0 0 PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 0 JESHAWNA R. HARRELL, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. PRICE AND ASSOCIATES A Professional Law Corporation Telegraph Avenue, Ste. 0 Oakland, CA Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - E-mail: pypesq@aol.com JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. Law Offices of John L. Burris Oakport Street, Suite 0 Oakland, CA Telephone (0-00 Facsimile: (0 - E-mail: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs YVETTE DANIELS, MARIA AGUILAR and KAREN CURRIE YVETTE DANIELS, MARIA AGUILAR AND KAREN CURRIE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. JURISDICTION AND VENUE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED] Courthouse News Service. This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of, U.S.C. 000e et seq., as amended. The acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in Stockton, County of San Joaquin, California, Vacaville, County of Solano, California, Corcoran, County of King, California, which are in this judicial district. P0JRH --
0 0 PARTIES. Plaintiff YVETTE DANIELS began her employment as a counselor assigned to Karl Holton Youth Correctional Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facility with Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION in March. Commencing in late 00 up to the present, she has been continuously assigned to N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility as a Youth Correctional Counselor.. Plaintiff MARIA AGUILAR began her employment as an Occupational Therapist assigned to California Medical Facility (CMF with Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION in 0. From April up to the present, Ms. AGUILAR has been continuously assigned to California State Prison - Solano (SOL as a Correctional Officer.. Plaintiff KAREN CURRIE began her employment as a Correctional Officer assigned to Soledad State Prison with Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION in. Commencing in or around up to the present, she has been continuously assigned to Corcoran State Prison as a Correctional Officer.. Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ( CDCR is a Department of the State of California which at all times relevant hereto, hired and supervised the employees of N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility, California State Prison, Solano (SOL and Corcoran State Prison where Plaintiffs were employed. SUMMARY OF FACTS. Commencing from at least 00 and continuing until the present, Plaintiffs and other female correctional officers and employees working at CDCR institutions throughout California must constantly view and confiscate sexually explicit materials from inmates who publically display pornographic materials, and juvenile offenders who are in possession of sexually explicit materials. Lax enforcement of CDCR s policies and procedures concerning possession of and publicly displayed sexually explicit materials places these officers in danger from angry and hostile inmates. Many times female officers and employees are confronted with verbally abusive language and threats for enforcing CDCR s policy and procedures against publicly displayed of sexually explicit material by inmates or P0JRH --
0 0 possession of such materials by youth offenders.. When submitting reports regarding inmates violation of CDCR s policies and procedures regarding pornographic materials, female correctional officers and employees are often ridiculed and demeaned by their supervisors for making their reports. Often female officers or employees reports are ignored, removed or no discipline is administered against the inmate for the rule violation, creating an increased hostile work environment by undermining their authority. This hostile work environment is made extremely dangerous when inmates are told by male officers and/or employees, including supervisors that the only person with the problem with the display and/or possession of sexually explicit materials is the reporting female officer/employee.. CDCR s failure to take corrective action against inmates who violate CDCR s policies and procedures, and its lack of support of female correctional officers and employees undermines these officers and employees authority with the inmates. CDCR s behavior places female correctional officers and employees in a substantially more dangerous and hostile work environment then their male counterparts. Frequently, female correctional officers are confronted by angry, hostile and violent inmates and juvenile offenders after confiscating sexually explicit materials which are publically and openly displayed and/or possessed in violation of CDCR s policies and procedures. A. YVETTE DANIELS. Commencing in or around 00, Rich Alvarado (hereinafter referred to as Alvarado became the Treatment Team Supervisor at N.A. Chaderjian, and Mark Miranda (hereinafter referred to as Miranda became the Senior Youth Correctional Counselor at N.A. Chaderjian. Alvarado was the direct supervisor of Miranda. Miranda was the direct supervisor of Plaintiff DANIELS. Prior to the arrival of Alvarado and Miranda at N.A. Chaderjian, the policies and procedures regarding juvenile offenders possession or viewing of inappropriate sexually explicit materials, including magazines, video games and movies, were strictly enforced. Alvarado and Miranda repeatedly allowed juvenile offenders under Plaintiff DANIELS supervision to possess and view inappropriate sexually explicit material. 0. Plaintiff DANIELS documented and reported numerous incidents to Alvarado and Miranda about juvenile offenders possession of inappropriate sexually explicit materials. Miranda P0JRH --
