UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Ross E. Shanberg (SBN Shane C. Stafford (SBN Aaron A. Bartz (SBN SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP 0 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 00 Irvine, California Tel: ( -/Fax: ( - rshanberg@ssbfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff JEFFREY PARAMO and all others similarly situated UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN DIVISION JEFFREY PARAMO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, GENWEST TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; GENCOM TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES through 00, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:. VIOLATION OF U.S.C. b(b((a and d (FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT. VIOLATION OF U.S.C. b(b((b AND U.S.C. m (FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT. VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE, et seq. (INVESTIGATIVE CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES ACT. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 0 et seq.;. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 0, et seq. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Plaintiff JEFFREY PARAMO ( PARAMO or Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, for his causes of action against Defendants Genwest Transportation, LLC ( GENWEST, Gencom Transportation, Inc. ( GENCOM, and DOES through 00 (hereinafter GENWEST, GENCOM and DOES through 00 are sometimes collectively referred to herein as Defendants, hereby complains and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION. This class action arises from Defendants acquisition and use of credit reports and investigative consumer reports (referred to collectively as consumer reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current, and former employees. Defendants routinely obtain and use information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring practices without complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, U.S.C., et seq. ( FCRA, and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code, et seq. ( ICRAA. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks general, compensatory, and punitive damages due to Defendants systematic and willful violation of the FCRA and the ICRAA, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief for Defendants violation of California s Unfair Competition Law ( UCL, California Business & Professions Code 0. Plaintiff also alleges that he was discriminated against in violation of California s Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA, California Government Code 0, et seq. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This Court has jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to U.S.C. (a and U.S.C. p because Plaintiff s claims are brought under the FCRA. An action to enforce any liability created under the FCRA may be brought in any appropriate United States district court. U.S.C. p. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

3 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. This Court has jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to U.S.C. (a because Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $,000.. Under U.S.C., this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state law claims because the state claims are so related to the FCRA claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.. Venue lies within this judicial district pursuant to U.S.C. (b because Defendants maintain an office, employ individuals and conduct business in the Central District of California. Venue is also proper in this district because Defendants composed, distributed, and reviewed materials related to consumer reports from their office in this district. THE PARTIES. Plaintiff JEFFREY PARAMO is a resident of the State of California, in the city of Santa Ana.. Defendants GENWEST and GENCOM are Colorado entities that manage and operate a transportation company in Santa Ana, California and conduct business throughout the Western and Central United States. Defendants GENWEST and GENCOM regularly employ more than five persons. As a matter of policy and practice, Defendants obtain and use consumer reports for applicants seeking employment without providing proper disclosures as required by California and federal law.. Defendants DOES through 00, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend his complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those Defendants. Each reference in this complaint CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

4 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 to Defendant, Defendants, or a specifically named Defendant refers also to all Defendants sued under fictitious names. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. This case arises out of Defendants unlawful policies and procedures by which it obtains and uses consumer reports of applicants seeking employment but fails to provide applicants with the statutorily required disclosures, as well as Defendants violations of California s disability discrimination statutes. 0. Defendants GENWEST and GENCOM are persons under the FCRA, as defined by U.S.C. a(b. Plaintiff and all those similarly situated qualify as consumers as defined by U.S.C. a(c. As a matter of policy and practice, Defendants obtain and use consumer reports on applicants seeking employment with Defendants. The consumer reports used by Defendants qualify as consumer reports under the FCRA, as defined by U.S.C a(d because the reports indicate the consumer s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, or mode of living, and are used to consider the consumer for employment. These reports also qualify as an investigative consumer report under Cal. Civil Code.(c.. During the Class Period, Plaintiff and each putative class member applied for employment with Defendants. As a matter of policy and practice, Defendants require all applicants to sign an Application Authorization and Consent for Release of Information form during the application process. However, the Application Authorization and Consent for Release of Information ( Application Authorization form, and all other documents provided to applicants by Defendants, violated the FCRA and the ICRAA by failing to provide the applicant with numerous required disclosures, including but not limited to statements that: ( the applicant has the right to dispute information in the consumer report with the reporting agency; ( the applicant may obtain a copy of the report after 0 days following submission of the authorization; ( the applicant has the right to view the consumer report at the offices CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

5 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 of the consumer reporting agency with another individual who furnishes proper identification; ( the applicant may receive a summary of the report over the telephone; and ( a statement summarizing the provisions of Cal Civ. Code.. Additionally, Defendants failed to place the disclosure statement in a clear and conspicuous manner on a separate document consisting solely of the disclosure, which violates both the FCRA and ICRAA.. As a result of Defendants wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been injured including, without limitation, having their privacy and statutory rights violated in violation of the FCRA and the ICRAA. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, statutory, actual, and compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and expenses of litigation including costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff JEFFREY PARAMO. Plaintiff JEFFREY PARAMO has a prosthetic right leg above his knee.. Plaintiff has successfully worked as a dock worker and/or truck driver for nearly years.. On or about November,, Plaintiff interviewed for a dock worker position with Defendants. During the interview process, Plaintiff completed an application for Employment and Application Authorization.. The Application Authorization, among other things, required as a condition of employment that Plaintiff and all other applicants consent and authorize an investigative consumer report of their background. As set forth further in paragraph above, the Application Authorization failed to provide legally necessary disclosures, including but not limited to Plaintiff s right to dispute information on the credit report, or that Plaintiff had a right to obtain a copy of the report.. During the interview process, Plaintiff disclosed to Defendants that Plaintiff had a prosthetic leg, but that he was able to perform all of the essential functions of the position. Defendants agents and representatives advised Plaintiff that CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

6 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Defendants would need to conduct a background check before moving forward with the hiring process, as well as perform a physical examination.. Thereafter, on or about November,, Plaintiff was briefly examined by a physician, who noted that Plaintiff has history of squamous cell carcinoma right leg which resulted in amputation. Plaintiff then performed other physical activities for the examining physician, and Plaintiff successfully performed all of the physical activities required of him.. On or about December,, Defendants refused to hire Plaintiff for the open employment position based upon Plaintiff s physical disability. Defendants told Plaintiff that because of Plaintiff s prosthetic leg, that Plaintiff could not be hired for the position, even though at all times, Plaintiff could perform all of the essential functions of the job, including but not limited to lifting, walking, and related physical functions required for the position.. On February,, Plaintiff Paramo filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ( DFEH against Defendants, alleging claims of disability discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination. Plaintiff received his Right to Sue notices on or about February,. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The members of the class are defined as follows: Class I (FCRA Applicant Class: All individuals who applied for employment with Defendants within five years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit for whom a consumer report was obtained as part of the employment application process. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

7 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Subclass I (Authorization Document Subclass: All individuals who applied for employment with Defendantswithin five years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit and who executed an Application Authorization form utilized by Defendants. Subclass II (Right to Dispute Information Subclass: All individuals who applied for employment with Defendants within five years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit who executed Defendants Application Authorization form which did not notify the applicants of their right to dispute information in the consumer report. Subclass III (Summary of Rights Subclass: All individuals who applied for employment with Defendants within five years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit who executed Defendants Application Authorization form which did not provide applicants a summary of their rights. Subclass IV (Clear and Conspicuous Disclosure Subclass: All individuals who applied for employment with Defendants within five years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit who executed Defendants Application Authorization form which did not provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure contained in a document that consists solely of the disclosure. Class II (ICRAA Applicant Class: All individuals residing in California who applied for employment with Defendants within two years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit for whom a consumer report was obtained as part of the employment application process. Subclass I (Authorization Document Subclass: All individuals residing in California who applied for employment with Defendants within two years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit and executed an Application Authorization form utilized by Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

8 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Subclass II (Summary of Rights Subclass: All individuals residing in California who applied for employment with Defendants within two years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit who executed Defendants Application Authorization form which did not provide applicants a summary of their rights. Subclass III (Clear and Conspicuous Disclosure Subclass: All individuals residing in California who applied for employment with Defendants within two years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit who executed Defendants Application Authorization form which did not provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure contained in a document that consists solely of the disclosure. Class III (UCL Class : All individuals residing in California who applied for employment with Defendants within the four years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit, who executed the Application Authorization form.. Members of the Classes and Subclasses described above will be referred to as class members. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class definition(s and to add additional subclasses as appropriate.. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed Classes and Subclasses are easily ascertainable.. Numerosity: The members of the Classes and Subclasses are so numerous that individual joinder of all members would be unfeasible and impractical. The quantity of class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, however it is estimated that the membership is in excess of one hundred (00 individuals. The quantity and identity of class members is readily ascertainable via inspection of Defendants records. Thus, the disposition of the claims through a class action will benefit both the parties and the Court. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

9 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. Superiority: A class action is the superior means for fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the class members. Class action treatment will allow a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum, without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense required by numerous individual actions. Absent a class action, most class members would likely find the cost of litigating their claims prohibitively high and would therefore have no effective remedy at law. Further, a class action would prevent inconsistent or contradictory judgments raised by individual litigation. Moreover, if each individual member of the Classes and Subclasses was required to file an individual lawsuit, the Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage because Defendants would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each individual member of the Classes and Subclasses with Defendants vastly superior financial and legal resources.. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all class members and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the class. These common questions include, but are not limited to: (a Whether Defendants failed to provide applicants with a valid disclosure under the FCRA and ICRAA; (b Whether Defendants failed to provide a summary of rights indicating the applicant s right to dispute the information contained in the consumer report; (c Whether the disclosure documents provided by Defendants sufficiently summarized the provisions of Cal Civ. Code.; (d Whether Defendants properly disclosed to all applicants that the consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; (e Whether Defendants willfully violated the FCRA, requiring statutory damages pursuant to U.S.C. n(a; CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

10 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page 0 of Page ID #:0 0 (f Whether Defendants conduct in violation of the FCRA was grossly negligent, requiring statutory damages pursuant to U.S.C. n(a (g Whether Defendants are liable for punitive damages pursuant to U.S.C. n(a(, and, if so, the amount and calculation of punitive damages; (h Whether Defendants conduct as described herein constitutes a violation of the UCL; (i Whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief; (j Whether Defendants are liable for attorney fees and costs.. Typicality: Plaintiff s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the class. Plaintiff and other class members were subject to the same unlawful employment application policies instituted by Defendants.. Adequacy: Plaintiff is qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom he is similarly situated. Plaintiff has no interest adverse to the interests of the class members. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys who have substantial class action experience and are well-versed in the rules governing class action cases. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of U.S.C. b(b((a and d. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein. 0. Defendants are persons as defined by U.S.C a(b of the FCRA. Defendants obtained and used consumer reports of applicants for employment purposes. Plaintiff and class members are consumers as defined by U.S.C a(c because they are individuals. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and class members were applicants for employment with Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 0

11 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. U.S.C. b(b((a provides that a person may not procure a consumer report for employment purposes unless the person provides the applicant with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.. By including an authorization to obtain a physical examination and conduct drug and alcohol tests as well as other matters, Defendants violated U.S.C. b(b((a by not providing the applicant with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.. At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice that failed to provide a separate document that consisted solely of the disclosure as required by U.S.C. b(b((a.. U.S.C. d(a provides that the written disclosure statement must include a statement informing the consumer of his right to request additional disclosures concerning the nature and scope of the investigation for the consumer report. U.S.C. d(a also provides that the written disclosure statement must include a summary of the consumer s rights under U.S.C. g(c.. At all relevant times, Defendants violated U.S.C. d(a of the FCRA by maintaining a policy and practice where Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and class members with a disclosure statement identifying the consumer s rights to request additional disclosures concerning the nature and scope of the investigation for the consumer report and by failing to provide a summary of the consumer s rights under under U.S.C. g(c.. Defendants conduct in violation of U.S.C. b(b((a and d was and is willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of Defendants obligations and the rights of applicants, including Plaintiff and class members. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

12 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff and class members have sustained harm, including but not limited to, invasion of privacy and violation of statutory rights.. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all class members, seeks all available remedies pursuant to U.S.C. n, including statutory damages and/or actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys fees and costs.. In the alternative to Plaintiff s allegation that the aforementioned violations were willful, Plaintiff alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks the remedy of actual damages pursuant to U.S.C. o. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of U.S.C. b(b((b and U.S.C. m 0. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein.. U.S.C. b(b((b requires that users of consumer reports provide consumers with a disclosure that includes a summary of the consumer s rights under U.S.C. m. U.S.C. m provides that applicants must be notified of his/her right to dispute the accuracy of information in the consumer report with the consumer reporting agency. U.S.C. m also requires that users of consumer reports provide applicants with notice of their right to obtain a copy of the consumer report within 0 days of receiving the notice.. At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice that failed to notify Plaintiff and other class members of their right to dispute the information contained in the consumer report. Defendants also failed to notify Plaintiff and other class members of their right to obtain a copy of the consumer report within 0 days of receiving the notice. Defendants failure to include such provisions is in violation of U.S.C. b(b((b and U.S.C. m. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

13 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. Defendants conduct in violation of U.S.C. b(b((b and U.S.C. m was and is willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of Defendants obligations and the rights of applicants, including Plaintiff and class members.. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff and class members have sustained harm, including but not limited to, invasion of privacy and violation of statutory rights.. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all class members, seeks all available remedies pursuant to U.S.C. n, including statutory damages and/or actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys fees and costs.. In the alternative to Plaintiff s allegation that the aforementioned violations were willful, Plaintiff alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks the remedy of actual damages pursuant to U.S.C. o. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of California Civil Code, et seq.. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein.. Defendants are persons as defined by Cal. Civ. Code.(a. Plaintiff and class members are consumers as defined by Cal. Civ. Code.(b, as they are natural individuals who have made an application to a person for employment purposes.. Cal. Civ. Code.(a( of the ICRAA requires that consumers be provided a disclosure document which includes a summary of the provisions of Cal. Civ. Code.. The summary must state that: ( the consumer can view, during normal business hours, the file maintained on the applicant by the consumer reporting agency; ( the consumer can obtain a copy of the report by submitting proper paperwork and paying the costs of duplication services via mail or appearing at the CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

14 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 reporting agency s location in person; ( if the consumer appears in person, the consumer may be accompanied by another individual who furnishes proper identification; and ( the consumer may receive a summary of the report over the telephone by representatives of the reporting agency. 0. Defendants procure consumer reports on individuals applying to Defendants for employment. As a matter of policy and practice, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and class members with disclosure documents that complied with the ICRAA. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to include any language summarizing the provisions of Cal. Civ. Code. in any documents furnished to Plaintiff and class members in violation of Cal. Civ. Code.(a(.. Cal. Civ. Code.(a((B requires that person using the consumer report provide the consumer with a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the consumer s rights under the statute in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.. By including authorization to obtain a physical examination and conduct drug and alcohol tests and other matters, Defendants violated Cal. Civ. Code.(a((B by not providing the applicant with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.. At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to provide a separate document that consists solely of the disclosure as required by Cal. Civ. Code.(a((B.. Defendants conduct in violation of Cal. Civ. Code.(a and.(b was and is willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of Defendants obligations and the rights of applicants, including Plaintiff and class members.. As a result of Defendants failure to provide adequate disclosure statements, Plaintiff and class members have sustained harm, including but not limited to, invasion of privacy and violation of statutory rights. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

