Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 13

Similar documents
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND NATURE OF ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 2:09-cv BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:16-cv GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

Case 3:04-cv JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv LFR Document 1 Filed 11/11/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION NO. } 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/17 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv LG-JCG Document 2 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 7

-CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

)(

Case 3:11-cv CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7

Case: 1:06-cv JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION NATURE OF THE ACTION

) I ClV a S - BUN. 18 This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Case 3:04-cv RLA Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

PLAINTIFF AVA SMITH- THOMPSON S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT SARA LEE CORPORATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Introduction. Jurisdiction. Parties

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 1-2 Filed: 06/03/09 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2

Case 4:04-cv LLP Document 1 Filed 12/28/2004 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

FILED. , #, Case 5:05-cv WRF Document 29 Filed 06/06/2006Page 1 of 9 JUN COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ALICIA MANSEL, Civil Action No.

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/29/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case 4:07-cv JLH Document 1 Filed 06/29/2007 ( Page 1 of 6

Case 2:07-cv JFB-WDW Document 15-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 10 CIVIL ACTION INTRODUCTION

Courthouse News Service

Case 6:10-cv TC Document 1 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~ NOV - FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS~i.~ SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION. Nature Of The Action

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS eu,:".' IJ~:'LD~~?~:~~URT EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CASE NO. 5:00-CV COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF JACKQULINE STOKES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 3:19-cv Document 1 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 17

Case 2:05-cv JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 11

Case 7:17-cv KMK Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

From Article at GetOutOfDebt.org

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Courthouse News Service

Case: 5:15-cv SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/20/15 2 of 9. PageID #: 2

Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/04/12 Page 1 of 6

Case5:11-cv EJD Document28 Filed09/09/11 Page1 of 10

: : : : : : Plaintiffs Amy Morgan, Terri Smith, and Erin Harris ( Plaintiffs ), upon their INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA NATURE OF THE ACTION

10/18/ :38 AM 18CV47218 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

This is an action under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/12/17 Page 1 of 10

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI AT HARRISONVILLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/ :09 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~,~,~,,.c~...,... ~~"~ ~ " FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLI~ SEP -9 ;i ~ [~: 0~ CBA~OTTE OIVlSlON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 3:14-cv Document 1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HA WAIl. Case No.: NATURE OF THE ACTION AND JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Courthouse News Service

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 4:11-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 13

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Case 5:14-cv CMC Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

5:06cv1684 JUDGE HICKS MAG. JUDGE HORNSBY

Case 3:15-cv AJB-KSC Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 1:14-cv KAM-JO Document 8 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 36

2:16-cv DCN-MGB Date Filed 06/06/16 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 13

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 119 Filed: 03/08/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:708

Case 3:14-cv MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 30

9:12-cv CWH-BM Date Filed 09/18/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 BEAUFORT DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 11. Deadline

Case 2:10-cv WOB-JGW Document 1 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6

Courthouse News Service

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 11 UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON. Case No.:

Transcription:

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 MICHELLE P. CHUN FOOK; and YOLANDA C. COOPER, v. Plaintiffs, CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation; ROBERT L. GAUTSCHI, SR., in his official and individual capacities; HARRY J. FITHIAN, JR., in his official and individual capacities, Defendants. No. PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Page i () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action for declaratory judgment, equitable relief, and money damages, instituted to secure the protection of and to redress the deprivation and interference with rights secured through U.S.C., et seq. ( Section ); U.S.C. ( Section ), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of, U.S.C. 00(e) et seq. ( Title VII ). Plaintiffs Michelle Chun Fook and Yolanda Cooper allege that Defendants subjected them to adverse employment actions, including harassment/subjecting Plaintiffs to a hostile work environment based on sex and race in violation of Section, Section, and Title VII, and that Defendants failed to remedy the harassment/hostile work environment in further violation of Section, Section, and Title VII. Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages to the fullest extent allowed by law. II. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PARTIES. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to U.S.C. since Plaintiffs allege claims that comprise federal questions.. Venue of this Court is invoked under U.S.C... Venue in this Court is proper because a substantial part of the claims or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in Seattle, Washington, within the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.. Venue in this Court is also proper because Defendant City of Seattle (hereafter Defendant Seattle ) resides in this judicial district, and on information and belief, Defendant Harry J. Fithian, Jr. (hereafter Defendant Fithian ) and Defendant Robert L. Gautschi, Sr. (hereafter Defendant Gautschi ) reside in this judicial district.. Plaintiff Michelle Chun Fook (hereafter Plaintiff Chun Fook ) filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) and received a right-to-sue Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 letter from the EEOC, and therefore has exhausted the administrative procedure set out for her Title VII claims of sexual harassment/hostile work environment based on sex.. Plaintiff Yolanda Cooper (hereafter Plaintiff Cooper ) filed a charge with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, and therefore has exhausted the administrative procedure set out for her Title VII claims of sexual harassment/hostile work environment based on sex.. All required administrative and jurisdictional prerequisites have been met.. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Chun Fook has been a resident of Pierce County, Washington, in the Western District of Washington. 0. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Cooper has been a resident of King County Washington, in the Western District of Washington.. Defendant Seattle is a Washington municipal corporation located in King County, Washington.. At all relevant times Plaintiffs have been employed by Defendant Seattle at the Seattle Public Library, which is a department of Defendant Seattle.. At all relevant times, Defendant Seattle has been an employer within the meaning of Title VII. At all relevant times, Defendant Seattle has had more than fifteen employees and has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce.. At all relevant times, Defendant Seattle has been an entity that can be liable for depriving Plaintiffs of their rights under Section and Section.. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Gautschi has been a resident of the Western District of Washington at Seattle and has been employed as a security officer by the Seattle Public Library a department of Defendant Seattle. He is sued individually and in his official capacity in connection with actions taken under the color of state law. All acts done by Defendant Gautschi have been done on behalf of or in furtherance Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 of the marital community. All acts or omissions taken by Defendant Gautschi were taken with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States.. At all relevant times, Defendant Gautschi has been a person that can be liable for depriving Plaintiffs of their rights under Section and Section.. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Fithian has been a resident of the Western District of Washington at Seattle and has been employed as a manager by the Seattle Public Library a department of Defendant Seattle. He is sued individually and in his official capacity in connection with actions taken under the color of state law. All acts done by Defendant Fithian have been done on behalf of or in furtherance of the marital community.. In his capacity as a manager of Defendant Seattle, at all relevant times Defendant Fithian has acted under color of state law pursuant to the policy or custom of Defendant Seattle, and has exercised express or de facto decision-making authority over, and ratification of, personnel actions toward employees of Defendant Seattle. All acts or omissions taken by Defendant Fithian constitute those of Defendant Seattle, and were taken with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States.. At all relevant times, Defendant Fithian has been a person that can be liable for depriving Plaintiffs of their rights under Section and Section. III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS. The preceding paragraphs through are re-alleged and hereby incorporated by reference.. Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices against Plaintiffs during their employment by Defendant Seattle, in violation of U.S.C., et seq. ( Section ); U.S.C. ( Section ), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of, U.S.C. 00(e) et seq. ( Title VII ). Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0. Plaintiff Chun Fook was hired as a security officer at the Seattle Public Library (a department of Defendant Seattle) in or around November 0. Plaintiff Cooper was hired as a security officer at the Seattle Public Library (a department of Defendant Seattle) in or around January. At all times since, Plaintiffs have been security officers employed by and working at the Seattle Public Library a department of Defendant Seattle.. Like Plaintiffs, Defendants Gautschi and Fithian are employed by Defendant Seattle. Plaintiffs both work under the chain of command of Defendant Fithian, who is their manager at the Seattle Public Library. Defendant Gautschi is, like Plaintiffs, a security officer working under the chain of command of Defendant Fithian at the Seattle Public Library.. Neither Plaintiff is white. Plaintiff Chun Fook is of the Pacific Islander race and Plaintiff Cooper is of the African American/black race. Both Plaintiffs are female. Defendants Gautschi and Fithian are both white males.. Defendants have committed and continue to commit race-based harassment against Plaintiffs, creating a hostile work environment based on race. This includes but is not limited to the following:. During the course of their respective employment at Defendant Seattle including during,, and Plaintiffs have each observed Defendant Gautschi engage in frequent and numerous acts of race-based harassment against non-white people, including patrons of the Seattle Public Library. For example, Plaintiffs have observed Defendant Gautschi repeatedly approaching non-white patrons and ejecting them from the Seattle Public Library. On some of these occasions Defendant Gautschi has used explicitly racial terms/slurs about the patrons while he ejected them. In addition to observing this behavior directly, Plaintiffs have also been told on numerous occasions by others, including patrons, that Defendant Gautschi has frequent and repeatedly targeted non-white patrons to eject from the Seattle Public Library while saying racial terms/slurs about the patrons. Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0. Plaintiffs have observed patrons filling out and submitting complaint forms about Defendant Gautschi s race-based harassment of non-white patrons to the Seattle Public Library on numerous occasions. Defendant Fithian is responsible for administering discipline on Defendant Gautschi for complaints of harassing behavior, yet Defendant Fithian has failed to adequately discipline Defendant Gautschi for this harassing behavior or in any other way deter this behavior. Defendant Seattle has failed to adequately discipline Defendant Gautschi for this harassing behavior or in any other way adequately deter this behavior.. Defendant Gautschi has told Plaintiff Chun Fook that he wishes to physically harm patrons who complain about his harassment, including on one occasion telling Plaintiff Chun Fook he wanted to run over a patron with a car who had complained about his harassing actions.. Plaintiffs have not and do not welcome Defendant Gautschi s race-based harassment of people in their work environment. As a result of Defendant Gautschi s targeting of nonwhite people for harassment, Plaintiffs (who are not white) feel unsafe in their environment, and the terms and conditions of their work environment have been altered for the worse. Plaintiffs have reported Defendant Gautschi s race-based harassment to Defendant Seattle, but as stated above, Defendant Seattle through its employees (including Defendant Fithian, who is in charge of disciplining Defendant Gautschi) has failed to adequately discipline Defendant Gautschi or in any other way adequately deter his behavior. 0. As a result of these actions, Plaintiffs have been and continue to be subjected to a hostile work environment based on race, in violation of Section. This hostile environment also violates Section, as it denies Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws, including equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0. Additionally, Defendants have committed and continue to commit sex-based harassment against Plaintiffs, creating a hostile work environment based on sex. This includes but is not limited to the following:. Defendant Gautschi has repeatedly engaged in sex-based harassment against Plaintiff Chun Fook. For example, throughout he repeatedly told her she was wearing hooker clothing at work. Defendant Gautschi repeatedly said this at work, in front of coworkers. On one such occasion he said this in front of Defendant Fithian, yet Defendant Fithian did nothing to discourage or reprimand Defendant Gautschi and instead smirked as if the comment was funny. In, Defendant Gautschi also grabbed Plaintiff Chun Fook and forcibly pulled her down, forcing her to sit on his lap against her will. Additionally, in or around late Defendant Fithian walked up to Plaintiff Chun Fook and kissed her on her face against her will. Around this same time Defendant Fithian walked up to Plaintiff Cooper and kissed her on her face against her will as well. On or around February,, Defendant Gautschi grabbed Plaintiff Chun Fook at work and forcibly pulled her face down over his lap, then he spanked her repeatedly against his will, repeatedly striking her buttocks. All of the above acts were taken because of Plaintiffs sex and constituted sexual harassment.. Plaintiffs knew of the sexual harassment that each other was suffering because they told each other about it. This increased their feelings that their work environment was hostile based on sex, in addition to their feelings that their work environment was hostile based on race as described above.. Plaintiffs were afraid to complain about the sexual harassment because their manager, Defendant Fithian, was directly involved in several of the harassing acts and because he refused to discipline or deter Defendant Gautschi from engaging in harassment based on race and sex including when Defendant Fithian smirked as he heard Defendant Gautschi say Plaintiff Chun Fook was wearing hooker clothes. Plaintiffs were also afraid to complain Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 because Defendant Gautschi had told Plaintiff Chun Fook that he wanted to physically harm patrons who complained about his harassment.. Plaintiff Chun Fook did complain to her supervisor, Christopher Hogan (who is Defendant Fithian s subordinate) about Defendant Gautschi s race-based and sex-based harassment on several occasions. Plaintiff Chun Fook complained to Supervisor Hogan in or around February when Defendant Gautschi held her down and spanked her against her will an act of sexual assault. Supervisor Hogan was not authorized to discipline Defendant Gautschi and was instead required to report Plaintiff Chun Fook s complaint to Defendant Fithian their manager.. Defendant Fithian failed to take any action to discipline or to adequately deter Defendant Gautschi s harassment when he learned about the spanking/assault. Instead, Defendant Fithian walked up to Plaintiff Chun Fook and, laughing, said he heard that Defendant Gautschi gave her birthday spankings. Defendant Fithian s actions failed to deter Defendant Gautschi and added to the hostility that Plaintiffs felt, as he indicated that management found it funny when Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted and spanked against their will at work. Defendant Fithian s actions in this matter constituted an additional act of sexbased harassment.. Following Defendant Fithian s response to Defendant Gautschi spanking/assaulting Plaintiff Chun Fook, Plaintiffs complained to Human Resources about the ongoing harassment and spoke to a City of Seattle Investigator about the ongoing harassment. Plaintiffs reported many of the race-based and sex-based acts of harassment described above, including but not limited to Defendant Fithian kissing them against their will, Defendant Gautschi spanking/assaulting Plaintiff Chun Fook and Defendant Fithian calling it birthday spankings, and Defendant Gautschi harassing patrons based on race. Defendant Seattle failed to adequately discipline or deter Defendants Gautschi and Fithian for their actions. Despite repeated requests from Plaintiffs to permanently remove Defendants Gautschi and Fithian from Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 their workplace, Defendant Seattle has refused to do so. As result, Plaintiffs