Soloman

1 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798)

2 JOSHUA D. BOXER (SBN 226712)
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
3 Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
4 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901

COREY B. BENNETT (SBN 267816)
6 One Market Street, Suite 3676
San Francisco, CA 94105
7 Telephone: (415) 990-8390
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff TESHAWN
9 SOLOMON
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12 TESHAWN SOLOMON, an individual, CASE NO.:
13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
14 1. Racial Harassment (Cal. Gov’t Code §
vs. 12940(j));
15 VIVINT SOLAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; 2. Race Discrimination
VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., a (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a));
16 Delaware corporation, DANIEL ALANIS, an
individual, JOSHUA LANE, an individual, and 3. Retaliation for Opposing Racial
17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Discrimination and Harassment
18 (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(h));
Defendants.
19 4. Failure to Prevent Racial Discrimination,
Harassment, or Retaliation
20 (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k));
21 5. Wrongful Constructive Discharge in

Violation of Public Policy;
22 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress.
23
24
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200 1
MANHATTAN
BEACH, CA 90266
1 PLAINTIFF TESHAWN SOLOMON (“PLAINTIFF”) an individual, hereby alleges as
2 follows:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. The Superior Court of the State of California has jurisdiction in this matter because
5 PLAINTIFF is a resident of the State of California, and Defendants VIVINT SOLAR, INC.,
6 VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (collectively
7 “DEFENDANTS”), are qualified to do business in California and regularly conduct business in
8 California, and Defendants DANIEL ALANIS and JOSHUA LANE are citizens of the State of
9 Califonria. Further, no federal question is at issue because the claims are based solely on California
10 law.
11 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district and the County of Sacramento, California
12 because PLAINTIFF performed work for DEFENDANTS in the County of Sacramento,
13 DEFENDANTS maintain offices and facilities and transact business in the County of
14 Sacramento, and because DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory and illegal acts, policies, and practices
15 that are the subject of this action occurred or were applied, at least in part, in the County of
16 Sacramento.
17 PLAINTIFF
18 3. PLAINTIFF is an African-American male and a former employee of
19 DEFENDANTS. He was at all relevant times a resident of the State of California, County of
20 Sacramento.
21 DEFENDANTS
22 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT
23 VIVINT SOLAR, INC, is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a publicly-traded corporation
24 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. PLAINTIFF is further informed
25 and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT VIVINT SOLAR, INC., is authorized to
26 conduct business in the State of California, and does conduct business in the State of California.
27 Specifically, DEFENDANT VIVINT SOLAR, INC, maintains offices and facilities and conducts
28 business in, and engages in unlawful acts and illegal payroll practices or policies in, the County of
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
2
BEACH, CA 90266
1 Sacramento, State of California.
3 VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation
4 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. PLAINTIFF is further informed
5 and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., is
6 authorized to conduct business in the State of California, and does conduct business in the State
7 of California. Specifically, DEFENDANT VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., maintains offices
8 and conducts business in, and engages in unlawful acts and illegal payroll practices or policies in,
9 the County of Sacramento, State of California.
10 6. DEFENDANTS VIVINT SOLAR, INC. and VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC.
11 are employers within the meaning of Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12926 and 12940 and
12 regularly employ five (5) or more persons and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this
13 court.
15 DANIEL ALANIS is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a regional manager for VIVINT
16 SOLAR, INC., and a resident of the State of California.
18 JOSHUA LANEE is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an inspections department lead and/or
19 supervisor for VIVIN SOLAR, INC., and a resident of the State of California.
20 9. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to
21 PLAINTIFF at this time, and PLAINTIFF therefore sues such DOE Defendants under fictitious
22 names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant
23 designated as a DOE is in some manner highly responsible for the occurrences alleged herein, and
24 that PLAINTIFF’S injuries and damages, as alleged herein, were proximately caused by the
25 conduct of such DOE Defendants. PLAINTIFF will seek leave of the court to amend this
26 Complaint to allege their true names and capacities of such DOE Defendants when ascertained.
27 10. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS were the joint employers of
28 PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that at all times material
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
3
BEACH, CA 90266
1 to this complaint DEFENDANTS were the alter egos, divisions, affiliates, integrated enterprises,
2 joint employers, subsidiaries, parents, principals, related entities, co-conspirators, authorized
3 agents, partners, joint venturers, and/or guarantors, actual or ostensible, of each other. Each
4 Defendant was completely dominated by his, her or its co-Defendant, and each was the alter ego
5 of the other.
6 11. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that each and every one
