 general, and special economic damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 43. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
2 and continues to suffer humiliation, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain
3 and anguish, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum according to proof.
5 unlawful acts against Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of other special damages, including
6 punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12 FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS
13 [GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940]
15 46. Plaintiff hereby restates and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
17 47. California Government Code § 12940(n) provides that it shall be an unlawful
18 for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the
19 employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a
20 request for reasonable accommodation by an employee with a known disability. As
21 alleged above, by continuing to subject Plaintiff to a hostile work environment, without
22 interacting with Plaintiff for a solution or accommodation, Defendants failed to engage in a
23 good faith and interactive process with Plaintiff to determine an effective reasonable
24 accommodation, after having been informed of Plaintiff’s disability.
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
7 unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks an award of other special damages, including punitive
8 damages in an amount according to proof.
13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 WRONGFUL TERMINATION
15 [GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12940, et seq.]
19 53. The foregoing alleged conduct by Defendants violates, among other statutes,
20 the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§12940, et seq., which
21 provides that discharge of an employee on the basis of mental disability, sex/gender, or in
22 retaliation for requesting an accommodation is an unlawful employment practice, or in
23 retaliation for complaining about or reporting unlawful harassment. As alleged above,
24 Plaintiff was terminated and denied an accommodation, based on Plaintiff’s disability and
25 request for accommodation, that being a request for a harassment free environment to
26 protect his mental health, and Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with reasonable
27 accommodation.
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
16 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
21 59. The foregoing conduct violates the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
22 Government Code §§12940, et seq., which provides that discrimination against an
23 employee based on mental disability or sexual orientation or sex/gender or in retaliation
24 for requesting an accommodation or in retaliation for complaining of disability and sexual
25 orientation harassment is an unlawful employment practice. As alleged above, Plaintiff
26 was discriminated and retaliated against in the terms and conditions of his employment
27 because of Plaintiff’s disability, need for accommodation, sexual orientation, and
28 complaints of unlawful harassment.

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
18 [GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12940, et seq. and LABOR CODE § 1102.5]
22 65. The foregoing conduct by Defendants violates the Fair Employment and
23 Housing Act, Government Code §§12940, et seq., and Labor Code § 1102.5 which make it
24 unlawful to retaliate against an employee due to disability, sexual orientation, sex/gender,
25 need for accommodation, or complaining of unlawful harassment, or disclosing
26 information of or opposing unlawful violation of statute or non-compliance with statute.
27 As alleged above, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by denying Plaintiff a reasonable
28 accommodation, by targeting Plaintiff for increased discrimination and harassment, and

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 terminating Plaintiff’s employment based on his disability, need for accommodation, and
2 complaints of and opposition to unlawful harassment.
18 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT
20 (Against all Defendants)
23 71. The foregoing alleged conduct of Defendants violates the Fair Employment
24 and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., which provides that harassment
25 against an employee because of mental disability or sexual orientation or sex/gender is an
26 unlawful employment practice. In order to harass Plaintiff, Defendants knowingly and
27 intentionally created a hostile work environment, as stated hereinabove. Said harassing
28 conduct by Defendants caused Plaintiff harm, and Plaintiff’s complaints of and opposition

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 to same led to his ultimate wrongful termination. Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful
2 harassment and hostile work environment as a result of Defendants’ conduct alleged
3 herein.
19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
24 77. Defendants’ conduct alleged herein was intentional, outrageous, malicious,
25 and committed for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish,
26 psychological distress, and severe physical and emotional distress.

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
14 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
19 83. California Government Code § 12940(k) provides that it shall be an unlawful
20 employment practice for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to
21 prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring. As alleged above, Defendants
22 failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment and discrimination
23 against Plaintiff which resulted in Plaintiff being continuously harassed and discriminated
24 against, denied reasonable accommodation, and ultimately terminated, on the basis of
25 Plaintiff’s disability and/or sexual orientation and/or sex/gender.

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
13 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 ACTION AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
18 89. Defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct violates the Fair Employment and
19 Housing Act, Government Code §§12940, et seq., which provides that employees in the
20 workplace shall be free from unlawful harassment and discrimination. As alleged above,
21 Plaintiff was harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against, and terminated by
22 Defendants because of Plaintiff’s disability, sexual orientation, sex/gender, and/or
23 complaints of harassment.
24 90. In addition to monetary and punitive remedies, Plaintiff seeks nonmonetary
25 injunctive and declaratory relief by way of issuance of a judgment declaring that
26 Defendants violated California Government Code § 12940 by way of its alleged unlawful
27 conduct.
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 91. Plaintiff seeks to have this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendants to
2 stop engaging in such unlawful conduct, and to develop and follow sound policies and
3 procedures for preventing the recurrence of any such unlawful conduct, including but not
4 limited to the following: (a) Require Defendants to adopt policies with specific guidelines
5 for instructing personnel about how to address prevention of harassment and
6 discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and/or sex/gender; (b) Require
7 Defendants to provide training to supervisors or decision makers on their legal obligation
8 to refrain from disparate treatment of other employees on the basis of disability, sexual
9 orientation, and/or sex/gender, and to take all steps necessary to prevent related harassment
10 and discrimination; (c) Require Defendants to develop and institute a training and
11 education program for all of its employees, addressing issues of diversity in the workplace
12 and tolerance, wherein employees are instructed about laws prohibiting harassment and
13 discrimination and retaliation; (d) Require Defendants to maintain complete and accurate
14 written records concerning each complaint of harassment or discrimination, as well as the
15 specific action taken by Defendants to resolve such requests.
20 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 WAITING TIME PENALTIES
23 93. Plaintiffs hereby restates and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs 1
25 94. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff accrued wages and
26 other compensation due immediately upon termination, as required. These wages refer to,
27 at a minimum, unpaid compensation that Defendants should have paid, but did not pay to
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff during the term of Plaintiff’s employment and which were, at the latest, due
2 within the time restraints of Labor Code §§201-203.
3 95. Plaintiff is entitled to 30 days of regular daily wages as waiting time
4 penalties for Defendants’ failure to timely pay Plaintiff all wages owed.
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as follows:
11 1. For compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof;
12 2. For punitive damages in the sum sufficient to make a proper example of
13 Defendants and to deter future same or similar conduct;
14 3. For interest accrued;
15 4. For reasonable attorney’s fees as allowed by applicable law;
16 5. For costs of suit and expenses incurred herein; and
17 6. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
18
Dated: July 17, 2023 MICHAEL MARTINEZ LAW, APC
19
20
By:
21 Michael C. Martinez
Attorneys for Plaintiff
22 JOHN DOE
23
24
25
26
27
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
3 Plaintiff JOHN DOE hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims.
4
Dated: July 17, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
5
6 MICHAEL MARTINEZ LAW, APC
7
8 By:
Michael C. Martinez
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHN DOE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

APC
Pasadena COMPLAINT

Temori v. HBO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Temori v. HBO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Temori v. HBO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Michael C. Martinez (Bar No.

Michael Martinez Law, 1

Michael Martinez Law, 2

Michael Martinez Law, 3

Michael Martinez Law, 4

Michael Martinez Law, 5

Michael Martinez Law, 6

Michael Martinez Law, 7

Michael Martinez Law, 8

Michael Martinez Law, 9

Michael Martinez Law, 10

Michael Martinez Law, 11

Michael Martinez Law, 12

Michael Martinez Law, 13

Michael Martinez Law, 14

Michael Martinez Law, 15

Michael Martinez Law, 16

Michael Martinez Law, 17

Michael Martinez Law, 18

Michael Martinez Law, 19

Michael Martinez Law, 20

Michael Martinez Law, 21

You might also like