continue to see and interact with Defendants Gautschi and Fithian at work multiple times a week. Defendant Gautschi goes out of his way to find Plaintiff Chun Fook at work, stand uncomfortably close to her, and glare at her. In so doing, Defendant Gautschi adds to the hostility of the environment. Defendant Seattle s failure to remove Defendants Gautschi and Fithian adds to the hostility of Plaintiffs environment.. Plaintiffs have not and do not welcome Defendant Gautschi s and Defendant Fithian s sex-based harassment of people (including both Plaintiffs) in their work environment. As a result of Defendant Gautschi s and Defendant Fithian s actions, Plaintiffs feel unsafe in their environment, and the terms and conditions of their work environment have been altered for the worse. As a manager, Defendant Fithian s actions are legally the actions of Defendant Seattle, and therefore Defendant Seattle has engaged in sexually harassing actions through the actions of Defendant Fithian, as described above. Despite Defendant Seattle being aware of the sex-based harassment since at least when Defendant Fithian witnessed Defendant Gautschi s comments about hooker clothes Defendant Seattle has failed to adequately discipline Defendants Gautschi or Fithian or in any other way adequately deter their sexually harassing behavior.. As a result of these actions, Plaintiffs have been and continue to be subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex, in violation of Title VII. This hostile environment also violates Section, as it denies Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws, including equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 0. Defendant Gautschi s actions as described above violate Section s prohibition against race-based harassment in the workplace and Title VII s prohibition against sex-based harassment in the workplace, creating a hostile work environment for Plaintiffs based on race and sex in violation of Section and Title VII, respectively. Defendant Gautschi s actions were taken under color of state law specifically under the authority of his Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of 0 employment with Defendant Seattle. Therefore, Defendant Gautschi also violated Section by subjecting Plaintiffs to a hostile environment based on race and sex, thereby denying Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.. Despite his authority to discipline Defendant Gautschi and to deter his harassing behavior, Defendant Fithian has failed to do so. Defendant Fithian has authorized and allowed Defendant Gautschi s race-based and sex-based harassment to continue unchecked. Defendant Fithian has also personally engaged in sex-based harassment. Thus, Defendant Fithian s actions (as described in more detail above) violate Section s prohibition against racebased harassment in the workplace and Title VII s prohibition against sex-based harassment in the workplace, creating a hostile work environment for Plaintiffs based on race and sex in violation of Section and Title VII, respectively. Defendant Fithian s actions were taken under color of state law specifically under the authority of his employment with Defendant Seattle. Therefore, Defendant Fithian also violated Section by subjecting Plaintiffs to a hostile environment based on race and sex, thereby denying Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.. Defendant Fithian s actions/omissions throughout, and, including his own harassing actions and his failure to adequately discipline and deter Defendant Gautschi, are legally the actions of Defendant Seattle. Additionally, the actions/omissions of other management-level employees who failed to adequately discipline and deter Defendants Gautschi and Fithian throughout, and are legally the actions of Defendant Seattle. Therefore, Defendant Seattle has subjected Plaintiffs to harassment/a hostile work environment based on race in violation of Section and to harassment/a hostile environment based on sex in violation of Title VII. In so doing, Defendant Seattle has violated Section by depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0. Plaintiffs are entitled to the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants denied Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws by subjecting Plaintiffs to a hostile environment based on race and sex, as described above. Defendants did so while acting under color of state law. The actions described above were the actions of Defendant Seattle, which Defendant Seattle sanctioned, ratified or ordered. The actions described above were taken pursuant to Defendant Seattle s policy, including its policy of ignoring numerous complaints about race-based and sex-based harassment and allowing Defendants Gautschi and Fithian to continue their harassing actions for years.. As a proximate result of the conduct described above, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the above paragraphs were willful and intentional and were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights as protected by state and federal law. IV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. Plaintiffs reserve the right to add, revise, or withdraw any claims, or add additional parties during the course of the litigation as information is obtained through litigation. This includes the right to add claims under Washington State law upon exhausting all required administrative and jurisdictional prerequisites. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from engaging in any other employment practices that discriminate on the basis of sex or race. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and that eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. Page 0 () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 C. Order Defendants to make Plaintiffs whole by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendants to make Plaintiffs whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in the above paragraphs, including out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make Plaintiffs whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the acts complained of in the above paragraphs, including without limitation, emotional pain, suffering, distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Defendants to pay punitive damages to the fullest extent allowed by law. H. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action, including attorney s fees, expert fees, and all other costs to the fullest extent allowed by law. I. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs for any and all tax consequences associated with the damages and cost award, including, but not limited to, attorney s fees. J. Award Plaintiffs other damages including prejudgment interest and postjudgment interest. K. Grant any additional or further relief as provided by law, which this Court finds appropriate, equitable, or just. Page () -0

Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of DATED this th day of August,. By: s/ Paul S. Woods Paul S. Woods, WSBA No. The Paul Woods Law Firm, PLLC Seattle, WA Telephone: () -0 Fax: () - Email: paul@paulwoodslawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff 0 Page () -0