7 of the acts and omissions alleged herein were performed by, and/or attributable to, all
8 DEFENDANTS, each acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction and control
9 of, each of the other DEFENDANTS, and that said acts and failures to act were within the course
10 and scope of said agency, employment and/or direction and control.
11 12. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of DEFENDANTS,
12 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet
13 unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
14 EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
15 13. PLAINTIFF has fully exhausted all applicable administrative remedies and
16 received his Right to Sue notice from the California Department of Fair Employment and
17 Housing on June 11, 2018.
18 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19 14. PLAINTIFF is an African-American male and proud father of four young children.
20 15. On or about February 12, 2018, PLAINTIFF began working for VIVINT SOLAR,
21 INC. as a temporary warehouse specialist. In this capacity, he was responsible for inventory,
22 preparing the proper equipment and materials necessary for installations, recording usage,
23 maintaining vehicles and equipment, and assisting with myriad warehouse activities.
24 16. After approximately six months, having proven himself to be competent, reliable,
25 and hard-working, PLAINTIFF was converted to a permanent position and continued to perform
26 his duties competently until the end of his employment on March 30, 2018.
27 17. Throughout his employment, PLAINTIFF was a non-exempt employee and
28 regularly worked more than eight (8) hours per shift and/or forty (40) hours per week and was not
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
4
BEACH, CA 90266
1 compensated for all wages. PLAINTIFF regularly worked through, started late, and/or
2 experienced interrupted meal and rest breaks and was not compensated for these Labor Code
3 violations.
4 18. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that he is one of two
5 African-American employees at the warehouse and was consistently singled out for
6 discrimination and harassment by his predominantly Caucasian co-workers and supervisors.
7 19. Throughout his employment, PLAINTIFF was subjected to a racially hostile work
8 environment. For example, he was referred to as “nigga” by a non-African-American supervisor,
9 Joshua Lane. PLAINTIFF was told to “reach his black hands out” when being handed a box by
10 another non-African-American supervisor, who also offered him a banana, stating, “monkeys
11 like bananas.”
12 20. Then, in the first week of March 2018, PLAINTIFF arrived to work and found that
13 Joshua Lane and his inspections team had built a “fort” around their desk using cardboard boxes.
14 On the outside, they had spray-painted “White Only.” A true and correct photo of this “fort” is
15 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
16 21. PLAINTIFF complained to Daniel Alanis, a regional manager, about this racially-
17 offensive conduct. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Alanis did not
18 take the complaint seriously and failed to report or investigate the incident. In fact, the “fort”
19 remained for approximately two weeks before it was slowly deconstructed.
20 22. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that no disciplinary
21 action was taken for any of the conduct described herein.
22 23. Following this incident, PLAINTIFF began to fear for his safety, felt increasingly
23 isolated, and knew he would have no opportunity to advance and make a better life for his family
24 if he stayed at VIVINT SOLAR.
25 24. Around this time, another one of PLAINTIFF’s co-workers made complaints to
26 human resources and promptly resigned.
27 25. However, on or about March 29, 2018, ALANIS went out of his way to tell
28 PLAINTIFF that he should not take any of his complaints to human resources, like his former co-
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
5
BEACH, CA 90266
1 worker had, suggesting to PLAINTIFF that there was nowhere he could turn to for relief from the
2 discrimination, harassment, and retaliation he was experiencing.
3 26. PLAINTIFF could no longer tolerate the hostile work environment, brazenly racist
4 conduct, and management’s indifference to it. He resigned on March 30.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6 Hostile Work Environment – Racial Harassment in Violation of the
7 California Fair Employment and Housing Act
8 [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)]
9 (Against All DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50)
10 27. PLAINTIFF incorporates herein by specific reference, as though fully set forth, the
11 factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.
12 28. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and was subjected to unwanted
13 harassing conduct because he is African-American, including using racist language toward
14 PLAINTIFF and permitting a “White Only” sign to be displayed in the inspections department,
15 discouraging PLAINTIFF from reporting racism to human resources, constructively discharging
16 him, and otherwise treating him less favorably than non-African-American employees.. This
17 conduct was severe and pervasive. A reasonable person in PLAINTIFF’S position would have
18 considered the work environment to be hostile, just as PLAINTIFF did.
19 29. This harassment included unlawful conduct by PLAINTIFF’S supervisors, and
20 further, DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of all of the harassing conduct and failed to
21 take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
22 30. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts, practices, and omissions,
23 PLAINTIFF has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish, and physical and
24 emotional distress, in an amount subject to proof at trial. PLAINTIFF claims such amount as
25 damages together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3287,
26 3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest.
27 31. By engaging in the aforementioned unlawful acts, practices, and omissions,
28 DEFENDANTS intended to cause injury to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was reckless,

MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
6
BEACH, CA 90266
1 malicious, and despicable, and was carried on with a conscious and willful disregard of the rights
2 and safety of others. Therefore, an award of punitive damages, sufficient to punish
3 DEFENDANTS and to serve as an example to deter DEFENDANTS from similar conduct in the
4 future, should be made. PLAINTIFF claims such amount as damages to be determined at trial.
5 PLAINTIFF claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant
6 to California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288 and/or any other applicable provision providing for
7 prejudgment interest.
8 32. Additionally, PLAINTIFF seeks an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
9 against DEFENDANTS pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11 Race Discrimination in Violation of the
13 [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a)]
14 (Against All ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50)
17 34. At all relevant times herein, California Government Code § 12940 was in full force
18 and effect and was binding on DEFENDANTS.
19 35. As set forth above, DEFENDANTS’ acts and omissions constitute violations of
20 California Government Code § 12940. PLAINTIFF has timely filed a complaint against
21 DEFENDANTS with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and has
22 received a Right to Sue letter.
23 36. PLAINTIFF is an African-American male and, therefore, a member of a protected
24 class within the meaning of the aforementioned Government Code sections. At all relevant times
25 herein, PLAINTIFF competently performed his job duties and responsibilities as reasonably
26 expected by DEFENDANTS.
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
7
BEACH, CA 90266
1 37. During the course of PLAINTIFF’s employment, as alleged above,
2 DEFENDANTS committed discriminatory acts on the basis of PLAINTIFF’s race, among other
3 things.
4 38. PLAINTIFF believes, and thereon alleges, that his race was a motivating factor in
5 DEFENDANTS’ wrongful employment actions and practices, including but not limited to using
6 racist language toward PLAINTIFF and permitting a “White Only” sign to be displayed in the
7 inspections department, discouraging PLAINTIFF from reporting racism to human resources,
8 constructively discharging him, and otherwise treating him less favorably than non-African-
9 American employees.
10 39. In perpetrating the above-described actions, DEFENDANTS, directly and through
11 their agents and supervisors, discriminated against PLAINTIFF on the basis of his race, and
12 constructively discharged him because of his race, in violation of the California Fair Employment
13 and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940(a). The policies of DEFENDANTS that were
14 neutral on their face resulted in a negative impact on African-American employees, and
15 PLAINTIFF was treated differently because he is African-American. DEFENDANTS knew or
16 should have known of the discriminatory conduct toward PLAINTIFF and failed to take
17 immediate and appropriate corrective action.
23 41. By engaging in the aforementioned unlawful acts, practices, and omissions, and by
24 ratifying such acts, practices, and omissions, DEFENDANTS intended to cause injury to
25 PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was reckless, malicious, and despicable, and was carried
26 on with a conscious and willful disregard of the rights and safety of others. Therefore, an award
27 of punitive damages, sufficient to punish DEFENDANTS and to serve as an example to deter
28 them from similar conduct in the future, should be made. PLAINTIFF claims such amount as
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
8
BEACH, CA 90266
1 damages to be determined at trial, together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to
2 California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288 and/or any other applicable provision providing for
5 against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
6 Housing Act.
7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8 Retaliation for Opposing Racial Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the
10 [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(h)]
20 46. PLAINTIFF opposed DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory and harassing actions on
21 the basis of race toward himself and other employees.
22 47. After PLAINTIFF opposed DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory and harassing actions,
23 as alleged above, DEFENDANTS subjected PLAINTIFF to a series of adverse employment
24 actions, including heightened scrutiny, denial of opportunities to advance, and constructive
25 discharge.
26 48. PLAINTIFF believes, and thereon alleges, that his opposition to discriminatory,
27 harassing and/or retaliatory actions on the basis of race was a substantial motivating factor in
28 DEFENDANTS’ wrongful employment actions and practices, including but not limited to
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
9
BEACH, CA 90266
1 DEFENDANTS’ constructive discharge of PLAINTIFF’s employment at VIVINT SOLAR.
2 Such discrimination is in violation of Government Code § 12940(h) and has resulted in damage
3 and injury to PLAINTIFF as alleged herein.
20 Housing Act.
21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Failure to Prevent Racial Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation from Occurring in
23 Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
24 [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k)]
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
10
BEACH, CA 90266
7 55. PLAINTIFF is an African-American male and, therefore, a member of a protected
8 class within the meaning of the aforementioned Government Code sections. At all relevant times
9 herein, PLAINTIFF competently performed his job duties and responsibilities as reasonably
10 expected by DEFENDANTS.
11 56. During the course of PLAINTIFF’s employment, as alleged above,
12 DEFENDANTS subjected PLAINTIFF to discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation on the
13 basis of PLAINTIFF’s race and because he objected to these discriminatory practices toward
14 himself and others.
15 57. As set forth above, DEFENDANTS failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to
16 prevent racial discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation from occurring, in violation of the
17 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940(k).
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
11
BEACH, CA 90266
6 Housing Act.
7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 Wrongful Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
12 62. At all times relevant to this action, Article I, Section 8 of the California
13 Constitution and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act were in full force and effect
14 and were binding on DEFENDANTS. Among other things, Article I, Section 8 of the California
15 Constitution and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibit DEFENDANTS from
16 discriminating against or harassing an employee because of race, from retaliating against an
17 employee who objects to the harassment or discrimination, and from failing to take all reasonable
18 steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment or retaliation from occurring.
19 63. This statute embodies a fundamental and well-established public policy in the
20 State of California.
21 64. PLAINTIFF objected to and reported DEFDANTS’ discriminatory practices and
22 disparate treatment toward himself, an African-American employee, which were in violation of
23 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
24 65. PLAINTIFF believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANTS’ adverse
25 employment actions toward PLAINTIFF, including but not limited to DEFENDANTS’
26 constructive discharge of PLAINTIFF’s employment, were substantially motivated by
27 PLAINTIFF’s reporting and/or opposition to the unlawful and/or potentially unlawful practices as
28 set forth above.

MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
12
BEACH, CA 90266
2 PLAINTIFF has suffered money damages, humiliation, mental anguish, and physical and
4 damages together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or
5 any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest.
7 ratifying such acts, practices, and omissions, DEFENDANTS’ conduct intended to cause injury to
8 PLAINTIFF was reckless, malicious, and despicable, and was carried on with a conscious and
9 willful disregard of the rights and safety of others. Therefore, PLAINTIFF seeks an award of
10 punitive damages, sufficient to punish DEFENDANTS and to serve as an example to deter
11 similar conduct in the future, in an amount according to proof at trial, together with prejudgment
12 interest thereon pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288 and/or any other applicable
13 provision providing for prejudgment interest.
14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
17 68. Plaintiff incorporates herein by specific reference, as though fully set forth, the
19 69. By committing the outrageous and malicious acts and omissions complained of
20 herein, DEFENDANTS knew, or should have known, that their conduct would result in
21 PLAINTIFF’s severe emotional distress. Moreover, DEFENDANTS’ acts and omissions were
22 perpetrated with the intent of inflicting humiliation, mental anguish, and severe emotional distress
23 upon PLAINTIFF.
24 70. DEFENDANTS have condoned and ratified DEFENDANTS’ conduct, as set forth
25 above, by failing to criticize, terminate, suspend, sanction, or otherwise take any action against
26 DEFENDANTS once DEFENDANTS were informed of the discriminatory and racially harassing
27 conduct toward PLAINTIFF and other employees.
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
13
BEACH, CA 90266
1 71. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts, practices, and
2 omissions, PLAINTIFF has suffered monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish, and
3 physical and emotional distress, in an amount subject to proof at trial. PLAINTIFF claims such
4 amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to California Civil Code
5 §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest.
6 72. The unlawful acts and practices of DEFENDANTS alleged herein were
7 intentional, reckless, and willful, and caused great physical and emotional harm to PLAINTIFF.
8 Therefore, an award of punitive damages, sufficient to punish DEFENDANTS and to serve as an
9 example to deter them from similar conduct in the future, should be made. PLAINTIFF claims
10 such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to California Civil
11 Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest.
12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully prays for relief against DEFENDANTS and
14 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, as follows:
15 1. For compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial;
16 2. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code
17 §§ 1194, 2699, 2802, California Civil Code §§ 52, 1021.5, California Government Code § 12960,
18 and any other applicable provisions providing for attorneys’ fees and costs;
19 3. For declaratory relief; and
20 4. For such further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
14
BEACH, CA 90266
DATED: June 11, 2018
1 Respectfully submitted,
4 By:
5 Matthew J. Matern
Joshua D. Boxer
6 Corey B. Bennett
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 TESHAWN SOLOMON
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
15
BEACH, CA 90266
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 PLAINTIFF hereby demands a jury trial with respect to all issues triable of right by jury.
3
DATED: June 11, 2018
4 Respectfully submitted,
7 By:
8 Matthew J. Matern
Joshua D. Boxer
9 Corey B. Bennett
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 TESHAWN SOLOMON, individually, and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
16
BEACH, CA 90266
EXHIBIT A
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE
SUITE 200
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266

Soloman

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Soloman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798)

5 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

21 5. Wrongful Constructive Discharge in

3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6 VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (collectively

7 “DEFENDANTS”), are qualified to do business in California and regularly conduct business in

12 because PLAINTIFF performed work for DEFENDANTS in the County of Sacramento,

18 3. PLAINTIFF is an African-American male and a former employee of

22 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT

2 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT

7 of California. Specifically, DEFENDANT VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., maintains offices

9 the County of Sacramento, State of California.

10 6. DEFENDANTS VIVINT SOLAR, INC. and VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC.

14 7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT

16 SOLAR, INC., and a resident of the State of California.

17 8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT

2 joint employers, subsidiaries, parents, principals, related entities, co-conspirators, authorized

10 and scope of said agency, employment and/or direction and control.

11 12. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of DEFENDANTS,

17 Housing on June 11, 2018.

27 17. Throughout his employment, PLAINTIFF was a non-exempt employee and

6 discrimination and harassment by his predominantly Caucasian co-workers and supervisors.

8 environment. For example, he was referred to as “nigga” by a non-African-American supervisor,

15 attached hereto as Exhibit A.

19 remained for approximately two weeks before it was slowly deconstructed.

21 action was taken for any of the conduct described herein.

24 if he stayed at VIVINT SOLAR.

26 human resources and promptly resigned.

2 discrimination, harassment, and retaliation he was experiencing.

4 conduct, and management’s indifference to it. He resigned on March 30.

5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

6 Hostile Work Environment – Racial Harassment in Violation of the

7 California Fair Employment and Housing Act

8 [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)]

9 (Against All DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50)

11 factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

12 28. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and was subjected to unwanted

13 harassing conduct because he is African-American, including using racist language toward

15 discouraging PLAINTIFF from reporting racism to human resources, constructively discharging

18 considered the work environment to be hostile, just as PLAINTIFF did.

19 29. This harassment included unlawful conduct by PLAINTIFF’S supervisors, and

21 take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

22 30. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts, practices, and omissions,

27 31. By engaging in the aforementioned unlawful acts, practices, and omissions,

28 DEFENDANTS intended to cause injury to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was reckless,

2 and safety of others. Therefore, an award of punitive damages, sufficient to punish

10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

11 Race Discrimination in Violation of the

12 California Fair Employment and Housing Act

13 [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a)]

14 (Against All ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50)

16 factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.

18 and effect and was binding on DEFENDANTS.

22 received a Right to Sue letter.

23 36. PLAINTIFF is an African-American male and, therefore, a member of a protected

7 inspections department, discouraging PLAINTIFF from reporting racism to human resources,

10 39. In perpetrating the above-described actions, DEFENDANTS, directly and through

14 neutral on their face resulted in a negative impact on African-American employees, and

15 PLAINTIFF was treated differently because he is African-American. DEFENDANTS knew or

17 immediate and appropriate corrective action.

18 40. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts, practices, and omissions,

27 of punitive damages, sufficient to punish DEFENDANTS and to serve as an example to deter

7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION