10 a 12 13 u4 15 v7 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘Law Office of Ritchie M. Lewis SBN #231100 8608 Utica Ave., Su 212 FILE Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 SUPERIRA POUT OF CALIFORNIA Ph: 909 948-9890 Fax: 909 948-9820 APR 11 2018 Attorney for Jamal Boyce —E.OLIvAS “* SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY caseno.: RIC 1806767 Jamal Boyce, ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. Plaintiff vs. 1, Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 1102.5 County of Riverside, 2. Violation of Labor Code 1050 DOES Ithrough 25, inclusive, 3. Violation of Labor Code 1053 4. Violation of Public Policy Defendants COMES NOW Plaintiff Jamal Boyce (hereinafter “Boyce) alleges causes of action against the County of Riverside (hereinafter “Riverside”) and DOES 1 through 25 as follows: 1. Plaintiff is an individual who is and at all relevant times has been a resident of Los Angeles County, California . 2. Defendant Riverside is a public entity in the State of California duly organized under the laws of the State of California, and provided, among other things, employment to employees. County of Riverside is a governmental entity, which came into legal existence in or about 1893. 3. Defendant County of Riverside conducted business in the County of Riverside, State of California and was plaintiff's employer until January 2016. The County of Riverside principal place of business was in the City of Riverside, California. Plaintiff resigned his position with the County of Riverside to accept a position with Lynwood Unified School District, which began February 2016.10 an 12 13 14 1s 16 uw 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4, Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 25 and for that reason has sued such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when their identities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief alleges, that each of said DOES named as a Defendant in this action is in some fashion liable and legally responsible as alleged in this Complaint for the injuries and damages Plaintiff has sustained, 5. In doing the things alleged in this Complaint, all of the Defendants were employees, agents and or alter egos of their co-Defendants. As agents and employees, they acted within the course and scope of such employment and agency. The conduct of each of the Defendants and their agents and employees was authorized and /or directed and /or was subsequently ratified by each of their co-Defendants. Defendants are vicariously liable for all employees, agents, and or servants performing services on behalf of them. 6. The allegations of this complaint on information and belief are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, when acting as a principal, were negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every employee, agent and or servant and every other defendant ‘as its agents, servant or employee. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each and every one of the ‘wrongful acts of the employees, agents, and servants and or Doe defendants, were performed under the instructions and approval, express or implied of the County of Riverside. 9, Prior to filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff presented a claim to the County of Riverside pursuant to Calif, Government Code 911.2. Riverside acted on the claim by rejecting it on February 15, 2018. This complaint is timely filed within the six (6) months after the rejection of the claim, 10, Plaintiff, was an employee for the County of Riverside until he resigned his ‘employment as a Network Administrator in January 2016 to work for a school district. Three 210 a 12 13 4 1s 16 uv 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 26 20 28 anonymous emails (attached) were circulated amongst County employees accusing executive management, for the County of Riverside of illegal activity. ‘The first email was disseminated on or about June 24, 2014 and among other things, accused Auditor Controller Paul Angulo of spending over $100,000 on personal Harvard and Berkley training at taxpayer's expense. It also accused Mr. Angulo of spending over $50,000 of taxpayer's money to finance MPA graduate programs for Frankie Ezzat and another management level employee but will not pay for advanced degrees for other employees. 11. As the perceived illegal activity of misappropriating, deceit and or concealing the use of government funds by a County executive became personal to Mr. Angulo and Ms. Ezzat, Ms. Ezzat became concemed with the source of the email. At all relevant times, Ms. Ezzat reported to Mr. Angulo. 12, Plaintiff's supervisor at the time, Josetti Fields, was asked on or about June 25, 2014 by Ms. Ezzat, who directly supervised Ms. Fields, if Ms. Fields knew who sent the disparaging email on June 24, 2014. To evidence the County’s obsession with the source of the email as, opposed to the accuracy thereof, Ms, Ezzat asked Ms. Fields if she could determine if the source of the email was from a County or personal computer. Ms, Fields informed Ms. Ezzat in June 2014 she was unaware who sent the email. 13. On or about July 7, 2014, within days of Ms, Fields returning from vacation, Ms. Ezzat made her suspicions known when she asked Ms. Fields if County employee, Marla Pendleton was the source of the émail and if Ms. Fields could determine who was forwarding the email throughout the county as other departments acknowledged receiving the June 24, 2014 email. 14. Knowing that Ms. Ezzat believed Ms, Pendleton was the whistleblower and Ms. Fields informed Ms, Ezzat she did not believe Ms. Pendleton was the source of the email, Ms. Fields knew she had become a witness for Ms. Pendleton against the County of Riverside as she ‘was privy to the Marla Pendleton suspicions by Riverside County management. 15, Ms, Ezzat felt so strongly that Ms. Pendleton was the email source, in early July 2014 she admitted to Ms. Fields she believed Ms. Pendleton was the source as she had access to all of