15 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all class members, seeks all available remedies pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code.0, including statutory damages and/or actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys fees and costs. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of California Business & Professions Code 0, et seq. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein.. California Business and Professions Code 0 et seq. prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, deceptive or fraudulent business practice. The acts and practices described in this complaint constitute unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices, and unfair competition within the meaning of Business and Professions Code 0 et seq.. Defendants have violated state and federal law by committing the acts as described above, including failing to provide Plaintiff and class members with: a clear and conspicuous disclosure in a document consisting solely of the disclosure, a statement that the Plaintiff and class members may request additional disclosures concerning the nature and scope of the investigation for the consumer report, a summary of the rights of Plaintiff and class members, a statement that Plaintiff and class members may dispute the accuracy of the consumer report, and a copy of the consumer report following an adverse action or request for a copy as part of the application process. 0. The violations of these laws serve as unlawful business practices for purposes of Business and Professions Code 0 and remedies are provided therein under Business and Professions Code.. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts, the Defendants received and continue to hold ill-gotten gains belonging to Plaintiff and all members of the CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

16 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Unfair Competition Class in that Defendants have profited from their unlawful practices.. Plaintiff and all members of the Unfair Competition Class seek and are entitled to injunctive relief, attorneys fees, and any other remedy owing to Plaintiff and members of the Unfair Competition Class.. Injunctive relief is necessary and proper to prevent Defendants from repeating their wrongful practices as alleged above.. Plaintiff has taken it upon himself to enforce these laws and lawful claims. There is a financial burden incurred in pursuing this action and it would be against the interests of justice to penalize Plaintiff by forcing him to pay attorneys fees in this action. Therefore, attorneys fees are appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 0., as well as under the common fund doctrine. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Disability Discrimination in Violation of California Government Code 0, et seq.. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein.. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA governs employers that have more than five employees. FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of a race, religion, national origin, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, and age.. Pursuant to Title, section 0 of the California Code of Regulations, employers are prohibited from engaging in any recruitment activity that restricts, excludes, or classifies individuals on any basis enumerated under FEHA, including on the basis of one s disability, and mandates that employers shall not discriminate on the basis of one s disability when hiring. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

17 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. Plaintiff interviewed for employment as a dock worker with Defendants on or about November,. Defendants own and operate an office in Santa Ana, California and regularly employ more than people.. Plaintiff has a prosthetic leg beginning just above his knee. Plaintiff disclosed this information in his interview and indicated on his application for employment that he could perform all of the required duties of the dock worker position for which he was applying. 0. Plaintiff submitted to Defendants required medical examination, and as further described herein, passed the physical examination, and is able to perform all of the necessary functions of the position.. Despite passing the physical exam, Plaintiff was denied employment with Defendants based on Plaintiff s physical disabilities, including that Plaintiff has a prosthetic leg and history of squamous cell carcinoma.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants willful, knowing, intentional and wrongful employment discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer losses. Plaintiff is entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, as well as injunctive relief.. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the outrageous conduct of Defendants described above was done with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff s rights with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages from Defendants in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this court. /// /// /// /// /// CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

18 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: PRAYER FOR RELIEF. That the Court issue an Order certifying the Classes and Subclasses herein, appointing the named Plaintiff as a representative of all others similarly situated, and appointing Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as counsel for members of the Classes;. For an Order requiring Defendants to identify each of the members of the Classes and Subclasses by name, home address, and home telephone number;. For the creation of an administrative process wherein each injured member of the Classes may submit a claim in order to receive his or her money;. For statutory, general, compensatory, and punitive damages for Plaintiff and the Classes according to proof at trial;. An award of appropriate equitable relief, including but not limited to preliminary, permanent, and mandatory injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants and their agents from committing further unlawful conduct in violation of the FCRA, ICRAA, and UCL;. Costs of suit, including attorneys fees and costs pursuant to U.S.C. n, U.S.C. o, California Civil Code.0, California Code of Civil Procedure 0., and the common fund doctrine;. For interest at the legal rate of 0% per annum;. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: February, SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP By: /s/ Shane C. Stafford SHANE C. STAFFORD ROSS E. SHANBERG AARON A. BARTZ Attorneys for Plaintiff JEFFREY PARAMO, and all others similarly situated CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

19 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury. DATED: February, SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP By: /s/ Shane C. Stafford SHANE C. STAFFORD ROSS E. SHANBERG AARON A. BARTZ Attorneys for Plaintiff JEFFREY PARAMO, and all others similarly situated CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT