Carbajal 2016 Age Discrimination 34 Yrs With Company OC PDF

1
2
3
4
5
6
Jennifer Ryu (State Bar No. 299143)

James I. Shin (State Bar No. 299101)
SHIN RYU BAZERKANIAN LLP
714 West Olympic Boulevard, Ste. 714
Los Angeles, California 90015-1439
Telephone: (213) 986 - 3430
Facsimile: (213) 986 - 9860
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BLANCA LETICIA CARBAJAL
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
10
11
12
BLANCA LETICIA CARBAJAL, an

individual;
CASE NO.
Assigned for all purposes to:
Dept.:
Plaintiff,
13
26
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
2. AGE DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
3. SEX DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
4. FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO
PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
5. BREACH OF CONTRACT
6. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
FAIR DEALING
7. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY
8. FAILURE TO ALLOW INSPECTION
OF PAYROLL RECORDS
9. FAILURE TO TIMELY ALLOW
INSPECTION OF PERSONNEL FILE
27
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
v.
CKE RESTAURANTS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; CARL KARCHER
ENTERPRISES LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
28
-1COMPLAINT
1
2
Plaintiff BLANCA LETICIA CARBAJAL (hereinafter Plaintiff), complains against

Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
3
4
THE PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff BLANCA LETICIA CARBAJAL (hereinafter Carbajal or Plaintiff)
is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual residing in the County of Orange in the
State of California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for approximately thirty-four years
from 1981 until her termination in November 2015.
8
9
10
11
2.
Defendant CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, LLC is a limited liability
company authorized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its corporate
office located at 1325 N Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California 927801.
3.
Defendant CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. is a corporation, authorized and existing
12
under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the City of
13
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California.
14
4.
CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, LLC and CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.
15
(hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants or CKE) was at all material times an
16
employer within meaning of California Gov. Code 12926(d) and 12940(j)(4)(A) and, as such,
17
is prohibited from discriminating in employment as set forth in Gov. Code 12940, et seq.
18
5.
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
19
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names.
20
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
21
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named
22
Defendants is responsible as hereinafter shown for the occurrences and injuries to Plaintiff as
23
herein alleged.
24
6.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
25
mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents of each of the other Defendants, and
26
in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such agency
27
and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.
28
7.
At all relevant times, each Defendant, including those named herein as Doe
-2COMPLAINT
defendants, have operated, and currently operate, as a single business enterprise. Though such
defendants have multiple corporate, entity, and individual personalities, there is but one
enterprise and this enterprise has been so handled that it should respond, as a whole and jointly
but severally by each of its constituent parts, for the acts committed by the Defendants. Each
corporation, individual and entity has been, and is, merely an instrument and conduit for the
others in the prosecution of a single business venture. There is such a unity of interest and
ownership among these Defendants that the separate personalities of the corporations,
individuals and entities no longer exist. If the separate acts of the Defendants are treated as those
of each Defendant alone, an inequitable result will follow in that Defendants will evade and
10
effectively frustrate the statutes and statutory schemes set forth below which are meant to protect
11
employees and the publics welfare, and the Defendants separately may have insufficient assets
12
to respond to the ultimate award of damages, restitution, costs and penalties in this case. Further,
13
an award of penalties against one or more of the Defendants alone will not accurately reflect the
14
amount necessary for punishment of the entire business enterprise conducted by Defendants.
15
16
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8.
Plaintiff brings this Complaint for violations of the California Government Code,
17
California Labor Code and California common law against his former employer based on
18
wrongful employment actions.
19
20
21
9.
Pursuant to Article VI, 10 of the California Constitution, jurisdiction is proper
in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, State of California.

10.
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395 and Government Code
22
section 12965, sub. (b), venue is proper because the events giving rise to this action took place in
23
Orange County, because Defendants were doing business Orange County, because Plaintiff
24
worked for Defendants in Orange County, because the majority of witnesses reside in Orange
25
County and because the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
26
27
28
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

11.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in this
complaint as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.
-3COMPLAINT
12.
At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of California
Government Code 12940, et seq., which obligates employers to provide a work environment
free from discrimination and retaliation based on an employees age and sex and to take all
reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and retaliation from occurring.
13.
Plaintiff began working for Defendants in 1981 as a cashier, when she was 17
years of age. Plaintiff worked continuously for Defendants for 34 years. Plaintiffs performance
during that time was outstanding, and she rose to the position of District Manager and oversaw
five of the most profitable Carls Jr. restaurants located in the State California.
14.
Plaintiff, a single mother, was 51 years old at the time of the termination. As
10
such, she is a member of a protected class under Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act
11
(Cal. Gov. Code 12940, et seq.) based on age and sex.
12
15.
On or about November 9, 2015, Plaintiffs employment was terminated without
13
warning. Plaintiffs supervisor, Enrique Delgado, acting within the course and scope of his
14
employment, informed Plaintiff that her position as District Manager of Region 4 Operations was
15
being eliminated.
16
16.
Despite the proffered reason, Plaintiffs former position was not, and has not
17
been, eliminated. Instead, Plaintiff was immediately replaced with Jose Garay, a younger male
18
with less experience than Plaintiff, who continues to perform her former job duties to this date.
19
17.
Upon information and belief, there were alternative positions at defendants
20
company which were available, and for which Plaintiff was qualified. Despite her long tenure,
21
dedicated service, and undeniable qualifications for these positions, Defendants refused to
22
consider Plaintiff for these positions.
23
18.
On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination against
24
Defendants with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), Matter
25
Number: 745048-211596, and received her notice of right to sue. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
26
exhausted her administrative remedies.
27
///
28
///
-4COMPLAINT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
(Against All Defendants)
4
5
6
7
8
19.
20.
At all times relevant, there was an employer-employee relationship between
Plaintiff and the Defendants.

21.
Plaintiffs employment was terminated as a result of Defendants violation of
fundamental public policies. It is a fundamental, substantial and well-established public policy
10
under California law that a workplace be free of age and sex discrimination. This fundamental
11
public policy is expressed under California Constitution Art. 1 8, and the Californias Fair
12
Employment and Housing Act (Govt. Code 12940, et seq.) In enacting the FEHA, the
13
Legislature declared that it is a civil right to seek, obtain, and hold employment without
14
discrimination, and that it is the public policy of this state to protect and safeguard such rights
15
and opportunities.
16
22.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discrimination and retaliation,
17
Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to suffer damages in an amount within the jurisdiction
18
of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. Such damages include:
19
a) Loss of salary and other valuable employment benefits;
20
b) Prejudgment interest and interest on the sum of damages at the legal rate; and
21
c) Other consequential damages, including damages for shame, humiliation,
22
23
mental anguish and emotional distress caused by the conduct of Defendants.

23.
As a proximate result of Defendants willful, knowing and intentional
24
discrimination against and termination of Plaintiff based upon her age and gender, Plaintiff has
25
suffered and continues to suffer damages in a sum according to proof.
26
24.
The wrongful acts against Plaintiff were carried out, authorized or ratified by
27
Defendants directors, officers and/or managing agents, acting with malice, oppression or fraud,
28
or deliberate, willful and conscious disregard of the probability of causing injury to Plaintiff and
-5COMPLAINT
with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of his employment rights. The conduct of Defendant was also
malicious and oppressive in that Plaintiff was terminated in violation of Government Code
12940, et seq.. On that basis, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages against
Defendants as a means of punishing Defendants and by way of example to deter such behavior in
the future as being contrary to sound public policy.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Age Discrimination in Violation of Government Code 12940(a)
9
10
11
25.
26.
At all times herein mentioned, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
12
(Gov. Code 12900 et seq.) and its implementing regulations were in full force and effect and
13
binding on the Defendant. Cal. Govt. Code 12940(h), 12941, 12942 prohibit discrimination
14
in employment on the basis of age. In enacting Govt. Code 12941, the California Legislature
15
expressly declared its intent that the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between
16
employees when terminating employment may be found to constitute age discrimination. The
17
Legislature further reaffirms and declares its intent that the courts interpret the state statutes
18
prohibiting age discrimination in employment broadly and vigorouslywith the goal of not only
19
protecting older workers as individuals, but also of protecting older workers as a group, since
20
they face unique obstacles in the later phases of their careers.
21
27.
All times relevant to this matter, Plaintiff was an individual over the age of 40 as
22
defined by Government Code section 12926, subdivision (b), and Title 2 of the California Code
23
of Regulations section 7295.0, and thus is a member of a class of persons protected from
24
employment discrimination based on age.
25
28.
Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that Defendants and other agents and
26
employees of Defendants, had and has a history of discriminating against individuals over the
27
age of forty, which history was known to Defendants, and each of them. Despite such
28
knowledge, Defendants callously chose to ignore the rights of their employees to be free from
-6COMPLAINT
discrimination in favor of its own interests and those of its corporate officers.
29.
After 34 years of wholly satisfactory, competent and diligent performance to the
profit of the Defendants, Plaintiff was notified by said named Defendants that she was being
terminated owing to elimination of her position. Defendants claim, however, was a pretext
designed to conceal Defendants practice of discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her
age.
30.
Defendants policy, practice, routine and pervasive discrimination against
Plaintiff and employees over the age of forty causes individuals who are similarly situated as
Plaintiff to be demonstrably disadvantaged by depriving said individuals from continuing gainful
10
employment with Defendants, despite superior qualifications and job performance. Furthermore,
11
Defendants policy and practice is not justified by any business necessity.
12
31.
Defendants termination of Plaintiffs employment constituted unlawful
13
discrimination in employment on account of Plaintiffs age, in violation of Government Code
14
12900, et seq., and in particular 12940 and 12941.
15
32.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory acts, Plaintiff has
16
sustained and will continue to suffer damages in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court,
17
the exact amount to be proven at trial. Such damages include:
18
19
20
21
22

33.
As a further proximate cause of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been
23
compelled to retain legal counsel and is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit,
24
pursuant to Government Code 12965(b).
25
34.
26
27
28
-7COMPLAINT
12940, et seq. On that basis, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages against
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Sex Discrimination in Violation of Government Code 12940(a)
8
9
10
35.
36.
At all times herein mentioned, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
11
(Gov. Code 12900 et seq.) and its implementing regulations were in full force and effect and
12
binding on the Defendants. Cal. Gov. Code 12940(a) makes it unlawful for an employer to
13
discriminate against an employee on the basis of the employees sex.
14
37.
Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the FEHA
15
by, including but not limited to, placing Plaintiff in the lay-off purportedly in reliance on specific
16
criteria, which, if actually considered, would not have resulted in Plaintiffs termination.
17
38.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that her sex was a
18
motivating factor in Defendants decision to terminate Plaintiff, in violation of Government
19
Code 12940(a).
20
39.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory acts, Plaintiff has
21
sustained and will continue to suffer damages in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court,
22
the exact amount to be proven at trial. Such damages include:
23
d) Loss of salary and other valuable employment benefits;
24
e) Prejudgment interest and interest on the sum of damages at the legal rate; and
25
f) Other consequential damages, including damages for shame, humiliation,
26
27
28

40.
-8COMPLAINT
1
2

41.
12940, et seq.. On that basis, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages against
10
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11
Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of Government Code 12940(k)
12
13
14
15
42.
43.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, the California Fair Employment and
16
Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code 12900 et seq.) and its implementing regulations were in full
17
force and effect and binding on the Defendant. Pursuant to Government Code 12940(k), it is
18
unlawful for an employer to fail to prevent discrimination or retaliation from existing in the
19
workplace. An employer has an affirmative duty to maintain a working environment free of
20
harassment and every individual is entitled to work in a harassment-free environment and an
21
employers failure or refusal to provide this, in and of itself, is the denial of the terms,
22
conditions, privileges of employment and is a violation of the law. These sections, inter alia,
23
require Defendant, as an employer, to refrain from discriminating against an employee on the
24
basis of age and sex.
25
26
27
28
44.
In engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants failed to engage in any
reasonable steps to prevent discrimination against Plaintiff.

45.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants do not have
appropriate policies, procedures, practices, guidelines, rules, and/or trainings regarding the
-9COMPLAINT
1
2
prevention of discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

46.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discrimination and retaliation,
Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to suffer damages in an amount within the jurisdiction
of this court, the exact amount to be proven at trial. Such damages include:
8
9

47.
10
11
12
48.
Because the wrongful acts against Plaintiff were carried out, authorized or ratified
13
by Defendants directors, officers and/or managing agents, acting with malice, oppression or
14
fraud, or deliberate, willful and conscious disregard of the probability of causing injury to
15
Plaintiff, as reflected by the actions as described earlier in this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks
16
punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants in order to deter them from such and similar
17
conduct in the future.
18
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
Breach of Contract
20
21
22
23
24
25
49.
50.
Plaintiff and Defendants had an implied contract not to terminate without good
cause. This contract was formed in the thirty-four years of employment with Defendants.
51.
Plaintiff received a number of pay raises and commendations of her work.
26
Plaintiffs performance was at all times and continued to be outstanding. Plaintiff relied on the
27
consistent praise of her work, the recognition of her excellence, her promotions, and her pay
28
raises to support her belief that her contract of employment included a covenant that she could
- 10 COMPLAINT
1
2
not be demoted or terminated in the absence of good cause.

52.
Plaintiff undertook and continued employment and duly performed all the
conditions to be performed by her. Plaintiff has at all times been ready, willing and able to
perform and has offered to perform all of the conditions to be performed by her.
53.
As a proximate result of Defendants breach of the employment contract, Plaintiff
has suffered and continues to suffer substantial loss of income, and other employment benefits
which she would have received had Defendants not breached said agreement, all to her damage
in an amount which cannot be ascertained with certainty at this time since these damages are
ongoing and cumulative. Plaintiff is informed and believes that these damages will substantially
10
exceed the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this court.
11
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
13
14
15
16
54.
55.
The aforesaid employment contract contained an implied covenant of good faith
17
and fair dealing by which Defendants, and each of them, promised to give full cooperation to
18
Plaintiff in her employment performance and to refrain from doing any act that would prevent or
19
impede Plaintiff from performing all conditions of her employment or any act that would prevent
20
or impede Plaintiffs enjoyment of the fruits of her employment. Specifically, the covenant of
21
good faith and fair dealing required Defendants to fairly, honestly, and reasonably perform the
22
terms and conditions of the employment agreement.
23
56.
Plaintiff, as an individual employee, was in an inherently unequal bargaining
24
positions in her dealings with Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff entrusted her entire livelihood to
25
Defendants willingness to perform their obligations under the terms of employment, and she
26
risked suffering grave harm to herself and her children if Defendants failed to perform.
27
Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs vulnerability in this regard.
28
57.
Defendants termination of Plaintiffs termination was wrongful, in bad faith,

- 11 COMPLAINT
arbitrary, and unfair, and done to frustrate her enjoyment of the contracts actual benefits, in
beach of said covenant, in that Plaintiff was terminated on the pretext that just cause and
business necessities existed to discharge her. Plaintiff was discharged for reasons extraneous to
the employment agreement, without good or sufficient cause, in violation of Defendants policy
to deal consistently and fairly with its employees, and for the purpose of frustrating Plaintiffs
enjoyment of the benefits of her employment with and commitment to Defendants. Further,
Defendants breached the covenant by:
a) Subjecting Plaintiff to different standards from those expected of other
employees;
10
b) Terminating Plaintiffs employment without cause and for reasons that have
11
nothing to do with legitimate business justification, despite excellent job
12
performance;
13
c) Failing to follow their personnel and corporate policies or to apply the same
14
policies to Plaintiff as applied to other employees;
15
d) Failing and refusing to place Plaintiff in alternative positions that were available
16
and for which Plaintiff was qualified.
17
58.
Defendants breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff by
18
terminating her, knowing that Plaintiff was dependent on her job to support herself and her
19
family, without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract, and for the
20
purpose of frustrating Plaintiffs employment of the benefits of the contract.
21
59.
As a result of defendants breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
22
Plaintiff has suffered damages including but not limited to lost income, destruction or
23
impairment of valuable property interests, i.e., her prospect of continuing future employment
24
with Defendants and receipt of continued compensation and substantial losses in earnings and
25
other employment benefits.
26
///
27
///
28
///
- 12 COMPLAINT
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenditures
Cal. Labor Code 2802
5
6
60.
7
8
9
10
11
61.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee covered by Labor Code section
62.
Cal. Labor Code 2802 requires employers to indemnify an employee for all
2802.
necessary expenses or losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of her duties.
63.
Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiff for business expenses in accordance with
12
Labor Code section 2802. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all
13
relevant times within the applicable limitations period, Defendants had a policy or practice of
14
failing to reimburse employees who used their own vehicles for work-related purposes.
15
16
64.
Pursuant to Labor Code 2802, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all costs of un-
reimbursed business-related mileage expenses, reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit.
17
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Failure to Allow Inspection of Payroll Records
19
Cal. Labor Code 226(c)
20
21
22
23
65.
66.
California Labor Code 1174, subdivision (c), requires employers doing business
24
in the State of California to maintain payroll records and to keep these records in a central
25
location in the State of California.
26
67.
California Labor Code 226(b) requires employers to afford current and former
27
employees the right to inspect or copy records pertaining to their employment on reasonable
28
request to the employer. California Labor Code 226(c) further provides: An employer who
- 13 COMPLAINT
receives a written or oral request to inspect or copy records pursuant to subdivision (b) pertaining
to a current or former employee shall comply with the request as soon as practicable, but no later
than 21 calendar days from the date of the request.
68.
Before she filed this action, Plaintiff sent a written demand via Certified U.S.
Mail, dated November 30, 2015, to Defendants wherein she requested her former wage records
be made available for inspection or copying. Defendant has failed to produce these documents
within 21 days of Plaintiffs written request.
8
9
69.
Pursuant to Labor Code 226(e), (f) and (h) Plaintiff is entitled to (a) a seven-
hundred-fifty-dollar ($750.00) penalty for Defendants failure to allow Plaintiff to timely inspect
10
and copy pertinent records; (b) injunctive relief to ensure Defendants compliance with Labor
11
Code 226; and (c) an award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
12
70.
By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been left without an adequate remedy at
13
law, and should be entitled to appropriate injunctive relief from this Court including, but not
14
limited to, an order by the Court requiring Defendants to turn over copies of all of the contents of
15
Plaintiffs employee personnel file and payroll records to Plaintiff or to provide Plaintiff access
16
to these records as required by law.
17
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Failure to Timely Allow Inspection of Personnel File
19
Cal. Labor Code 1198.5
20
21
22
23
71.
72.
California Labor Code 1198.5 provides that every current and former
24
employee, or his or her representative, has the right to inspect and receive a copy of the
25
personnel records that the employer maintains relating to the employees performance or to any
26
grievance concerning the employee. The employer must make the personnel file available to
27
the employee or her representative within thirty days from the date it receives a written request.
28
73.
Before she filed this action, Plaintiff sent a written request dated November 30,
- 14 COMPLAINT
2015 to Defendant wherein she requested employment records pursuant to Labor Code 1198.5.
Defendant has failed to produce the vast majority these documents within 30 days of Plaintiffs
written request.
74.
Pursuant to Labor Code 1198.5 (k) and (l), Plaintiff is entitled to: (a) to recover a
penalty of seven-hundred-fifty-dollars ($750.00); (b) injunctive relief to obtain Defendants
compliance with Labor Code 1198.5; and (c) an award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8
9
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
10
11
1.
A preliminary injunction and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to
provide Plaintiff her payroll records and personnel file;
12
2.
For penalties, special damage, and general damages in an amount to be proven at
14
3.
For punitive damages as allowed by law;
15
4.
Loss of income incurred and to be incurred according to proof;
16
5.
For reasonable attorneys fees;
17
6.
For costs of suit incurred herein;
18
7.
For interest provided by law including, but not limited to, California Civil Code
13
19
trial;
Section 3291;
20
8.
For restitution and other equitable relief; and
21
9.
For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
22
23
Dated: March 31, 2016
24
25
26
27
By ____________________________
JENNIFER RYU
28
- 15 COMPLAINT
1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in the above-captioned action.
3
4
Dated: March 31, 2016
5
6
7
8
By ____________________________
JENNIFER RYU
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 16 COMPLAINT

Carbajal 2016 Age Discrimination 34 Yrs With Company OC PDF

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

Carbajal 2016 Age Discrimination 34 Yrs With Company OC PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Jennifer Ryu (State Bar No. 299143)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

BLANCA LETICIA CARBAJAL, an

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff BLANCA LETICIA CARBAJAL (hereinafter Plaintiff), complains against

Plaintiff BLANCA LETICIA CARBAJAL (hereinafter Carbajal or Plaintiff)

from 1981 until her termination in November 2015.

Defendant CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, LLC is a limited liability

Defendant CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. is a corporation, authorized and existing

Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California.

CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, LLC and CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants or CKE) was at all material times an

and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

wrongful employment actions.

Pursuant to Article VI, 10 of the California Constitution, jurisdiction is proper

in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, State of California.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and retaliation from occurring.

(Cal. Gov. Code 12940, et seq.) based on age and sex.

On or about November 9, 2015, Plaintiffs employment was terminated without

Upon information and belief, there were alternative positions at defendants

consider Plaintiff for these positions.

On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination against

exhausted her administrative remedies.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

(Against All Defendants)

At all times relevant, there was an employer-employee relationship between

Plaintiff and the Defendants.

Plaintiffs employment was terminated as a result of Defendants violation of

fundamental public policies. It is a fundamental, substantial and well-established public policy

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discrimination and retaliation,

a) Loss of salary and other valuable employment benefits;

c) Other consequential damages, including damages for shame, humiliation,

mental anguish and emotional distress caused by the conduct of Defendants.

As a proximate result of Defendants willful, knowing and intentional

suffered and continues to suffer damages in a sum according to proof.

the future as being contrary to sound public policy.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Age Discrimination in Violation of Government Code 12940(a)

(Against All Defendants)

they face unique obstacles in the later phases of their careers.

employment discrimination based on age.

After 34 years of wholly satisfactory, competent and diligent performance to the

Defendants policy, practice, routine and pervasive discrimination against

Plaintiff to be demonstrably disadvantaged by depriving said individuals from continuing gainful

Defendants policy and practice is not justified by any business necessity.

Defendants termination of Plaintiffs employment constituted unlawful

discrimination in employment on account of Plaintiffs age, in violation of Government Code

12900, et seq., and in particular 12940 and 12941.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory acts, Plaintiff has

the exact amount to be proven at trial. Such damages include:

a) Loss of salary and other valuable employment benefits;

c) Other consequential damages, including damages for shame, humiliation,

mental anguish and emotional distress caused by the conduct of Defendants.

As a further proximate cause of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been

pursuant to Government Code 12965(b).

the future as being contrary to sound public policy.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Sex Discrimination in Violation of Government Code 12940(a)