Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
04/08/2024
Clerk of the Court
BY: DAEJA ROGERS
Deputy Clerk
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 KIANA WILLIAMS
8 SUPE RIOR CO URT OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNI A
IN ANDFOR THE COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO
9
KIANA WILLIAMS, an individual, Case No.:
10 Plaintiff, CGC-24-613797
vs. OMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES AND
11 EMANDFOR JURY TRIAL:
12
COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, a
California non-profit corporation; SERGIO 1. Disability Discrimination in Violation
13 PEREZ, an individual; and DOES 1-100, ofFEHA
inclusive, 2. Disability Harassment in Violation of
14 FEHA
Defendants. 3. Failure to Prevent Disability
15
Discrimination in Violation ofFEHA
16 4. Retaliation in Violation ofFEHA
5. Failure to Accommodate
17 6. Failure to Engage in the Good Faith
Interactive Process
18 7. Wrongful Constructive Termination in
19
Violation ofPublic Policy
20 Over $35,000
21
22 PLAINTIFF complains and alleges as follows:
23 1. On information and belief, Plaintiff KIANA WILLIAMS ("Plaintiff') is a former
24 employee ofDefendants and a resident ofthe State ofCalifornia
25 2. At all times herein mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant,
26 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP (hereinafter "CHP") is a California non-profit
27 corporation authorized to operate and do business under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia at 251
28 Post Street, San Francisco, California 94108 in the County ofSan Francisco.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant SERGIO PEREZ
2
was an individual living in the State of California at all times relevant to this action, and that
3
Defendant SERGIO PEREZ was at all relevant times employed by Defendant CHP as
4
Supervisor/Manager.
5
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
6
sections 395 and 395.5 because Defendants do business in San Francisco County, and because the
7
incidents underlying this action took place in San Francisco County.
8
5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
9
or associate, of those defendants fictitiously sued as DOES 1 through 100 inclusive and so
Plaintiff sues them by these fictitious names. Upon discovering the true names and capacities of
11
these fictitiously named defendants, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names
12
and capacities of these fictitiously named defendants.
13
6. Unless otherwise alleged in this complaint, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
14
on the basis of that information and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the
15
remaining co-defendants, in doing. the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course,
16 scope and under the authority of his/her/its agency, employment, or representative capacity, with
17
the consent of her/his/its co-defendants.
18 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
19 7. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair
20 Employment and Housing ("DFEH").
21 8. On January 24, 2024, the DFEH issued Plaintiff a "Right to Sue Notice."
22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
23 9. Plaintiff began working for Defendant CHP remotely on or about May 1, 2020, as
24 Asset Manager.
25 10. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff had a disability/medical condition.
26 Specifically, Plaintiff has asthma and is severely allergic to dogs. Upon exposure to dogs,
27 Plaintiffs eyes and airways swell up, leading to respiratory distress.
28
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
11. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CHP's employees
2
brought their dogs to work regularly at Defendant's primary building.
3
12. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff notified Defendant CHP's management
4
team, including Defendant's former manager, Felicia Lee; former interim CEO, Christine; and
5
former interim CEO, Tim Daniels, that she was severely allergic to dogs.
6
13. In or about April 2023, Defendant CHP hired Defendant SERGIO PEREZ as its
7
Chief Financial Officer (hereinafter "CFO").
8
14. Upon onboarding, Defendant SERGIO PEREZ insisted that Plaintiff begin
9
working in Defendant's primary building despite the presence of dogs in both public and private
10
areas of the building.
11
15. Plaintiff notified Defendant SERGIO PEREZ that she was severely allergic to dogs
12
and requested reasonable accommodations of her disability/medical condition by asking that she
13
be permitted to continue working from home, work in one of Defendant CHP's other buildings
14 that did not have dogs, or work in her vehicle in front of Defendant CHP's building if Defendant
15
required her to be on site at the primary building.
