LOTERIA GRILL, DEFENDANTS Maintained A Misogynistic Workplace Rampant With Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

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
Keith A. Fink, Bar No. 146841 Sarah E. Hernandez, Bar No. 206305 Olaf J. Muller, Bar No. 247372 FINK & STEINBERG 11500 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 316 Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: (310) 268-0780 Facsimile: (310) 268-0790 Attorneys for Plaintiff AMBER MARTINEZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- CENTRAL DISTRICT AMBER MARTINEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, ) LLC, a California limited liability corporation; ) LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, a ) California limited liability corporation; ) LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC, a ) California limited liability corporation; LUIS ) RUIZ, an individual; DAGOBERTO MEJIA, ) an individual; GABRIEL MARTINEZ, an ) individual; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ______________________________________ ) ) ) // CASE NO. PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. [Harassment Based On Sex] VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. [Discrimination Based On Sex] VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. [Retaliation] VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12940(k) [Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination] WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, ET SEQ. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY ASSAULT BATTERY SEXUAL BATTERY IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE 1708.5
[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
28 // 1
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
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
COMES NOW Plaintiff AMBER MARTINEZ hereby alleges as follows: VENUE AND PARTIES 1. PLAINTIFF AMBER MARTINEZ (PLAINTIFF and/or MS. MARTINEZ) is, and at
all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT LOTERIA
GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC (LOTERIA GRILL and/or DEFENDANT) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California limited liability corporation doing substantial business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT LOTERIA
GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC (LOTERIA GRILL and/or DEFENDANT) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California limited liability corporation doing substantial business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT LOTERIA
GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC (LOTERIA GRILL and/or DEFENDANT) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California limited liability corporation doing substantial business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT LUIS RUIZ
(MR. RUIZ and/or DEFENDANT) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT
DAGOBERTO MEJIA (MR. MEJIA and/or DEFENDANTS) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT GABRIEL
MARTINEZ (MR. MARTINEZ and/or DEFENDANTS) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS LOTERIA
GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, and LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC (collectively referred to as LOTERIA GRILL) were joint employers of
2
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
PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that these DEFENDANTS hired employees jointly, including but not limited to PLAINTIFF, jointly controlled PLAINTIFFS and other employees work assignments, and jointly paid PLAINTIFFS and other employees wages. 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS LOTERIA
GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, and LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC are each alter-egos of one another because there is such a unity of interest and ownership that their separate corporate personalities are merged such that each corporation is a mere adjunct of the others and each of these companies form a single enterprise. PLAINTIFF further alleges that DEFENDANTS LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, and LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC each commingled their funds and other assets, failed to segregate the funds of the separate entities between one another, allowed the diversion of corporate funds or assets to non-corporate uses, failed to maintain corporate minutes, failed to maintain adequate corporate records, failed to adhere to corporate formalities, failed to conduct transactions by and between one another at arm's length, used the same offices and/or business locations, employed the same or largely the same employees, and/or failed to adequately capitalize some or all of the corporations. 10. PLAINTIFF is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
associate or otherwise, of DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 50 (DOES and/or DEFENDANTS), inclusive, and therefore sues said DOES by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of such DOES when the same has been ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously named DEFENDANTS are responsible to PLAINTIFF for the injuries suffered and alleged herein, or are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court as a necessary party for the relief herein requested. 11. PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges that each DOE is now, and was
at all times mentioned herein, the agent, principal, partner, joint venturer, employee or alter ego of the remaining DEFENDANTS, and that all of the acts and conduct alleged herein were performed within the course and scope and in the furtherance of such agency, partnership, joint venture, employment or alter ego relationship. 12. Venue is properly laid in this Court in that the claims and injuries occurred in the County
3
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
of Los Angeles. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 13. MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive. 14. MS. MARTINEZ is female, and as such, is subject to the protections of the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). 15. LOTERIA GRILL owns and operates a popular chain of Mexican-themed restaurants and
bars in the greater Los Angeles area. This includes but is not limited to locations in Hollywood, Santa Monica, Studio City, and Westlake Village. MR. RUIZ is and at all times relevant hereto was a manager for LOTERIA GRILL. MR. MEJIA and MR. MARTINEZ are and at all times relevant hereto were employees of LOTERIA GRILL. 16. In or around May 2012, MS. MARTINEZ began her employment with LOTERIA GRILL
as a server. MS. MARTINEZ primarily worked at LOTERIA GRILLS Hollywood and Santa Monica locations. Among other things, MS. MARTINEZ was responsible for taking food and drink orders from customers, bringing them their orders, and processing their payment for the same. 17. Unbeknownst to MS. MARTINEZ before she began her employment at LOTERIA GRILL,
DEFENDANTS maintained a misogynistic workplace rampant with sexual harassment and discrimination directed toward its female employees. In the environment created and maintained by DEFENDANTS, male employees, particularly those in management positions, regularly demanded sexual favors from female staff and retaliated against those who refused their aggressive sexual advances. As MS. MARTINEZ would soon come to learn, female employees were forced to either go along with and accept this ongoing abuse or leave LOTERIA GRILLS employ. Those female employees who stood up for themselves and complained about their mistreatment were terminated on trumped-up, pretextual grounds shortly thereafter and/or were subjected to increasingly abusive and humiliating treatment until they were forced to quit.
After a Loteria Grill Manager Sexually Assaulted a Female Employee in Mid 2012, Loteria Grill Held a Sham Sexual Harassment Seminar for Its Employees, Including the Newly-Hired Plaintiff. 18. Less than one month into MS. MARTINEZS employment, LOTERIA GRILL manager 4
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
Roberto Osario (MR. OSARIO) sexually assaulted a female host at one of LOTERIA GRILLS restaurants, grabbing and pawing at her breasts in front of the other employees. When she screamed at him to stop, MR. OSARIO justified his actions in front of the other staff by telling her that her large breasts were the reason he hired her in the first place. This employees complaints were ignored by LOTERIA GRILLS management, who refused to terminate or punish MR. OSARIO in any fashion. MS. MARTINEZ is informed and believes that LOTERIA GRILL would not even segregate MR. OSARIO from this particular host. As such, she would be forced to work under his supervision after this assault. Because LOTERIA GRILL refused to punish MR. OSARIO for sexually assaulting one of his female subordinates, this particular host was forced to quit. Another female host, whom MS. MARTINEZ is informed and believes had been forced to undergo similar mistreatment during her employment with LOTERIA GRILL, also quit at this time. 19. Only after the assaulted female host filed a police report for sexual assault with the Santa
Monica Police Department did LOTERIA GRILLS management react to MR. OSARIOS disgusting criminal behavior and the hosts complaints thereof. Rather than fire MR. OSARIO or punish him in any way, LOTERIA GRILL instead staged a sham sexual harassment seminar for restaurant employees, which was expressly held for the purpose of addressing this incident. MS. MARTINEZ attended this sham seminar. Plaintiff is informed and believes that LOTERIA GRILL management decided that MR. OSARIOS sexual assault did not count as a violation of the companys anti-harassment policy because it occurred after the host in question had clocked out from her shift, such that it occurred off the clock. 20. Underscoring the sham nature of this seminar, the seminar speaker spent most of her allotted
time trying to sell Aflac insurance to restaurant employees rather than discuss federal and state laws prohibiting sexual harassment and discrimination and their application in the workplace. When the seminar speaker did briefly discuss these laws and regulations, many of the male employees and managers openly laughed and made derisive jokes in response to the speakers comments.
Through Her Employment with Loteria Grill, Ms. Martinez Was Regularly and Routinely Subjected to Sexual Harassment and Discrimination By Defendants. 21. During her employment with LOTERIA GRILL, MS. MARTINEZ worked most of her
28 shifts alternating between LOTERIA GRILLS Santa Monica and Hollywood locations, also spending a 5
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
handful of shifts with the restaurants catering unit. For most of these shifts, MS. MARTINEZS immediate supervisor and manager was MR. RUIZ. 22. Almost immediately, MR. RUIZ grew personally infatuated with MS. MARTINEZ, doing
and saying anything and everything he could in repeated attempts to have sex with her. Among other things, MR. RUIZ repeatedly referred to MS. MARTINEZ during her employment with DEFENDANTS as his wife, his future wife, his lover, his love, and variations thereof in both English and Spanish, all of which behavior was unwelcome and unwanted by MS. MARTINEZ. 23. MR. RUIZ repeatedly asked MS. MARTINEZ out on dates to the nearby bar Cabo Cantina
in Santa Monica, and he repeatedly begged her to go dancing with him. His ongoing personal infatuation and unwanted, unwelcome behavior toward MS. MARTINEZ was so extreme that it created friction between MS. MARTINEZ and other employees, whom MR. RUIZ occasionally commanded to listen to her. He even re-coded her name on the restaurant server computer system to MI AMOR and AMOR, which was printed out on the meal tickets used by MS. MARTINEZ and the other restaurant employees who prepared the food. 24. Throughout MS. MARTINEZS employment with DEFENDANTS, MR. RUIZ regularly
made unwelcome and unwanted comments to her and other LOTERIA GRILL employees about his impending wedding with MS. MARTINEZ. Among other things, MR. RUIZ regularly joked about saving money for our wedding, and he regularly talked about furniture that he and MS. MARTINEZ would buy for their future home. 25. In addition, throughout MS. MARTINEZS employment with DEFENDANTS, MR. RUIZ
repeatedly commented on MS. MARTINEZS personal appearance and that he found her sexually enticing. For months, MR. RUIZ regularly and routinely told MS. MARTINEZ that he thought she was sexy and beautiful, and he regularly and routinely made various remarks about her hairstyles and clothing. He made these unwelcome and unwanted comments to MS. MARTINEZ despite the fact that MS. MARTINEZ made it clear his remarks were making her uncomfortable. 26. MS. MARTINEZ repeatedly implored MR. RUIZ to stop his unwelcome and unwanted
behavior and leave her alone to no avail. 27. Anytime MS. MARTINEZ told MR. RUIZ to stop harassing her and calling her mi
6
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
amor or similar such terms, MR. RUIZ ignored her requests and pretended that she was flirting with him. Specifically, MR. RUIZ regularly treated her requests to be left alone as a joke, said something to the effect of no, you stop, and then giggled in a creepy, unsettling manner. 28. In or around November 2012, MR. RUIZ continued his ongoing pattern of abusive and
disgusting behavior by creeping up behind an unsuspecting MS. MARTINEZ and rubbing his hands up and down her waist while exclaiming oh my God, how is your waist so small!? When MS. MARTINEZ turned around and screamed her disapproval, MR. RUIZ shrugged it off, telling her What? I cant help it. MS. MARTINEZ was so sickened by this incident that she had trouble sleeping the following two nights. 29. In another November 2012 incident, MR. RUIZ grabbed MS. MARTINEZS arm at work.
When MS. MARTINEZ struggled to get free, MR. RUIZ refused to let her go. Instead, he began verbally abusing her, proclaiming that she would one day find an ugly, short guy like him who would buy her nice things. While holding onto her, MR. RUIZ further told MS. MARTINEZ that it ultimately would not work out between them because I like to have sex all the time when Im with someone. I like to have sex when I wake up, before I go to work, in the afternoon, at night, and before I go to bed and we would just not get anything accomplished. Before finally letting MS. MARTINEZ go, MR. RUIZ ended his depraved speech by warning MS. MARTINEZ not to tell anyone we had this conversation.
In December 2012, Loteria Grill Punished Ms. Martinez for Complaining about Ms. Ruizs Sexual Harassment by Writing Her Up for Complaining and by Cutting Her Work Shifts. 30. When MS. MARTINEZ complained to manager MR. OSARIO about MR. RUIZS
behavior, MR. OSARIO did nothing to make MR. RUIZ stop. On the contrary, MR. OSARIO punished MS. MARTINEZ for complaining to him at MR. RUIZ by ordering her to get down on the ground and spend over one back-breaking hour scraping gum off the restaurant tables using a butter knife. He did this knowing full well that this was not part of MS. MARTINEZS regular job duties, that no LOTERIA GRILL servers had ever been assigned such a task, and that this was personally demeaning and humiliating for MS. MARTINEZ. 31. On or about December 18, 2012, MS. MARTINEZ again met with MR. OSARIO about
7
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
MR. RUIZ, this time in a closed-door meeting in MR. OSARIOS office. Through tears, MS. MARTINEZ implored MR. OSARIO to do something about MR. RUIZS incessant sexual harassment. MR. OSARIO conveyed nothing but skepticism regarding MS. MARTINEZS allegations, instructing her to bring in what proof she had of his harassment to him the next day. MS. MARTINEZ is informed and believes that MR. OSARIO fully expected MS. MARTINEZ to have no documentary proof of her claims and/or that she would be sufficiently discouraged by his skeptical comments to give up complaining about MR. RUIZ. 32. Contrary to MR. OSARIOS expectations, MS. MARTINEZ met with MR. OSARIO the
following day. She brought in a written statement describing in considerable detail the ongoing harassment she had endured at the hands of MR. RUIZ. She also brought MR. OSARIO a recent shift meal print-out in which MR. RUIZ had changed her coded name to Amor as well as a handwritten love note given to her by MR. RUIZ. When MS. MARTINEZ attempted to give these documents to MR. OSARIO, however, he refused to accept the love note and print-out. MR. OSARIO told MS. MARTINEZ that he could not accept these documents as proof of anything because he did not know whether the note was in MR. RUIZS handwriting. He told her that he could not make such a determination because he was not a police officer. MR. OSARIO ended this meeting by yelling at MS. MARTINEZ, what are you trying do!? Are you trying to get him [MR. RUIZ] fired!? 33. Later that same day during her work shift, MS. MARTINEZ observed LOTERIA GRILLS
Vice President Rick Petersen, as well another employee, Danny Rodriguez (Mr. Rodriguez), laughing over the written statement she had given to MR. OSARIO detailing MR. RUIZS continued sexual harassment of MS. MARTINEZ. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Rodriguez approached MS. MARTINEZ and with a beaming smile asked her if she liked his nuts. 34. Only one day after MS. MARTINEZ complained about MR. RUIZS sexual harassment to
MR. OSARIO, MR. OSARIO gave MS. MARTINEZ her first write-up on or around December 19, 2012. In the write-up, MR. OSARIO wrote that MS. MARTINEZ had performed substandard work. He set forth no details regarding what substandard work had been done by MS. MARTINEZ in his write-up, instead referencing an email he had received from MR. RUIZ regarding the same. 35. In this same write-up, MR. OSARIO expressly acknowledged that he had met with MS.
MARTINEZ on December 18, 2012, regarding MR. RUIZS ongoing sexual advances and harassment.
8
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
He further wrote that LOTERIA GRILL was investigating her complaints about MR. RUIZ. 36. Incredibly, MR. OSARIO wrote up MS. MARTINEZ for not complaining to him about MR.
RUIZ earlier. The bulk of MR. OSARIOS write-up text expressly faulted MS. MARTINEZ for not following the companys policy regarding complaints. In the employee discipline section labeled Consequences of Incident, MR. OSARIO wrote that MS. MARTINEZ was made aware of this [policy for] REPORTING INCIDENTS... twice, once at her initial training, secondly when the restaurant pay [sic] for a company to give a class about harassment. 37. When MR. OSARIO presented this write-up to MS. MARTINEZ, she asked him why she
was being written up and why he had written that she had performed substandard work, given the fact that her work performance had been exemplary. MR. OSARIO told MS. MARTINEZ that this merely was the form he was required to submit to LOTERIA GRILL management to ensure her complaints regarding MR. RUIZ would be investigated. He never described the nature of MS. MARTINEZS substandard work, nor did he show her MR. RUIZS email that he referenced in the write-up. Relying on MR. OSARIOS false statements and promises that her complaints would be investigated and dealt with accordingly, MS. MARTINEZ signed the write-up. 38. After LOTERIA GRILL ostensibly began its investigation of her complaints about MR.
RUIZ, MS. MARTINEZ repeatedly requested a shift change so that she would not have to work with MR. RUIZ. Instead of granting her requests and rescheduling MS. MARTINEZ to alternate shifts so that her shifts would not overlap with those of MR. RUIZ, MR. OSARIOS solution to this problem was to retaliate against MS. MARTINEZ and cut MS. MARTINEZS shifts, such that her pay was cut. MS. MARTINEZS shifts were cut in this fashion to punish her for complaining about MR. RUIZ and to force her to seek employment elsewhere.
Defendants Continued Their Mistreatment and Abuse of Ms. Martinez Following Ms. Martinezs Complaints About Mr. Ruiz. 39. On or about December 23, 2012, DAGOBERTO MEJIA (MR. MEJIA), a fellow server
26 at LOTERIA GRILL, silently approached MS. MARTINEZ from behind in the kitchen, took her by 27 surprise, and engaged in the profoundly disgusting act of grinding his penis up and down on her back and 28 buttocks. She yelled and pushed him away from her, causing MR. MEJIA to laugh. 9
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
40.
On or about December 24, 2012, MR. MEJIA again grabbed MS. MARTINEZS arm and
pulled her towards himself, attempting to kiss her. Once again she fought him off, which again caused him to laugh at her. 41. After MS. MARTINEZ complained about MR. RUIZ, LOTERIA GRILLS MR. OSARIO
retaliated against MS. MARTINEZ by making false and unwarranted write-ups of her purportedly poor work performance. 42. On or about January 2, 2013, MS. MARTINEZ received her second false and unwarranted
write-up from LOTERIA GRILLS MR. OSARIO, who used this non-incident with a guest as an excuse to give MS. MARTINEZ a second write-up and punish her for complaining about MR. RUIZ. When MS. MARTINEZ refused to sign this phony write-up, MR. OSARIO made clear that she would be fired immediately if she did not sign. 43. On or about January 4, 2013, MR. MEJIA once again approached MS. MARTINEZ from
behind and began rubbing her back. This again caused MS. MARTINEZ to push him off of her and again caused MR. MEJIA to laugh in response. MS. MARTINEZ was so upset and felt so helpless that she began to cry at work immediately after this incident. 44. On or about January 18, 2013, MS. MARTINEZ received her third write-up from MR.
OSARIO, again for allegedly substandard work. In drafting the third write-up, MR. OSARIO copied verbatim the text of the second write-up, underscoring its false and pretextual nature. Again, MR. OSARIO decided to use another non-incident with a customer as an excuse to give MS. MARTINEZ a third write-up even though she did absolutely nothing wrong. Again, MS. MARTINEZ was forced to sign this third phony write-up or else be fired. 45. MS. MARTINEZ separately complained to LOTERIA GRILLS owner JIMMY SHAW
and Vice President Mr. Petersen about each of these phony write-ups in writing. LOTERIA GRILL did nothing in response to her complaints about these phony write-ups and did nothing to remove them from MS. MARTINEZS personnel file. 46. Mr. Petersen did briefly discuss the third write-up with MS. MARTINEZ shortly after she
complained about it to him. During their conversation, Mr. Petersen admitted to MS. MARTINEZ that he had personally reviewed the security camera footage from this date and confirmed that MS.
10
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
MARTINEZ did not do anything wrong. He otherwise told MS. MARTINEZ that her work performance with this guest in no way fell beneath LOTERIA GRILLS customer service standard. 47. In or around January 2013, another fellow server at LOTERIA GRILL, GABRIEL
MARTINEZ (no relation to MS. MARTINEZ), approached MS. MARTINEZ and repeatedly asked her unwanted, unwelcome, and intrusive questions about various details of her private life. After MR. MARTINEZ asked MS. MARTINEZ whether she had a husband and whether she had a boyfriend, he repeatedly asked her whether she had a fuck-buddy or friend who[m] you like to fuck, in a sexually suggestive and unwelcome manner. Offended, MS. MARTINEZ walked away from this conversation. 48. Later that same month, MR. MARTINEZ repeatedly approached MS. MARTINEZ on
multiple occasions and made repeated unwelcome and unwanted comments to her, repeatedly asking her to come home with him after work so they could sleep together. 49. In another incident, MS. MARTINEZ walked through the kitchen out the back door when
MR. MARTINEZ made a point of loudly yelling out for MS. MARTINEZ to say hello to my kids for me in front of the kitchen staff, humiliating MS. MARTINEZ in front of her co-workers and suggesting to MS. MARTINEZ that he previously had told her co-workers that they had a sexual relationship. 50. Throughout her employment, MS. MARTINEZ complained about each of her harassers
repugnant behavior to LOTERIA GRILL management to no avail. 51. Instead of reprimanding DEFENDANTS for their misogynistic and illegal behavior toward
MS. MARTINEZ, DEFENDANTS decided to shut MS. MARTINEZ up and punish her for complaining. Over the course of MS. MARTINEZS employment with LOTERIA GRILL, MR. RUIZ and MR. OSARIO retaliated against MS. MARTINEZ for making these complaints by increasingly reducing the total number of MS. MARTINEZS weekly shifts, by reducing the total number of hours she worked per shift, and by increasingly assigning MS. MARTINEZ to the worst shifts that generally had the least number of customers, which would yield the least amount of tips for MS. MARTINEZ. DEFENDANTS restructured MS. MARTINEZS work schedule in this fashion both to punish her for complaining and to force her to quit working at LOTERIA GRILL. 52. Undeterred by this retaliation, MS. MARTINEZ continued to complain in writing to
LOTERIA GRILLS owner Jimmy Shaw, hoping that he would take remedial action as the companys
11
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
owner and public face. Incredibly, Mr. Shaw not only refused to take any remedial action but he specifically instructed MS. MARTINEZ to stop sending him emails complaining about DEFENDANTS. He told her that he would not read her email messages because so many other employees were bombarding his email account with complaints about the management and staff of LOTERIA GRILL. 53. In or around February 2013, MR. OSARIO instructed MS. MARTINEZ to stop serving
customers during her work shift, such that she would not and could not receive any tips. Instead, in retaliation for her continued complaints, MR. OSARIO instructed her to personally deep-clean the kitchen area of the Santa Monica location by herself, which was not part of her regular job duties as a server. He made her deep-clean this area, moreover, despite the fact that LOTERIA GRILL regularly employed a special cleaning crew to perform this task every night. 54. That same month, MR. MARTINEZ approached MS. MARTINEZ while she was having
a private conversation with a co-worker about a recent sale at Victorias Secret. Overhearing their conversation, MR. MARTINEZ approached the two of them and loudly made various inappropriate and unwelcome comments to MS. MARTINEZ to embarrass and humiliate her, including but not limited to comments about how much lingerie MS. MARTINEZ purchased at Victorias Secret and comments about how many boyfriends MS. MARTINEZ had who enjoyed her lingerie purchases. 55. On or about February 15, 2013, MR. MARTINEZ approached MS. MARTINEZ in the
Santa Monica locations seating area while MS. MARTINEZ was serving restaurant guests. Quietly approaching her from behind, MR. MARTINEZ pressed himself up against MS. MARTINEZS buttocks with his hands at her hips, groping at her body in a sexually suggestive, unwelcome, and unwanted manner. MS. MARTINEZ screamed and pushed him away from her, yelling at him in the middle of the restaurant floor in front of various restaurant guests. 56. Two days later on or about February 17, 2013, MR. MEJIA approached MS. MARTINEZ
from behind and hit her shoulder hard with a check presenter. When she yelled out in pain, MR. MEJIA lewdly promised he could make her feel better by giv[ing her] a massage. She told him to leave her alone. 57. On multiple occasions throughout her employment with DEFENDANTS, MR. MEJIA
repeatedly rubbed his hands on the small of MS. MARTINEZS back in a creepy, unwelcome, and
12
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
sexually-suggestive manner, forcing her to move away from him and tell him to leave her alone. MR. MEJIA also repeatedly made inappropriate, unwelcome, and suggestive comments such as youre so hot and you look so good whenever MS. MARTINEZ changed out of her work uniform into her street clothes at the restaurant. 58. On or about February 18, 2013, MR. RUIZ, in retaliation for MS. MARTINEZS repeated
complaints about him, repeatedly berated MS. MARTINEZ for an order mistake that had been made by the kitchen, not by MS. MARTINEZ. MR. RUIZ was so abusive that he brought MS. MARTINEZ to tears at work, causing her severe emotional distress.
In April 2013, Plaintiff Was Constructively Terminated After Loteria Grill Conducted a Sham Investigation Into Her Complaints, Fully Exonerating Defendants of Any Wrongdoing and Laying the Groundwork for Plaintiffs Impending Pre-textual Termination. 59. Almost five months after MS. MARTINEZ first began repeatedly complaining to various
members of LOTERIA GRILL management about the hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation by DEFENDANTS, LOTERIA GRILL finally decided to conduct and complete the so-called investigation it purportedly had begun in 2012. 60. Not surprisingly, LOTERIA GRILLS investigation was as much of a sham as its sham
seminar in 2012 that followed manager MR. OSARIOS still-unpunished sexual assault of a female employee. Instead of conducting a good faith inquiry into MS. MARTINEZS allegations to determine their veracity and remedy what wrongs that had occurred, the sole purpose of LOTERIA GRILLS rigged investigation was to ratify DEFENDANTS wrongful conduct, conclude that nothing had happened, and lay the foundation for MS. MARTINEZS impending termination. 61. This sham investigation was conducted by LOTERIA GRILLS Vice President Rick
Petersen, who repeatedly expressed his overwhelming personal and professional bias against MS. MARTINEZ during the investigation proceedings. Among other things, Mr. Petersen repeatedly accused MS. MARTINEZ of lying to him during this investigation. Mr. Petersen refused to accept copies of, or even look at, love notes given to MS. MARTINEZ by MR. RUIZ. Of the documents that Mr. Petersen did accept from MS. MARTINEZ, MS. MARTINEZ subsequently observed him going over them with certain of her harassers and laughing at their contents. Mr. Petersen otherwise made clear that he could care less
13
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
about MS. MARTINEZS claims, spending a considerable portion of his time investigating pre-textual grounds for terminating MS. MARTINEZS employment with LOTERIA GRILL. 62. The sham nature of this investigationwas further underscored by the contradictory nature
of LOTERIA GRILLS investigation conclusions and related actions. Even though LOTERIA GRILL concluded that DEFENDANTS had done nothing wrong, LOTERIA GRILL nonetheless decided to send the individual DEFENDANTS to attend additional human resources training regarding sexual harassment. One employee - MR. MARTINEZ - received a written warning for his sexual assault of MS. MARTINEZ in front of restaurant customers and staff, a veritable slap on the wrist given the criminal nature of his conduct. 63. Based on the same, on or about April 19, 2013, after almost one year of near constant sexual
harassment, sexual discrimination, and punishment for her repeated complaints relating to the same, MS. MARTINEZ was forced to quit her employment with DEFENDANTS. 64. As set forth above in considerable detail, LOTERIA GRILL maintains a workplace rife with
sexual harassment and discrimination directed toward certain of its female employees. Male employees, particularly those in management positions, are free to sexually assault, humiliate, and demean their female co-workers with impunity. They know that LOTERIA GRILLS management, including but not limited to owner Mr. Shaw and Vice President Mr. Petersen, will never take any significant remedial measure to punish them for their unlawful conduct no matter how bad their behavior and no matter how many of their female employees quit. Those employees who fail to keep quiet and close ranks behind LOTERIA GRILLS lecherous and misogynistic management team are punished in a variety of demeaning and harsh ways. Those like MS. MARTINEZ, who continue to violate LOTERIA GRILLS unspoken policies, are either harassed into quitting or are terminated. 65. MS. MARTINEZ timely filed administrative complaints with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) against DEFENDANTS and received corresponding right-to-sue letters. Therefore, MS. MARTINEZ has exhausted her administrative remedies. // // //
14
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 66.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. [Harassment Based On Sex] (Against all DEFENDANTS and DOES) MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in
full, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive. 67. This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, 12940, et seq. of the Government Code
making it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a person on the basis of his or her sex. 68. MS. MARTINEZ is a female and thus falls within the protected category of Government
Code 12940(a). 69. Throughout her employment with DEFENDANTS, MS. MARTINEZ was subjected to a
hostile work environment and unlawfully harassed on the basis of sex. 70. At all material points described herein, MS. MARTINEZ was treated differently than
similarly situated employees and or otherwise was subjected to unlawful harassing employment practices as prohibited by the laws of California. DEFENDANTS, in engaging in the aforementioned conduct, intended to harass MS. MARTINEZ on the basis of her sex and subject her to a hostile work environment filled with harassment based on sex. 71. The conduct, statements, and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a continuing
scheme and course of conduct. DEFENDANTS knew the substance of the above-described facts and circumstances and ratified the wrongs and injuries mentioned herein when it was their ability to prevent, remedy, and/or correct these wrongs. DEFENDANTS further intentionally and willfully failed to ensure that their employees were informed of the law relevant to their duties or to ensure that employees would not be required to participate in illegal conduct. 72. DEFENDANTS have continued to ratify and have refused to remedy or correct the
aforementioned conduct during and since MS. MARTINEZS employment, notwithstanding the fact that company officials knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct and its unlawfulness. 73. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of statute and public
policy, MS. MARTINEZ has suffered and will continue to suffer: a. A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in
15
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 74. c. d. b.
sums as may be shown according to proof; A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in a sum as may be shown according to proof; A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain, emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses from the date of said acts all to MS. MARTINEZS damage in a sum as may be shown according to proof. The amount of MS. MARTINEZS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave
of Court to amend this Complaint when the exact amount of such damages has been ascertained or will prove the same at trial. 75. The above-recited actions of DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or oppression,
and reckless disregard of MS. MARTINEZS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on MS. MARTINEZ. As a result of these and other actions, MS. MARTINEZ is entitled to an award of punitive damages. conduct despite their awareness of the effect on MS. MARTINEZ. As a result of these and other actions, MS. MARTINEZ is entitled to an award of punitive damages. 76. In addition, as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of DEFENDANTS, MS.
MARTINEZ is entitled to attorneys fees and prejudgment interest. 77. Pursuant to California Government Code 12965(b), MS. MARTINEZ requests the award
of attorneys fees against DEFENDANTS under this cause of action. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. [Discrimination Based On Sex] (Against DEFENDANTS LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC and DOES) 78. MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in
full, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive.
16
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
79.
This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, 12940, et seq. of the Government Code
making it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a person on the basis of his or her sex. 80. MS. MARTINEZ is a female and thus falls within the protected category of Government
hostile work environment and unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of sex. 82. At all material points described herein, MS. MARTINEZ was treated differently than
similarly situated employees and or otherwise was subjected to unlawful discriminatory employment practices as prohibited by the laws of California. DEFENDANTS, in engaging in the aforementioned conduct, intended to discriminate against MS. MARTINEZ on the basis of her sex and subject her to a hostile work environment filled with discrimination based on sex. 83. The conduct, statements, and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a continuing
aforementioned conduct during and since MS. MARTINEZS employment, notwithstanding the fact that company officials knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct and its unlawfulness. 85. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of statute and public
policy, MS. MARTINEZ has suffered and will continue to suffer: a. A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in sums as may be shown according to proof; b. A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in a sum as may be shown according to proof; c. d. A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain,
17
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 86.
emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses from the date of said acts all to MS. MARTINEZS damage in a sum as may be shown according to proof. The amount of MS. MARTINEZS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave
and reckless disregard of MS. MARTINEZS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on MS. MARTINEZ. As a result of these and other actions, MS. MARTINEZ is entitled to an award of punitive damages. 88. In addition, as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of DEFENDANTS, MS.
of attorneys fees against DEFENDANTS under this cause of action. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. [Retaliation] (Against DEFENDANTS LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC and DOES) 90. MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive. 91. There was no professional or business justification for subjecting MS. MARTINEZ to a The stated reasons for
hostile work environment and subsequently forcing her resignation.
DEFENDANTS actions were pre-textual to cover up the true reasons and illegal motivations, to wit, retaliation for MS. MARTINEZS opposition to and complaints of DEFENDANTS harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex. 92. DEFENDANTS continued conduct towards MS. MARTINEZ and, ultimately, their forced
resignation of MS. MARTINEZ, was in violation of the public policy embodied in California Government
18
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
Code 12940(h), which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because that employee opposes any act prohibited by FEHA. 93. The actions of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, in subjecting MS. MARTINEZ to a
hostile work environment, which included the aforementioned acts of retaliation, culminating in MS. MARTINEZS forced resignation, constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of settled law including but not limited to California Government Code 12900, et seq., the California Constitution, Article I, 8, and Civil Code 1770, et seq. 94. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of statute and public
policy, MS. MARTINEZ has suffered and will continue to suffer: a. A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in sums as may be shown according to proof; b. A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in a sum as may be shown according to proof; c. d. A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain, emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses from the date of said acts all to MS. MARTINEZS damage in a sum as may be shown according to proof. 95. The amount of MS. MARTINEZS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave
MARTINEZ is entitled to attorneys fees and prejudgment interest.
19
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
98.
Pursuant to California Government Code 12965(b), MS. MARTINEZ requests the award
of attorneys fees against DEFENDANTS under this cause of action. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12940(k) [Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination] (Against DEFENDANTS LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC and DOES) 99. MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive. 100. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code 12940(k) was in full force and effect
and binding on DEFENDANTS. Government Code 12940(k) requires DEFENDANTS to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment and discrimination. As alleged above, DEFENDANTS violated this statutory provision. 101. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of the unlawful conduct undertaken by them
and the remaining DEFENDANTS against MS. MARTINEZ, and failed to take reasonable steps to remedy such conduct or provide MS. MARTINEZ with a workplace free from harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. 102. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of statute and public
policy, MS. MARTINEZ has suffered and will continue to suffer: a. A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in sums as may be shown according to proof; b. A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in a sum as may be shown according to proof; c. d. A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain, emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses from the date of said acts all to MS. MARTINEZS damage in a sum as may be shown
20
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 28 103.
according to proof. The amount of MS. MARTINEZS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave
of attorneys fees against DEFENDANTS under this cause of action. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVT CODE 12900, ET SEQ. (Against DEFENDANTS LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC and DOES) 107. MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in
full, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive. 108. This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, 12940, et seq. of the Government Code
making it illegal for an employer to terminate a persons employment on the basis of his or her sex. 109. MS. MARTINEZ is a female and thus falls within the protected category of Government
hostile work environment and unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of sex, culminating in her constructive discharge by DEFENDANTS on the basis of her sex. 111. At all material points described herein, MS. MARTINEZ was treated differently than
similarly situated employees and or otherwise was subjected to unlawful discriminatory employment practices as prohibited by the laws of California. DEFENDANTS, in engaging in the aforementioned
21
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
conduct, intended to discriminate against MS. MARTINEZ on the basis of her sex and subject her to a hostile work environment filled with discrimination based on sex. 112. The conduct, statements, and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a continuing
aforementioned conduct during and since MS. MARTINEZS employment, notwithstanding the fact that company officials knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct and its unlawfulness. 114. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of statute and public policy, MS. MARTINEZ has suffered and will continue to suffer: a. A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in sums as may be shown according to proof; b. A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in a sum as may be shown according to proof; c. d. A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain, emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses from the date of said acts all to MS. MARTINEZS damage in a sum as may be shown according to proof. 115. The amount of MS. MARTINEZS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave
and reckless disregard of MS. MARTINEZS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct
22
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
despite their awareness of the effect on MS. MARTINEZ. As a result of these and other actions, MS. MARTINEZ is entitled to an award of punitive damages. 117. In addition, as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of DEFENDANTS, MS.
of attorneys fees against DEFENDANTS under this cause of action. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against ALL DEFENDANTS and DOES) 119. MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive. 120. DEFENDANTS' conduct toward MS. MARTINEZ, as alleged above, was outrageous and
unprivileged and was done either with the intent to cause severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing such emotional distress. 121. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, MS. MARTINEZ has
suffered and will continue in the future to suffer: a. A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in sums as may be shown according to proof; b. A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in a sum as may be shown according to proof; c. d. A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain, emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses from the date of said acts all to MS. MARTINEZS damage in a sum as may be shown according to proof. 122. The amount of MS. MARTINEZS damages is not presently known, but she will seek leave
of Court to amend her Complaint when the exact amount of such damages has been ascertained or will
23
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
prove the same at trial. 123. The above-recited actions of DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or oppression,
and reckless disregard of MS. MARTINEZS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on MS. MARTINEZ. As a result of these and other actions, MS. MARTINEZ is entitled to an award of punitive damages. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, ET SEQ. (Against DEFENDANTS LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC and DOES) 124. MS. MARTINEZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive. 125. California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., provides that unfair competition
shall mean and include all unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. 126. MS. MARTINEZ is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS have
engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., by maintaining a workplace rife with harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. 127. Such business practices are also a violation of California public policy, including but not
limited to the following: Government Code 12900, et seq., the California Constitution, Article I, 8, and Civil Code 1770, et seq. The maintenance of such unfair business practices allows DEFENDANTS to maintain an unfair advantage over other companies which comply with FEHA and the public policy of the state of California. 128. DEFENDANTS each fall within the definition of business as set forth at Business and
Professions Code 17203 and 17506. 129. The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices of DEFENDANTS described above
present a continuing threat to members of the public in that DEFENDANTS have or will soon engage in the conduct described above and members of the public are likely to be deceived when they pursue or gain employment with DEFENDANTS. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 17203, MS.
24
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
MARTINEZ seeks an order from ther Court that: a. Provides injunctive and declaratory relief finding that DEFENDANTS have violated
the provisions of California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.; and b. For an order enjoining DEFENDANTS and their respective successors, agents,
servants, officers, directors, employees, and all other persons acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in conduct which violates California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Against DEFENDANTS LOTERIA GRILL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL SANTA MONICA, LLC, LOTERIA GRILL HOLLYWOOD, LLC and DOES) 130. PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, each
and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 inclusive. 131. It is the well established policy of the State of California by and through its statutory and
common laws, including but not limited to Government Code 12900 et seq., California Constitution, Article I, 8, Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. and Civil Code 1770 et seq., that it is intolerable and unlawful for an employer to bar or to discharge the person from employment or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such persons sex or to retaliate against the person for opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in a protected activity. 132. PLAINTIFF is within the protected category of persons within the meaning of the
aforementioned statutory and common laws because she was and is a female. 133. In contravention of this policy, PLAINTIFF is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that
DEFENDANTS harassed, discriminated and retaliated against her, and terminated her on the basis of her sex or such was a motivating or determinative factor even though other factors may have contributed to DEFENDANTS actions, in violation of well-established California State legislative policy. DEFENDANTS conduct and actions toward MS. MARTINEZ, as alleged above, constituted constructive discharge of MS. MARTINEZ in violation of FEHA, which provides that an employer is liable for the
25
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
resignation of an employee due to intolerable working conditions created by that employer. As alleged above, DEFENDANTS intentionally created and/or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable for MS. MARTINEZ at the time of her resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in MS. MARTINEZS position would be compelled to resign. 134. DEFENDANTS actions described herein above were in violation of established public
policy against employment discrimination and retaliation based upon sex and opposition to discrimination. 135. The conduct, statements and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a continuing
scheme and course of conduct. DEFENDANTS knew the substance of the above-described facts and circumstances and ratified the wrongs and injuries mentioned herein when it was their ability to prevent, remedy and/or correct these wrongs. DEFENDANTS further intentionally and willfully failed to ensure that its employees were informed of the law relevant to their duties or to ensure that employees would not be required to participate in illegal conduct. 136. DEFENDANTS have continued to ratify and have refused to remedy or correct the
aforementioned conduct during and since PLAINTIFFS employment, notwithstanding the fact that company officials knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct and its unlawfulness. 137. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of statute and public
policy, PLAINTIFF has suffered and will continue to suffer: a. A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in sums as may be shown according to proof; b. A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in a sum as may be shown according to proof; c. d. A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain, emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses from the date of said acts all to PLAINTIFFS damage in a sum as may be shown according to proof. 138. The amount of PLAINTIFFS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of
26
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
Court to amend this Complaint when the exact amount of such damages has been ascertained or will prove the same at trial. 139. The above-recited actions of DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or
oppression, and reckless disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on PLAINTIFF. As a result of these and other actions, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION ASSAULT (Against all DEFENDANTS and DOES) 140. PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, each
and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 inclusive. 141. DEFENDANTS did touch and/or attempted to touch PLAINTIFF in a harmful and/or
offensive manner without her consent. 142. In doing the acts as alleged above, DEFENDANTS intended to place PLAINTIFF in
apprehension of imminent harmful and/or offensive contact. 143. As alleged above, DEFENDANTS engaged in outrageous conduct and an abuse of authority
by subjecting PLAINTIFF to assault. 144. As a legal and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and
continues to suffer severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. As a result of such assaults and consequent harm, PLAINTIFF has suffered such damages in an amount according to proof. 145. The amount of PLAINTIFFS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of
Court to amend this Complaint when the exact amount of such damages has been ascertained or will prove the same at trial. 146. The above-recited actions of DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or oppression,
and reckless disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on PLAINTIFF. As a result of these and other actions, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages. //
27
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 28 155. 147.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION BATTERY (Against all DEFENDANTS and DOES) PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, each
and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 inclusive. 148. In doing the acts as recited above, DEFENDANTS intended to make harmful and/or
offensive contact with PLAINTIFFS person, and did in fact make harmful and/or offensive contact with PLAINTIFFS person. 149. At all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF found the contact made with her person by
DEFENDANTS to be harmful and/or offensive. 150. as alleged above, DEFENDANTS engaged in outrageous conduct and an abuse of authority
by subjecting PLAINTIFF to battery. 151. 152. Said conduct was intended to cause harm to PLAINTIFF. As a legal and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and
continues to suffer severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. As a result of such assaults and consequent harm, PLAINTIFF has suffered such damages in an amount according to proof. 153. The amount of PLAINTIFFS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of
and reckless disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on PLAINTIFF. As a result of these and other actions, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL BATTERY IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE 1708.5 (Against all DEFENDANTS and DOES) PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, each
and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 inclusive.
28
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
156.
In doing the acts as alleged above, and according to proof, DEFENDANTS acted with the
intent to sexually offensive contact with PLAINTIFFS person, and in fact did make sexually offensive contact with PLAINTIFF within the meaning of Civil Code 1708.5. 157. PLAINTIFF found the sexual contact made with her person by DEFENDANTS to be
offensive to her person and dignity. 158. As alleged above, DEFENDANTS engaged in outrageous conduct and an abuse of authority
by subjecting PLAINTIFF to sexual battery within the meaning of Civil Code 1708.5. 159. The conduct set forth violated the fundamental public policy of the state of California. Said
conduct was intended to cause harm to PLAINTIFF. 160. As a legal and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and
continues to suffer severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. As a result of such sexual battery and consequent harm, PLAINTIFF has suffered such damages in an amount according to proof. 161. The amount of PLAINTIFFS damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of
and reckless disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on PLAINTIFF. As a result of these and other actions, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS and each of them as follows: 1. For general and compensatory damages, including prejudgment interest, in accordance with proof at time of trial; 2. For lost salary, both front and back pay, bonuses, and any other benefits to which PLAINTIFF would have been entitled to by reason of her employment with DEFENDANTS, according to proof; 3. 4. For punitive damages, where permitted, to be determined at trial; For PLAINTIFFS costs and attorneys fees, where permitted;
29
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
5. 6.
For restitution and/or disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains; For preliminary and permanent injunction against DEFENDANTS from the acts of unfair competition as described in the Seventh Cause of Action; and
7.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. FINK & STEINBERG
DATED: April 11, 2014
By: Keith A. Fink Sarah E. Hernandez Olaf J. Muller Attorneys for Plaintiff AMBER MARTINEZ
30

LOTERIA GRILL, DEFENDANTS Maintained A Misogynistic Workplace Rampant With Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOTERIA GRILL, DEFENDANTS Maintained A Misogynistic Workplace Rampant With Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

hostile work environment and subsequently forcing her resignation.

MARTINEZ is entitled to attorneys fees and prejudgment interest.

and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 inclusive.

DATED: April 11, 2014

You might also like