waueoena Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 35 [Alan J. Reinach, Esq. State Bar No. 196899 CHURCH STATE COUNCIL 2686 Townsgate Road, Westlake Village, CA 91359 1805.413-7398 Fax: 805.497-7099 E-mail: ajreinach( Jonathon S. Cherne, State Bar No. 281548, of counsel Wendy Musell, Esq., State Bar No, 203507 [Stewart & Musell, LLP 2200 Powell Street, Suite 440 Emeryville, CA 94608 415-593-0083 Pax: 415-520-0920 E-mail: wmusell@stewartandmusell.com Attorneys for Plaintiff BASSEM BANAFA. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BASSEM BANAFA , COMPLAINT FOR ECONOMIC and COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AND Plaintiff, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Harassment— Title VII CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, MARK 2. — Discrimination — Title VII PETERSON, STEVE MOAWAD, and 3. Retaliation— —Title VII CHERIE MATHISON, Bases: Religion, Race, National Origin 4. Failure to Accommodate- ADA. Defendants. 5. Harassment — ADA 6. Retaliation — ADA 7. Harassment — FEHA 8. Discrimination - FEHA 9. Retaliation — FEHA 10. Failure to Accommodate Disability — FEHA 11. Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination — FEHA 12. Unpaid Overtime- FLSA on DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 2 of 35 INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Bassem Banafa is a highly proficient forensic accountant, a dark skinned Muslim of Yemeni origin. From the time he was first hired, Defendants profiled, harassed and] discriminated against him, despite his remarkable professional achievements, and made his life a living hell. Defendants discriminated against Banafa with respect to pay, deprived him of reasonable accommodations for his disability, and harassed him unmercifully, issuing him ‘unwarranted counsellings and discipline until he was ready to quit. Banafa also engaged in several protected activities, such as requesting disability accommodation, and filing EEOC charges. These only resulted in further harassment and retaliation. Even after Plaintiff Banafa submitted his formal resignation, defendants would not permit him to quit, instead, pulling him out of a meeting with another law enforcement agency, and having security escort him out in the most humiliating manner, what can only be described as a “perp walk,” as though he was guilty of some heinous offense. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Parties Plaintiff BASSEM BANAFA js, and at all relevant times was, an individual residing in the City of Milpitas, California, Santa Clara County, and was an employee protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. He is a 2 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINToo eee 10 WL 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 26 27 28 Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 3 of 35 member of a protected class on account of his race and national origin —he is Yemeni — his religion, Muslim, and his disability. 2. Defendant Contra Costa County is an employer of more than 500 persons, subject to suit for its violations of the various Federal and state laws protecting employees such as Plaintiff, herein, and as further alleged below. Defendant is named as a defendant on account of actions by the Contra Costa County District Attoney’s office, where Plaintiff was employed, and on account of actions by Plaintiff’s supervisors and the former District Attorney, who are also named defendants in this action. Defendant Mark Peterson is the former elected District Attorney who is named as a Defendant with respect to claims of harassment. 4. Defendant Steve Moawad is Plaintiff's former supervisor, and is also named as a Defendant with respect to claims of harassment. 5. Defendant Cherie Mathison is Defendant’s former Human Resources Director, and is also] named as a Defendant with respect to claims of harassment. Jurisdiction and Venue 6. This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000¢ et seq, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq. , the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 ef seg., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiff seeks damages for intentional and unlawful discrimination and iigion — Muslim; race and national harassment in his employment on the basis of his reli DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTey Ah ek oEDwe Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 4 of 35, origin — he is from Yemen; for failure to accommodate his disability, failure to engage in the interactive process; and wage theft violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 7. _ Jurisdiction of this Court is based on a claim of deprivation of Federal Civil Rights and invoked pursuant to the following statutes: a, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, giving district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; and b. 28 U.S.C. § 1343, giving district courts original jurisdiction over actions to secure civil rights extended by the United States government. 8. Pendent jurisdiction is proper with respect to Plaintiff's state law claims. 9. Plaintiff timely filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on or about July 28, 2016 alleging harassment, retaliation and discrimination on the basis of race, religion and national origin, charge number 555-2016-01130. Plaintiff amended this charge on January 25, 2017, to preserve claims of harassment against Defendants Mark Peterson, Cherie Mathisen, and Steve Moawad. Plaintiff filed a second charge on October 06, 2017, adding claims of disability discrimination pursuant tothe Americans with Disabilities Act, and alleging he was not permitted to resign, but terminated on account of discrimination. The second charge bears number 555-2018- 00026. Both charges were co-filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. 10. Plaintiff is in receipt of a Notice of Right to Sue from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and from the United States Department of Justice. Plaintiff 4 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. ‘COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 5 of 35, has therefore exhausted his administrative remedies, and this Complaint is timely filed within 90 days of Plaintiff's receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue from the U.S. Department of Justice, which was received on January 09, 2018 by Plaintiff's attorneys. 11. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) on the ground that the events and omissions giving rise to the claim alleged herein occurred in Contra Costa County, California. Demand for Jury Trial 12, Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13. Plaintiff was hired by the Contra Costa County District Attomey’s office as a ‘temporary, DA Forensic Accountant, at salary Step 1, in January, 2015. 14, Plaintiff was the only practicing Muslim in the District Attomey’s office, and one of a handful of minority employees. He obtained permission from his supervisor, Defendant Moawad to use the polygraph room for daily prayer, and he would leave the office to attend religious services on Fridays. He wears a beard, and has darker skin, He has the appearance of a middle eastern Muslim. 15. His work as a forensic accountant has been highly successful, and he has received much praise for his work from many agencies, state and federal, as well as from Defendant's supervisors. 16. Despite his obvious competence, work ethic and success, Plaintiff has been subjected to al 5. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTYaw awn Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 6 of 35 constant barrage of discrimination, harassment and retaliation — he worked in an office culture that was predominantly white male and Christian, lacking in diversity, and intolerant of minorities. 17. For example, Plaintiff overheard a D.A, responsible for recruiting remark that it was difficult to recruit minorities because “the minority candidates are just not good enough.” The same recruiter also expressed a negative attitude toward beards at the D.A.s office, saying they represent disrespect to the justice system, and that a beard is cause for disqualifying a juror. On information and belief, these attitudes are widely held in the D,As office. These attitudes also help explain why white new hires are often started at high salary steps, while Plaintiff was started at the lowest step, as discussed below. 18, The first discriminatory act was when first hired, Defendant failed and refused to process his new hire paper work. As a result, Plaintiff did not receive his first paycheck on time, and indeed, the D.A.’s office had to request an “off-cycle” check. 19. On information and belief, Defendant Mathison deliberately held onto Plaintiff's paper work on her desk for several weeks, failing and refusing to process it because of Plaintiff's religion, race and/or national origin. 20. Between January, 2015 and October 2015 Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage for forty (40) hours per week, although he actually worked between 50 — 70 hours per week on a regular basis. In fact, Plaintiff informed his supervisor that it was impossible for him to do his job with forty (40) hours per week. Defendants were clearly informed and understood that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendant failed 6 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINT21. 22. 23. 25. 26. Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 7 of 35 ‘o pay Plaintiff for the hours he actually worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Permanent Hire 3 Steps below Promised Pay Scale In October, 2015, Plaintiff received an offer for a permanent position, to begin October 264 He was told he would be paid at salary Step 5. Instead, he was only paid at Step 2. ‘When Plaintiff complained, he was told although he had a right to be upset, if he didn’t accept the decision, County Human Resources, i.e., Defendant Cherie Mathison, would find ways to retaliate against him. Since Plaintiff had to survive a six (6) month probationary period, he had no choice but to drop the issue. The other category of County D.A, employees most comparable to Plaintiff, who was the only forensic accountant at that time, were the Inspectors. Between 2012 and 2014, at least eight (8) Inspectors were hired permanently at or near Step 5. On information and belief, the majority of Inspectors at the County, at the time Plaintiff was hired, were both White and Christian. When Plaintiff complained about the D.A.s office reneging on its commitment to bring him on permanent at Step 5, his supervisor, Defendant Moawad, falsely told him it was not up to the D.A.s office. Plaintiff provided the relevant sections of the Local MOU to Defendant, but the County refused to permit him to start at Step 5. ‘When confronted with this evidence, Defendants changed their explanation, now saying they had little experience with employees represented by Local 21, and that it was too a DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINT27. On information and belief, the decision to start Plaintiff at Step 2 was made by Defendant! 28. Plaintiff significantly exceeded the minimum qualifications for a Forensic Accountant 29. The Forensic Accountant position required a Certified Public Accountant license, and 30. The position also required 4 years of “professional accounting experience” and 2 years of| 31, As when Plaintiff was initially hired, Defendant again failed to process his permanent 32. On information and belief, this failure was intentional discrimination by Defendant Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 8 of 35 late to make any changes. Transparently, none of these explanations had any merit ~ they were pretext for discriminatory treatment. Mathison, and was based on Plaintiff's religion, race and/or national origin. Position, and but for discrimination, should have been brought in at Step 5. three (3) other licenses were “highly desirable.” Plaintiff had his CPA license, and a total of seven (7) certifications, and was in process of obtaining his eighth (8"), These were directly related to his position, and included Certified Fraud Examiner, Chartered Global Management Accountant, Certified Financial Crime Specialist and Certified in Financial Forensics. auditing experience, with a preference for auditing in a litigation environment. As of his permanent hire date in October, 2015, Plaintiff had five (5) years of auditing experience, and four (4) were in a litigation environment. hire paper work in a timely manner, delaying him from being paid for several weeks, This caused considerable financial and emotional distress, with bills to Pay, etc. Mathison, who deliberately held the paper work. 8 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTSo 8 A 8 oS 25 26 27 28 Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 9 of 35, 33, Plaintiff asked Defendant Cherie Mathison, Chief of Administrative Services, for an explanation. She failed and refused to respond, Instead, she bad mouthed Plaintiff to the District Attomey, Defendant Peterson, and to others. 34, As a result, Plaintiff was reprimanded by his supervisor, Defendant Moawad for the demanding tone of his email to Defendant Mathison, After all, Plaintiff was understandably upset that his new hire paper work was not being processed, and he was still waiting to be paid for his work. Defendant Moawad implied that Defendant Mathison) perceived Plaintiff as posing a threat of workplace violence. Plaintiff asked Defendant ‘Moawad if this had anything to do with the recent shooting / terror attack in San Bernardino. Defendant Moawad admitted that it did, Plainly, Defendant Mathison had profiled Plaintiff as a potential terrorist capable of workplace violence. 35. Plaintiff received two emails from Defendant Moawad during this ordeal - one referred hhim to therapy to deal with his frustrations, and a second one repeated the insinuation that! he might be capable of workplace violence, expressing concer that he not take out his frustrations on his fellow employees. Apparently, Defendant Moawad shared Defendant Mathison’s assessment that Plaintiff was a potential terrorist, capable of shooting up the workplace in a fit of anger. Harassed by Court Security — Punished for Complaining 36. Upon his hire as a temporary employee, Plaintiff was issued a District Attorney Photo ID Card, qualifying him to bypass court security at the Contra Costa County Courthouse in Martinez, around the comer from the D.A.s office where he worked. Plaintiff's duties 9 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, ‘COMPLAINT37. 38. Ke 40. 41. 42. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 10 of 35 frequently involved court appearances and testimony. Court security checked his credentials many times, and knew very well that he was not an| attorney, but a staff member at the D.A.s office. Beginning in July, 2015, about six (6) months after Plaintiff was hired, Court Security began to regularly harass Plaintiff, subjecting him to frequent full body pat downs, and requiring him to raise his pants to check for weapons, this despite knowing full well who he was, where he worked, and with his District Attomey Photo ID badge clearly visible. On several occasions, Plaintiff had to leave court to retrieve papers and returned in less. than ten (10) minutes, only to be subjected to the same full body pat down as before, as. though he were both unknown to court security, and an obvious security risk. On information and belief, court security are employees of Contra Costa County and although under contract with the state, are fully responsible for their own security policies and procedures. Plaintiff complained to Deputy District Attorney Dana Filkowsky that the security screening felt like harassment, He also regularly asked Defendant Moawad about what was being done to remedy the situation so he would not have to endure full body pat downs. On information and belief, Defendants were more concemed with preventing Plaintiff from filing a discrimination lawsuit than with protecting him from harassment. Instead of resolving the problem, Defendants began micromanaging Plaintiff's court appearances to minimize the need for him to go through security, thus depriving Plaintiff ofa valuable career building opportunity, and damaging his career. Their “solution” to -10-Ce ae 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 2 2 24 25 26 27 28 43. 44, 45, 46. 47, 48. 49. ee DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 11 of 35 the problem of harassment by court security was to minimize the occasions when Plainti had to attend court, thus punishing Plaintiff for complaining. On information and belief, other staff members of the D.A.s office who were white, and not Muslim were allowed to bypass security at the courthouse, and were not subjected to any secondary screening, On information and belief, full body pat downs are rarely, if ever, utilized by court security at the Martinez courthouse, However, Plaintiff did witness an African American woman subjected to a secondary screening with a wand, allegedly due to metal in her high heels. No metal was detected. Plaintiff was singled out for discriminatory and harassing treatment by court security on account of his race, national origin and religion. Denied His 6-Month Step Increase as Mandated by the Union Contract Plaintiff was due to receive a Step increase from Step 2 to Step 3 at the six (6) month .e., in April, 2016. anniversary of his permanent hire, Defendant did not increase Plaintiff to Step 3, in violation of the Union Contract. This failure to increase Plaintiff to Step 3 was discriminatory. In 2015, Plaintiff was also due a 5% pay differential upon his permanent hire on account of having a CPA license, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff this 5% differential. Bach time Plaintiff complained about the failure to give him the 5%, Defendants expressed serious concems about his potential for workplace violence, profiling him as though all Muslims are terrorists. The implication was that Plaintiff was ready to shoot up} “leCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 12 of 35 his coworkers over the pay dispute, simply because he was justifiably upset about not being paid properly. 51. Beginning in about December, 2015, then, Plaintiff perceived that Defendants associated him with Islamic Extremism with a penchant for workplace violence. This, despite his known rejection of the gun culture of the office, and his bookish accountant’s manner. 52. Defendants directed Plaintiff not to contact Human Resources or any other county employee outside the D.A.s office. On information and belief, no other employee at the D.As office was placed on a similar restriction. 53. On information and belief, this directive came from Defendant Mathison who wanted to avoid dealing with Plaintiff, since he had challenged her illegal discriminatory conduct, and was in retaliation for Plaintiff complaining of discrimination with respect to his pay. 54, Plaintiff was directly threatened with retaliation, that if he did not “get in line,” the county would “chew you up and spit you out,” and sabotage his efforts to get a job elsewhere. 55. Defendant Mathison never did reply directly to Plaintiff about his 5%, instead, humiliating him by discussing his personal financial business with others in the office, including Defendants Peterson, Moawad and Doug McMaster. She accused Plaintiff of displaying an inappropriate level of “extreme frustration” because he sent two emails complaining about not getting paid properly. She accused Plaintiff of having a “meltdown” and that he was “screaming up and down the hallway.” She also falsely accused Plaintiff of attacking the integrity of both Defendant Peterson and Doug -12- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTwee aaa 10 i 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2B 24 26 27 cy Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 13 of 35, McMaster. 56. A number of Inspectors complained about pay issues to H.R., and they have guns, but no one ever expressed concern they would engage in workplace violence. Further, they eventually got paid, unlike Plaintiff, who did not receive his 5% differential until May, 2016, seven (7) months after it was due, and never did get to Step 5. 57. A couple of months later, Plaintiff attended a training on workplace violence on how to survive an active shooter. 58. As aresult of his concerted efforts, in July, 2016, Plaintiff was told he would only receive} the 5% pay raise as of May, 2016. Plaintiff became very upset, and told his supervisor this was unacceptable, and that he would resign. 59. Plaintiff's complaints about being denied pay raises constitute complaints of discriminatory treatment, and were met with retaliation. 60. Plaintiff was informed by a Senior Inspector that he was ruining his career by making a stink about not being paid, i.e., that he would suffer severe retaliation if he didn’t shut up. He was again told that if he verbally or visually expressed discontent, it would heighten fears of workplace violence (i.e., active shooters, as taught in the workplace violence seminar), 61. The extreme concern expressed about Plaintiff having the potential for workplace violence is in stark contrast with actual workplace fisticuffS engaged in by white DAs ‘who were never reprimanded or told their fights raised concerns about workplace violence, DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINT62. 63. 64, 65. 67. 68. Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 14 of 35 In retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints about being cheated out of his pay raise, Defendants pressured Plaintiff to resign, and at the same time, initiated an investigation into Plaintiff's whereabouts. Plaintiff was informed that Defendant Peterson now took issue with Plaintiff working from home. Plaintiff had been fasting during the month of Ramadan, and had informed the office. During this time, he suffered from dehydration and hunger and had concerns. about safety driving to and from the office, He frequently worked from home. Defendants assigned a supervising district attorney, Dan Cabral, to interview Plaintiff about his whereabouts. The tone of the interview was accusatory, as though Plaintiff was guilty of some grave infraction, At the same time, Cabral pressured Plaintiff to submit his resignation as soon as possible. Plaintiff refused to resign. Plaintiff Submits Disability Accommodation Request, Met with Retaliation and Harassment About this time, July, 2016, Plaintiff began to be shunned by coworkers, including especially Defendants Peterson and Mathison. Plaintiff's desk was in a central location, but when coworkers walked by, or loitered nearby, they would ignore Plaintiff and refuse to make eye contact, Altemately, coworkers would greet him, saying “Hi Bassem” in a very loud voice, with a demeaning tone. Also about this time, Defendants harassment of Plaintiff began in earnest. Plaintiff was informed by 1.T. that the DAs office had begun monitoring his internet “14 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINT69. 70. m1. 72. 73. 14. Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 15 of 35 usage, which is not a customary practice, Prior to Plaintif?’s complaints about his pay, which came to a head in July, 2016, Defendants permitted Plaintiff to work flexible hours, and to work at home. Because of his ADHD, and working in an open cubby in a central location in the office, it was often difficult for Plaintiff to be fully productive in the office. Defendant Moawad even assured Plaintiff he had informed Defendant Peterson that he had no problem with Plaintiff's schedule or his productivity, that he was doing a good job, and to leave him alone. Yet, after the complaints about Plaintiff's pay, everything changed. Defendants now withdrew permission for Plaintiff to work flexible hours and at home, and began pressuring him to come in at 8:00 a.m. and to report when he artived at work. On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a charge of harassment, discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Plaintiff submitted a disability accommodation letter from his psychiatrist, Dr. David Kan, dated August 4, 2016, who represented that he is an evaluator for the California Bar Association’s reasonable accommodation process, and experienced at making determinations as to the eligibility for disability accommodations. Dr. Kan represented that Plaintiff required the following accommodations: a. A later start time [due] to his disability which is adjustable but generally 10:00 am. b. Flexibility to work from home, as needed -15- DOE y. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINT75. Plaintiff had previously raised many of these issues, without formally seeking an 76. Plaintiff sought these accommodations due to a disability limiting one or more major life 77. After requesting accommodation for his disability, Defendants began to use his need for 78. Defendant Peterson began to question Plaintiff's attendance, despite Plaintiff's 79. Plaintiff's supervisor, Defendant Moawad, began to require Plaintiff to notify him as to Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 16 of 35 ¢, 24 hours notice prior to meeting with supervisors and colleagues d. A private office with a lock on the door. accommodation. functions, including his ability to sleep, and his ability to think, concentrate and focus. Hel was diagnosed with ADHD, attention deficit hyperactive disorder. these accommodations to harass and retaliate against him. remarkable record of achievement, and his pace of work. For example, at the time Peterson began to question Plaintiff's attendance, Plaintiff had been in continual meeting with the California Department of Justice, the U.S. State Department, Marin County D.A., Napa County D.A. and Manhattan D.A. and other agencies. These meetings were typically held in meeting rooms at the Defendants’ office, but took Plaintiff away from his cubby. Defendants Moawad and Peterson knew fall well what work Plaintiff was doing, and had no basis for questioning his attendance. his whereabouts at all times during the workday by email. Moawad told him this was at Defendant Peterson’s direction. Such a requirement was both unreasonable, and was also supremely demeaning, humiliating and harassing. -16- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINT80. 81. 82. 85. Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 17 of 35, ‘Defendant Moawad issued Plaintiff a “non disciplinary counselling memo” dated September 12, 2016, critical of Plaintiff's expressed frustrationis about being cheated out of his pay, (blame the victim) but also faulting Plaintiff for not complying with his demand to be notified as to his comings and goings. The counselling memo is eleven (11) pages long, with exhibits running to more than forty (40) pages. According to the MOU, counselling memos are the first step in the disciplinary process, although they are not considered discipline as such, They constitute the threat of subsequent discipline. The next step in the process is a letter of reprimand. Defendant Moawad informed Plaintiff that he had to check in on a daily basis, inform him what cases he is working on, how much time he has spent on each case, who he has spoken to, for how long, and what the general topic of discussion was. Due to the increasing hostility of the work environment, Plaintiff began to lose sleep, and| his well-being deteriorated. He began to visit his doctor more frequently, who advised him to leave his job because of the harassment. On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff met with Defendant Steve Moawad and supervisor Doug ‘McMaster. They permitted him to have his attorney present for this meeting. Plaintiff expected to receive a disciplinary write up at this meeting. The discussion focused on management’s demands to micromanage PlaintifP’s every move. Defendants insisted that Plaintiff comply with their unreasonable demands. On March 20, 2017, the micromanagement finally did result in the issuance of written discipline to Plaintiff. Defendant Moawad issued a seven (7) page “Letter of Reprimand” “7. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 18 of 35 to Plaintiff, basically charging him with not cooperating with his efforts to micromanage his every move, his comings and goings, his working from home and his timekeeping. 86. Moawad also documented in this Letter the actions that constitute daily harassment. For example: a. Under the heading “Daily Work Status Updates:” Moawad admits he required Plaintiff to “send an email at the end of each workday detailing which cases you worked on and the time devoted to each case as well as information regarding work you perform for outside agencies including the subject matter and length of| all conference calls, meetings, consultations, trainings, etc.” b. Under the heading “Failure to Notify Management of Your Whereabouts:” Moawad admits that his “expectation is that you will send me an email when you arrive each morning and, when you will be working away from your workstation for a significant period of time, will tell me in person or by email.” 87. These requirements were demeaning, humiliating and harassing, especially considering the sophistication of the forensic accounting services Plaintiff was providing to ‘Defendant, and his widely acknowledged expertise and accomplishments. 88. Plaintiff was performing very sophisticated forensic accounting services for Defendant and other state and federal agencies, and his services were in high demand, He was, performing at a very proficient level of professional accomplishment, and was working far in excess of the minimum number of hours expected of a salaried employee. 89. The ongoing harassment together with the threat of imminent termination led Plaintiff to -18- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 19 of 35 decide he could no longer tolerate such a hostile and abusive work environment. 90. Three days after receiving the Letter of Reprimand, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Separation, indicating his desired date of resignation as April 21, 2017. He chose this, date in consultation with management in order to provide for an orderly transition of the cases he was working on, and to complete certain assignments before he left. 91. Plaintiff was not permitted to complete these tasks, however, or to resign. Instead, the same day he submitted his “Notice of Separation,” while in a meeting with officials from another agency, Plaintiff was required to vacate the premises accompanied by security, in what amounted to a “perp walk” as though he had been guilty of some heinous transgression. This was done in a manner intended to humiliate Plaintiff. He was fired! FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Harassment Religion, Race, and National Origin In Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only 92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 93. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to an unwelcome hostile and abusive work environment that ‘was both severe and pervasive on account of his religion, Muslim, and his race and national origin — he is a dark-skinned Yemeni, as alleged above, in violation of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 94. A reasonable person in Plaintiff's circumstances would have considered Defendant’s harassing conduct to be hostile and/or abusive. -19- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINT.Sea ee Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 20 of 35 95. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant’s pattern and practice of harassment and discrimination of Plaintiff on the basis of his race, national origin, religion. 96. Defendants” harassment alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. 97. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ harassment, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. 98. Attorney's fees are recoverable in an action for which they are specifically provided by statute, Plaintiff seeks an award of Attomey’s fees, together with a reasonable multiplier, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§1988 and 2000e-5(k). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Discrimination Religion, Race and National Origin In Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only 99. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 100. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on account of his religion, Muslim, and his race and national origin —he is a dark-skinned Yemeni, as alleged above, in violation of Plaintiff’ rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 101. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating ‘manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant's pattern and practice of -20- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINT102. Defendants’ discrimination alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to 103. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discrimination, Plaintiff has 104, Attorney's fees are recoverable in an action for which they are specifically provided by 10! 106. Plaintiff engaged in protected activities when he complained about being cheated out of his 107. On information and belief, Plaintiff was profiled by Defendants on account of his religion, Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 21 of 35 harassment and discrimination of Plaintiff on the basis of his race, national origin, religion. suffer harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. statute. Plaintiff seeks an award of Attorney's fees, together with a reasonable multiplier, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§1988 and 2000e-5(k). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation In Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as a though fully set forth herein. pay, and when he filed charges of discrimination and harassment with the EEOC, as alleged above. race and national origin. Defendants cheated Plaintiff out of his pay, as alleged above, based] on this profiling of Plaintiff with respect to his religion, race and national origin. Plaintiff's complaints about being cheated out of his pay, therefore, constitute protected activities in 2 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 22 of 35 that Plaintiff was opposing unlawful discrimination. 108. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in these protected activities, as alleged above, in violation of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliation alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. 110. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendant's discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. 111. Attomey's fees are recoverable in an action for which they are specifically provided by statute, Plaintiff secks an award of Attorney's fees, together with a reasonable multiplier, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§1988 and 2000e-5(k). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Accommodate Plaintiff’s Disability Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 USC. § 12101 et. seq. Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only 112, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein, 113. Plaintiff has a disability that limits one or more major life activities. He has Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (“ADHD”) which limits his ability to think, concentrate and focus, especially to concentrate in a work environment with people interrupting him, and loitering nearby engaged in conversation. His ADHD also limits his ability to sleep. 114. Plaintiff sought accommodation for his disability in writing, providing a letter from his -22- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTwk ww we aw aby il 117. On information and belief, Defendant would have incurred no undue hardship by providing 118. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating 119, As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s disability discrimination alleged herein, 120. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant's disability discrimination, Plaintiff| 121. Attorney's fees are recoverable in an action for which they are specifically provided by Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 23 of 35 psychiatrist, requesting four specific accommodations, as alleged herein. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties of his job with the requested accommodations. Defendant denied Plaintiff these accommodations, in whole or in part, instead retaliating. a against him with respect to the very accommodations he required in order to complete his work assignments, Plaintiff the accommodations recommended by his psychiatrist, since these accommodations would have enabled Plaintiff to work more efficiently, to be more productive, and to complete his work assignments in less time. manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant’s pattern and practice of harassment and discrimination, not only on the basis of race, national origin and religion, but his disability. Plaintiff has suffered harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and ‘mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. statute. Plaintiff seeks an award of Attomey’s fees, together with a reasonable multiplier, -23- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 24 of 35 pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§1988 and 2000e-5(k). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Harassment Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101 ef. seq. A it Defendant Contra Costa County Only Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as 8 122. though fully set forth herein. 123. Plaintiff has a disability that limits one or more major life activities. He has Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (“ADHD”) which limits his ability to think, concentrate and focus, especially to concentrate in a work environment with people interrupting him, and loitering nearby engaged in conversation. His ADHD also limits his ability to sleep. 124, Plaintiff sought accommodation for his disability in writing, providing a letter from his psychiatrist, requesting four specific accommodations, as alleged herein. 125. Plaintiff sought accommodation for his disability in writing, providing a letter from his psychiatrist, requesting four specific accommodations, as alleged herein. 126. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties of his job with the requested a accommodations. 127, Defendant denied Plaintiff these accommodations, in whole or in part, instead harassing him on account of the very accommodations he had sought, badgering him to come to work earlier, to reftain from working at home, and to notify his supervisors of his comings and goings, when he arrived at work, etc. 128, Defendant also issued Plaintiff written discipline as part of its harassment of Plaintiff on -24- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 25 of 35 account of his disability. This discipline specifically criticized him for failing to comply with unreasonable requirements that were part of the harassment on account of his disability. 129. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating ‘manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendants pattern and practice of harassment and discrimination, not only on the basis of race, national origin and religion, but his disability. 130. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s disability discrimination alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. 131. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendant's disability discrimination, Plaintf?| has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. 132, Attorney's fees are recoverable in an action for which they are specifically provided by statute, Plaintiff seeks an award of Attorney's fees, together with a reasonable multiplier, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§1988 and 2000e-5(k). SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only 133. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 134, Plaintiff has a disability that limits one or more major life activities. He has Attention -25- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINT135. 13 13! Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 26 of 35 its his ability to think, concentrate and Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (“ADHD”) which li focus, especially to concentrate in a work environment with people interrupting him, and loitering nearby engaged in conversation, His ADHD also limits his ability to sleep. Plaintiff sought accommodation for his disability in writing, providing a letter from his psychiatrist, requesting four specific accommodations, as alleged herein. 136. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties of his job with the requested accommodations. Defendant denied Plaintiff these accommodations, in whole or in part, instead retaliating = against him with respect to the very accommodations he required in order to complete his work assignments. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by imposing unreasonable requirements that he report to his supervisor when he came to work, and where he was at all times, thus unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff's ability to do his work, 139, Defendant further retaliated against Plaintiff by threatening him with discipline, and by frequent “counsellings,” issuing a counselling memo and a Letter of Reprimand, and threatening plaintiff with termination. 140. Plaintiff was unable to comply with these unreasonable reporting demands in no small measure due to his disability. 141. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant’s pattern and practice of harassment and discrimination, not only on the basis of race, national origin and religion, -26- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, ‘COMPLAINT— Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 27 of 35 but also in retaliation for Plaintiff seeking accommodation for his disability. 142. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliation alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. 143. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliation alleged herein, Plaintifi} has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. 144, Attorney's fees are recoverable in an action for which they are specifically provided by statute. Plaintiff seeks an award of Attomey’s fees, together with a reasonable multiplier, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§1988 and 2000e-5(k). SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Harassment Religion, Race, National Origin and Disability In Violation of California Fair Employment & Housing Act Government Code § 12940 et. seq. Against All Defendants Including Individual Defendants 145, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as w though fully set forth herein. 146. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment that was both severe and pervasive on account of his religion, Muslim, and his race and national origin —he is a dark skinned Yemeni — and his disability, as alleged above, in violation of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to California Fair Employment & Housing Act, Government Code 12940 et. seq. 147, A reasonable person in Plaintiff's circumstances would have considered Defendants’ 27. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINToo 152. Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 28 of 35 harassing conduct to be hostile and/or abusive. 148. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant’s pattern and practice of harassment and discrimination, on the basis of Plaintiff's race, national origin, religion, and disability. 149. Defendant’s harassment alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and/or section 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 150. Defendant's harassment alleged herein was also a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to| suffer, and continue to suffer, embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental] anguish, in an amount according to proof. The Individual Defendants herein, MARK PETERSON, STEVE MOAWAD, and CHERIE MATHISON, all personally harassed Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore seeks exemplary and punitive damages in an according to proof at trial, but no less than an amount sufficient to punish DEFENDANTS and set an example in order to deter such malicious and despicable conduct in the future. 8 Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), based on an appropriate lodestar rate, together with a multiplier as this, court deems just and proper. -28- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINTa aueon Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 29 of 35 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Discrimination Religion, Race, and National Origin In Violation of California Fair Employment & Housing Act Government Code § 12940 ef. seq. Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only 153, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, though fully set forth herein. , and his race 154. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on account of his religion, Musli and national origin — he is a dark skinned Yemeni, as alleged above, in violation of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to California Fair Employment & Housing Act, Government Code 12940 et. seq. 155, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating ‘manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant's pattem and practice of harassment and discrimination, on the basis of Plaintiff's race, national origin, and religion. 156. Defendant’s harassment alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to a suffer harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and/or section 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 157. Defendant’s harassment alleged herein was also a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to} suffer, and continue to suffer, embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. 158. Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Government 29. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et ab COMPLAINT159. 161. 162. 163. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 30 of 35 Code § 12965(b), based on an appropriate lodestar rate, together with a multi ier as this court deems just and proper. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation In Violation of California Fair Employment & Housing Act Government Code § 12940 et, seq. Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as ‘though fully set forth herein, Plaintiff engaged in protected activities when he complained about being cheated out of his pay, when he requested accommodation for his disability, and when he filed charges of discrimination and harassment with the EEOC, as alleged, infra, paragraph nine (9). On information and belief, Plaintiff was profiled by Defendants on account of his religion, race and national origin. On account of this profiling, Defendants cheated Plaintiff out of his| pay, as alleged above. Plaintiff's complaints about being cheated out of his pay, therefore, constitute protected activities in that Plaintiff was opposing unlawful discrimination. ies, as alleged Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in these protected a above, in violation of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to California Fair Employment & Housing Act, Government Code 12940 et. seq. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant's pattern and practice of harassment and discrimination, on the basis of Plaintif?’s race, national origin, religion, and disability, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activities. -30-25 26 27 oR 169. Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 31 of 35 164, Defendant's harassment alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and/or section 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 165. Defendant's harassment alleged herein was also a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer, and continue to suffer, embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental] anguish, in an amount according to proof. 166. Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), based on an appropriate lodestar rate, together with a multiplier as this court deems just and proper. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California Fair Employment & Housing Act Failure to Accommodate Plaintiff's Disability Government Code § 12940 et. seq. Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only 167. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 168. Plaintiff has a disability that limits one or more major life activities. He has Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (“ADHD”) which limits his ability to think, concentrate and focus, especially to concentrate in a work environment with people interrupting him, and loitering nearby engaged in conversation. His ADHD also limits his ability to sleep. s Plaintiff sought accommodation for his disability in writing, providing a letter from his psychiatrist, requesting four specific accommodations, as alleged herein. or DOE y. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. ‘COMPLAINT170. 17 172. 173. 174, 17! a 176. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. ‘COMPLAINT . Defendant denied Plaintiff these accommodations, in whole or in part, instead retaliating . Defendant's harassment alleged herein was also a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to| Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 32 of 35 Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties of his job with the requested accommodations. against him with respect to the very accommodations he required in order to complete his work assignments. On information and belief, Defendant would have incurred no undue hardship by providing Plaintiff the accommodations recommended by his psychiatrist, since these accommodations would have enabled Plaintiff to complete his work assignments in less time, to work more efficiently and to be more productive. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in an extremely hostile and humiliating ‘manner. This termination was the culmination of Defendant's pattem and practice of harassment and discrimination, not only on the basis of race, national origin and religion, but his disability. Defendant's harassment alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer harm in the form of lost wages, and other economic losses. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and/or section 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. suffer, and continue to suffer, embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Government -32-a ae Case 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 33 of 35 Code § 12965(b), based on an appropriate lodestar rate, together with a multiplier as this court deems just and proper. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination Government Code § 12940(K) et. seq. Against Defendant Contra Costa County Only 177, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein, 178, California Government Code § 12940 (k) declares it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination. Defendant, as alleged above, failed to take all steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff. Instead of taking any steps at all, let alone reasonable ones, Defendant continued to harass, discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff, leading to his termination. 179. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered harm in the form of past and future lost wages and benefits and other pecuniary loss, plus interest thereon. 180. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, as alleged above, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, in an amount according to proof, 181. Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Government 33. DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 34 of 35 Code § 12965(b), based on an appropriate lodestar rate, together with a multiplier as this court deems just and proper. ‘TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Overtime Fair Labor Standards Act § 201 et. seq. 182. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 183. Between January, 2015 and October 2015 Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage for forty (40) hours per week, although he actually worked between 50 ~ 70 hours per week on a regular basis. In fact, Plaintiff informed his supervisor that it was impossible for him to do his job with forty (40) hours per week. Defendants were clearly informed and understood that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for the hours he actually worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 184, Plaintiff has been deprived of his rightfully earned overtime compensation as a direct and| proximate result of Defendant's failure and refusal to pay said compensation. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover said compensation in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof, plus interest thereon, attorney’s fees and costs.. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff BASSEM BANAFA respectfully requests the following relief: 1. Declaratory Relief, declaring that Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights to be free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the workplace; 34 DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document3 Filed 03/15/18 Page 35 of 35 2, Injunetive Relief, compelling Defendants to refrain from discrimination, harassment and| retaliation in the workplace; and adopting such policies and practices as this court deems just and proper, including but not limited to diversity, harassment and discrimination training of supervisors; . Compensatory economic damages; 4, Compensatory non-economic damages, including, but not limited to, pain, suffering and emotional distress, in an amount according to proof at trial. 5. Punitive damages as against the individual defendants only for harassment; 6. Prejudgment interest; 7. Statutory penalties for failure to pay overtime; 8. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff's reasonable attomey’s fees and costs. 9, Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: March 15, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Westlake Village, California CHURCH STATE COUNCIL STEWART & MUSELL Hae Gok By: Alan J. Reinach, Esq. Jonathon Chemne, Esq. Wendy Musell, Esq. Attomeys for Plaintiff BASSEM BANAFA -35- DOE v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al. COMPLAINTCase 3:18-cv-01642-MEJ Document 3-1_ Filed 03/15/18 Page 1of1 — CIVIL COVER SHEET. : ‘Re-centre GON ER SEBEL sac pen cer press witty en, casepl at provi oles of court in oum by the Judi! Conerene of fhe Unto Sats it Sopeaber 1S}are roped for he lek of Seared eran ee oe ea k i @) PLAINTIFES CORFENBONTA counry, wank peTENsON, STEVE PASSED BANAPA SROAWaAD, ent Se aA a - Soares circa © cea eet at amar yey trae See SERTRNA Afda'S REE, CH GEER SALE COUN? 2686 Townsgate | “Mme Road, Westlake Village, CA 91361. 805-413-7398 7 a Kh One Bor 7 PARTI at Oo as Th BASIS OF JURISDICTION raver xno ouroun IM. CITEZENSENP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES rs nse raat rre er or DP ea = on S me 1 US.Gommmea Pani 3X eli Chinn of Ti Ste SN 11 epee Ppa Pace : 7 : 4 CChnetAustersute 2342 eapomtdand Mec Pace {SIS (a US.covenment Dette le eeaeaneete (eau afta tend | cusmersajosatn sm ¢ Foreign Coury = ase i ha Pf Ly ee at, bier vane PERSOKALPROPERTY Cos ey Veterans) {55355 Motor Vehicle EAST Trach in Lenin x ve ' tie py OR rin fen stad Pay 26 usc 08 [sto name & oer | sso cients Piso Condon Yo ORIGIN ccs 2~ m Ove Bae Only 1 oat {G2 “Remedtom 213 Remand fom Hd Reneuedor [55 Tranfemed om EG Muar 8 Mabie Precning StteCout ‘svete Coat Reopen Ano is pecs) gant gon Die Fe VL CAUSE OF 1S. Civil Serion aueltGiial VIL REQUESTED IN BiCHECK Ir THIS A CLASSACTION DEMANDS COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE, fed. CW. (CHECK YES only if demanced in SURV DEMANDS Yes ine VIII. RELATED CASES), IBANY @ecteracon): 1X. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 32) ‘Pie an "Xin Ove Box Only) __%i SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND 8 SAN JOSE | EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE ‘SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD