Choudhary Law Office Nilesh Choudhary, 219425 Joel Rapaport, 248847 1909 Capitol Ave.

, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95811 P: 916.526.2770 F: 916.400.3848 e: jdrapaport(a),gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Mechelle Sherles Robyn Sherles

FfLED
Superior Court Of Califorrjia, Sdcrgimento

By_

, DBpt|ty

CasB Numbur:

34-2011-00114741j
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MECHELLE SHERELES; and ROBYN SHERELES, Plaintiff,

Case No. Complaint for Damages for: 1. Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code, 12940, subd. G)) 2. Retaliation (Gov. Code, 12940) ' 3. Assault; 4. Battery; 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 6. Negligence; 7. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress* 8. Violation of Labor Code 1102.5; 9. Violation of Civil Code 51; 10. Violation ofCivil Code 52.4; 11. Violation of Civil Code 1708.5; 12. Negligence Retention and Supervision; 13. Violation ofCivil Code 52.1; and 14. Loss of Consortium; and 15. Sexual Orientation Harassment (Gov. Code 12940). And Request for Jury Trial.

STATE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000; STATE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; RICH BOYD, an individual; MARIA PATTERSON, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

Plaintiffs Mechelle Sherles, an individual, and Robyn Sherles, an individual, allege as follows:
Department Assignments Case Management 44 Law and Motion 53 Minors Compromise 45

Parties

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

Mechelle Sherles ("Sherles") is, and at all times was, a resident of the State of California, County of Sacramento.

2.

Robyn Sherles ("Robyn Sherles") is Registered Domestic Partner ("RDP") to Plaintiff Mechelle Sherles, and at all times was, a resident of the State of California, County of Riverside.

3.

Defendant State Employees International Union LOCAL 1000 ("LOCAL 1000") is, and at all times herein relevant was, a union organization, with its principal place ofbusiness in Sacramento, California.

4.

Defendant State Employees International Union ("SEIU") is an International Union of which Defendant LOCAL 1000 is a chapter. Thus, SEIU will be liable for claims

contained herein based on LOCAL 1000 acting as its agent at all times material to this complaint. 5. Defendant Rich Boyd is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the State of California, County of Sacramento. 6. Defendant, Maria Patterson is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the State of California, County of San Joaquin. 7. Sherles is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Sherles will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Sherles is informed and

believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences and events herein alleged and that Sherles' damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such acts and events. 8. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, and employee of the other, and in'doing the acts hereinafter alleged was doing so within the scope of their authority as such agent, servant and employee and with the permission and consent of each other. II.

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. 15. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7.

Facts The LOCAL 1000 is an employer subject to the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Sherles is employed by the State of California as an executive assistant, in the role of a filing officer, department's liaison to the Fair Political practices Commission and ethics

compliance coordinator. At all times relevant to this complaint she was a member of the Local 1000 and from approximately September 2009 to June 2011 she was a vice chair for bargaining unit ("BU") 4. As the vice chair for BU 4 of the LOCAL 1000, Sherles' duties were prescribed to her by the LOCAL lOOO's policy file. Sherles attended union meetings, general membership meetings, executive board meetings, council meetings, statewide bargaining advisory committee meetings, mixers, fundraisers and other special events. While vice chair for BU 4 LOCAL 1000, Sherles became the object of harassment and discrimination by Bargaining Director, Defendant Rich Boyd ("Boyd"). harassment began on or about June of 2010 and continued through August of 2010. Boyd was hired by the LOCAL 1000, as Executive Bargaining Director, on or around April 2009. Boyd is subject to liability under FEHA as an employee of the LOCAL 1000 because Boyd was, at all times relevant to the facts alleged in this complaint, an individual under the direction and control, and providing services for the LOCAL 1000. He reported directly reported to Yvonne Walker, SEIU Local lOOO's president. Further, as the director of bargaining he also had SEIU staff and nine bargaining chairs that reported to him. He was given hotel suites and travel expenses paid for by SEIU. Boyd acted directly as an agent of the LOCAL 1000. On July 2, 2010, Boyd called Sherles to his hotel bedroom suite under the pretense of discussing Union matters, but instead he forced himself upon her on a couch and kissed her on the mouth. Sherles immediately stopped this, by pushing Boyd off of her, telling This

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17. 16.

him "no" and running out of the room. Following this hotel room incident Boyd sent repeated text messages to Sherles of a sexual nature regarding his genitals, propositioning her for sexual relations, and discussing other things of a sexual and intimate nature and stalking her. Boyd specifically used what he had learned about Sherles on Friday July 2, 2010, and told her that he knew she was a diabetic and that he was willing to pick her up at night if she ever wanted to see him, because "he knew she could not see well at night". When Sherles refused his advances, Boyd began to dig more into Sherles' accommodations related to her diabetes. While Sherles was one of three of the eight bargaining members on the Unit 4 team to receive reasonable accommodations, Sherles was singled out and had her confidential medical history questioned both by Boyd and Margarita Maldonado ("Maldonado"), then BUl'S chair and currently Local lOOO's vice president of bargaining Maldonado in front of nine BU chairs and several SEIU staff. Sherles, a past victim of domestic violence, attempted to deal with Boyd's conduct internally, but by August she could not take it anymore. On Friday August 6, 2010 Sherles sent Boyd a text message stating that his advances were unwanted, unsolicited, and unprofessional, and that they needed to cease. Earlier Sherles was visibly upset and confided in Stacy Giacchino and showed her one of Boyd's sexually harassing text messages. It is stated on information and belief that Giacchino reported the conduct to the LOCAL 1000. On or about August 9, 2010, Sherles was called into an alleged investigatory meeting with Brian Schroder, Human Resources Director, of the LOCAL 1000 who wanted to talk to Sherles about Boyd's conduct. Sherles showed Schroder the texts to her from Boyd. Schroder referred to Boyd as a sexual predator based on his experience, and stated that Boyd's behavior was consistent with a sexual predator who uses their power of authority over women through intimidation. On or about August 10, 2011, Yvonne Walker, LOCAL 1000 president met with Sherles to discuss the harassing conduct of Boyd. She referred to Boyd as a predator and stated

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23.

that she knew he had two phones, which was consistent with the way Sherles was receiving text messages from Boyd. Walker further stated she was overseeing a multimillion dollar organization and it was her job to protect the organization. She made no mention of protecting Sherles, a state employee and a member of the organization. Sherles confided to Walker that she had been a victim of domestic violence in the past and a desire not to be in the spotlight was why she had not come forward sooner. It is stated on information and belief that Boyd, while conducting negotiations with the State of California, made inappropriate and offensive and harassing comments at the bargaining table with Department of Personnel Administration (DPA). Walker and Local 1000 knew Boyd had a propensity to treat women in a lesser manner than their male counterparts. On or about August 13, Sherles was interviewed by representatives of the LOCAL 1000 including their Paul Harris, chief counsel and Schroder. It is stated on information and belief that this "interview" was not a part of a greater investigation into Boyd's conduct, but an opportunity to intimidate Sherles into not bringing a civil action. Harris and Schroder, during an extensive period of time during the interview engaged in a series of intimidating practices designed to thwart Sherles efforts to bring her complaints forward. Thereafter, over the course of the next several month Sherles began to receive further harassment and retaliation by Local 1000 leaders. Specifically, Maria Patterson began to verbally abuse, intimidate, and bully Sherles for coming forward and making a complaint of sexual harassment. Patterson also discussed Sherles sexual orientation and questioned her gender choice in conversations with Local 1000 leaders. It is stated on information and belief that the Union questioned Sherles relationship with Robyn Sherles. Further, Patterson took a picture of Robyn Sherles "Pride at Work" form, which contained confidential home address information, and forwarded this confidential form

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 32. 31. 30. 29.

via her iphone. Walker was notified of this incident and the concern that Sherles felt for her families' privacy and safety due to her address being shared with other individuals. On another occasion, an agent of SEIU left a document containing Shereles personal address information out and visible for public viewing at the SEIU building located on or near 14 street in Sacramento, CA. Sherles and Robyn Sherles are especially sensitive to their home address information remaining confidential due to Robyn Sherles employment with CDCR, which places her in direct contact with California State inmates, parolees, and crime offenders. On November 30, 2010, Sherles filed claims of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against the LOCAL 1000, SEIU, and Boyd. Sherles received Notices and Right-To-Sue from the DFEH dated December 2, 2010. Sherles served these notices via certified mail on the relevant parties care of Local 1000. On November 17, 2011, Sherles filed Supplemental and Amended claims of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against the LOCAL 1000 and SEIU. She filed a claim for discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing against Maria Patterson. Sherles received Notices and Right-To-Sue from the DFEH dated November 23, 2011. Sherles served these notices via certified mail on the relevant parties care of Local 1000. Thus, Sherles has standing to bring this action.

m. LEGAL CLAIMS First Cause of Action Sexual Harassment in Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j) (Against All Defendants) 33. Sherles alleges as against all Defendants as follows and re-alleges and Incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint.

27 28

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

34.

Government Code section 12940, subdivision G)(l)= makes it unlawful for an employer or any other person "... because of sex ... to harass an employee...." Furthermore, section 12904, subdivision (j)(l), holds an employer "responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees ... where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action."

35.

Boyd maintained a management position while acting in his role as an employee of LOCAL 1000.

36.

It is stated on information and belief that LOCAL 1000 knew that Boyd was a threat to female members of LOCAL 1000.

37.

LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a "Labor Organization" under Government Code Section 12926(g).

38.

Boyd engaged in the actions set forth in this Complaint, including making inappropriate and harassing sexual comments to Sherles while in private and in the company of others, and by forcibly kissing Sherles' lips and pushing against her in his hotel room imder the guise of wanting to discuss business with her.

39.

Boyd made several comments to Sherles essentially informing her that he had the power and resources and could do whatever he wanted. He stated SEIU needed him more than he needed them, and that Boyd had the power to control Sherles as well as Robyn Sherles' union leave and to deny their expense claims, which could affect their ability to represent 22,000 bargaining unit 4 and 4700 bargaming unit 15 members respectively.

40.

When Sherles complained to the LOCAL 1000 about Boyd's harassment, the LOCAL 1000 retaliated against her for making the complaints.

41.

Boyd's harassment was so severe and pervasive as to affect the terms and conditions of Sherles' representation as a bargaining representative for her members.

42.

The LOCAL 1000 engaged In the actions set forth in this Complaint, including having knowledge that Boyd was engaging In harassing conduct, and failing to take appropriate and prompt remedial action.
7 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

43.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been damaged and has incurred attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable pursuant to Govemment Code section 12965, subdivision (b).

44.

The acts of Boyd and the LOCAL 1000 were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthis Court.

45.

Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fiilly set forth below. Second Cause of Action Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h) (Against the LOCAL 1000, SEIU, and DOES 1-100)

46.

Sherles alleges as against the LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint.

47.

On July 2, 2010 Sherles was sexually assaulted by Boyd, who it is believed had a known history of sexual harassment towards women. After Boyd's July 2"'' assault, Sherles complained to the LOCAL 1000 that Boyd had sexually assaulted her, was harassing her and that she felt unsafe around him and did not want to have any contact with him.

48.

After making her complaint, Sherles was subjected to defaming remarks about her character and veracity. She was berated by LOCAL 1000 counsel about coming

forward, and not making this into a public matter. 49. Sherles was subjected to retaliatory conduct after her complaints and the LOCAL lOOO's "investigation" of Boyd's conduct. 50. She was further harassed by Maria Patterson who it is believed was acting under the direct control of Union President Yvonne Walker, and as a result of Sherles claims of being sexually harassed. 51. LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a "Labor Organization" under Government Code Section 12926(g).

Complaint

1 2 3 4

52.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been damaged and has incurred attorneys' fees and costs In an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable pursuant to Govemment Code section 12965, subdivision (b). The acts of the Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Third Cause of Action Assault (Against Boyd and LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100) 55. Sherles alleges as against Boyd, LOCAL 1000, and SEIU as follows and realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 54 of this Complaint.

5 53. 6 7 8 54. 9 10 ^^ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 60. 59. 58. 57. 56.

On July 2, 2010, Boyd forcefully kissed Sherles and grabbed her while she was on his hotel couch, with the intent of Intimidating her and causing her apprehension of immediate injury. At the time of this incident, Boyd was acting as an agent of LOCAL 1000. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered special damages m an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthis Court. As a direct and proximate resuh of the actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthis Court. The acts of Boyd were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendant as more fully set forth below. Fourth Cause of Action

Complaint

Battery (Against SEIU; LOCAL 100, and Boyd and DOES 1-100) 61. Sherles alleges as against SEIU, Boyd, and LOCAL 1000 as follows and realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint. 62. On July 2, 2010, Boyd forcefully kissed Sherles and grabbed her while she was on his hotel couch, with the intent of harming or offending Sherles. At the time of this incident, Boyd was acting as an agent of LOCAL 1000. 63. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered special damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthis Court. 64. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Boyd, Sherles has suffered general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 55. The acts of Boyd were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 56. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendant as more fully set forth below.

20 21 22 68. 23 24

67.

Sherles alleges as against all Defendants as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 of this Complaint.

The acts of Boyd and the LOCAL 1000 employees as described above were unlawful, outrageous and malicious. The LOCAL 1000 employees were acting within the scope of employment at the time of the acts, and such actions were ratified by the LOCAL

25 1000. 26 69. 27 the intent to cause Sherles severe emotional distress, or so acted when the LOCAL 1000 28 Boyd, Patterson and the LOCAL 1000 employees and/or agents wrongfully acted with

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 72. 10 11 12 73. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 78. 77. 76. 75. 71. 70.

employees knew or should have known that the conduct would cause or be likely to cause severe emotional distress. As a proximate result of the aforementioned outrageous acts of Boyd and the LOCAL 1000 employees and ratified by the LOCAL 1000, Sherles has suffered severe emotional distress which has manifested itself in physical symptoms. As a proximate result of the aforementioned outrageous acts of Boyd and the LOCAL 1000 employees as ratified by the LOCAL 1000, Sherles has suffered general damages and special damages. The acts ofthe Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Sixth Cause of Action Negligence (Against the All Defendants) 74. Sherles alleges as against all Defendatns that Boyd, Patterson, and LOCAL 1000 and by extension SEIU had a duty to protect her, a union member from dangerous conditions and individuals on the LOCAL lOOO's premises and at the LOCAL lOOO's functions, which Sherles was obligated to attend. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 that LOCAL 1000 breached this duty by failing to prevent Boyd from interacting with Sherles. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 that LOCAL 1000 breached this duty by failing to prevent Patterson from interacting with Sherles. Sherles alleges that as a result of LOCAL lOOO's breach that Sherles was damaged in amount to be established at trial and In excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Sherles alleges as to Boyd that Boyd had a duty to act as a reasonable person with sound
1 1

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ^^ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 85. 84. 83. 82. 81. 80. 79.

mind with respect to his Interactions with Sherles. Sherles alleges that Boyd breached this duty and failed to act as a reasonable person of sound mind in sending Sherles sexually explicit text messages. Sherles alleges that Boyd breached this duty and failed to act as a reasonable person of sound mind in forcibly kissing Sherles' and grabbing her. Sherles alleges as a result of Boyd's breach(es), Sherles was damaged in amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthis Court. Sherles alleges as to Patterson that Patterson had a duty to act as a reasonable person with sound mind with respect to his interactions with Sherles. Sherles alleges that Patterson breached this duty and failed to act as a reasonable person with respect to the hostile and absusive comments she made to Sherles. Sherles alleges as a result of Patterson's breach(es), Sherles was damaged in amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Seventh Cause of Action Negligence Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) 86. Sherles alleges as to LOCAL 1000, SEIU, Patterson, and Boyd that as a result of the Negligence identified in the Seventh Cause of Action that she suffered significant emotional distress In amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 87. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below.

Eighth Cause of Action Violation of California Labor Code 1102.5 (Against the LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100) 88. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and re-alleges and

28

Complaint

^ 2 3 4 89.

incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 87 of this Complaint. Sherles disclosed to her employer. The State of California, that Boyd had sexually assaulted and battered her, which constitutes a disclosure to a law enforcement agency under California Labor Code 1102.5(e)

5 90. 6 -J 8 ^ 10 11 12 J3 14 part of another, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results...." Civ Code 1708.5 b. "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, 16 medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full 17 and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all 18 29 20 21 action for damages against any responsible party. The plaintiff may seek 22 actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, 23 2^ 25 26 27 violent injury on the person of another." Penal Code 240 28
13 Complaint

