NOTICE OF MOTION

Esther Tendo Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com

Plaintiff in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ESTHER TENDO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
KAISER FOUNDATION OF
HOSPITALS, et al.
Defendants

Case No.: 21STCV41538
Judge: Honorable Steven J. Kleifield

NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT.

TO ALL DEFENDANTS AND TO ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Please TAKE NOTICE that on _______, at __________ or soon thereafter, the Plaintiff
herein will move this Court for leave to file first Amended Complaint.
The Motion for Leave to file the Amended Complaint will be based on the grounds that
one of the Defendants, SARAH POETTER is dead, and is therefore not a party to this case;
Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS should be changed to SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP (SCPMG); Plaintiff needs to include a
request for punitive damages; Plaintiff needs to point out pertinent facts for this Court’s Judicial

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice; Plaintiff needs to include more averments of how her due process rights were violated;
and Plaintiff needs to show why Defendants should be sanctioned.
The motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum in Support, the
Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support, and on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as
may be presented at the hearing of the motions.

Dated: ______________

____________________________
ESTHER TENDO ATAM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

NOW COMES, Plaintiff ESTHER TENDO ATAM, proceeding Pro Se, pursuant to CCP
§ 473(a)(1) who hereby moves this Court to grant Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT FOR MOTION TO

RECONSIDERATION
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. Introduction and Brief Statement of Facts
This action was filed on November 10, 2021, by Plaintiff against Defendants Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals, a corporation, and Sarah Poetter an individual alleging inter alia,
disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process,
race and national origin discrimination, gender discrimination, national origin harassment, sexual
harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, wrongful termination, and hostile work
environment.
At the time, Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Gary Carlin. Due to a dispute,
Attorney Carlin substituted out of the case on (DATE). Then, Attorney Brennan Hershey was
retained on (DATE) and filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, which motion was granted by
the Court on or around April 19, 2022. Since that time, Plaintiff has represented herself pro per.
Attorney Carlin a member of the Bar for over 50 years (SBN 44945) named Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals as the corporate Defendant, disregarding Plaintiff’s attached W2s and
wage statements. Attorney Carlin never bothered to correct his significant error of naming the
incorrect entity and Attorney Hershey failed to make any amendment himself.
During the period that Plaintiff was represented by counsel, neither attorney told her that
the correct entity was SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
and not KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS. Plaintiff was also not informed that
Defendant’s counsel Lisa Magorien had informed her former attorneys of such. In fact, Plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

first learned about the name of the incorrect defendant entity when she opposed Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment on or about May 9, 2022.
On December 22, 2021, Kaiser Foundation Hospital filed an answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint. In the said answer, the Kaiser Foundation Hospital alleged inter alia, that Plaintiff’s
Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Plaintiff’s claims are barred
by statute of limitations; some of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by waiver and unclean hands; the
Plaintiff’s case is barred by laches; Kaiser Foundation Hospital is entitled to an off set in the
event liability is established; Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages; attorney’s fees are not
recoverable; Plaintiff’s employment was an at-will employment; there was a legitimate business
purpose for Kaiser Foundation Hospital ’s actions; and Kaiser Foundation Hospital failed to
exhaust administrative remedies.
On April 21, 2022, Kaiser Foundation Hospital filed a Separate Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts in Support of Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s motion for Summary Judgment, or in
the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In the said filing, the Kaiser
Foundation Hospital alleged the following undisputed facts: Southern California Permanente
Medical Group (SCPMG) hired Plaintiff as a RN; SCPMG was the only entity that hired Plaintiff
within January 20, 2020 and March 18, 2021; SCPMG controlled Plaintiff’s work; and SCPMG
paid Plaintiff throughout the employment.
On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff further submitted evidence in support thereof.
On or about May 25 th , 2022, Plaintiff sent Cristina Vazquez (BRN investigator) a
Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for personal appearance and production of documents, electronically
stored information, and things at Trial or Hearing. The subpoena sought the production of
documents on July 14, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., in this Court.
On or about June 15th, 2022, the Board of Registered Nursing, through the office of the
Ryan Marcroft, objected to the said Subpoena.
Defendant SARAH POETTER then died on July 4, 2022.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Accordingly, on July 14, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court instructed Plaintiff to file the First Amended
Complaint on or before September 29, 2022.

ARGUMENT

i. It is in the furtherance of justice for this Court to grant the leave to Amend
“The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a
party to amend any pleading…” CCP § 473(a)(1); see also McKenney v. Purepac Pharm Co.
(2008) 167 Cal. App. 4 th 72, 78.

a. Plaintiff seeks to add a request for punitive damages
Granting the leave to file the Second Amended Complaint would be in the interest of
justice in that Plaintiff needs to add the request for punitive damages to the Complaint. Plaintiff
avers that she the Court should award punitive damages against the Defendants pursuant to Cal.
Civ. Code § 3294 for the Defendants’ oppression, fraud, and malice. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (a)
provides in pertinent part that:
In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it
is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been
guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual
damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of
punishing the defendant. (Emphasis added).
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (c) proceeds to define “malice” to mean “conduct which is
intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried
on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” The
section also defines “oppression” to mean “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Lastly, the section continues to
define “fraud” as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact
known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.”

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Further, Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (b) provides that an employer may be found liable for
punitive damage based upon three separate facts: when a supervising employee commits
oppression, fraud, or malice, and the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the
employee with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others; when an employee was
guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer authorized or ratified the wrongful
conduct, or when the employer itself is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.
In the instant case, the following facts show why this Court should award punitive
damages against the Defendants:

i. SCPMG as an employer knew about the unfitness of an employee dealing with
Plaintiff, and that SCPMG ratified or approved the wrongful conduct. Xavier
Edwards has a history of bullying coworkers at work and had been reported
several times to HR for bullying. On or about June 2020, Plaintiff began
complaining to her supervisor, Sarah Poetter, about bullying she had been
subjected to by Xavier Edwards, who worked alongside Plaintiff. Xavier Edwards
started spreading rumors about Plaintiff to other co-workers, telling them that they
should "watch out" for Plaintiff since she had complained about sexual
harassment at another job. From that point on, Mr. Edwards began picking on,
bullying, and harassing Plaintiff.
ii. The supervisors at SCPMG, took no action to prevent Mr. Edwards from
harassing Plaintiff, and effectively committed such activities to occur, thereby
effectively endorsing Mr. Edwards’ harassment of Plaintiff. Notably, Mr. Edwards
would often try to deliberately give the impression that Plaintiff was not
performing her job competently, such as yelling in the nurse’s room "where is
[Plaintiff]," even though Plaintiff was close by. On other occasions, Mr. Edwards
would loudly remark that Plaintiff "looked high" and would remark on whether
she was smoking marijuana while on the job. He would also make negative

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
remarks about Plaintiff to the hospital’s patients in an effort to discredit her and
make her appear as incompetent and incapable of performing her duties as a
nurse. He did this persistently and continuously, often coming to the patient’s
room, apparently for the sole purpose of making it appear that Plaintiff was not
providing adequate care for her patients. Throughout this time, Mr. Edwards was
focused on sabotaging Plaintiffs work and focused on discrediting her and
destroying her reputation in the hospital. The cumulative effect of Mr. Edwards’
actions inflicted severe emotional distress on Plaintiff and destroyed her sense of
security while employed at the hospital. Yet despite Plaintiffs repeated
complaints, SCPMG failed to protect Plaintiff from harassment from Mr.
Edwards.
iii. The SCPMG staff subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment,
culminating in her wrongful termination on or about March 18, 2021. The
problems commenced in or about August 28, 2020, when Plaintiff was asked to
leave work by Sarah Poetter, and told she could only return to work with a
clearance note from a psychologist. No investigation was done and no formal
communication was made to that effect. The only reason given for demanding
that Plaintiff leave the work premises was that she was mentally unstable and
unfit to function in her role as an emergency room nurse. The manager did not
also follow company policy, which provided relevant guidelines. Plaintiff
believes that these actions by the management at SCPMG were acts of retaliation
against her and their effort to portray her as mentally unbalanced because she had
complained about bullying by Mr. Edwards. Furthermore, Plaintiff believes that
her mistreatment was substantially motivated by hostility to her ethnic
background and foreign accent, and for this reason, Defendants attempted
to portray Plaintiff as having suffered a psychotic break and also portray her as

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
unfit to work as a registered nurse.
iv. Failure of SCPMG to acknowledge the psychologists’ clearance notes, and the
fact that Plaintiff was being bullied, further subjected Plaintiff to humiliation and
suffering. It was not within the scope of SCPMG staff to diagnose Plaintiff as
having a psychotic break yet the clearance note evidenced that Plaintiff had no
mental breakdown. Accordingly, Plaintiff was pushed over the edge because the
Defendant’s employees were toying with her livelihood and life. She had to stay
at home for almost three months for no reason, even after she had submitted a
clearance note. She was then invited back for an HR meeting, only to be formally
suspended. The psychologist not only medically cleared Plaintiff. It is also
noteworthy that Psychologist suggested she be moved to another department or
Kaiser branch, as any continued interaction with these people who caused this
trauma, will only exacerbate her trauma. They ignored her. Defendants have
therefore committed a number of other violations of the FEHA, including failure
to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate Plaintiffs disability,
failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, wrongful
termination, and the creation of a hostile work environment, culminating in her
wrongful termination. Plaintiff has also suffered emotional distress due to the
negative treatment she was subjected to, including stress and anxiety.
v. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was not crazy, yet they failed to prevent Plaintiff’s
negative treatment. Notably, psychologist progress notes and clearance notes were
sent to the Defendant. There are also emails to Sarah Poetter about Plaintiff being
bullied in the past, which factor made Plaintiff more susceptible to not coping
well with continued bullying, yet the Defendants continued to bully Plaintiff.
vi. The Defendants failed to acknowledge the long-lasting effect of their actions to

