SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-14-2015 4:14 pm Case Number: CGC-15-545842 Filing Date: May-14-2015 4:06 Filed by: DENNIS TOYAMA Juke Box: 001 Image: 04911970 COMPLAINT VERONICA CHAVEZ VS. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL 001004911970 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.@ cMo19 fa deans ete Ba No. ne one ease F..L_ED oie ie dea Eond ieee eerie reurrore 10: 650-638-2317 rato: rrowey rox oun: Plaintiff Veronica Chavez. MAY 14-2015 JPERIOR COURTOF CaLsFonNA, counTY oF SAN FRANCISCO ‘rms 400 McAllister Street eusaeere! 983 Medllister Street CLERK OF THE COURT rvs ze cove: San Francisco, CA 94102 BY: NNIS aon aA ‘CASE NAME: CHAVEZ v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ‘CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET | ‘Complex Case Designation cee 15 - 545842 ZI Uiited Ute countr 2) Joinder Shenae Gomandod is | Fld wih tra appearance by defendant ‘exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) corr: tems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). [Chek ae Ratio ri coe Ope at tl cece ae ‘to Tort Provilonally Complex Civil Ligation ‘Auto (22) eae ‘Breach of contractwarranty (08) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.403403) Uninsured motorist (46) ) Rute 3.740 collections (08) [ Antiusvrace roguation (03) ther PUPDIWD (Personal InuryProperty (ther calecons (0) CConatructon detec (10) ‘Damagerarongful Doth Inguranea coverage (18) ‘Mass or (40) TJ Asbestos 04) TF ctor convact (37) TE securtes gation 28) Product Hiablty (24) Real Property (1 Environmentairaxtc tort (20) Medical mbps 48) Coy Een domaintiverse rnc cvarang eat fa he OO otter puponvn (23) ‘condemnation (14) listed provislonally complex ‘Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort [1 Wrongfu eviction (33) ‘types 41) [7 eucinoes torts business practoe (07) [—] Other ea propery (2) Enforcement of Judgment ‘Git eghts (06) \Uniawtut Detainer 1 Enforcement of adament (20) Defamation (13) (1 commercial 21) (Mlacallaneous Civil Complaint Fraud 16) reid (2) I co en Intolectul property (19) TH onus =) TF) other complaint not spocitod above) 42) Professional nogigence (25) edict Review ‘Miscellaneous Civil Petition ‘ther non-PUPOAND tot (35) TT Asset frteture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) TE) Posten: wtrton avai) =] atmo ant corpora cover ‘Wrongful termination (36) (2) wit of mandate (02) [1 otner employment (15) (7) other juticiat review (90) 2 Thiscase [Jie [2Tisnot Siapene” Motos on as can Foe re RS {actors requiing exceptional judicial management: Sy taprnnoe ofeomiay wpecariedpates 4 CTamenmerotwoee BY FAX ee CCT ebyietinys iver sby aan Inoter counts, Sates of counties, of na etl at [71 Substantial amount of documentary evidence . (7) Substantial postudgment judicial supervision Remedios soup (check a that ep): a] monetary. nonmanetary, declaratory orinjunctve eet —Ipuntve ‘Number of causes of action (specify): (8) claims for FEHA discrimination, retaliation re gender and disability Thiscso Lis Lz isnot acess acton aut aane Date: May 14, 2015 Moira id CRP ARE NOTICE + Plaintiff must fle this cover sheet with the first paper fled in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institttons Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result Jn sanctions. ‘ File this cover sheet in ackition to any cover sheet required by local court rue. «If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on al ‘other parties tothe action or proceeding, "Sideereg caste CIVIL GASE COVER SHEET Shao S eases eat ta ceae @ sum SUMMONS (30 PAE USO BE EA CORTE) (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a governmental ‘entity doing business in California, and DOES 1-50, inclusive ‘YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): VERONICA CHAVEZ ‘WOTIGET You have been sued. The Cour ay Gece again you wih your Bolg hoard unless you respond wit 30 days, ead the iormaton below. "YoU have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after ths summons and lagal papers ar served on you to fea writen response al this court and have a copy ‘served onthe paint. Alter or phone call wil not protect you. Your wren response must bein proper taal form you want the cout hear your ‘ase, There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forme and mere information at the Calforia Cours ‘Onine Sel-elp Center (win courtno.cs.gow/setMab), your county law brary, othe courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the fg fee, ask ‘he court ler fora fee water form. I you do no le your responee on ime, you may lose the case by defaut, and your wages, money, and property ‘may be taken witout furber warring fom the court. "There are cher logal requirements. You may wantto call an ati right away. you do nt know an atomey, you may want fo ea an atomey ‘eferal service. you cannot afford an attorney you may be eigble for ree legal services from a nanprot legal serdces program. You can locate ‘hese nonprof groups al the Calfornia Legal Services Web se (wv. whelpcalfomia.or), the Calfomia Coutts Online SaltHelp Centar (jn courtnta.e.gov/eethebp), or by contacting you local court or county bar assocallon. NOTE: The court has a statutory ln fr waived fees and {Costs on any satement or aritraton award of $10,000 oF more Ina el case. The court's on must be pald before the court wil dsmiss the case. JAVISO! Lo hen demendede. Sino reeponde dentro de 30 las, le corte puede deca en su contra sn escucher su varsién. Lea (a informacion & ‘ontinuacion. “lane 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de quo lo antroguan est ctecién y papeteslogaas para presontar une respuesta por escito en esto cate y hacer que so entregue une cople al demendante. Une cata o una lemade falfenice no lo protogan. Su respuesta por esc Hane que estar €n formato legal corecto si desoe que procesen su caso en l corte. Es posible que hays un formulerio que usted puede user pare su respues. Hay otos requisites iageles. Es recomendebie que flame 2 un abogado inmedistsmente. Sino conoce a un abogedo, puede lamar @un servicio do ramién a abogedes. Sino puede pagar a un abogedo, es poste que cumpla con los requstos pare obtener servic fegeles gratuites de Un ‘programa de sericos legates sin fee de cr. Puede encontrar estos grupos si fas de luo en af sto web de Calfomia Legal Services, {srw lawhelpcalfomia.or), en ef Centro de Ayude de las Cotes de Galiom, ww sucorta.ca. gov) 0 ponidndose an contacto con a core oa! ‘colegio de abogads lcsies. AVISO: Por ey, le cot ene derecho a recamer ls cucs y ls costos exentos por mpener un gravemen sro ‘vetquerrecuperacén de $10,000 6 més de valor recbige mecfante un ecyerto 0 una cancestn de erie en un caso de derecho Gl. Tane que ‘pagar el gravamen dele corte anes de que le corte puede desechar ef casa. ‘The name and address of the courts [seamen (Elnombre y direccién de la corte es): San Francisco Superior Court eel 1 5-545842 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Terme, sre, rd tpone rb tla eyo da wou an trey: BY FAX (Einomtve, la dreccion y e! nimero de teléfono del abogado de! demendante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogade, es): Moira McQuaid, L/O Moira C. McQuaid, 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600, San Mateo, CA 94402, 650-638-2317 , DENNIS TOY acre) MAY 142015 CLERK OF THE COURT Mi.) Sud? ‘pejuney {For proof of service of is summons, use Proof of Senica of Summons (orm POS-O70)), (ara prueba de entroga de esta citation use ol formularo Proof of Service of Summens, (POS-010). = NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served +. [as anindividual defendant. 2. [as the person sued under the fctious name of (spect): 3. [J on behalf of (specify): under: cP 416.10 (comporation) cee 416.60 (miner (CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [)_ CCP 416.70 (conservatee) [5 CP 416.40 (association or partnership) [—] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (speci 4. 1 by personal delivery on (cet): maria aaa ‘SUMMONS Gadoureanm cam 48 SUMAO0 (Rv, dy 1, 2008) beuv ae 1s 20 a 2 23 26 25 26 2 28 Moira C. McQuaid (State Bar No. 154232) IL E.. moira@mequaidlaw.com F, tion Cott of Call Law Offices of Moira C. McQuaid ot Sen Francisco 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 MAY 14 2015 San Mateo, California 94402 Telephone: (650) 638-2317 CLER} Facsimile (650) 359-2533 BY Bhie ARH Attomeys for Plaintiff VERONICA CHAVEZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION VERONICA CHAVEZ, caseno.f GC 15-545842 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintif, BASED UPON: i 1. Gender Discrimination (Gov. de I 12940(a) et seq. 2. Disability Discrimination ature SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL Brogess (ov. SAG laa DISTRICT, a governmental entity doing 40} business in California; and DOES 1-50, [ Bic fy Biscrimination Fallure| inclusive, tg Accothrmodate (Gov. Code U 4. Disab D Blsriminaton (cov. Ode Set Defendants. 5. Retaliation Government C Code Gov. Code It 12940 et seq.); 6. Feture to brevent Retaliatign, Discrimination and Harassment (Gov. Code 0 12940(k} 7. Wrongful Bemotion in Violation of Public Policy Embodied in Gov. Code 12940(a) et seq.); and 8. Beclaratory Relief. JURY TRIAL DEMAND AY FAN ‘Complaint for Damages: Case No.u 15 16 uv ae as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Plaintiff demands a jury and alleges the following: 1. Veronica Chavez (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Chavez”) Is an individual and at all times material hereto was employed by Defendant San Francisco Unified School District (hereinafter “Defendant” or “SFUSD”). 2. Defendant SFUSD is a governmental entity responsible for providing educational services to the school-age children of the City and County of San Francisco, with its principal place of business in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. 3. Plaintiff sues fictitious defendants DOE 1 through DOE 50 under Code of Civil Procedure section 474 because she does not presently know the names of the DOE defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the| Doe Defendants, or some of them, are California residents. Each Doe defendant is sued as the agent or employee of every other defendant, acting within and outside the course and scope of that relationship, with the knowledge and consent of the other defendants. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ‘she learns their names. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in acting or failing to.act as alleged, each defendant conspired with and was the employer, partner, joint venturer, parent, subsidiary, agent, employee, or representative of every other defendant, and approved and/or ratified the conduct of other Defendants, and were acting within and outside the course and scope of such relationship. 5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, and each of them, covered by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA”), California Government Code § 12900 et seq., ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.16 uv ae as 20 a 22 23 2a 25 26 21 28 which prohibits discrimination, harassment and retaliation in employment on the basis of gender and disability. 6. — Atall times material hereto, Defendants, and each of them, are employers pursuant to California Government Code § 12926(d). 7. Chavez, who is female, has had a long and illustrious career with: Defendant SFUSD. Chavez is currently employed as the Spanish newcomer bilingual classroom teacher at SFUSD’s Mission Education Center. This teaching position, while personally rewarding and gratifying to Chavez for the positive impact she has had on her students, represents a significant demotion and reduction in salary as compared to the assistant superintendent position Chavez previously held in the District for four (4) years from 2009 to 2013 during her SFUSD career. 8. Oninformation and belief, Chavez’s demotion and reduction in salary during her employment with SFUSD is attributable to invidious discrimination, harassment, and retaliation directed towards her due to her gender and disability or perceived disability. 9. Chavez began her employment with Defendant SFUSD in 1994 in| the position of kindergarten-5" grade ("K-5”) teacher at the Buena Vista Alternative School, which was a two-way Spanish Immersion School in the District. 10. In the school year of 1997-1998, Chavez was elevated to the position of Teacher in Charge, or Maestra Directora, at Buena Vista Alternative School. In this position, she co-authored and received approval for innovative leadership design at the school. She also served half time as a school leader and half time as a classroom teacher. 11. In the school year of 1998-1999, Chavez was elevated to the Position of Principal of Buena Vista Alternative School, a position she held until the end of the school year in 2002. During her tenure as Principal of ‘Complaint for Damages. Case No.20 aa 22 23 Buena Vista Alternative School, Chavez left her positive imprint on the school. She applied for and received a $1.5 million Title VII grant, she compiled and organized grade level language benchmarks for the K-5 Spanish Two-Way Immersion Program, and she recruited high caliber bilingual teachers for the program. Chavez also made presentations at the California Association for Bilingual Educators Conference and at the Council of Great City School Conference. 12. During the summer of 2002, Chavez undertook to be an intern for an administrative position by assuming an Assistant Principal spot at Fairmount Elementary School. While at Fairmount Elementary School, Chavez supervised the successful implementation of the summer school program and she supported Fairmount’s principal during the principal’s transition from Fairmount to SFUSD’‘s central office where the principal assumed an assistant superintendent position. 13. In or about the summer of 2003, Chavez served as the Principal of Bryant Elementary Summer School. In this position, she hired staff for the pre-K-5" grade (“preK-5”) summer school, she backward mapped summer school curriculum to maximize summer learning time for the students and she supervised the special education summer school strand. 14. In the years 2002 to 2006, Chavez became the Program Administrator for the SFUSD Multilingual Programs. She ultimately became ‘the Supervisor of the Multilingual Programs from 2006 to 2007. While working in the Multilingual Programs, Chavez inventoried all bilingual Programs at SFUSD and she matched SFUSD bilingual programs to appropriate bilingual pathway designations, she implemented two Spanish Dual Language and one Mandarin Immersion programs, she supervised community-based English Tutoring Program-English Learners at 40 SFUSD sites, she supervised the Migrant Education Program, and she lead the ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.design of Language and Literacy Assessment Rubrics (LALARK) for Kindergarten through the 12" grade (“K-12”). Chavez also launched District-wide ELD professional development and she provided site and district-wide professional development. 15. From 2007 to 2009, Chavez assumed the position of Principal for} Bryant Elementary School. Under her leadership, the school posted a 21- point Academic Performance Index (API) gain, which was outstanding. The API is a measurement of academic performance and progress of individual schools in California. Chavez also assumed responsibility for recruiting high caliber educators to fill site positions. To do this, she interviewed extensively and put together a core group of teachers who were committed to hard work. 16. Chavez also implemented effective attendance and Student Success Team (“SST”) and Student Attendance Review Board (“SARB”) teams while at Bryant, and she organized grade level teams that were focused on continuous cycles of improvement in partnership with “Partners for School Innovation.” 17. While she worked at Bryant, the then SFUSD Superintendent, Carlos Garcia, would visit her school periodically. Garcia made it a priority ‘to visit schools during his tenure as Superintendent. During his visits to Bryant, Superintendent Garcia praised Chavez for how well the school was functioning. 18. Chavez's outstanding work at Bryant did not go unnoticed. Kevin Truitt, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, and Anthony Smith, the Deputy Superintendent, invited Chavez to apply for the assistant superintendent vacancy in the District, which she did. 19. After interviewing for the position, Chavez was elevated to the position of assistant superintendent for elementary schools in the summer of| ‘Complaint for Damages. Case No.2009. The assistant superintendent position was an administrative position that brought her to work in SFUSD’s central office. In this position, Chavez earned a higher salary than she earned as either a teacher or a principal. 20. Chavez was successful as an assistant superintendent, earning the highest area superintendent ratings in the 2011-2012 District Satisfaction measures. As an assistant superintendent, Chavez was responsible for recruiting, supervising and coaching principals at 20 of SFUSD’s elementary schools, she planned district/principal professional development in collaboration with various district departments, she designed| and supervised implementation of District initiatives, she implemented structures for equity centered learning communities at school sites, and she helped foster a growth in API-ratings of 246 points in Area III schools for which she was responsible. 21. Besides Chavez, there were two other female assistant superintendents for elementary schools, Margaret Chiu and Nurjehan Kalique. Each elementary superintendent supervised 20-22 schools. There was also a female assistant superintendent for middle schools, Jeannie Pon, and a female assistant superintendent for high schools, Janet Schultz. 22. During Chavez’s tenure as an assistant superintendent for elementary schools, a male, Brent Stephens, held the position of Executive Director. On information and belief, the Executive Director position was subordinate to and supported the Assistant Superintendent positions. 23. When Anthony Smith assumed the Superintendent position at the Oakland Unified School District, Richard Carranza was recruited from Garcla’s former school district in Nevada and, after Interviewing, became the Deputy Superintendent for SFUSD in the summer of 2009. 24. In the fall of 2009, Superintendent Garcia invited Chavez to attend the Association of Latin Administrators and Superintendents (“ALAS”) ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.Conference in San Antonio, Texas. On information and belief, Garcia, who was a founding member of ALAS, wanted to provide Chavez with another opportunity for advancement. 25. In the beginning of Chavez's assistant superintendent tenure, the assistant superintendents for SFUSD operated in a decentralized manner. Each level of the superintendents, elementary, middle and high school, operated autonomously. 26. During the first two years that Chavez was an assistant superintendent, under both Garcia and Carranza, the superintendents were encouraged to be innovative and meet the needs of the schools they oversaw. The assistant superintendents also were encouraged to come up with a unified plan for how they were going to serve the schools. For the elementary assistant superintendents, one of whom was Chavez, this was a challenge because the three superintendents had different methods for leading their schools. 27. Chavez requested and received approval to work with a coach, Antonio Cediel, who was a former Deputy Superintendent from Boston Public| Schools. Chavez requested the coaching relationship with a goal to achieving some structure in her assistant superintendent role because there was no coherence among the assistant superintendents In how they supervised their schools and she wanted to learn from someone who had ‘successfully performed in the role in another school district. 28. In June 2012, Superintendent Garcia urged Chavez to apply for the ALAS Superintendent Leadership Academy. The purpose of the Academy| is to groom candidates with leadership potential to become Superintendents In the future. Chavez received letters of recommendation from Garcia, Carranza and others, and was ultimately accepted into the program, which was considered an achievement. ‘Complaint for Damages. Case No.20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29, In July 2012, Carranza became the Superintendent of the District on the strength of Garcia’s recommendation. On information and belief, when Superintendent Garcia brought Carranza In, he told the Board that Carranza would create a smooth transition because he had already been there. 30. Instead, Carranza began implementing changes that resulted in a large turnover of personnel in the central office of the District that resulted] in the replacement of qualified female employees with a predominantly male team. On information and belief, many of the male replacements were hand} picked by Carranza and Guadalupe Guerrero, his deputy Superintendent, on the basis of prior relationships and preferred candidates were not subjected to the usual Interviewing requirements. 31. Chavez was outspoken about changes that she did not believe were in the best interests of the schools, because her primary concern was that the needs of the students be served. Carranza criticized her for her advocacy, telling her among other things that she “read” too much and that she should stop trying to sound like she knew more than everyone else. 32. By contrast, the Deputy Superintendent, Guadalupe Guerrero, and Superintendent, Richard Carranza, endorsed the male Executive Director, Stephens, in transitioning from a support role for the female assistant superintendents, who were supposed to be his supervisors, to taking a leadership role where he managed the female assistant superintendents and presided over their meetings. Stephens also stopped reporting to the female assistant superintendents and began reporting directly to the deputy superintendent, Guerrero, his former Harvard classmate and friend. 33. Besides permitting the erosion of her role as assistant superintendent to a male subordinate, Carranza belittled Chavez by making ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.14 a5 16 v7 e @ ‘comments in meetings they attended. On information and belief, Carranza also held Chavez to a higher standard to make staff changes than he imposed upon her male counterparts and did not support the changes Chavez belleved were necessary. 34. In Fall of 2012, when her complaints to Guerrero and Carranza about the unfairness of Stephen’s changing role and other changes in her assistant superintendent role fell on deaf ears, Chavez requested that she be| assigned different duties. On information and belief, there were other assistant superintendent duties in the District that Chavez could perform while remaining at the same job classification that would not result in a demotion or a reduction In compensation. 35. Chavez learned in a conversation with Luis Valentino, Associate Superintendent of the Office of Curriculum and Instruction, that Carranza was upset regarding her complaints and her requested change in job duties. Carranza retaliated by demoting Chavez in title from Assistant Superintendent to Executive Director. 36. Chavez started working closely with Luis Valentino’s group. In this new role, Chavez established the Professional Learning and Leadership Development Office. Chavez threw herself into her new duties with relish. 37. As part of her new job, Chavez was tasked with applying for a fellowship with the KIPP Organization for Leadership Design. She applied, received and completed the Design Fellowship. The plan was reviewed almost weekly, and at least monthly, with Deputy Superintendent Guerrero. Guerrero never indicated to Chavez that her work in this capacity was below ‘expectations. 38. Chavez understood from conversations with Valentino and Guerrero that the newly minted Executive Director for the Professional Learning and Leadership Development Office position that she created and ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.25, 26 2 28 designed would be hers to keep and that she would be appointed to the position. Chavez was shown the location, she was involved in discussions regarding the personnel and she was asked to allocate the budget for the Office. In addition, Guerrero told Chavez that he didn't see "anybody but [Chavez] leading that office. . . ." 39. Over the weekend of February 21-23, 2013, Chavez and Carranza attended an SFUSD-sanctioned association of superintendents’ conference in Los Angeles. During this weekend, Chavez observed Carranza, who is a married man, engaging in inappropriate flirtatious conduct with a female colleague from another school district who was not his wife. 40. Following this weekend, Chavez had a discussion with Carranza where she told him that she had observed his behavior. On information and belief, Carranza’s conduct would have violated the SFUSD’s sexual harassment policy if the female colleague had been employed by SFUSD. 41. Even though Chavez did not report to anyone in the upper echelons of SFUSD other than Carranza what she had seen, on information and belief, Carranza retaliated against and subjected Chavez to a hostile work environment following Chavez’s observation of his flirtatious conduct towards a female colleague. 42. The following month, March 2013, on information and belief, Chavez was subjected to heightened scrutiny regarding planned work- related planned trips even though her travel was equivalent to, or even less than, the travel of male peers. 43. In this same period, Carranza purposefully avolded Chavez, which was in stark contrast to their earlier relationship where he would seek her out and come to her office to speak to her in a collegial and friendly manner. Following the February 2013 trip, Chavez felt very estranged and alienated from Carranza when they did interact. ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 44. On about May 14, 2013, Chavez had a conversation with Carranza that was deeply troubling and unsettling. In this conversation, Carranza told her that he would not be appointing her to the Executive Director position and that she would have to undergo an interview and selection process in order to get the position. Carranza also told Chavez that she needed to come up with a “Plan B” in the event she did not successfully win the position by way of interview. 45. Chavez took the necessary steps to apply for the Executive Director position she already held, in compliance with Carranza’s directive. This meant that a selection committee would interview her, and other applicants, for the position. 46. On June 3, 2013, Chavez was involved in a serious automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Chavez suffered a concussion. 47. The same day of the accident, Chavez sent an e-mail to Carranza, Valentino, Guerrero and others notifying them of her accident. Given Carranza’s ominous words regarding “Pian B,” Chavez was afraid to request that her interview for the Executive Director position, set for June 5, 2013, be rescheduled even though she felt highly emotional, disoriented, unable to focus and suffered from a terrible headache. 48. Two days after the accident, on June 5, 2013, Chavez participated in the job interview for the position of Executive Director of the Professional Learning and Leadership Development Office. At the outset of the interview, Chavez told the panelists that she had been in a serious automobile accident two days earlier and that her performance in the interview would be impacted. 49. On June 6, 2013, Mary Richards, the Executive Director of ‘Human Resources, told Chavez she did not get the job because of her performance in the interview process. Ms. Richards also suggested to ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 Chavez that she look outside the District for another position because the current District administration was going to be in place for a few years. On information and belief, Chavez interpreted from this statement that she should not expect to be placed in another District administrative position under Carranza’s regime because he no longer wanted or supported her. 50. On information and belief, Chavez's disability, which impacted her cognitive abilities and impacted her interview performance, contributed to her not getting the Executive Director position because she had been successfully performing the duties of the position since approximately September 2012. 51. On information and belief, the female candidate who was selected by the committee for the Executive Director position had no prior experience in the position and was much less qualified than Chavez, who had created and filled the position for months. On information and belief, the female candidate who filled the position only held the position for one year. On information and belief, a male employee now holds the Executive Director position for the Professional Learning and Leadership Development Office. 52. Chavez received a formal medical diagnosis of a concussion on June 6, 2013. On June 7, 2013, Chavez notified Richards of Human Resources, Roger Buschman, Human Resources Chief, Superintendent Carranza, Deputy Superintendent Guerrero, and SFUSD General Counsel Donald Davis that she had sustained a concussion that caused sleepiness and a nagging headache and she provided a doctor's note to that effect. She also advised them that she would be out of work for a week. 53.. In a June 9, 2013 e-mail to Guerrero and Valentino, Chavez said expressly that she believed her concussion had been the reason for her poor interview performance. ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.10 a 2 13 26 2 28 54, Notwithstanding Chavez's immediate medical documentation of her disability and its impact on her interview performance, Chavez was not given the opportunity to re-interview for the position nor was any effort made by anyone at SFUSD to counteract the negative impact the disability had on Chavez's opportunity to be hired for any other administrative position. 55. On information and belief, the fact that Chavez was required to interview for the Executive Director position was evidence of discrimination, harassment and retaliation against her on the basis of her gender because she was treated differently from her male co-worker, Brent Stephens, who had been elevated from Executive Director to Assistant Superintendent in the Fall of 2012 without having to undergo an interview. 56. On information and belief, Stephens’ contract for Assistant Superintendent was renewed in June 2013 without Stephens having to undergo the interview process, like Chavez was subjected to. 57. On information and belief, Chavez’s gender and the continuing discrimination, harassment and retaliation she experienced from SFUSD and Carranza contributed to her not getting the Executive Director position. 58. Once Chavez was denied the Executive Director position in June 2013, she tried to set up meetings with Deputy Superintendent Guerrero and Superintendent Carranza for the purpose of exploring alternative administrative positions she might be able to file. Carranza didn’t want to meet with Chavez and Guerrero was unable to meet with Chavez the entire month of July 2013. 59. Guerrero told Chavez that direct contact with Board members was unauthorized and that she could be dismissed if she did so, so Chavez was afraid to discuss her plight with members of the Board. Complaint for Damages Case No.19 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 28 60. Faced with no other job alternatives, Chavez was forced to take a job in the District as a general education teacher at a much-reduced salary. 61. In about March 2014, Chavez learned that even her general education teacher position was not secure and that the position she held was} being split and she would have to interview anew to be able to maintain the Position. 62. On information and belief, the splitting of her general education position and the requirement that she would have to interview anew to maintain the position were further incidents of discrimination, harassment and retaliation against Chavez designed to continue the hostile work environment and force her to leave employment with the District. 63. Chavez fell into a deep depression because of what had occurred, and she was placed on a medical leave of absence from April 21- May 29, 2014. 64. On information and belief, Defendant(s) and their agents and representatives have engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination, harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff and other employees on the basis of their membership in protected classes. 65. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies as to Defendants, and each of them, by timely filing on or about May 15, 2014 an administrative complaint of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. 66. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing closed Plaintiff's case in order to permit plaintiff to pursue her civil remedies and issued plaintiff on or about May 15, 2014 a Notice of Case Closure. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of Plaintiff's complaint of discrimination and ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.Notice of Case Closure. The allegations included in Exhibit A are incorporated herein by reference. 67. On about July 15, 2045, Plaintiff's counsel served a copy of the Complaint of Discrimination and the Notice of Case Closure upon SFUSD by mailing copies of the documents via certified mail, return receipt requested to Superintendent Carranza. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Gender Discrimination (California Government Code § 12940(a) et seq.) ‘Against Defendant SFUSD and DOES 1-5 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 69. Atall relevant times, Chavez was covered under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA”) because of her status as a female. 70. tall relevant times, Defendant(s) were employers of the State of California, as defined in the FEHA at Government Code § 12926(d). 71. Atal relevant times, Defendant(s), and each of them, were aware of Plaintiff's gender. 72. Atail relevant times, Plaintiff's protected status was a motivating] reason for Defendant(s) treatment of Plaintiff, and the eventual unlawful demotion of Plaintiff to her current position, as described above, in violation of the FEHA. 73. AS a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 1-5, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff sustained] damages including loss of past and future earnings and other employment benefits, loss of all other rights and benefits which normally exist with fair employment, but which were denied to her by Defendants, and each of Complaint for Damages Case No.them, all In an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 74. Asa proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 1-5, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 75. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant SFUSD and DOES 1- 5, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's) rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff, or did authorize or ratify such intentional, oppressive and malicious acts, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff injury. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff therefore requests the assessment of punitive damages. 76. Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest on all said amounts, at the rate set by law, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 77. Plaintiff also claims attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Disability Discrimination Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (California Government Code § 12940(n)) Against Defendant SFUSD and Does 6-10 78. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.79. Plaintiff's serious health condition concussion was a physical disability within the meaning of Government Code § 12926(m). Plaintiff was limited in her major life activities, had a record of such limitation, and was regarded or perceived by Defendant SFUSD and DOES 6-10 as having such limitations. 80. Defendant(s), and each of them, through their employees and agents were placed on notice of Plaintiff's disability, and her need for reasonable accommodation. 81. At all times material hereto, Government Code § 12940(n) was jin full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant SFUSD and Does 6- 10, and each of them. Said statute required Defendant(s), and each of them, and their employees and agents, to engage in the interactive process for the purpose of establishing a reasonable accommodation of Plaintiff's disability. 82. Having been placed on notice of Plaintiff’s disability and having received Plaintiffs requests for reasonable accommodation, Defendant SFUSD and DOES 6-10, and each of them, had an affirmative duty to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the Plaintiff, in order to determine effective reasonable accommodations. 83. Moreover, despite Plaintiff's proactive efforts to seek accommodation by bringing her disabilities to the attention of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 6-10, and each of them, Defendant SFUSD and DOES 6-10, have failed to fulfill their affirmative duty to engage in the mandatory Interactive process, in a timely, good-faith manner, or at all, in violation of Government Code § 12940(n). 84. Asa proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 6-10, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff sustained damages including loss of past and future earnings and other ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 employment benefits, loss of all other rights and benefits which normally exist with fair employment, but which were denied to her by Defendants, and each of them, all in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 85. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 6-10, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered) emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 86. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant SFUSD and DOES 6- 10, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's} rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff, or did authorize or ratify such intentional, oppressive and malicious acts, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff injury. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff therefore requests the assessment of punitive damages. 87. Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest on all said amounts, at the rate set by law, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 88. Plaintiff also claims attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). MW MW Wy M1 Complaint for Damages Case No.10 n a2 a3 a 24 25 26 2 28 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Disability Discrimination Failure to Accommodate (California Government Code § 12940(m)) Against Defendant SFUSD and Does 11-25 89. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 and 79 through 83 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 90. Defendant(s), and each of them, through their employees and agents were placed on notice of Plaintiff’s disability and her need for reasonable accommodation. 91. Atall times material hereto, Government Code § 12940(m) et seq. was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant(s), and each of them. Said statute required the named Defendants, and each of them, and their employees and agents, to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff's disabilities. 92. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the acts of Defendant(s), and each of them, in refusing to discuss reasonable accommodations with Plaintiff, in failing to provide her with another interview opportunity, in demoting Plaintiff rather than seeking reasonable accommodation for her disability, and in failing to provide reasonable accommodations to Plaintiff amounted to unlawful employment practices in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq. 93. Asa proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 11-15, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff sustained damages including loss of past and future earnings and other employment benefits, loss of all other rights and benefits which normally exist with fair employment, but which were denied to her by Defendants, and each of them, all in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. Complaint for Damages Case No.25 26 21 28 94. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 11-15, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff ‘suffered emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum| jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 95. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant SFUSD and Does 11-| 15, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff, or did authorize or ratify such intentional, oppressive and malicious acts, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff injury. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner In order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff therefore requests the assessment of punitive damages. 96. Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest on all said amounts, at the rate set by law, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 97. Plaintiff also claims attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Disability Discrimination (California Government Code § 12940) Against Defendant SFUSD and Does 16-20 98. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67, 79 through 83, and 90 through 92 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 99. At all times material hereto, Government Code § 12940 et seq. was In full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant(s), and each of them. Said statute required the named Defendants, and each of them, and Complaint for Damages Case No.their employees and agents, to refrain from discriminating against any employee because an employee had a disability, or was perceived to be disabled, within the meaning of Government Code § 12926(m). 100. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the acts of Defendant(s), and each of them, in taking the actions as described above due to her physical disability, or because she was perceived to be disabled, amounted to an unlawful employment practice in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq. 101. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 16-20, and each of thelr, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff sustained damages including loss of past and future earnings and other employment benefits, loss of all other rights and benefits which normally exist with fair employment, but which were denied to her by Defendants, and each of them, all in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 102. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 16-20, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff ‘suffered emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum| jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 103. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant SFUSD and Does 16-| 20, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's, rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff, or did authorize or ratify such intentional, oppressive and malicious acts, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff injury. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, and Intentional manner in ‘Complaint for Damages ‘Case No.a9 20 a 22 23 2 25 26 2 28 order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff therefore requests the assessment of punitive damages. 104. Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest on all said amounts, at the rate set by law, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 105. Plaintiff also claims attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (California Government Code §§ 12940(h) et seq.) Against Defendant SFUSD and Does 21-25. 106. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 105 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 107. Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct recognized by the FEHA. 108. At all times material hereto, Government Code §§ 12940(h) et seq. was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant(s) and DOES 21-25, and each of them. Said statutes required Defendant SFUSD and DOES 21-25, and each of them, and their employees and agents, to refrain from retaliating against any employee because of an employee’s gender, or because an employee had a disability, or was perceived to be disabled, within the meaning of Government Code §§ 12926(m) and 12926.1, because the employee sought to engage in the interactive process for the purpose of identifying and implementing a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff's physical disability, and because the employee complained to HR representatives and other agents and representatives that she believed she was being harassed and treated differently from other employees and subjected to a hostile work environment. 109. Notwithstanding the statutory prohibition against retaliation contained in Government Code § 12940 et seq., Defendant SFUSD and Does ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.a9 20 a 22 23 Fz 28 26 20 21-25, and each of them, retaliated against Plaintiff by demoting her to a lower paying position. 110. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in addition to the conduct enumerated above, Defendant SFUSD and DOES 21-25, and each of them, have engaged in other retaliatory actions against Plaintiff that are not yet fully known. At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to her, Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint. 111. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 21-25, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff sustained damages including loss of past and future earnings and other employment benefits, loss of all other rights and benefits which normally exist with fair employment, but which were denied to her by Defendants, land each of them, all in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 112. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and DOES 21-25, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff ‘suffered emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum| {jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 113. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant SFUSD and Does 21-| 25, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s| rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff, or did authorize or ratify such intentional, oppressive and malicious acts, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff injury. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting In a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in Complaint for Damages Case No.1 |Jorder to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff therefore requests the 2 |]assessment of punitive damages. 3 114. Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest on all said amounts, at the « || rate set by law, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 5 115. Plaintiff also claims attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant ¢ ||to Government Code § 12965(b). ; SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Prevent Discrimination/Harassment/ 9 Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA (California Government Code §§ 12940(k)) 2 Against Defendant SFUSD and Does 26-30 2 116. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 23 !lthrough 115 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. u“ 117. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that 15 || Defendant SFUSD and DOES 26-30, and each of them, failed to take all 16 || steps reasonably necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment and 27 |]retaliation from occurring. Such conduct violates Government Code § 28 |]12940(k). 1s 118. Such failure to act and violation of FEHA caused Plaintiff to be 20 || discriminated, harassed and retaliated against, all as set forth above. a 119. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and Does 22 |] 26-30, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff 23 I! sustained damages including loss of past and future earnings and other 24 |] employment benefits, loss of all other rights and benefits which normally 2 exist with fair employment, but which were denied to her by Defendants, 26 ||and each of them, all in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of 27 ||this court and according to proof. 28 ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.16 av 18 as 20 a 22 23 24 25, 26 27 28 120. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and Does 26-30, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum} jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 121. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant SFUSD and Does 26-| 30, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s| rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff, or did authorize or ratify such intentional, oppressive and malicious acts, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff injury. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff therefore requests the assessment of punitive damages. 122. Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest on all said amounts, at the rate set by law, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 123. Plaintiff also claims attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b). SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Demotion in Violation of Public Policy Against Defendant SFUSD and Does 31-35. 124. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 123 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 125. At all times material hereto, Defendant SFUSDI and Does 31-35, and each of their, acts and omissions as set forth above were prohibited by Government Code §§ 12940 et seq., the California Constitution, Art. I, ‘Complaint for Damages Case No. ere10 u 2 a3 ua 4s 16 a Section 8, and other statutes, and contrary to the public policy of the state of California. 126. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and Does 31-35, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff sustained damages including loss of past and future earnings and other employment benefits, loss of all other rights and benefits which normally exist with fair employment, but which were denied to her by Defendants, and each of them, all in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 127. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant SFUSD and Does 31-35, and each of their, wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum| jurisdiction of this court and according to proof. 128. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant SFUSD and Does 31- 35, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s| rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff, or did authorize or ratify such intentional, oppressive and malicious acts, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff injury. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff therefore requests the assessment of punitive damages. 129. Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest on all said amounts, at the rate set by law, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. Ui ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.26 21 28 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief 130. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 131. Government Code § 12920 sets forth the public policy of the State of California as follows: It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation. It is recognized that the practice of denying employment. opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment for these reasons foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general. Further, the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information in housing accommodations is declared to be against public policy. It Is the purpose of this part to provide effective remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory practices. This part shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state. ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.23 2a 25 26 20 28 132. Government Code § 12920.5 embodies the intent of the California legislature and states as follows: In order to eliminate discrimination, it is necessary to provide effective remedies that will both prevent and deter unlawful employment practices and redress the adverse effects of those practices on aggrieved persons. To that end, this part shall be deemed an exercise of the Legislature's authority pursuant to Section 1 of Article XIV of the California Constitution. 133. Moreover, Government Code §12921, subdivision (a) says in pertinent part: The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right. 134. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties as it is believed that Defendants may allege that the actions about which Plaintiff has complained were based on non-discriminatory, legitimate reasons and not on Plaintiff's gender, disability or perceived disability or based on the fact that she engaged in protected conduct and that these were not substantial motivating factors for the actions taken against her about which Plaintiff complains, Plaintiff contends that the reasons given by Defendants were a pretext to mask its true reason(s) for taking the actions against her about which she has complained. On information and belief, Defendants shall dispute Plaintiff's contentions and shall assert its/their reasons were non-discriminatory and legitimate. Complaint for Damages Case No. 28135. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1060, Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of her rights and duties, and a declaration that her gender, disability or perceived disability and the fact that she engaged in protected conduct were substantial motivating factors in the decision to take the actions against her about which Plaintiff complains. 136. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in order that Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of employees at SFUSD and in conformity with the public policy of the State, obtain a judicial declaration of the wrongdoing of Defendants and to condemn such discriminatory employment policies or practices. Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. 137. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time such that Defendants may also be aware of its/their obligations under the law to not engage in discriminatory practices and violate the law. 138, Government Code § 12965(b) provides that an aggrieved party, such as the Plaintiff herein, may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In civil actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Such fees and costs| expended by an aggrieved party may be awarded for the purpose redressing, preventing, or deterring discrimination. PRAYER Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant SFUSD and DOES 1-50 as follows: (1) For compensatory damages including lost past wages, future wage loss, lost employee benefits, bonuses, vacation benefits, mental and ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.emotional distress, and other special and general damages according to proof; (2) For an award of punitive damages; (3) For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; (4) For costs of suit herein; (5) For attorneys' fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 0 12965(b); (6) For declaratory relief; (7) _ For affirmative and injunctive relief as follows: (a) for an injunction restraining Defendants from continuing or| maintaining any policy, practice, custom or usage which discriminates against any employee in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA”); (b) for an injunction restraining Defendants from continuing or} maintaining any policy, practice, custom or usage which is retaliatory in nature against any employee exercising his/her rights under FEHA; (c) _ for an injunction restraining Defendants along with its/thei supervising employees, agents and all those subject to its/their control or acting in concert with it/them from causing, encouraging, condoning or permitting the practice of discrimination, retaliation or willful violations of FEHA; (d) _ for affirmative relief requiring Defendants to conduct training of all employees to "sensitize" them to the harmful nature of discriminating against an employee because he/she is a member of a protected class or retaliating against an employee exercising his/her rights under FEHA. The proposed plan of education and training should also Include training and detection, and correction and prevention of such discriminatory and retaliatory practices; ‘Complaint for Damages Case No,(e) _ for affirmative relief requiring Defendants to notify all employees and supervisors, through individual letters and permanent postings in prominent locations in all offices that discrimination and retaliation violates the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the consequences of violation of such laws and policies; (f) _ for affirmative relief requiring Defendants to develop clear and effective policies and procedures for employees complaining of retaliation or violations of FEHA so they may have their complaints promptly and thoroughly investigated (by a neutral fact finder) and informal as well as| formal processes for hearing, adjudication and appeal of the complaints; and (9) for affirmative relief requiring Defendants to develop appropriate sanctions or disciplinary measures for supervisors or other employees who are found to have committed discriminatory or retaliatory Jacts, including warnings to the offending person and notations in that person's employment record for reference in the event future complaints are [directed against that person, and dismissal where other measures fall. (8) For an award to Plaintiff of such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Dated: May 14, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF MOIRA C. McQUAID Attomeys. for Plaintiff VERONICA CHAVEZ ‘Complaint for Damages Case No. 3123 24 28 26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial of this matter by jury. Dated: May 14, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF MOIRA C. McQUAID By: “MOIRA C. MCQUAID Attorneys for Plaintiff VERONICA CHAVEZ ‘Complaint for Damages Case No.EXHIBIT A{rt rronan pans comune Sateen ee jy DEPARTMENT OF FalR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 218 Kosa Dv, Ste 1091€X Save CAI E758 Senne fon tT oan 0 May 15, 2014 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 250790-106532 Right to Sue: Chavez / San Francisco Unified School District To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and HousingCOMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) in the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH No. 250790-106532 |Veronica Chavez, Complainant. vs. San Francisco Unified School District, [Respondent. 1555 Franklin Street, First Floor [San Francisco, California 94102 ‘Complainant alleges: 1, Respondent San Francisco Unified School District is a Public Elem/Secondary School subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). Complainant believes respondent is subject to the FEHA. 2. On or around Mar 27, 2014, complainant alleges that respondent took the following adverse actions against complainant: Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation Demoted, Denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, Denied or forced to transfer, Denied reasonable accommodation, Other, Subjected to a hostile work environment by the Districts Superintendent after I participated in an Association of Superintendents Conference in Los Angeles, CA on February 21-23, 2013 where I observed the Superintendent, who was married, engaging in flirtatious, cavorting behavior with another married female Superintendent colleague while on a bus trip to local sights... Complainant believes respondent committed these actions because of their: Disability, Sex- Gender . 3. Complainant Veronica Chavez resides in the City of San Francisco, State of California. If complaint includes co-respondents please see below. “ke Complaint = DFEH No. 250790-T08532 Date Filed: May 15, 2014Additional Complaint Details: 1am a female. On information and belief, my employer, the San Francisco Unified School District and its Superintendent, Richard Carranza, have engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination, harassment and retaliation against me and | was subjected to a hostile work environment due to my gender. On information and belief, | was also retaliated against and subjected to a hostile work environment by my Superintendent, Mr. Carranza, following my observation of his flirtatious conduct towards a female colleague during a work-sanctioned trip to an Association of ‘Superintendents Conference we both attended in Los Angeles, CA on February 21-23, 2013.1 also have a history of disability in that | suffered a concussion to my brain as the result of an automobile accident which took place on June 3, 2013. The same day of the accident, | wrote an e-mail to my superiors at the School District notifying them | was in a serious automobile accident. Two days after the accident, on June 5, 2013, | Participated in a job interview for the position of Executive Director of the Office of Leadership Development. At the outset of the interview, | told the interview panelists that | had been in a serious automobile accident only two days earlier.On June 6, 2013, Iwas told by Mary Richards, the Executive Director of Human Resources, that I did not get the job because of my performance in the interview process. Ms. Richards also suggested that | should look outside the District for another position because the current District administration was going to be in place for a few years. On information and belief, my disability, which impacted my cognitive abilities and affected my interview performance, contributed to my not getting the position because | had been satisfactorily performing the duties of the position since approximately September 12, 2012. | did not know during the June 5, 2013 job interview that | had a concussion. That condition was diagnosed a day later, on June 6, 2013. Thereafter, on June 7, 2013, | notified Ms. Richards of Human Resources, Roger Buschman, Human Resources Chief, the Superintendent, Richard Carranza, Deputy Superintendent Guadalupe Guerrero, and General Counsel Donald Davis that | had sustained a concussion which caused sleepiness and a nagging headache and | provided a doctors note to that effect. Later, on June 9, 2013, | indicated in an e-mail to Guadalupe Guerrero, Deputy Superintendent, and to Luis Valentino, Associate Superintendent, that believed the concussion had been the reason for my poor interview performance. Notwithstanding the immediate notice of my disability and its impact on my interview performance, | was not given the opportunity to re-interview for the position nor was any effort made by my employer to counteract the negative impact my disability had on my being given a fair opportunity to be hired for that or any other administrative position. On information and belief, the fact that | was required to interview for the Executive Director position was also evidence of discrimination, harassment and retaliation against me on the basis of my gender because | was treated differently from a male co- worker, Brent Stephens, who had been elevated from Executive Director to Assistant 2 ‘Complaint — DFEH No. 250790-T06532 Date Filed: May 15,2014Superintendent in September 2012 without having to undergo an interview. Further, his contract was renewed for the Assistant Superintendent position in June 2013 without having to undergo the interview process, like I was subjected to. On information and belief, my gender and the continuing discrimination, harassment and retaliation | experienced from the District and from Mr. Carranza contributed to my not getting the Executive Director position. Once | was denied the Executive Director position in June 2013, | tried to set up meetings with the Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Guerrero, and the ‘School Superintendent, Mr. Carranza, for the purpose of exploring alternate administrative positions | might be able to fil. Mr. Carranza didnt want to meet with me and he told me | should meet with the Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Guerrero. Mr. Guerrero was unable to meet with me the entire month of July 2013, so | was forced to take a job in the District as a general education school teacher. In my present school teacher position, | learned on about March 27, 2014 that my position was being split and that | would have to interview anew to be able to maintain the position. On information and belief, the splitting of my existing position and the requirement that ! would have to interview anew to maintain the position are further incidents of discrimination, harassment and retaliation against me and are designed to continue the hostile work environment to force me to leave employment with the District. “Complaint = DFEH No. 2307 90- T0633. Date Filed: May 15,2014Cer aAnr ene BSeEUDRBDESCE ES 21 22 VERIFICATION I, Veronica Chavez, am the Complainant in the above-enttled complaint. T have read the foregoing complaint ‘and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. ‘On May 15, 2014, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. San Francisco, California Veronica Chavez, 4 Coniplaint = DFEH No. 250790-TO6332 Date Filed: May 15, 2014. InATEF auroras anes cron Sev ung 9067 covemon ean somes DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING ‘RECTOR PLS WON £2218 Kaun Dive, Sut 100 | Ek Grove CAL 95758 Gonsage soe TTY 6007002220 tin dicho gor May 15,2014 Veronica Chavez 342 Moultri Street ‘San Francisco California 94110 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 250790-106532 Right to Sue: Chavez./ San Francisco Unified School District Dear Veronica Chavez, ‘This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective May 15, 2014 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (©), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must visit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and HousingDEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING RECTOR AI WOH ‘218 Kasse Dive, Sie 100 1EX Grove CAL 95758 0 aoeege 1 TTY 60-7002520 wwwx gor Enclosures