0 0 continued to allow juvenile offenders to possess these materials, and would return to them materials that DANIELS confiscated from the juvenile offenders. Miranda would yell at Plaintiff DANIELS for filing behavior reports on juvenile offenders when she confiscated inappropriate sexually explicit materials, and deleted Plaintiff DANIELS behavior reports from the computer system. Miranda also added negative comments and false entries to Plaintiff DANIELS personnel file in retaliation to her complaints.. Plaintiff DANIELS also complained about Miranda bringing in inappropriate sexually explicit movies for the youth offenders to watch. One such movie was called American History X, a gang related movie, in which one scene depicted a male inmate being raped in the shower, while prison guards turned their heads. On August, 00, Plaintiff DANIELS filed a written complaint against Miranda for sexual harassment, unprofessional behavior, intimidation and hostile work environment. Plaintiff DANIELS reported that in her presence, Miranda repeatedly stated to a juvenile offender Mother----- you were messing with a fat girl.. On August, 00, Plaintiff DANIELS made a complaint against Alvarado for unprofessional behavior, unfair treatment, discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment. Shortly thereafter Alvarado told a Hispanic gang member, with a history of violence and problems with female authority figures, that Plaintiff DANIELS was the only officer who had a problem with the inmates having sexually explicit materials. This gang member confronted DANIELS with open hostility, about Alvarado s comments. Fearing for her safety, Plaintiff DANIELS, requested the presence of a Lieutenant, while she attempted to counsel the youth offender. Alvarado s comments about Plaintiff DANIELS to this gang member created an unnecessarily dangerous and hostile work environment for DANIELS and jeopardized her health and safety.. On October 0, 00, Plaintiff DANIELS submitted another complaint against Alvarado and asked that he be removed from San Joaquin Hall. CDCR refused to move Alvarado. A month later, Plaintiff DANIELS shift was changed to a less desirable one, and she was removed from San Joaquin Hall and placed in Owens Hall, under the supervision of one of Miranda s relatives. Plaintiff DANIELS complaints to CDCR regarding her removal to another hall, under the authority of her harasser s relative, was ignored. P0JRH --
0 0. Plaintiff DANIELS submitted approximately fifteen ( written complaints to CDCR regarding Alvarado and Miranda s harassing and retaliatory behavior, and the creation and maintaining of a hostile and abusive work environment. CDCR consistently failed and refused to take immediate and corrective action against Alvarado and/or Miranda for their discriminatory and harassing behavior.. Plaintiff DANIELS also complained to the Director of the Division of Juvenile Facilities, the Office of Civil Rights, Defendant CDCR s Office of Internal Affairs and the Office of the Inspector General. Defendant CDCR repeatedly ignored, delayed, discarded, or denied Plaintiff DANIELS complaints. Plaintiff DANIELS repeated complaints to Defendant CDCR that it was not taking the proper steps to address her complaints of pornography in the workplace, sexual harassment and retaliation by her male supervisors were also ignored.. On or about April 0, 00, and within three hundred (00 days of the last act of discrimination alleged herein, Plaintiff YVETTE DANIELS filed a joint Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH regarding the hostile work environment. On October, 00, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff DANIELS. (A true and correct copy of said Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. MARIA AGUILAR. In June 00, Plaintiff AGUILAR constantly observed the public display of sexually explicit materials throughout all of the housing units at SOL. The open and public display of pornographic materials was offensive to Plaintiff AGUILAR, and is against CDCR s policies and procedures. Plaintiff AGUILAR was continuously involved in volatile confrontations with inmates when she confiscated the pornographic materials as required by CDCR s policy and procedures. Plaintiff AGUILAR constantly completed reports and reported the incidents to her supervisors. CDCR never took any action to discipline these inmates for the display of pornographic materials or their assaultive behavior toward Plaintiff AGUILAR for enforcing CDCR s policies and procedures. As a result of Defendant CDCR s failure to take prompt and corrective action to address the public display of sexually suggestive materials and assaultive behavior, Plaintiff AGUILAR was placed in a substantially P0JRH --
0 0 more dangerous and hostile work environment then male correctional officers.. On or about October, 00, and within three hundred (00 days of the last act of discrimination alleged herein, Plaintiff MARIA AGUILAR filed a joint Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH regarding a hostile work environment on behalf of herself and similarly situated women in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On November, 00, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff AGUILAR. (A true and correct copy of said Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B. C. KAREN CURRIE. Beginning in March 00, Plaintiff CURRIE was constantly confronted with the open and public display of explicit sexual materials by inmates. The open and public display of pornographic materials was offensive to Plaintiff CURRIE, and is against CDCR policy. Plaintiff CURRIE confiscated the sexually explicit materials and completed reports against the violating inmate. CDCR allowed inmates to order magazines containing pornographic materials, and failed to enforce its operational procedure by not taking prompt and corrective action to stop the open and public display of these materials, by not confiscating the inappropriate materials and not disciplining the violating inmates. 0. The experiences of these individual employees arise out of CDCR s failure to enforce its written policies and procedures regarding the possession and public display of sexually explicit materials. Their experiences are typical of the injury and harm suffered by the class of female employees assigned throughout CDCR s male institutions. CDCR s policies and practices have substantially interfered with their employment on the basis of their sex, requiring them to be bombarded with sexually explicit materials that degrade women, and be subjected to intimidation and threats as a condition of their employment. Notwithstanding having been held legally liable and the prosecution of other related lawsuits, Defendant CDCR continues to refuse to take prompt, effective remedial action to address the problem of visual sexual harassment of female officers by the inmates, thereby creating and maintaining an increased dangerous and hostile work environment for female employees. RETALIATION. CDCR retaliated against Plaintiff DANIELS because she repeatedly complained P0JRH --
0 0 of youth offenders possession of sexually explicit materials and her supervisors, sexual harassment, failure to follow and enforce CDCR s policies and procedures, and take prompt effective remedial action in response to the hostile work environment. Plaintiff DANIELS supervisors would yell at her for filing behavior reports regarding juvenile offenders when she confiscated inappropriate sexually explicit materials, return confiscated materials to the youth offenders, delete Plaintiff DANIELS behavior reports from the computer system, and place negative comments and false entries in her personnel file.. On August, 00, Plaintiff DANIELS made a complaint against Alvarado for unprofessional behavior, unfair treatment, discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment. Shortly thereafter Alvarado told a Hispanic gang member, with a history of violence and problems with female authority figures, that Plaintiff DANIELS was the only officer who had a problem with the inmates having sexually explicit materials. This gang member confronted DANIELS with open hostility, about Alvarado s comments. Fearing for her safety, Plaintiff DANIELS, requested the presence of a Lieutenant, when counseling the openly hostile youth offender. Alvarado s comments about Plaintiff DANIELS to this gang member created an unnecessarily dangerous and hostile work environment for DANIELS and was a blatant disregard for her health and safety.. On October 0, 00, Plaintiff DANIELS submitted another complaint against requesting Alvarado be removed from San Joaquin Hall. CDCR refused to move Alvarado. A month later, Plaintiff DANIELS shift was changed to a less desirable one, and she was removed from San Joaquin Hall and placed in Owens Hall, under the supervision of one of Miranda s relatives. DAMAGES As a result of the acts and omissions alleged herein, the individual Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated female employees have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional anguish and extreme emotional distress in an amount to be determined according to proof. In addition, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages to their careers and reputations in an amount to be determined according to proof. P0JRH --
0 0 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: SEX DISCRIMINATION (TITLE VII (ALL PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS AGAINST CDCR. Plaintiffs refer to and hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs through, as though fully set forth herein.. This cause of action is brought against CDCR only. At all times herein mentioned, Title VII ( U.S.C. 000e et seq. was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant CDCR. Said sections require Defendant CDCR to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex, among other things.. Title VII also requires Defendant CDCR to take affirmative acts to prevent sexual harassment and/or a hostile work environment from occurring, and to take proper remedial steps to end harassment and hostility once it became known to it.. The conduct of Defendant CDCR, its agents, representatives and employees as alleged herein, was continuing in nature up to the present, and substantially interfered with the Plaintiffs employment on the basis of their sex, in violation of Title VII.. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action pursuant to Rule (b((a and (b( of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated female employees. The class is composed of all past and present female employees of Defendant CDC during the period from 00 to the present, and future female employees, who have been, or will be, subjected to inmates possessing and publically displaying sexually explicit materials at all CDCR institutions, including but not limited to N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility, California State Prison, Solano (SOL and Corcoran State Prison.. The members of this class are so numerous as to make joinder impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that the number of class members exceeds ten thousand (0,000. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. 0. Plaintiffs allege that there are numerous female employees who have been placed sexually harassed and/or placed in a hostile work environment by Defendant CDCR on account of their sex, but who have not filed sexual harassment or hostile work environment complaints or joined in this P0JRH --
0 0 suit because of fear of recrimination on the part of CDCR.. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented in that these employees were subjected unnecessarily dangerous and hostile work environments. CDCR with the knowledge, consent and acquiescence of CDCR s administrators at N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility, SOL and Corcoran State Prison and senior officials at CDC headquarters failed to take prompt and corrective action to ensure the enforcement of its policies and procedures concerning the public display of pornography by inmates and the possession of sexually explicit materials by male juvenile offenders. This sexual misconduct existed and persisted for an extended period of time such that a sexually hostile environment for female employees was created throughout during the relevant time period. CDCR s policies, practices and procedures denied Plaintiffs and members of the class any remedy or right to even seek relief from the hostile environment. Proof of a common state of facts will establish the right of each class member to recover damages.. Failure to enforce CDCR s policies and procedures concerning the possession and public display of sexually explicit materials created and maintained a hostile work environment for its female employees, and refusing to take proper preventive and remedial steps, CDCR acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (RETALIATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF DANIELS. Plaintiff DANIELS refers to and hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs through, as though fully set forth herein.. U.S.C. 000e et seq. prohibits Defendant CDCR from retaliating against, and taking adverse employment action against employees for engaging in protected activity opposing unlawful employment practices.. The conduct of Defendant CDCR, its agents, representatives and employees as P0JRH --
0 alleged herein, was continuing in nature up to the present, and substantially interfered with the Plaintiff DANIELS employment on the basis of her involvement in protected activity opposing unlawful employment practices, in violation of Title VII. follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant CDCR as. For compensatory damages and other special damages according to proof;. For injunctive relief enjoining Defendant CDCR and its agents and employees from denying, or aiding or inciting the denial of, the civil rights of any female employee at its male institutions on the basis of sex or because of her opposition to discrimination, and compelling CDC to take affirmative steps to insure a safe and fair work environment for Plaintiffs and all similarly situated female employees; Dated: December, 00. For an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and. For such other relief as the Court may deem proper. PRICE AND ASSOCIATES /s/ Pamela Y. Price PAMELA Y. PRICE, Attorneys for Plaintiffs YVETTE DANIELS, MARIA AGUILAR and KAREN CURRIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED 0 P0JRH -0-
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial for all claims for which they are entitled to a jury trial. Dated: December, 00 PRICE AND ASSOCIATES /s/ Pamela Y. Price PAMELA Y. PRICE, Attorneys for Plaintiffs YVETTE DANIELS, MARIA AGUILAR and KAREN CURRIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED 0 0 P0JRH --