The content of her report dealt with conduct, which may have violated Civ. Code 1708.5(a); Civ. Code 51; Civ. Code 52.4; Pen. Code 240; and Pen. Code 242, which states in relevant part: a. "A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following: (1) Acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate

business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Civ Code 51 c. "Any person who has been subjected to gender violence may bring a civil

any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief A prevailing plaintiff may also be awarded attorney's fees and costs" Civ Code 52.4 d. "An assault is an unlawfijl attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a

e. "A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the 2 3 4 against Sherles, by dispai'aging her character, and making threats regarding her ability to take what had happened public, and generally making it difficult to perform her elected duties. 8 ^ 10 governing agency. This is retaliation against public policy and in violation of 11 Califomla Statutory law. 12 22 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 complaints about being sexually assaulted and battered by Boyd. At all times 25 relevant to this harassment/discrimination based on her sex Boyd was acting as an 26 agent of the LOCAL 1000. 28 97. 96. Sherles, as a female is a protected individual under the UNRUH act in that she is entitled not to be harassed and/or discriminated against based on her sex Boyd did in fact discriminate and harass Sherles as a result of her sex and her 95. Ninth Cause of Action Violation of Civil Code 51 - UNRUH (Against the Boyd and LOCAL 1000; SEIU; and DOES 1-100) Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000; SEIU and Boyd as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 of this Complaint. 94. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. 92. 93. This Caused Sherles damages in an amount to be shown according to proof. The LOCAL lOOO's conduct was the result of Plaintiff s disclosures to a 91. person of another." Penal Code 242 Subsequent to this reporting, the LOCAL 1000 and its agents began to retaliate

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 101.

98. 99.

This Caused Sherles damages in an amount to be shovm according to proof Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Tenth Cause of Action Violation of Civil Code 52 and 52.4 (Against the Boyd and LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100)

100.

Sherles alleges as against Boyd and LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and re alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 99 of this Complaint.

Boyd's conduct in assaulting and battering Sherles are gender violence as defined under California Civil Code 52.4. At all times relevant to this harassment/discrimination

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
15 Complaint

based on her sex Boyd was acting as an agent of the LOCAL 1000. 102. This Caused Sherles damages in an amount to be shown according to proof 103. The acts of the Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 104. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below.

Eleventh Cause of Action Violation ofCivil Code 1708.5 (Against the Boyd and LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100) 105. Sherles alleges as against Boyd, LOCAL 1000, and SEIU as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 104 of this Complaint. 106. Boyd intended to cause harmful and offensive contact to Sherles' body when he attempted to kiss her and grab her. At all times relevant to this

harassment/discrimination based on her sex Boyd was acting as an agent of the

LOCAL 1000.

2 107. Harmful and offensive contact did in fact occur when Boyd touched and kissed Sherles' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
they knew or should have known posed a threat to union members, 109. Twelfth Cause of Action Negligence Retention and Supei^ision (Against the LOCAL 1000; SEIU and DOES 1-100) Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 and SEIU that LOCAL 1000 and SEIU had a duty to protect her, a union member from Union employees and/or agents 108. body. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
112. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Thirteenth Cause of Action Violation of Civil Code 52.1 (Against LOCAL 1000; SEIU, and DOES 1-100) 113. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 and SEIU as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 113 of this Complaint. 114. LOCAL lOOO's conduct in intimidating Sherles and threatening Sherles not to go public with her claim of sexual harassment constitutes coercion under Civil Code 111. treating Shereles with aggression. Sherles alleges that as a result of LOCAL lOOO's breach that Sherles was damaged in amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. no. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 that LOCAL 1000 breached this duty by maintaining Boyd's employment and/or Patterson's employment and/or status as a Union member with authority, thereby allowing Boyd to sexually assault, batter, and harass Plaintiff, and for Patterson to have the interactions with Plaintiff she did including

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 y 8 ^ 10 11 12 13 14 15

52.1 as this conduct infringed upon Sherles' first amendment right to petition, as well as complaint about sexual harassment protected by California Law and constitution. 115. This Caused Sherles damages in an amount to be shown according to proof 116. The acts of the Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 117. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Fourteenth Cause of Action Loss of Consortium (Against All Defendants) 118. Robyn Sherles alleges as against all Defendants as follows and re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 117 of this Complaint. 119. Robyn Sherles is RDP to Plaintiff Mechelle Sherles.

16 120. The Incidents as described above have caused harm to the marital relationship of 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 121. Sherles alleges as against Local 1000, SEIU, and Patterson as follows and re alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 120 of this Complaint 122. Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (j)(l), makes it imlawful for an employer Mechelle Sherles and Robyn Sherles. And Thus, Robyn Sherles, as a direct result of the Defendants, and each of their conduct, has been damaged in an amount to be shown according to proof. Fifteenth Cause of Action Sexual Orientation Harassment in Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j) (Against LOCAL 1000, SEIU, Maria Patterson, and Does 1-100)

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or any other person "... because of sexual orientation ... to harass an employee...." Furthermore, section 12904, subdivision (}){\), holds an employer "responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees ... where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." 123. Patterson maintained an elected position while acting in her role as an agent of Local 1000, and to the extent she was not a manager, she was acting as a direct agent of President Yvonne Walker. 124. It is stated on information and belief that LOCAL 1000 knew that Patterson was a threat to Sherles. 125. LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a "Labor Organization" under Government Code Section 12926(g). 126. Patterson engaged in the actions set forth in this Complaint, including making inappropriate and harassing comments to Sherles while in private and in the company of others. 127. When Sherles complained to the LOCAL 1000 about Patterson's harassment, the LOCAL 1000 retaliated against her for making the complaints. 128. Patterson's harassment was so severe and pervasive as to affect the terms and conditions of Sherles' representation as a bargaining representative for her members. 129. The LOCAL 1000 engaged in the actions set forth in this Complaint, including having knowledge that Patterson was engaging in harassing conduct, and failing to take appropriate and prompt remedial action. 130. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been damaged and has Incurred attomeys' fees and costs In an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable pursuant to Govemment Code section 12965, subdivision (b). 131. The acts of Patterson and the LOCAL 1000 were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

Complaint

1 2

132. Wherefore, Sherles prays for judgment against Defendants as more fully set forth below. Prayer

3 As to the First Cause of Action - Sexual Harassment: 4 1. 5 subdivision (b); 6 2. 7 3. 8 4. 9 5. 10 As to the Second Cause of Action - Retaliation: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b); 2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incuiTcd; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper. For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Govemment Code section 12965, subdivision For such other and further relief as the court deems proper. For costs of suit herein incurred; and For punitive damages; For general and special damages according to proof; For reasonable attomeys' fees pursuant to Govemnient Code section 12965,

As to the Third Cause of Action - Assault: 1. 2. 3. 4. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and fiulher relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Fourth Cause of Action - Battery: 1. 2. 3. 4. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Fifth Cause of Action - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

Complaint

1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4.

For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein Incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Sixth Cause of Action - Negligence: 1. 2. 3. For general and special damages according to proof; For costs of suit herein Incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Seventh Cause of Action - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: 1. 2. 3. For general and special damages according to proof; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Eighth Cause of Action - Violation ofLabor Code 1102.5: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; For Attomey's Fees; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper; for

As to the Ninth Cause of Action - Violation of Cal Civil 51 - UNRAH: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herem incurred; For Attomey's Fees; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper; for

As to the Tenth Cause of Action - Violation of Cal Civil 52 and 52.4: 1. 2. 3. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein Incurred;

m
Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4. 5.

For Attomey's Fees; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Eleventh Cause of Action - Violation of Cal Civil 1708.5: 1. 2. 3. 4. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Twelfth Cause of Action - Negligent Retention and Supervision: 1. 2. 3. 4. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred;. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Thirteenth Cause of Action - Violation of Civil Code 52.1: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; For Attomey's Fees; and For such other and fiirther relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Fourteenth Cause of Action - Loss of Consortium: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. For general and special damages according to proof; For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

As to the Fifteenth Cause of Action - Sexual Orientation Harassment: 1. For reasonable attomeys' fees pursuant to Govemment Code section 12965,

subdivision (b); 2. For general and special damages according to proof;

21

Complaint

3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 5.

For punitive damages; For costs of suit herein Incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

Dated: November ^ t 2011.

Respectfully submitted, CHOUDHARY LAW OFFICE

By: Joel Rapaport (No. 248847) Attorney for Plaintiff Mechelle Sherles and Robyn Shereles

22

Complaint