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s career, and overall health, causing unnecessary mental anguish and
suffering. Plaintiff further avers that even if the BRN keeps her license active, her
career as a nurse is effectively destroyed. To be bullied by the BRN, is something
that Plaintiff will never recover from. Plaintiff will never feel safe in any position
as she may be a target based on the fact that she has exposed evil practices.
vii. Plaintiff has lost her income-earning capacity as a nurse. Plaintiff makes roughly
$3000/week working one Travel Nursing job. If Plaintiff picked up extra shifts,
then she would average roughly $5000/week. If Plaintiff worked this way until
she was 65 years, then this this would amount to $20,334,000 (approximately
$5000/week multiplied by 3389 weeks). It is also notable that Plaintiff did
$11,000/week on her last contract for about 5 months straight. However,
Plaintiff’s last contract ended in April 15 th , 2022. Since then, she has not been able
to go back to work because of this case.
viii. Prosecuting this case against the blameworthy conduct of the Defendants
has made Plaintiff incur substantial costs and expenses. Notably, she has spent at
least $28,000 at this point, for inter alia, paper work, filing/serving documents,
representation at court hearings.
Plaintiff further avers that the Defendant hospital has assets and liabilities of an amount
essential to a jury’s determination of an appropriate amount of punitive damages to award. See
Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). In
Pfeifer, the Court observed that the ultimately proper level of punitive damages is based upon the
jury awarding an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb it with little or no discomfort,
nor so high that it destroys, annihilates, or cripples the defendant.
It is Plaintiff’s averment that “the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a
punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” BMW of
North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant’s

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

conduct was reprehensible. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was not mentally unstable. This is
evidenced from the clearance and psychologist progress notes that were sent to the Defendant.
There are also emails to Sarah Poetter about Plaintiff being bullied in the past, which factor made
Plaintiff more susceptible to not coping well with continued bullying, yet the Defendants bullied
Plaintiff, causing intentional suffering and mental anguish over an extended period of time. The
foregoing notwithstanding, the Defendants ratified or approved the wrongful conduct, and failed
to act on Plaintiff’s complaint, and instead called her “crazy”.

b. Defendant Sarah Poetter (deceased) needs to be removed from the case
Defendant SARAH POETTER died on July 4, 2022. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to amend
the Complaint by removing her name from the parties. Such an amendment is proper according
to CCP § 473(a)(1).

c. Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of pertinent facts
According to Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h), the Court may take judicial notice of: “Facts and
propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate
determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”
Further, Cal. Evid. Code § 452 proceeds to provide that the Court shall take judicial
notice of any matter specified in Cal. Evid. Code § 452, if a party makes such a request. In that
regard, the Plaintiff hereby makes a request that the Court takes mandatory judicial notice of the
following:
1. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated September 4, 2020, from Ehab Yacoub, MD, noting
that Plaintiff had NO psychiatric contraindications for her to return to work (EXHIBIT pg.
1);
2. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 4, 2020, from Plaintiff to the Kaiser staff
(Sarah Poetter and Sherry) regarding the psychiatric clearance note (EXHIBIT pg. 2);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

3. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 8, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to the
Plaintiff regarding the acceptance of the Plaintiff’s resignation note (EXHIBIT pg. 3);
4. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated September 6, 2020, from the Plaintiff to the Kaiser
staff (Sarah Poetter and Sherry) regarding how the Plaintiff was affected by the reckless
behavior of Sarah and Sherry note (EXHIBIT pg. 4-5);
5. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 14, 2020, from Lourdes Keppel to the
Plaintiff regarding the EEO investigation note (EXHIBIT pg. 6-7);
6. Take judicial notice of the Complainant- Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
Investigation Fact Sheet note (EXHIBIT pg. 8);
7. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 16, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Lourdes
Keppel regarding Plaintiff’s request of all records on Plaintiff’s file note (EXHIBIT pg. 9-
10);
8. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 5, 2020, from Brooke E Ball to the
Plaintiff confirming the receipt of the Plaintiff’s previous email note (EXHIBIT pg. 11);
9. Take judicial notice of the Email dated October 1, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Brooke Ball
and Lourdes Keppel regarding Sarah Poetter note (EXHIBIT pg. 12);
10. Take judicial notice of the Email dated October 22, 2020, from Brice Sikuade regarding the
confirmation of an online meeting note (EXHIBIT pg. 13-14);
11. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 6, 2020, from Kaiser to the Plaintiff
notifying her that she was being placed on an unpaid investigatory suspension note
(EXHIBIT pg. 15);
12. Take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Pay Slip dated November 30, 2020 note (EXHIBIT pg.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
16);
13. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 9, 2020, from Plaintiff to Brooke Ball and
Brice Sikuade regarding a discussion of Plaintiff’s work status note (EXHIBIT pg. 17);
14. Take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Demand Letter dated November 10, 2020 note (EXHIBIT
pg. 18);
15. Take judicial notice of a copy of text messages between Plaintiff and Emily union
representative from Kaiser note (EXHIBIT pg. 19-20);
16. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 11, 2020, from Plaintiff to Emily union
representative note (EXHIBIT pg. 21);
17. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 11, 2020, from Plaintiff to Lourdes
Keppel, union representative, regarding the status of Plaintiff’s suspension note (EXHIBIT
pg. 22);
18. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 12, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to
Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s Virtual Therapy Appointment note (EXHIBIT pg. 23-24);
19. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 23, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to Plaintiff
regarding Corrective Action and Availability to Return to Work note (EXHIBIT pg. 25-26);
20. Take judicial notice of Kaiser’s Corrective Action Process- Level III note (EXHIBIT pg.
27-28);
21. Take judicial notice of Kaiser’s Developmental Action Plan note (EXHIBIT pg. 29);
22. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 23, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to the
Plaintiff regarding the necessary actions that the Plaintiff needed to take in order to retain her
employment note (EXHIBIT pg. 30-32);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

23. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 23, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding the Corrective Action and Availability to Return to Work note (EXHIBIT
pg. 33-34);
24. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 23, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding the Plaintiff’s representation in future meetings note (EXHIBIT pg. 35);
25. Take judicial notice of the Letter November 10, 2020, from the Emily to the Plaintiff
acknowledging Plaintiff’s release of UNACUHCP from representing her note (EXHIBIT
pg. 35);
26. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 24, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding a Reminder to the Acacia Appointment note (EXHIBIT pg. 36-37);
27. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 24, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to the
Plaintiff regarding the Acacia Appointment note (EXHIBIT pg. 38);
28. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 3, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Lourdes
Keppel the confidential investigation note (EXHIBIT pg. 39);
29. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 11, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding the Plaintiff’s meeting with the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 40);
30. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 14, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to the
Plaintiff regarding a delayed letter from the psychologist to the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg.
41);
31. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 17, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding a delayed letter from the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 42);
32. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 23, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Poetter regarding a clearance letter from the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 43);
33. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 22, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to the
Plaintiff regarding an invitation to an online meeting note (EXHIBIT pg. 44);
34. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 24, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to the
Plaintiff regarding a clearance letter from the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 45-46);
35. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 28, 2020, from Lourdes Keppel to the
Plaintiff regarding the conclusion of the investigation and the intention to share the results
with the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg. 47);
36. Take judicial notice of the Letter Email dated December 29, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter, Brice Sikuade, Bruce Ball, Lourdes Keppel, and Mike Zackos regarding the mental
health clearance for the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg. 48);
37. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated December 29, 2020, from Acacia Counseling and
Wellness to the Plaintiff stating that the Plaintiff has not presented any psychotic symptoms
that would likely result in the Plaintiff’s inability to work note (EXHIBIT pg. 49-50);
38. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 8, 2021, from the Plaintiff to Wilbert Jones
regarding a scan for staples note (EXHIBIT pg. 51);
39. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 8, 2021, from Wilbert Jones to the Plaintiff
seeking clarification note (EXHIBIT pg. 52-55);
40. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 8, 2021, from Brice O. Sikuade to the
Plaintiff stating that no clearance note was requested by Plaintiff’s employer note
(EXHIBIT pg. 56);
41. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 11, 2021, from Acacia Westwood to the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff confirming that Dr. Jiyun Kang had submitted the requested information to Kaiser
note (EXHIBIT pg. 57);
42. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated February 10, 2021, from Dr. Jiyun Kang to Wilbert
Jones regarding answers to requested information note (EXHIBIT pg. 58-59);
43. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 17, 2021, from the Plaintiff to Robyn
Sembenini regarding closure and the Plaintiff’s lack of intention to appeal note (EXHIBIT
pg. 60);
44. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 16, 2021, from Robyn Sembenini to the
Plaintiff regarding whether the Plaintiff would be interested in appealing Ms. Keppel’s
findings note (EXHIBIT pg. 60);
45. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 16, 2021, from Plaintiff to Lourdes Keppel
requesting a copy of the findings note (EXHIBIT pg. 61-62);
46. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 17, 2021, from Jennifer Tyo to the Plaintiff
stating “that the Plaintiff is an amazing asset in the ED” note (EXHIBIT pg. 63);
47. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 23, 2021, from Jennifer Tyo to the Plaintiff
stating that she had loved working with the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg. 64);
48. Take judicial notice of the Plaintiff’s Complaint of Discrimination under the Provisions of
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act dated March 4, 2021 note (EXHIBIT pg.
65-66);
49. Take judicial notice of the Email dated March 4, 2021, from Brice Sikuade to the Plaintiff
regarding the advisory and follow up to request to file new complaint note (EXHIBIT pg.
67-68);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

50. Take judicial notice of the Email dated March 4, 2021, from the Plaintiff to Gregory Adams
regarding Plaintiff’s concerns of Gregory’s conduct note (EXHIBIT pg. 69);
51. Take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Discharge Letter dated March 6, 2021, from the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital note (EXHIBIT pg. 70);
52. Take Judicial Notice of the Interrogatories- Requests for Admissions (EXHIBIT pg. 71-74);
53. Take Judicial Notice of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the Supreme Law of the
Land note. Further, take judicial notice that the United States Constitution Article VI
Supremacy Clause provides that every State Judge is bound to uphold the Laws of the
Constitution and State Laws. The said Article provides in pertinent part thus:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
54. Further, this Court should take judicial notice that the Constitution of the United States of
America, Article VI, provides that "[t]his Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws
of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’";
55. Take Judicial Notice that Plaintiff is a natural woman, living in the State of California note.
56. Take judicial notice of the fact that Manuel Saint Martin, the Neuro Psychiatrist appointed
by the BRN to do the mental evaluation, has been harassing the Plaintiff. He has been calling
Plaintiff directly on her personal number, emailing her after hours, and insisting that he
WILL see Plaintiff for the said appointment. Besides, he has disregarded Plaintiff’s very
strong language warning him not to contact her directly again. He called Plaintiff on a day
when no appointment existed and stated that Plaintiff missed her appointment with him and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
should call him. Further, Plaintiff has threatened to file a police report for harassing her note.
d. Plaintiff needs to show the Court why Defendants should be sanctioned
The purpose of discovery sanctions is not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture,
and the avoidance of the trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and
correct the problem presented. California Discovery Citations (TRG 2019) ¶1:6 citing Parker v.
Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 CA4th 285 (pdf) at 301.
Plaintiff’s Subpoena requests inter alia, for the production of “[t]he defamatory report
sent to the BRN by Sarah Potter on or about February 2021…” Plaintiff directed the subpoena to
Cristina Vazquez, who is the right party to produce the documents. Plaintiff avers that the
requested information will reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating her case and preparing for
trial. Besides, the disclosure of the requested information would lead to the discovery of other
evidence in support of Plaintiff’s case.
BRN attempts to abuse the discovery process by raising frivolous and meritless
objections to the requested information. Plaintiff is legally entitled to the requested information,
as already argued hereinabove. It is Plaintiff’s averment that BRN refuses to comply with the
requests in the Subpoena, in a calculated move to harass Plaintiff, and to frustrate her pursuit of
legal redress. This Court should therefore find BRN liable for abuse of the discovery process and
grant appropriate sanctions.
Plaintiff avers that the Defendant cannot rely on the official information privilege to
withhold the requested information. First, Plaintiff is entitled to the requested information, as a
matter of right. See Gov. Code, § 6250. Next, contrary to BRN’s allegations that the document is
privileged, the BRN already provided Plaintiff the requested report to review during the
investigatory meeting in July 2021. Plaintiff was then assured that she would receive the same
document again. It is also Plaintiff’s assertion that it is in the public interest to produce the
requested information. Such production would ensure the interest of justice is pursued since it

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

contains information that Plaintiff will use to disclose the injustice that is carried on in the
workplace.

ii. The established policy of this state for over 100 years that amendments
should be liberally permitted at any stage of the proceeding.
Numerous decisions of the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal have stated
that permitting amendments in the furtherance of justice is to be liberally permitted any stage of
the proceeding.
“This statutory provision giving the courts the power to permit amendments in
furtherance of justice has received a very liberal interpretation by the courts of this state.”
Klopstock v. Superior Ct. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19; see also Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972)
6 Cal.3d 920, 939.
Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any
stage of the proceedings up to and including trial. See Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985)
39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97.
In fact liberal amendment of pleadings has been the established policy of California since
1901. “That the trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the
proceeding, has been established policy of this state since 1901.” Hirsa v. Superior Ct. (1981)
118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89.
For the aforesaid reason, Plaintiff prays this Court grant the leave to file tis amended
complaint in furtherance of this Court’s policy to grant liberally permit amendments at any stage
of the proceedings.

iii. The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that amendment must be
permitted unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice
The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that amendment must be permitted unless
the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice.
The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny an
amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice, such as the running of the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

statute of limitations, trial delay, the loss of critical evidence, or added preparation costs.
Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; see also Solit v. Taokai Bank, Ltd.
(1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.
Unless a showing of prejudice is made by the adverse party even delay alone is not a
sufficient reason for denying leave to amend.
Absent a showing of such prejudice, delay alone is not grounds for denial of a motion to
amend. See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; see also
Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 563-565.
Plaintiff asserts that none of the Defendants will suffer any meaningful prejudice in the
event this Court grants leave to file the Amended Complaint. Granting leave to file the Amended
Complaint would give Plaintiff a chance to pursue justice.
CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court order THAT Plaintiff be allowed to amend
the Complaint; and THAT this Court grant any other Order it deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: _______________

____________________________
ESTHER TENDO ATAM

__________________________
ESTHER TENDO ATAM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, declare
1. I am the Plaintiff in this case.
2. I am above 18 years old, and am of sound mind.
3. I am therefore competent to declare as to the veracity of all averments herein to the best
of my knowledge, information, and belief.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.

____________________________
ESTHER TENDO ATAM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on _____________, a copy of the foregoing document has been sent
to the Defendant in the following address:
Lisa M. Magorien, Esq. (SBN: 259877)
lmagorien@lbbklaw.com
Morgan A. Chase, Esq. (SBN: 333573)
mchase@lbbklaw.com
LAGASSE BRANCH BELL + KINKEAD LLP
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 345-5080
Facsimile: (858) 345-5025.

DATED: _________________

____________________________
ESTHER TENDO ATAM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBIT A

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED

COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ESTHER TENAO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP (SCPMG), a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants

Case No.: 21STCV41538
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
2. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN
VIOLATION or FEHA,
3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE
INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
4. RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
OF FEHA;
5. GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
6. NATIONAL ORIGIN HARASSMENT
IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
7. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
8. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
FEHA;
9. FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT,
AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
OF FEHA;
10. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA AND PUBLIC
POLICY,
11. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
12. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
13. DECLARATORY RELIEF
14. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]

COMES NOW Plaintiff ESTHER TENAO ATAM (“Plaintiff”), and who hereby
respectfully alleges, avers, and complains, as follows:
INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff ESTHER ATAM pursuant to California
statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants at all times
herein mentioned.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to
the California Constitution, Article VI, §10.
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each named Defendant herein because
each Defendant resides in the State of California and has its principal place of business within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court by virtue of the California statutes, decisional
law, regulations, and the local rules under the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules.
5. Venue in this Court is proper in that Defendants have a business address located
in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and State of California.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 395(a) of the California Code of Civil
Procedure because all acts and omissions giving rise to the causes of action stated herein
occurred or arose in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

PARTIES

7. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff ESTHER ATAM (hereinafter referred to
as "ATAM" or "Plaintiff") is and has been a resident of Los Angeles County, State of California.
8. Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
(SCPMG) (hereinafter referred to as "SCPMG" or "Defendant") is and at all times herein

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

mentioned has been a California business entity with the capacity to sue and to be sued in
California, and doing business in California, located at 9400 Rosecrans Ave, Bellflower, CA
90706.
9. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants
herein were at all times the agent, employee, or representative of each remaining Defendant and
were at all times herein acting within and outside the scope and purpose of said agency and
employment. Plaintiff further alleges that as to each Defendant, whether named or referred to as
a fictitious name, said Defendants supervised, ratified, controlled, acquiesced in, adopted,
directed, substantially participated in, and/or approved the acts, errors, and/or omissions, of each
remaining Defendant.
10. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, partnership, association or otherwise, are
unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will
request leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities at such
time as they are ascertained.
11. Plaintiff alleges that California statutory, decisional and regulatory laws prohibit
the conduct by Defendants herein alleged, and therefore Plaintiff has entitled to monetary relief
on the basis that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law, and regulations.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants committed other wrongful
acts or omissions of which the Plaintiff is presently unaware. Plaintiff shall conduct discovery to
identify said wrongful acts and seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to add said acts
upon discovery.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Statement of Facts
13. Plaintiff, ESTHER ATAM, is a 37-year-old woman of African and Cameroonian
origin who was employed with KAIZER (now SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP (SCPMG)), at all times herein mentioned. All references to KAIZER in this

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Complaint shall mean SCPMG.
14. Plaintiff commenced employment with Defendants on or about January 20, 2020
and was employed with SCPMG at [Enter Address].
15. During the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, she held the position of
Emergency Room Registered Nurse where she performed all workplace duties within the scope
of her expertise and knowledge. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff performed her duties as
a registered nurse with care, diligence, and competence, having been a licensed nurse for many
years prior to her employment the Defendants.
16. Plaintiffs duties as a registered nurse working in the emergency room at SCPMG
included caring for the hospital’s patients, administering IVs, making patients’ beds, supervising
patients’ recovery and health, and other tasks which are typical for a registered nurse working in
an emergency room in a hospital.
17. Throughout the course of Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, she was subject
to a number of acts in violation of California employment discrimination laws, including
disability discrimination, gender discrimination, racial and national origin discrimination,
national origin harassment, and sexual harassment.
18. These acts were perpetrated both by the management at IMISER.
19. On or about August 2020, Plaintiff began complaining to POETTER about
bullying she had been subjected to by one of her colleagues, Xavier Edwards, who worked
alongside Plaintiff at SCPMG. Such bullying and harassment consisted of a number of incidents.
For example, on or about August 28, 2020, Plaintiff was engaged in a casual conversation with
Mr. Edwards when she mentioned that she had been harassed by two males within the last year at
another job she held before. At the time, Plaintiff considered Mr. Edwards to be a friend since
they often worked in the same shift as nurses.
20. Plaintiff later discovered, however, that Mr. Edwards had been spreading rumors
about Plaintiff to other co-workers, telling them that they should "watch out" for Plaintiff since
she had complained about sexual harassment at another job.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

21. From that point on, Mr. Edwards began picking on, bullying, and harassing
Plaintiff.
22. Plaintiff first reported Mr. Edwards’ conduct to her supervisors on or about June
2, 2020, after one such incident.
23. During this incident, Xavier Edwards followed closely behind Plaintiff in the
hallway, getting so close to her that Plaintiff could feel his breath on her neck.
24. He would often try to deliberately give the impression that Plaintiff was not
performing her job competently, such as yelling in the nurse’s room "where is [Plaintiff]," even
though Plaintiff was close by.
25. Mr. Edwards would also make negative remarks about Plaintiff to the hospital’s
patients in an effort to discredit her and make her appear as incompetent and incapable of
performing her duties as a nurse.
26. Mr. Edwards did this persistently and continuously, often coming to the patient’s
room, apparently for the sole purpose of making it appear that Plaintiff was not providing
adequate care for her patients.
27. Throughout this time, Mr. Edwards was focused on sabotaging Plaintiffs work
and focused on discrediting her and destroying her reputation in the hospital.
28. On other occasions, Mr. Edwards would loudly remark that Plaintiff "looked
high" and would remark on whether she was smoking marijuana while on the job.
29. On other occasions, Mr. Edwards would stare down Plaintiff as they passed in the
hallway and would stare at her if Plaintiff was compelled to walk over to his area, which was
often necessary, such as, for example, when she needed to retrieve medication from
the medication carts.
30. The cumulative effect of Mr. Edwards’ actions inflicted severe emotional distress
on Plaintiff and destroyed her sense of security while employed at the hospital, placing her in
fear of physical harm and negatively impacting her ability to competently and professionally care
for her patients, which she had always striven so hard to do.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

31. Yet despite Plaintiffs repeated complaints, the supervisors at SCPMG, took no
action to prevent Mr. Edwards from harassing Plaintiff, and effectively committed such activities
to occur, thereby effectively endorsing Mr. Edwards’ harassment of Plaintiff.
32. Plaintiff also endured discrimination and harassment from the senior levels of the
IMISER staff, culminating in her wrongful termination on or about March 18, 2021. The
problems commenced in or about August 2020, when Plaintiff was asked to leave work by
POETTER, and told she could only return to work with a clearance note from a psychologist.
The reason given for demanding that Plaintiff leave the work premises was that she was mentally
unstable and unfit to function in her role as an emergency room nurse.
33. Plaintiff believes that these actions by the management at SCPMG were acts of
retaliation against her and their effort to portray her as mentally unbalanced because she had
complained about bullying by her co-worker, Xavier Edwards.
34. Furthermore, Plaintiff believes that her mistreatment was substantially motivated
by hostility to her ethnic background and foreign accent, and for this reason,
Defendants attempted to portray Plaintiff as having suffered a psychotic break and also portray
her as unfit to work as a registered nurse.
35. On or about September 8, 2020, Plaintiff file a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, complaining about the harassment against her
perpetrated by her supervisor, Sarah Poetter, and another supervisor, Cheryl Suina.
36. On or about September 9, 2020, an EEOC investigator, Lourdes Keppel,
contacted Plaintiff and advised her that she was investigating her complaint and would reach out
to her shortly.
37. In the meantime, Plaintiff continued to receive phone calls from a few of her co-
workers advising her that Xavier Edwards was continuing to spread rumors about her, claiming
that she was psychotic and that she was mentally unstable.
38. Plaintiff has been deeply traumatized and has suffered serious emotional distress
by the actions of SCPMG’s management and their failure to adequately supervise their

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

employees and to protect those employees who are targets of harassment, bullying, and abuse.
Plaintiff has also suffered financially due to having been wrongfully terminated from her
employment on or about March 8, 2021.
39. Defendants engaged in a calculated program of discrimination, harassment,
retaliation, and creation of a hostile work environment against Plaintiff due to her psychological
disability status in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
40. Furthermore, Plaintiff was also subject to discriminatory treatment which was
motivated by racial discrimination and national origin discrimination and due to the fact that
Plaintiff speaks English with a foreign accent and is of Cameroonian background.
41. In committing these acts and others, Defendants have acted in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
42. Defendants have also committed a number of other violations of the FEHA,
including failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate Plaintiffs
disability, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, wrongful termination,
and the creation of a hostile work environment.
43. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the decision-maker(s) wrongfully
terminated her from her employment and subjected her to discrimination and harassment due
to her racial- ethnic background and foreign accent, as well as due to her disability. In doing
so, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment culminating in her wrongful
termination.
44. Plaintiff has also suffered emotional distress due to the negative treatment she was
subjected to, including stress and anxiety. Prior to filing this Complaint, Plaintiff fulfilled any
legal requirement or exhausted any administrative remedy imposed on her by having filed the
substance of claims alleged herein with the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing (hereinafter "DFEH"), and has received a Right to Sue Letter from the DFEH.
Plaintiff has therefore substantially complied with all requirements for the filing of this
Complaint and has exhausted Plaintiffs administrative remedies prior to filing, commencing, and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

serving the within action.
Procedural Background
45. This action was filed on November 10, 2021, by Plaintiff against Defendants
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, a corporation, and Sarah Poetter an individual alleging inter alia,
disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process,
race and national origin discrimination, gender discrimination, national origin harassment, sexual
harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, wrongful termination, and hostile work
environment.
46. At the time, Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Gary Carlin. Due to a dispute,
Attorney Carlin substituted out of the case on December 22, 2021. Then, Attorney Brennan
Hershey was retained on December 21, 2021 and filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, which
motion was granted by the Court on or around April 19, 2022. Since that time, Plaintiff has
represented herself pro per.
47. Attorney Carlin a member of the Bar for over 50 years (SBN 44945) named
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as the corporate Defendant, disregarding Plaintiff’s attached W2s
and wage statements. Attorney Carlin never bothered to correct his significant error of naming
the incorrect entity and Attorney Hershey failed to make any amendment himself.
48. During the period that Plaintiff was represented by counsel, neither attorney told
her that the correct entity was SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP, INC. and not KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS. Plaintiff was also not informed
that Defendant’s counsel Lisa Magorien had informed her former attorneys of such. In fact,
Plaintiff first learned about the name of the incorrect defendant entity when she opposed
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on or about May 9, 2022.
49. On December 22, 2021, Kaiser Foundation Hospital filed an answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint. In the said answer, the Kaiser Foundation Hospital alleged inter alia, that Plaintiff’s
Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Plaintiff’s claims are barred
by statute of limitations; some of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by waiver and unclean hands; the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s case is barred by laches; Kaiser Foundation Hospital is entitled to an off set in the
event liability is established; Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages; attorney’s fees are not
recoverable; Plaintiff’s employment was an at-will employment; there was a legitimate business
purpose for Kaiser Foundation Hospital ’s actions; and Kaiser Foundation Hospital failed to
exhaust administrative remedies.
50. On April 21, 2022, Kaiser Foundation Hospital filed a Separate Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s motion for Summary
Judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In the said filing,
the Kaiser Foundation Hospital alleged the following undisputed facts: Southern California
Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG) hired Plaintiff as a RN; SCPMG was the only entity that
hired Plaintiff within January 20, 2020 and March 18, 2021; SCPMG controlled Plaintiff’s work;
and SCPMG paid Plaintiff throughout the employment.
51. On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff further submitted evidence in support thereof.
52. On or about May 25 th , 2022, Plaintiff sent Cristina Vazquez (BRN investigator) a
Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for personal appearance and production of documents, electronically
stored information, and things at Trial or Hearing. The subpoena sought the production of
documents on July 14, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., in this Court.
53. On or about June 15th, 2022, the Board of Registered Nursing, through the office
of the Ryan Marcroft, objected to the said Subpoena.
54. Defendant SARAH POETTER then died on July 4, 2022.
55. Accordingly, on July 14, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Kaiser Foundation
Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court instructed Plaintiff to file the First
Amended Complaint on or before September 29, 2022.
56. This Court should take judicial notice of the following:
57. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated September 4, 2020, from Ehab Yacoub, MD, noting

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

that Plaintiff had NO psychiatric contraindications for her to return to work (EXHIBIT pg.
1);
58. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 4, 2020, from Plaintiff to the Kaiser staff
(Sarah Poetter and Sherry) regarding the psychiatric clearance note (EXHIBIT pg. 2);
59. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 8, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to the
Plaintiff regarding the acceptance of the Plaintiff’s resignation note (EXHIBIT pg. 3);
60. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated September 6, 2020, from the Plaintiff to the Kaiser
staff (Sarah Poetter and Sherry) regarding how the Plaintiff was affected by the reckless
behavior of Sarah and Sherry note (EXHIBIT pg. 4-5);
61. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 14, 2020, from Lourdes Keppel to the
Plaintiff regarding the EEO investigation note (EXHIBIT pg. 6-7);
62. Take judicial notice of the Complainant- Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
Investigation Fact Sheet note (EXHIBIT pg. 8);
63. Take judicial notice of the Email dated September 16, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Lourdes
Keppel regarding Plaintiff’s request of all records on Plaintiff’s file note (EXHIBIT pg. 9-
10);
64. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 5, 2020, from Brooke E Ball to the
Plaintiff confirming the receipt of the Plaintiff’s previous email note (EXHIBIT pg. 11);
65. Take judicial notice of the Email dated October 1, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Brooke Ball
and Lourdes Keppel regarding Sarah Poetter note (EXHIBIT pg. 12);
66. Take judicial notice of the Email dated October 22, 2020, from Brice Sikuade regarding the
confirmation of an online meeting note (EXHIBIT pg. 13-14);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

67. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 6, 2020, from Kaiser to the Plaintiff
notifying her that she was being placed on an unpaid investigatory suspension note
(EXHIBIT pg. 15);
68. Take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Pay Slip dated November 30, 2020 note (EXHIBIT pg.
16);
69. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 9, 2020, from Plaintiff to Brooke Ball and
Brice Sikuade regarding a discussion of Plaintiff’s work status note (EXHIBIT pg. 17);
70. Take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Demand Letter dated November 10, 2020 note (EXHIBIT
pg. 18);
71. Take judicial notice of a copy of text messages between Plaintiff and Emily union
representative from Kaiser note (EXHIBIT pg. 19-20);
72. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 11, 2020, from Plaintiff to Emily union
representative note (EXHIBIT pg. 21);
73. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 11, 2020, from Plaintiff to Lourdes
Keppel, union representative, regarding the status of Plaintiff’s suspension note (EXHIBIT
pg. 22);
74. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 12, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to
Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s Virtual Therapy Appointment note (EXHIBIT pg. 23-24);
75. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 23, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to Plaintiff
regarding Corrective Action and Availability to Return to Work note (EXHIBIT pg. 25-26);
76. Take judicial notice of Kaiser’s Corrective Action Process- Level III note (EXHIBIT pg.
27-28);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

77. Take judicial notice of Kaiser’s Developmental Action Plan note (EXHIBIT pg. 29);
78. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 23, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to the
Plaintiff regarding the necessary actions that the Plaintiff needed to take in order to retain her
employment note (EXHIBIT pg. 30-32);
79. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 23, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding the Corrective Action and Availability to Return to Work note (EXHIBIT
pg. 33-34);
80. Take judicial notice of the Email dated November 23, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding the Plaintiff’s representation in future meetings note (EXHIBIT pg. 35);
81. Take judicial notice of the Letter November 10, 2020, from the Emily to the Plaintiff
acknowledging Plaintiff’s release of UNACUHCP from representing her note (EXHIBIT
pg. 35);
82. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 24, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding a Reminder to the Acacia Appointment note (EXHIBIT pg. 36-37);
83. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated November 24, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to the
Plaintiff regarding the Acacia Appointment note (EXHIBIT pg. 38);
84. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 3, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Lourdes
Keppel the confidential investigation note (EXHIBIT pg. 39);
85. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 11, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding the Plaintiff’s meeting with the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 40);
86. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 14, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to the
Plaintiff regarding a delayed letter from the psychologist to the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

41);
87. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 17, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding a delayed letter from the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 42);
88. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 23, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter regarding a clearance letter from the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 43);
89. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 22, 2020, from Acacia Westwood to the
Plaintiff regarding an invitation to an online meeting note (EXHIBIT pg. 44);
90. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 24, 2020, from Sarah Poetter to the
Plaintiff regarding a clearance letter from the psychologist note (EXHIBIT pg. 45-46);
91. Take judicial notice of the Email dated December 28, 2020, from Lourdes Keppel to the
Plaintiff regarding the conclusion of the investigation and the intention to share the results
with the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg. 47);
92. Take judicial notice of the Letter Email dated December 29, 2020, from the Plaintiff to Sarah
Poetter, Brice Sikuade, Bruce Ball, Lourdes Keppel, and Mike Zackos regarding the mental
health clearance for the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg. 48);
93. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated December 29, 2020, from Acacia Counseling and
Wellness to the Plaintiff stating that the Plaintiff has not presented any psychotic symptoms
that would likely result in the Plaintiff’s inability to work note (EXHIBIT pg. 49-50);
94. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 8, 2021, from the Plaintiff to Wilbert Jones
regarding a scan for staples note (EXHIBIT pg. 51);
95. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 8, 2021, from Wilbert Jones to the Plaintiff
seeking clarification note (EXHIBIT pg. 52-55);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

96. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 8, 2021, from Brice O. Sikuade to the
Plaintiff stating that no clearance note was requested by Plaintiff’s employer note
(EXHIBIT pg. 56);
97. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 11, 2021, from Acacia Westwood to the
Plaintiff confirming that Dr. Jiyun Kang had submitted the requested information to Kaiser
note (EXHIBIT pg. 57);
98. Take judicial notice of the Letter dated February 10, 2021, from Dr. Jiyun Kang to Wilbert
Jones regarding answers to requested information note (EXHIBIT pg. 58-59);
99. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 17, 2021, from the Plaintiff to Robyn
Sembenini regarding closure and the Plaintiff’s lack of intention to appeal note (EXHIBIT
pg. 60);
100. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 16, 2021, from Robyn Sembenini to the
Plaintiff regarding whether the Plaintiff would be interested in appealing Ms. Keppel’s
findings note (EXHIBIT pg. 60);
101. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 16, 2021, from Plaintiff to Lourdes Keppel
requesting a copy of the findings note (EXHIBIT pg. 61-62);
102. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 17, 2021, from Jennifer Tyo to the Plaintiff
stating “that the Plaintiff is an amazing asset in the ED” note (EXHIBIT pg. 63);
103. Take judicial notice of the Email dated February 23, 2021, from Jennifer Tyo to the Plaintiff
stating that she had loved working with the Plaintiff note (EXHIBIT pg. 64);
104. Take judicial notice of the Plaintiff’s Complaint of Discrimination under the Provisions of
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act dated March 4, 2021 note (EXHIBIT pg.
65-66);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

105. Take judicial notice of the Email dated March 4, 2021, from Brice Sikuade to the Plaintiff
regarding the advisory and follow up to request to file new complaint note (EXHIBIT pg.
67-68);
106. Take judicial notice of the Email dated March 4, 2021, from the Plaintiff to Gregory Adams
regarding Plaintiff’s concerns of Gregory’s conduct note (EXHIBIT pg. 69);
107. Take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Discharge Letter dated March 6, 2021, from the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital note (EXHIBIT pg. 70);
108. Take Judicial Notice of the Interrogatories- Requests for Admissions (EXHIBIT pg. 71-74);
109. Take Judicial Notice of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the Supreme Law of the
Land note. Further, take judicial notice that the United States Constitution Article VI
Supremacy Clause provides that every State Judge is bound to uphold the Laws of the
Constitution and State Laws. The said Article provides in pertinent part thus:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
110. Further, this Court should take judicial notice that the Constitution of the United States of
America, Article VI, provides that "[t]his Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws
of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’";
111. Take Judicial Notice that Plaintiff is a natural woman, living in the State of California note.
112. Take judicial notice of the fact that Manuel Saint Martin, the Neuro Psychiatrist appointed
by the BRN to do the mental evaluation, has been harassing the Plaintiff. He has been calling
Plaintiff directly on her personal number, emailing her after hours, and insisting that he

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WILL see Plaintiff for the said appointment. Besides, he has disregarded Plaintiff’s very
strong language warning him not to contact her directly again. He called Plaintiff on a day
when no appointment existed and stated that Plaintiff missed her appointment with him and
should call him. Further, Plaintiff has threatened to file a police report for harassing her note.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

(Against all Defendants)

57. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
58. At all relevant times herein mentioned, California Government Code Section
12940(a) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. California Government
Code Section § 12940(a) generally prohibits employers from discharging and otherwise
discriminating against an employee based on that employee’s disability.
59. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Defendants were Plaintiffs employers, and
Plaintiff was Defendants’ employee.
60. Plaintiff suffered from a medical condition, including but not limited to
psychological distress, anxiety, depression, and humiliation she sustained during her
employment with Defendants. Plaintiff s disability substantially limits one or more major
life activities, including but not limited to her ability to work. Defendants knew Plaintiff had a
disability that limited her ability to perform major life activities as set forth in this Complaint.
61. Plaintiff’s psychological problems also originated in her prior employment
experiences, where she has been subjected to workplace harassment while working for a
previous employer. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiff’s psychological state and were bound
by the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as all other applicable law,
to act in accordance with Plaintiffs condition and to not engage in acts that were reasonably
expected to have the effect of aggravating Plaintiffs condition.
62. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff performed her essential and increased job

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

duties and was willing and able to perform the essential job duties of his position or other
suitable positions if Defendants had made reasonable accommodations. At no time would the
performance of the employment position’s functions, with a reasonable accommodation for
Plaintiff’s disability, have been a danger to Plaintiffs or any other person’s health or safety, nor
would it have created an undue hardship to the operation of Defendants’ business.
63. As set forth more fully above, Defendants discriminated against and took adverse
employment actions against Plaintiff due to her actual or perceived disability, including but not
limited to failing to promptly accommodate her disability, failing to timely interact in good faith
regarding accommodations for her disability, and terminating her employment.
64. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiff,
Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general, consequential, and special damages,
including but not limited to substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits,
physical injuries, emotional distress, humiliation, mental pain, and anguish, all to her damage in
an amount according to proof.
65. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
66. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA

(Against all Defendants)

67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

68. At all relevant times herein mentioned, California Government Code Section §
12940(m) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. California Government
Code Section § 12940(m) generally prohibits employers from failing to make reasonable
accommodations for the known physical or mental disability of an employee.
69. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants covered by California Government Code
§ 12940, et seq, prohibiting discrimination based on disability and prohibiting an employer’s
refusal to reasonably accommodate qualified disabled employees.
70. Plaintiff suffered from a disability during her employment with Defendants.
Plaintiff’s disability substantially limits one or more major life activities, including but not
limited to her ability to work. Defendants knew Plaintiff had a disability that limited her ability
to perform major life activities as set forth in this Complaint.
71. Plaintiff’s psychological problems were derived in part by her prior employment
experiences, where she had been subjected to workplace harassment while working for a
previous employer. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiffs psychological state and were bound
by the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as all other applicable law,
to act in accordance with Plaintiffs condition and to not engage in acts that were reasonably
expected to have the effect of aggravating Plaintiffs condition.
72. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the
essential job duties of her position or other suitable positions if reasonable accommodation had
been made by Defendants. At no time would the performance of the functions of the employment
position, with a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability, have been a danger to
Plaintiffs or any other person’s health or safety, nor would it have created an undue hardship to
the operation of Defendants’ business.
73. As set forth more fully above, Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her
disability, and instead of interacting about accommodations, Defendants retaliated against
Plaintiff because of her disabilities and/or her requests for accommodation for her disabilities.
74. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, and each of them,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has suffered general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited
to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, personal physical injuries, and
sickness, as well as emotional distress, humiliation, and mental pain and anguish, all to her
damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
75. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, an
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
76. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA

(Against all Defendants)

77. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above
as though fully set forth herein.
78. At all times relevant herein, Government Code § 12940(n) was in full force and
effect and was binding upon Defendants. This section provides that it is unlawful for an
employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with an employee
to determine adequate, reasonable accommodations in response to a request by the
employee for reasonable accommodation by the employer for a known disability.
79. Plaintiff suffered from a disability during her employment with Defendants.
Plaintiff’s disability substantially limits one or more major life activities, including but not
limited to her ability to work. Defendants knew Plaintiff had a disability that limited her ability
to perform major life activities as set forth in this Complaint.
80. Plaintiff’s psychological problems were derived in part by her prior employment

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

experiences, where she had been subjected to workplace harassment while working for a
previous employer. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiffs psychological state and were bound
by the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as all other applicable law,
to act in accordance with Plaintiffs condition and to not engage in acts that were reasonably
expected to have the effect of aggravating Plaintiffs condition.
81. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was willing to participate in an
interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made so that she
would be able to perform the essential job requirements for her position or any other positions
within SCPMG for which she was eligible.
82. Defendants failed to participate in a timely, good-faith interactive process with
Plaintiff to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made.
83. As a proximate result of Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has
suffered and continues to suffer general, consequential, and special damages, including but not
limited to substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, physical injuries,
emotional distress, humiliation, mental pain, and anguish, all to her damage in an amount
according to proof.
84. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
85. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Race and National Origin Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

(Against all Defendants)

86. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations ln the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
87. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code § 12940(a) was in full force and
l0 effect and was binding upon Defendants. The said section requires Defendants and their
employees and agents not to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her race and national
origin in the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment.
88. At all times material hereto, Defendants were employers covered by the FEHA
and Defendants employed Plaintiff.
89. Plaintiff is a black and African woman from Cameroon.
90. As a result of Defendants’ adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including
subjecting her to harassment and creating a hostile work environment for her, Plaintiff
was subjected to extreme forms of harassment, abusive conduct, bullying, and ridicule and was
ultimately wrongfully terminated from her employment. Defendants continuously subjected
Plaintiff to extreme forms of harassment and psychological abuse, including but not limited to
falsely and without justification labeling her as psychotic, impugning her mental state, and
implying that she suffered from a psychological illness.
91. Defendants discriminated against and took several adverse employment actions
against Plaintiff due to her race and national origin, including but not limited to labeling her as
mentally ill and unfit to perform her work duties in an attempt to forcibly remove her from
employment with SCPMG.
92. Plaintiff is informed and believes that her race and national origin as an American
of Cameroonian origin and nationality was a substantial motivating factor in Defendants’
decision to take adverse employment actions against her.
93. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and each of them,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other
employment benefits in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
94. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and each of them,
Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and mental pain and anguish, all to Plaintiff
s damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
95. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
96. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

(Against all Defendants)

97. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above
as though fully set forth herein.
98. Plaintiff was at all times herein mentioned a female protected by the California
Fair Housing and Employment Act.
99. Defendant SCPMG is an private entity employing at least the minimum number
of persons needed to qualify doing business within the State of California and subject to the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
100. Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was subject to adverse employment
decisions due to her gender and because she is a female.
101. Based on the foregoing facts, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the
FEHA against Defendants and a Right to Sue letter was issued. Plaintiff was fully qualified and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

competent to perform her job duties as she had previously been performing the increased job
responsibilities for multiple years. Defendant SCPMG engaged in gender discrimination against
Plaintiff by including but not limited to the following: permitting and tacitly encouraging her
male co-worker to bully, harass, and emotionally traumatize her to the point where it
substantially interfered with her work duties, failing to take any action at all to prevent Plaintiff,
a female, from being harassed by her male co- worker, forcing her to leave the work premises,
forcing her to undergo psychiatric examinations without any justification, and ultimately
terminating her from her employment.
102. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual and/or gender harassment and discrimination
during her employment. Plaintiff was subjected to differential treatment by Defendant SCPMG
because she is a female.
103. As a proximate result of Defendant SCPMG’s discrimination, harassment, and
retaliatory actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general,
consequential, and special damages, including but not limited to substantial losses in earnings,
other employment benefits, physical injuries, physical sickness, as well as emotional distress,
plus medical expenses, future medical expenses, all to her damage in an amount according to
proof.
104. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff s rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
105. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

National Origin Harassment in Violation of FEHA

(Against all Defendants)

106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
107. At all relevant times herein mentioned, California Government Code Section §
12940(j) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. Government Code
section 12940(j) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for "an employer … or any
other person, because of national origin to harass an employee, an applicant, or person providing
services pursuant to a contract." Government Code Section 12923(b) states “a single incident
of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile
work environment if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the
plaintiffs work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working
environment.” Government Code section 12940(j)(4)(A) provides, in part: "For purposes of
this subdivision only, ’employer’ means any person regularly employing one or more
persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to
a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or
any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities." Government Code section
12940(j)(3) provides: "An employee of an entity … is personally liable for any harassment
prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee.”
108. Plaintiff ATAM is an African woman of Cameroonian descent.
109. Defendants’ employees subjected Plaintiff to unwanted harassing conduct,
including bullying her and attempting to intimidate her, for example by following her in the
hallways and spreading rumors about her to other colleagues.
110. Defendants also subjected Plaintiff to harassing conduct by implying without
evidence or justification that she suffered from a psychological illness, that she was overly
emotional, and that she was otherwise unfit to perform her duties as a registered nurse.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

111. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants targeted her due to her national
origin as a Cameroonian, due to her African origins, and due to her foreign accent and immigrant
origins, such that Defendants falsely portrayed Plaintiff as being psychologically unwell and
emotionally unstable. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants did not subject other
employees of Caucasian and non-African origin to similar treatment and that said employees
were subject to relatively favorable treatment due to their Caucasian and non-African origins.
112. The harassment unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff s work performance and it
created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment.
113. Plaintiff was harmed and as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered general, consequential and special damages,
including but not limited to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, physical
injuries, physical sickness, as well as emotional distress, humiliation, and mental pain and
anguish, plus medical expenses, future medical expenses, all to her damage in an amount to be
determined at trial according to proof.
114. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
115. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants, and each of them, acted with
oppression, fraud, and malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff s rights and Plaintiff is
therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
116. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA
(Against all Defendants)

117. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

118. At all relevant times herein mentioned, California Government Code Section
§12940(j) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. California Government
Code Section § 12940(j) generally prohibits employers from subjecting their employees to sexual
harassment.
119. Plaintiff had a professional relationship with Defendants and Defendants’
employees since she was an employee of Defendants and was continuously placed in a
situation where she was compelled to interact with Defendants’ other employees, including
other nurses and staff members employed at SCPMG.
120. Plaintiff was exposed to sexual harassment by her male coworker, Xavier
Edwards, who was a registered nurse and employee of SCPMG, and who was acting at all times
within the scope of his employment with IMISER, and committed all his acts while on
the premises at SCPMG and while engaged in his workplace duties.
121. This sexual harassment included warning other employees of SCPMG that they
should be careful when interacting with Plaintiff since she had complained about instances of
sexual harassment at her previous job, making aggressive gestures towards her, such as walking
very closely behind her in the hallways such that Plaintiff could feel his breath on her neck,
staring at her while passing her in the hallways, and ridiculing her physical attributes, such as her
manner of walking and facial expressions.
122. This conduct was unwelcome and also pervasive and severe.
123. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, and each of them,
Plaintiff has suffered general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited t
substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, personal physical injuries, and
sickness, as well as emotional distress, humiliation, and mental pain and anguish, all to her
damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
124. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
125. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
(Against all Defendants)

126. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
127. As set forth fully above, Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity, including
but not limited to seeking reasonable accommodations for her psychological conditions,
attempting to engage in a timely good faith interactive process and exercising the rights to which
she was entitled. These psychological conditions arose out of her prior experiences at her
previous job as well as deriving from her experiences as an employee of SCPMG and the
workplace harassment and hostile work environment she had been subjected to at SCPMG.
128. Additionally, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by exercising her right to
report any form of harassment or discrimination to her employer, including the harassment
she had been enduring from her coworker, Xavier Edwards, as well as the sexual harassment she
had encountered from the same employee, as well as the harassment due to her race and
national origin, including falsely portraying her as mentally ill and psychologically unstable.
129. As a result of Plaintiffs exercising of her right to seek reasonable accommodation
for her disability, on account of her attempt to engage in a timely good faith interactive process
to determine reasonable accommodations, and the exercise of her right to report violations of
FEHA by her employer, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating her employment
and/or other adverse employment actions.
130. Defendants moreover prevented Plaintiff from continuing to perform her work

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

duties at SCPMG by cancelling her work shifts and ultimately terminating her from employment
at SCPMG on or about March 18, 2021.
131. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants and each of them,
Plaintiff has suffered general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited to
substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, personal psychological injuries, and
severe emotional distress, humiliation, and mental pain and anguish, and attorneys’ fees and legal
expenses, all to her damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
132. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and/or
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
133. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

(Against all Defendants)

134. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
135. As set forth fully above, Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity, including
but not limited to communicating to Defendants that she was the target of harassment and
bullying by her co-worker and demanding that Defendants take decisive action to end such
harassment and bullying.
136. As a result of Plaintiffs protected activity, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff
by subjecting her to adverse employment actions, including but not limited to, labeling her as
psychotic, suggesting without any justification that she was mentally ill and not competent to

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

perform her duties as a registered nurse, subjecting her to extreme emotional distress, creating a
hostile work environment for her in a calculated effort to retaliate against her for having reported
her co-worker’s bullying and harassment, and ultimately terminating her from her employment.
137. In addition to the foregoing and as set forth in greater detail above, Defendants
subjected Plaintiff to discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race, national
origin, and gender and such discrimination took a number of forms, including falsely impugning
Plaintiffs ability to perform her workplace duties and ultimately terminating her from her
employment from IMISER on the basis of these allegations against her. Defendants had
knowledge of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation through their agents, supervisors,
and managers.
138. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment,
and retaliation from occurring. Such conduct violates California Government Code section
12900 et seq., and has resulted in damage and injury to Plaintiff as alleged herein.
139. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
Plaintiff has suffered general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited
to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, and personal physical injuries, as
well as emotional distress, humiliation, and mental pain and anguish, and legal expenses, all to
her damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
140. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and/or
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294,
and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
141. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA and Public Policy

(Against all Defendants)

142. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
143. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants and Defendants
were Plaintiff’s employer.
144. On or about March 18, 2021, Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff from her
employment based on false allegations that she was psychologically unstable and not fit to
perform her duties as a registered nurse. In reality, Defendants’ discharge of Plaintiff from her
employment was motivated by discrimination on the basis of gender, race, and national origin, as
well as motivated by a desire to retaliate against Plaintiff for having complained about the
workplace harassment and hostile work environment she had been subjected to, as well as
complaining about the gender harassment and sexual harassment she had endured from her
colleague, Xavier Edwards.
145. California law prohibits an employer from terminating the employment of an
employee for reasons that are in violation of public policy.
146. The wrongful discharge of Plaintiff by Defendant SCPMG violates fundamental
principles of public policy in that there is a substantial and fundamental policy against
terminating employees for unlawful purposes, including on account of an employee’s disability
on account of an employee’s request for reasonable accommodations for a disability, her attempts
to engage in a timely good-faith interactive process, and for exercising rights under the
Constitution and the laws of the State of California.
147. Defendants violated California law and the applicable provisions of the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act by terminating Plaintiff’s employment for reasons that are
illegal and are motivated by discriminatory intent and a desire to retaliate against Plaintiff for
engaging in protected activities.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

148. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, and each of them,
Plaintiff has suffered general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited to
substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, personal physical injuries, and
sickness, as well as emotional distress, humiliation, and mental pain and anguish, and attorneys’
fees and legal expenses, all to her damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to
proof.
149. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and
oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and/or
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages
in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, and BMW
of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
150. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees. Plaintiff
requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Hostile Work Environment
(Against all Defendants)

151. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
152. As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing
conduct because of her race, national origin, and disability status, as well as being motivated by a
desire to retaliate against Plaintiff for having complained about such discrimination and
harassment.
153. The harassing conduct was so severe, widespread, and persistent that a reasonable
person in Plaintiffs circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or
abusive so as to alter the conditions of employment.
154. Plaintiff considered the work environment hostile and abusive due to the actions

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

of IMISER’s employees.
155. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial
factor in causing such harm.
156. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants had reason to
know of their employees’ propensity for harassing employees who were subject to their
supervision because they had received complaints about their conduct.
157. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, and each of them,
Plaintiff has suffered general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited to
substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, personal physical injuries, and
sickness, as well as emotional distress, humiliation, and mental pain and anguish, all to her
damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
158. Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, in an intentional
and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and/or with a conscious disregard of
Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined
at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
(1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
159. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur attorney’s fees and legal
expenses in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof and therefore requests an
award of attorney fees for amounts expended.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Punitive Damages
(Against all Defendants)

160. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
161. Plaintiff avers that she the Court should award punitive damages against the
Defendants pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 for the Defendants’ oppression, fraud, and malice.
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (a) provides in pertinent part that:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it
is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been
guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual
damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of
punishing the defendant. (Emphasis added).
162. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (c) proceeds to define “malice” to mean “conduct which is
intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried
on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” The
section also defines “oppression” to mean “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Lastly, the section continues to
define “fraud” as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact
known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.”
163. Further, Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (b) provides that an employer may be found liable
for punitive damage based upon three separate facts: when a supervising employee commits
oppression, fraud, or malice, and the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the
employee with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others; when an employee was
guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer authorized or ratified the wrongful
conduct, or when the employer itself is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.
164. In the instant case, the following facts show why this Court should award punitive
damages against the Defendants:

ix. SCPMG as an employer knew about the unfitness of an employee dealing with
Plaintiff, and that SCPMG ratified or approved the wrongful conduct. Xavier
Edwards has a history of bullying coworkers at work and had been reported
several times to HR for bullying. On or about June 2020, Plaintiff began
complaining to her supervisor, Sarah Poetter, about bullying she had been
subjected to by Xavier Edwards, who worked alongside Plaintiff. Xavier Edwards
started spreading rumors about Plaintiff to other co-workers, telling them that they
should "watch out" for Plaintiff since she had complained about sexual

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

harassment at another job. From that point on, Mr. Edwards began picking on,
bullying, and harassing Plaintiff.
x. The supervisors at SCPMG, took no action to prevent Mr. Edwards from harassing
Plaintiff, and effectively committed such activities to occur, thereby effectively
endorsing Mr. Edwards’ harassment of Plaintiff. Notably, Mr. Edwards would often
try to deliberately give the impression that Plaintiff was not performing her job
competently, such as yelling in the nurse’s room "where is [Plaintiff]," even though
Plaintiff was close by. On other occasions, Mr. Edwards would loudly remark that
Plaintiff "looked high" and would remark on whether she was smoking marijuana
while on the job. He would also make negative remarks about Plaintiff to the
hospital’s patients in an effort to discredit her and make her appear as incompetent
and incapable of performing her duties as a nurse. He did this persistently and
continuously, often coming to the patient’s room, apparently for the sole purpose of
making it appear that Plaintiff was not providing adequate care for her patients.
Throughout this time, Mr. Edwards was focused on sabotaging Plaintiffs work and
focused on discrediting her and destroying her reputation in the hospital. The
cumulative effect of Mr. Edwards’ actions inflicted severe emotional distress on
Plaintiff and destroyed her sense of security while employed at the hospital. Yet
despite Plaintiffs repeated complaints, SCPMG failed to protect Plaintiff from
harassment from Mr. Edwards.
xi. The SCPMG staff subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment, culminating
in her wrongful termination on or about March 18, 2021. The problems commenced
in or about August 28, 2020, when Plaintiff was asked to leave work by Sarah
Poetter, and told she could only return to work with a clearance note from a
psychologist. No investigation was done and no formal communication was made to
that effect. The only reason given for demanding that Plaintiff leave the work

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

premises was that she was mentally unstable and unfit to function in her role as an
emergency room nurse. The manager did not also follow company policy, which
provided relevant guidelines. Plaintiff believes that these actions by the management
at SCPMG were acts of retaliation against her and their effort to portray her as
mentally unbalanced because she had complained about bullying by Mr. Edwards.
Furthermore, Plaintiff believes that her mistreatment was substantially motivated by
hostility to her ethnic background and foreign accent, and for this reason,
Defendants attempted to portray Plaintiff as having suffered a psychotic break and
also portray her as unfit to work as a registered nurse.
xii. Failure of SCPMG to acknowledge the psychologists’ clearance notes, and the fact
that Plaintiff was being bullied, further subjected Plaintiff to humiliation and
suffering. It was not within the scope of SCPMG staff to diagnose Plaintiff as
having a psychotic break yet the clearance note evidenced that Plaintiff had no
mental breakdown. Accordingly, Plaintiff was pushed over the edge because the
Defendant’s employees were toying with her livelihood and life. She had to stay at
home for almost three months for no reason, even after she had submitted a
clearance note. She was then invited back for an HR meeting, only to be formally
suspended. The psychologist not only medically cleared Plaintiff. It is also
noteworthy that Psychologist suggested she be moved to another department or
Kaiser branch, as any continued interaction with these people who caused this
trauma, will only exacerbate her trauma. They ignored her. Defendants have
therefore committed a number of other violations of the FEHA, including failure to
engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate Plaintiffs disability,
failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, wrongful termination,
and the creation of a hostile work environment, culminating in her wrongful
termination. Plaintiff has also suffered emotional distress due to the negative

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT
treatment she was subjected to, including stress and anxiety.
xiii. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was not crazy, yet they failed to prevent Plaintiff’s
negative treatment. Notably, psychologist progress notes and clearance notes were
sent to the Defendant. There are also emails to Sarah Poetter about Plaintiff being
bullied in the past, which factor made Plaintiff more susceptible to not coping well
with continued bullying, yet the Defendants continued to bully Plaintiff.
xiv. The Defendants failed to acknowledge the long-lasting effect of their actions to
Plaintiff’s career, and overall health, causing unnecessary mental anguish and
suffering. Plaintiff further avers that even if the BRN keeps her license active, her
career as a nurse is effectively destroyed. To be bullied by the BRN, is something
that Plaintiff will never recover from. Plaintiff will never feel safe in any position as
she may be a target based on the fact that she has exposed evil practices.
xv. Plaintiff has lost her income-earning capacity as a nurse. Plaintiff makes roughly
$3000/week working one Travel Nursing job. If Plaintiff picked up extra shifts, then
she would average roughly $5000/week. If Plaintiff worked this way until she was
65 years, then this this would amount to $20,334,000 (approximately $5000/week
multiplied by 3389 weeks). It is also notable that Plaintiff did $11,000/week on her
last contract for about 5 months straight. However, Plaintiff’s last contract ended in
April 15 th , 2022. Since then, she has not been able to go back to work because of this
case.
xvi. Prosecuting this case against the blameworthy conduct of the Defendants has
made Plaintiff incur substantial costs and expenses. Notably, she has spent at least
$28,000 at this point, for inter alia, paper work, filing/serving documents,
representation at court hearings.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

165. Plaintiff further avers that the Defendant hospital has assets and liabilities of an
amount essential to a jury’s determination of an appropriate amount of punitive damages to
award. See Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2013). In Pfeifer, the Court observed that the ultimately proper level of punitive damages is
based upon the jury awarding an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb it with little or
no discomfort, nor so high that it destroys, annihilates, or cripples the defendant.
166. It is Plaintiff’s averment that “the most important indicium of the reasonableness
of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” BMW
of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant’s
conduct was reprehensible. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was not mentally unstable. This is
evidenced from the clearance and psychologist progress notes that were sent to the Defendant.
There are also emails to Sarah Poetter about Plaintiff being bullied in the past, which factor made
Plaintiff more susceptible to not coping well with continued bullying, yet the Defendants bullied
Plaintiff, causing intentional suffering and mental anguish over an extended period of time. The
foregoing notwithstanding, the Defendants ratified or approved the wrongful conduct, and failed
to act on Plaintiff’s complaint, and instead called her “crazy”.
167. Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, in an intentional
and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights, and/or with a conscious disregard of
Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined
at trial according to proof. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
(1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Relief
(Against all Defendants)

168. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
169. A declaratory relied claim is normally used “to obtain a judicial declaration on the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

rights and duties of the parties under a contract.” See City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R. R.
Co., 4 CL. App. 3d. 160, 170 (1970).
170. As described in this Complaint, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter, and
therefore may declare the rights of Plaintiff.
171. There now exists, between the parties hereto, a dispute and controversy to which
the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are entitled to have a declaration of their rights and further
relief relating to the facts and circumstances as set forth in this action.
172. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order declaring Defendants’ conduct unlawful, and
that Defendants’ are liable to Plaintiff for damages caused by their actions and/or inactions.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Preliminary Injunction
(Against all Defendants)

173. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
Preliminary injunctive relief is necessary to protect against irreparable harm
174. The requested preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm
during the pendency of the litigation. Without this relief, the court will be unable to render a
meaningful judgment on the merits.
The Court Has the Discretion to Grant Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
175. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is properly within the Court’s
discretion. The Court has Discretion to Issue the Preliminary Injunction under Rule 3.1150 of the
California Rules of Court. The injunctive relief requested does not exceed the court’s jurisdiction
or conflict with any state law.
176. The law is well settled that the decision to grant a preliminary injunction rests in
the sound discretion of the trial court. As it was explained in People v. Black’s Food Store,
[(1940)] 16 Cal.2d [59] at page 61 [ 105 P.2d 361]: `The authorities are numerous and uniform to
the effect that the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction on a verified complaint, together

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

with oral testimony or affidavits, even though the evidence with respect to the absolute right
therefor may be conflicting, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that the order may
not be interfered with on appeal, except for an abuse of discretion. Loder v. City of Glendale, 216
Cal.App.3d 777, 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
The preliminary injunction should be granted
177. In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court should
evaluate two factors. “The first is the likelihood that the [moving party] will prevail on the merits
at trial. The second is the interim harm that the moving party is likely to sustain if the injunction
were denied as compared to the harm that the responding party is likely to suffer if the
preliminary injunction were issued.” Metro Traffic Control. Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network
(1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 853, 858; Universal Life Church. Inc. v. State (1984) 158 Cal. App. 3d
533; IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69.
178. Traditional equitable considerations weigh in favor of granting the preliminary
injunction. Notably, BRN attempts to abuse the discovery process by raising frivolous and
meritless objections to the requested information. Plaintiff avers that the Defendant cannot rely
on the official information privilege to withhold the requested information. First, Plaintiff is
entitled to the requested information, as a matter of right. See Gov. Code, § 6250. Next, contrary
to BRN’s allegations that the document is privileged, the BRN already provided Plaintiff the
requested report to review during the investigatory meeting in July 2021. Plaintiff was then
assured that she would receive the same document again. It is also Plaintiff’s assertion that it is
in the public interest to produce the requested information. Such production would ensure the
interest of justice is pursued since it contains information that Plaintiff will use to disclose the
injustice that is carried on in the workplace.
179. Plaintiff is legally entitled to the requested information, as already argued
hereinabove. It is Plaintiff’s averment that BRN refuses to comply with the requests in the
Subpoena, in a calculated move to harass Plaintiff, and to frustrate her pursuit of legal redress.
This Court should therefore find BRN liable for abuse of the discovery process and grant the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

requested injunction.
Plaintiff will experience irreparable harm in the absence of the preliminary
injunction.
180. Plaintiff’s Subpoena requests inter alia, for the production of “[t]he defamatory
report sent to the BRN by Sarah Potter on or about February 2021…” Plaintiff directed the
subpoena to Cristina Vazquez, who is the right party to produce the documents. Plaintiff avers
that the requested information will reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating her case and
preparing for trial. Besides, the disclosure of the requested information would lead to the
discovery of other evidence in support of Plaintiff’s case.
181. Therefore, in the event this Court fails to issue an injunction compelling BRN to
produce the requested records, Plaintiff will suffer damage since the case will be prosecuted
without pertinent evidence.
An Adequate Remedy at Law is unavailable.
182. There is no adequate remedy at law for the harm that Plaintiff would suffer if
BRN does not produce the requested documents. Any award of damages would not fully
compensate Plaintiff for the harm caused by Defendants’ conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. For damages according to proof, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, and
other employment benefits;
2. For prejudgment interest on lost wages and benefits;
3. For general damages, according to proof;
4. For Punitive damages;
5. For other special damages according to proof, including, but not limited to. reasonable
medical expenses;
6. For all damages available for violations of the FEHA and the Government Code;
7. For attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred, pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b),
and any other applicable provisions of law;

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

8. For interest at the legal rate from the date of injury or pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 3287;
9. For sanctions against BRN for abuse of the discovery process;
10. Grant an injunction against BRN compelling the BRN to respond to and/or provide the
information and/or documents requested in Plaintiff’s Subpoena strictly within seven
days, failure to which the Court shall enter an order rendering a judgment by default
against Defendants.
11. For costs incurred by Plaintiff, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, in
obtaining the benefits due Plaintiff and for violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as set forth
above; and
12. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a jury trial.
DATED:
Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
ESTHER TENAO ATAM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been
sent to the Defendants in the following address:

DATED:

____________________________
Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per

Lisa M. Magorien, Esq. (SBN: 259877)
Imagorien@Ibbklaw.com
Morgan A. Chase, Esq. (SBN: 333573)
mchase@Ibbklaw.com
LAGASSE BRANCH BELL + KINKEAD LLP
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 345-5080
Facsimile: (858) 345-5025

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Recent Posts

Quick Links

Legal Info

Services

Contact Us