16 16. However, Defendant SERGIO PEREZ repeatedly demanded that Plaintiff work at
17 Defendant's primary building and denied Plaintiff's reasonable request for accommodations.
18 17. In or about May 2023, while Plaintiff was still working remotely, Defendant CHP
19 mandated that Plaintiff come to an office meeting in person despite Plaintiff's request that she
20 attend the meeting remotely. Plaintiff requested that there be no dogs in the building and
21 Defendant SERGIO PEREZ replied that there should not be any dogs around.
22 18. On or about June l, 2023, Plaintiff came to Defendant CHP's building to attend
23 the meeting. One of Defendant CHP's employee's dogs was in the meeting room, and Plaintiff's
24 eyes, face and airways began to swell up, despite Plaintiff taking allergy medication prior to
25 attending the meeting as a precaution. This triggered Plaintiff's severe allergy.
26 19. The following day, Plaintiff's condition worsened despite taking additional
27 medication and her voice had become hoarse. To date, Plaintiff's voice remains raspy and hoarse.
28 20. Subsequently, Plaintiff notified Defendant CHP of her allergic reaction and went
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3
to see her medical provider.
2
21. Plaintiff provided Defendant CHP with medical paperwork restricting Plaintiff
3
from being exposed to dogs.
4
22. Despite Plaintiffs reasonable requests for accommodation, Defendant SERGIO
5
PEREZ continued to demand Plaintiff work in office at Defendant CHP's primary building and
6
set a date on which Plaintiff must come to work at Defendant's primary building.
7
23. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CHP changed her job
8
description because of her disability and demanded Plaintiff use leave if she was unwilling to
9
work in office.
24. On or about July 14, 2023, Plaintiff was forced to come to Defendant CHP's
11
primary building to work. Plaintiff heard a dog bark, and her eyes, face and airways likewise
12
began to swell. Even though Plaintiff used her inhaler and took allergy medication, her physical
13
condition remained poor, and she was forced to leave work early after notifying her supervisor of
14
her allergic reaction.
15
25. On or about July 17, 2023, based on Defendant CHP's failure to accommodate and
16 the resulting danger to Plaintiff's health, Plaintiff was left with no choice but to resign her
17 employment.
18 26. As a result of the discrimination, retaliation and constructive wrongful termination,
19 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress and anxiety.
20 27. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has
21 suffered and continues to suffer from losses of earnings and otherwise in amounts as yet
22 unascertained but subject to proof at trial.
23 28. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount greater than $35,000.
24 29. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.
25 Ill
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
4
First Cause of Action
2
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
3
(Against Defendant CHP, and DOES 1 Through 100)
4
30. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in Paragraphs 1-29 as though fully set
5
forth and alleged herein.
6
31. This cause of action is based upon Government Code section 12926(m), which
7
defines physical disability as having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic
8
disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of the following body systems:
9
neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech
10
organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and
11
endocrine, and the disability limits an individual's ability to participate in major life activities.
12
This cause of action is also based upon Government Code section 12940 for discriminating against
13 Plaintiff on the basis of physical disability.
14 32. At all times, Plaintiff was an actual, perceived, and/or potentially disabled person
15 within the meaning of California Government Code §§ 12926.l(b) et seq., because she was a
16 person with an actual, perceived, potentially disabling, and/or potentially disabling in the future
17
physical/mental disability(s) including, but not limited to: asthma and severe allergy to dogs
18
33. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies under the California Fair
19
Employment and Housing Act by filing charges that Defendants violated the California Fair
20
21 Employment and Housing Act and was issued the Right-to-Sue Letter granting Plaintiff the right
22 to bring suit against Defendants.
23 34. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was disabled or at least perceived that she
24 was disabled.
25
35. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Government Code
26
sections set forth herein by changing Plaintiffs job description and constructively terminating
27
Plaintiffs employment because of her disabilities (actual and/or perceived).
28
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
5
36. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants,
2 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress, losses in salary, bonuses, job
3
benefits, and other employment benefits which she would have received from Defendants, plus
4
expenses incurred in obtaining substitute employment and not being regularly employed all to her
5
damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained according to proof.
6
7 37. The grossly reckless, careless, negligent, oppressive and/or intentional, malicious,
s and bad faith manner in which said Defendants engaged in those acts as described in this cause of
9 action entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendants in an amount within the
10 jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish
11
said Defendants, deter them from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of
12
them to others.
13
38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the punitive
14
15
conduct of said Defendants were ratifie
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 04/08/2024 Clerk of the Court BY: DAEJA ROGERS Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 KIANA WILLIAMS 8 SUPE RIOR CO URT OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNI A IN ANDFOR THE COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO 9 KIANA WILLIAMS, an individual, Case No.: 10 Plaintiff, CGC-24-613797 vs. OMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES AND 11 EMANDFOR JURY TRIAL: 12 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, a California non-profit corporation; SERGIO 1. Disability Discrimination in Violation 13 PEREZ, an individual; and DOES 1-100, ofFEHA inclusive, 2. Disability Harassment in Violation of 14 FEHA Defendants. 3. Failure to Prevent Disability 15 Discrimination in Violation ofFEHA 16 4. Retaliation in Violation ofFEHA 5. Failure to Accommodate 17 6. Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process 18 7. Wrongful Constructive Termination in 19 Violation ofPublic Policy 20 Over $35,000 21 22 PLAINTIFF complains and alleges as follows: 23 1. On information and belief, Plaintiff KIANA WILLIAMS ("Plaintiff') is a former 24 employee ofDefendants and a resident ofthe State ofCalifornia 25 2. At all times herein mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant, 26 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP (hereinafter "CHP") is a California non-profit 27 corporation authorized to operate and do business under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia at 251 28 Post Street, San Francisco, California 94108 in the County ofSan Francisco. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant SERGIO PEREZ 2 was an individual living in the State of California at all times relevant to this action, and that 3 Defendant SERGIO PEREZ was at all relevant times employed by Defendant CHP as 4 Supervisor/Manager. 5 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 6 sections 395 and 395.5 because Defendants do business in San Francisco County, and because the 7 incidents underlying this action took place in San Francisco County. 8 5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, 9 or associate, of those defendants fictitiously sued as DOES 1 through 100 inclusive and so Plaintiff sues them by these fictitious names. Upon discovering the true names and capacities of 11 these fictitiously named defendants, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names 12 and capacities of these fictitiously named defendants. 13 6. Unless otherwise alleged in this complaint, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 14 on the basis of that information and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the 15 remaining co-defendants, in doing. the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course, 16 scope and under the authority of his/her/its agency, employment, or representative capacity, with 17 the consent of her/his/its co-defendants. 18 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 19 7. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair 20 Employment and Housing ("DFEH"). 21 8. On January 24, 2024, the DFEH issued Plaintiff a "Right to Sue Notice." 22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23 9. Plaintiff began working for Defendant CHP remotely on or about May 1, 2020, as 24 Asset Manager. 25 10. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff had a disability/medical condition. 26 Specifically, Plaintiff has asthma and is severely allergic to dogs. Upon exposure to dogs, 27 Plaintiffs eyes and airways swell up, leading to respiratory distress. 28 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 11. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CHP's employees 2 brought their dogs to work regularly at Defendant's primary building. 3 12. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff notified Defendant CHP's management 4 team, including Defendant's former manager, Felicia Lee; former interim CEO, Christine; and 5 former interim CEO, Tim Daniels, that she was severely allergic to dogs. 6 13. In or about April 2023, Defendant CHP hired Defendant SERGIO PEREZ as its 7 Chief Financial Officer (hereinafter "CFO"). 8 14. Upon onboarding, Defendant SERGIO PEREZ insisted that Plaintiff begin 9 working in Defendant's primary building despite the presence of dogs in both public and private 10 areas of the building. 11 15. Plaintiff notified Defendant SERGIO PEREZ that she was severely allergic to dogs 12 and requested reasonable accommodations of her disability/medical condition by asking that she 13 be permitted to continue working from home, work in one of Defendant CHP's other buildings 14 that did not have dogs, or work in her vehicle in front of Defendant CHP's building if Defendant 15 required her to be on site at the primary building. 16 16. However, Defendant SERGIO PEREZ repeatedly demanded that Plaintiff work at 17 Defendant's primary building and denied Plaintiff's reasonable request for accommodations. 18 17. In or about May 2023, while Plaintiff was still working remotely, Defendant CHP 19 mandated that Plaintiff come to an office meeting in person despite Plaintiff's request that she 20 attend the meeting remotely. Plaintiff requested that there be no dogs in the building and 21 Defendant SERGIO PEREZ replied that there should not be any dogs around. 22 18. On or about June l, 2023, Plaintiff came to Defendant CHP's building to attend 23 the meeting. One of Defendant CHP's employee's dogs was in the meeting room, and Plaintiff's 24 eyes, face and airways began to swell up, despite Plaintiff taking allergy medication prior to 25 attending the meeting as a precaution. This triggered Plaintiff's severe allergy. 26 19. The following day, Plaintiff's condition worsened despite taking additional 27 medication and her voice had become hoarse. To date, Plaintiff's voice remains raspy and hoarse. 28 20. Subsequently, Plaintiff notified Defendant CHP of her allergic reaction and went COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 to see her medical provider. 2 21. Plaintiff provided Defendant CHP with medical paperwork restricting Plaintiff 3 from being exposed to dogs. 4 22. Despite Plaintiffs reasonable requests for accommodation, Defendant SERGIO 5 PEREZ continued to demand Plaintiff work in office at Defendant CHP's primary building and 6 set a date on which Plaintiff must come to work at Defendant's primary building. 7 23. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CHP changed her job 8 description because of her disability and demanded Plaintiff use leave if she was unwilling to 9 work in office. 24. On or about July 14, 2023, Plaintiff was forced to come to Defendant CHP's 11 primary building to work. Plaintiff heard a dog bark, and her eyes, face and airways likewise 12 began to swell. Even though Plaintiff used her inhaler and took allergy medication, her physical 13 condition remained poor, and she was forced to leave work early after notifying her supervisor of 14 her allergic reaction. 15 25. On or about July 17, 2023, based on Defendant CHP's failure to accommodate and 16 the resulting danger to Plaintiff's health, Plaintiff was left with no choice but to resign her 17 employment. 18 26. As a result of the discrimination, retaliation and constructive wrongful termination, 19 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress and anxiety. 20 27. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has 21 suffered and continues to suffer from losses of earnings and otherwise in amounts as yet 22 unascertained but subject to proof at trial. 23 28. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount greater than $35,000. 24 29. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. 25 Ill 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 Ill COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 4 First Cause of Action 2 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3 (Against Defendant CHP, and DOES 1 Through 100) 4 30. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in Paragraphs 1-29 as though fully set 5 forth and alleged herein. 6 31. This cause of action is based upon Government Code section 12926(m), which 7 defines physical disability as having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic 8 disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of the following body systems: 9 neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech 10 organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and 11 endocrine, and the disability limits an individual's ability to participate in major life activities. 12 This cause of action is also based upon Government Code section 12940 for discriminating against 13 Plaintiff on the basis of physical disability. 14 32. At all times, Plaintiff was an actual, perceived, and/or potentially disabled person 15 within the meaning of California Government Code §§ 12926.l(b) et seq., because she was a 16 person with an actual, perceived, potentially disabling, and/or potentially disabling in the future 17 physical/mental disability(s) including, but not limited to: asthma and severe allergy to dogs 18 33. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies under the California Fair 19 Employment and Housing Act by filing charges that Defendants violated the California Fair 20 21 Employment and Housing Act and was issued the Right-to-Sue Letter granting Plaintiff the right 22 to bring suit against Defendants. 23 34. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was disabled or at least perceived that she 24 was disabled. 25 35. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Government Code 26 sections set forth herein by changing Plaintiffs job description and constructively terminating 27 Plaintiffs employment because of her disabilities (actual and/or perceived). 28 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 5 36. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, 2 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress, losses in salary, bonuses, job 3 benefits, and other employment benefits which she would have received from Defendants, plus 4 expenses incurred in obtaining substitute employment and not being regularly employed all to her 5 damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained according to proof. 6 7 37. The grossly reckless, careless, negligent, oppressive and/or intentional, malicious, s and bad faith manner in which said Defendants engaged in those acts as described in this cause of 9 action entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendants in an amount within the 10 jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish 11 said Defendants, deter them from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of 12 them to others. 13 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the punitive 14 15 conduct of said Defendants were ratifie