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 TENAO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
(SCPMG), a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants
Case No.: 21STCV41538
NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO FILE
SECOND AMMENDED COMPLAINT;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
DATE: 10/28/2022
DEPT: 57
TIME: 08:30am
RESERVATION ID: 540455770738
NOTICE OF MOTION
To ALL Defendants and to ALL Attorneys of Record:
Please TAKE NOTICE that on 10/28/2022, at 08:30am or soon thereafter, the Plaintiff
herein will move this Court for leave to file Second 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
2
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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 motion.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, Plaintiff, proceeding Pro Se, pursuant to
California Rule of Court 3.1324(a), hereby moves this Court to grant Plaintiff leave to file the
Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not cause any prejudice to the Defendants,
and should be permitted.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about November 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendants.
Consequently, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 27, 2022.
Plaintiff hereby files this Motion to seek leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.
ARGUMENTS
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.
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
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
3
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.”
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,
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
4
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
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
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
5
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
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
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
6
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
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.
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
7
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
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”.
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.
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
8
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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 the Second
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
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 Second Amended Complaint. Granting leave to file 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
9
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Second Amended Complaint would give Plaintiff a chance to include the request for punitive
damages in the pursuit of justice.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing facts, arguments, and points of law, the Court is urged grant this
motion and allows Plaintiff leave to file her Second Amended Complaint.
DATED: ______________
Respectfully submitted,
Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
____________________________
Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per
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
10
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ESTHER TENDO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
(SCPMG), a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants
Case No.: 21STCV41538
NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO FILE
SECOND AMMENDED COMPLAINT;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
DECLARATION OF ESTHER TENDO ATAM
I, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, declare as follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled proceedings and, as such, I have knowledge of the
matters contained herein and they are true and correct of my own personal knowledge,
except for those matters stated upon information and belief as to those matters, I believe
them to be true and correct. If called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify
competently thereto.
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
11
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
2. I am over the age of 18 years. I have knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration,
and if called as a witness could and would testify competently to the facts as stated
herein.
3. I make this declaration in support of the motion for leave to file a First Amended
Complaint. A true and correct copy of said proposed amended pleading is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Plaintiff has complied with California Rule of Court 3.1324(a)1-3 in that a request for
punitive damages is proposed to be added.
5. Plaintiff has complied with California Rule of Court 3.1324(b)1-4 in that the proposed
amendment will add a new prayer to the Complaint. The amendment is necessary to add a
request for punitive damages.
6. None of the Defendants will suffer any meaningful prejudice if the motion is granted.
7. I respectfully request that the Court grant the motion to allow leave to file the first
Amended Complaint.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this declaration is executed on ____________________, at
__________________________, California.
Dated: _____________
____________________________
Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
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
12
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 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
13
PROPOSED ORDER
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
PROPOSED ORDER
This matter came on regularly for hearing on ________2022 before Honorable [ENTER
NAME], Judge of the Superior Court of California for the County of ___________.
Upon reading and considering the Motion for Contempt, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT the Motion is GRANTED and the Plaintiff has leave to File the Second 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
14
PROPOSED ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: ___________________2021
____________________________
[ENTER NAME]
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, for the County of Los
Angeles
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
15
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT A
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 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
16
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
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
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
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
17
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff ESTHER TENDO 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
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.
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
18
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
13. Plaintiff, ESTHER ATAM, is a 37-year-old woman of African and Cameroonian
origin who was employed with KAISER (now SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP (SCPMG)), at all times herein mentioned. All references to KAISER in this
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
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
19
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
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.
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
20
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
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
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
21
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
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,
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
22
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
serving the within action.
///
///
///
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
23
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA
(Against all Defendants)
45. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
46. 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.
47. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Defendants were Plaintiffs employers, and
Plaintiff was Defendants’ employee.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff performed her essential and increased job
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
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
24
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
would it have created an undue hardship to the operation of Defendants’ business.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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)
55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
56. 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.
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
25
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
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
26
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
63. 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.
64. 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)
65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above
as though fully set forth herein.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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
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
27
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
expected to have the effect of aggravating Plaintiffs condition.
69. 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.
70. Defendants failed to participate in a timely, good-faith interactive process with
Plaintiff to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Race and National Origin Discrimination in Violation of FEHA
(Against all Defendants)
74. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations ln the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
75. 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
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
28
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
76. At all times material hereto, Defendants were employers covered by the FEHA
and Defendants employed Plaintiff.
77. Plaintiff is a black and African woman from Cameroon.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and each of them,
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.
82. 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.
83. 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
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
29
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
84. 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)
85. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above
as though fully set forth herein.
86. Plaintiff was at all times herein mentioned a female protected by the California
Fair Housing and Employment Act.
87. 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.
88. Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was subject to adverse employment
decisions due to her gender and because she is a female.
89. 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
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
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
30
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
terminating her from her employment.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
National Origin Harassment in Violation of FEHA
(Against all Defendants)
94. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
95. 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
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
31
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.”
96. Plaintiff ATAM is an African woman of Cameroonian descent.
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. The harassment unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff s work performance and it
created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment.
101. Plaintiff was harmed and as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of
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
32
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
102. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
103. 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.
104. 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)
105. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
106. 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.
107. 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.
108. Plaintiff was exposed to sexual harassment by her male coworker, Xavier
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
33
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
109. 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.
110. This conduct was unwelcome and also pervasive and severe.
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. 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)
114. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
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
34
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
115. 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.
116. 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.
117. 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.
118. Defendants moreover prevented Plaintiff from continuing to perform her work
duties at SCPMG by cancelling her work shifts and ultimately terminating her from employment
at SCPMG on or about March 18, 2021.
119. 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.
120. 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
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
35
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
121. 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)
122. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
123. 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.
124. 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
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.
125. 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,
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
36
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
and managers.
126. 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.
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. 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.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA and Public Policy
(Against all Defendants)
130. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
131. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants and Defendants
were Plaintiff’s employer.
132. 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
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
37
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
133. California law prohibits an employer from terminating the employment of an
employee for reasons that are in violation of public policy.
134. 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.
135. 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.
136. 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.
137. 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
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
38
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 575.
138. 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)
139. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
140. 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.
141. 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.
142. Plaintiff considered the work environment hostile and abusive due to the actions
of IMISER’s employees.
143. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial
factor in causing such harm.
144. 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.
145. 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
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
39
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
damage in an amount to be determined at trial according to proof.
146. 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.
147. 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.
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;
8. For interest at the legal rate from the date of injury or pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 3287;
9. 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
10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
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
40
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
41
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 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
42
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )