Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:1

1 LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL F. GALICI

2 SAMUEL F. GALICI (SBN 102496)
2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
3
Westlake Village, CA. 91361-5866
4 Tel: 805-654-1451; Fax: 805-654-1453
Email: sgalici@employeelawyers.net
5

6 ROUNDS & SUTTER, LLP

7 RANDALL V. SUTTER (SBN 243040)
674 County Square Drive, Suite 108
8 Ventura, CA. 93003
9 Tel: 805-650-7100; Fax: 805-832-6315
Email: rsutter@rslawllp.com
10

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff

ANGELA DEVORE
12

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
15

16 ANGELA DEVORE, an individual, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00041

17
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
18
1. INTERFERENCE IN
19 VIOLATION OF THE FMLA
[29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)]
20
vs. 2. DISCRIMINATION IN
21 VIOLATION OF THE FMLA
22
[29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2)]
3. WRONGFUL TERMINATION
23 WALT DISNEY IMAGINEERING IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC., POLICY [CAL. CODE CIV.
24
a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 PROC. § 335.1]
25 through 50, inclusive, 4. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR
26 Defendant(s). BUSINESS PRACTICES
[CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE
27
§ 17200, et seq.]
28
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
1

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:2

1 Plaintiff, ANGELA DEVORE (“Plaintiff”), hereby brings this Complaint

2 against Defendant, WALT DISNEY IMAGINEERING RESEARCH &
3 DEVELOPMENT, INC. (“Defendant” or the “Company”), and DOES 1 through
4 50, inclusive, and alleges the following on knowledge as to herself and her known
5 acts, and on information and belief as to all other matters:
6 I.
7 INTRODUCTION
8 1. This is an action for relief from Defendant’s violation of Plaintiff’s
9 civil rights. These violations include claims for the denial of rights under the
10 Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), California’s Business and Professions
11 Code, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
12 2. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for economic, non-
13 economic, compensatory, liquidated damages, punitive damages, prejudgment
14 interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and legal
15 costs, and for such other relief as the court deems proper.
16 II.
17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
19 1331 in that this case arises under federal law, specifically, the Family and Medical
20 Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq..
21 4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law
22 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because Plaintiff’s claims under the
23 California Business and Professions Code and California tort law form part of the
24 same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
25 Plaintiff’s state law claims share all common operative facts with her federal law
26 claims and the parties are identical. Resolving all state and federal claims in a
27 single action serves the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to
28 the parties.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:3

1 5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

2 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s
3 claims occurred in this division of this judicial district and because Defendant
4 conducts business in this division of this judicial district.
5 III.
6 PARTIES
7 6. Plaintiff: Plaintiff ANGELA DEVORE (“Plaintiff”), is, and at all
8 relevant times was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff was
9 employed by Defendant WALT DISNEY IMAGINEERING RESEARCH &
10 DEVELOPMENT, INC. as a set decorator for the Shanghai Disney Resort theme
11 park project beginning on or about May 20, 2014 until her termination on or about
12 January 4, 2016.
13 7. Defendant: Defendant WALT DISNEY IMAGINEERING
14 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. (“Defendant”) is a Delaware corporation
15 headquartered in Burbank, California, and registered to do business in the State of
16 California. Defendant’s place of business, where the following causes of action
17 took place, was and is in the County of Los Angeles, California. According to its
18 website, Defendant Walt Disney Imagineering Research & Development, Inc. is
19 the “unique, creative force behind Walt Disney Parks and Resorts that dreams up,
20 designs and builds all Disney theme parks, resorts, attractions, cruise ships, real
21 estate developments, and regional entertainment venues worldwide.”
22 8. Defendant is a covered employer under the Family Medical Leave Act
23 because it is a private-sector employer that employs 50 or more employees within a
24 75-mile radius of Plaintiff’s worksite at the time Plaintiff requested a leave of
25 absence under the FMLA.
26 9. Doe Defendants: Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are sued under
27 fictitious names as the true names and capacities, whether individual, associate, or
28 otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:4

1 basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is in some
2 manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below, in so acting was
3 functioning as the agent, servant, partner, or employee of the Defendant, and in
4 taking the actions mentioned below was acting within the course and scope of his
5 or her authority as such agent, servant, partner, or employee, with the permission
6 and consent of the Defendant. The named Defendant and Doe defendants are
7 sometimes hereafter referred to, collectively and/or individually, as “Defendants.”
8 IV.
9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10 10. Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a set decorator for Defendant’s
11 Shangahi Disney Resort theme park project on or about May 20, 2014. Plaintiff
12 was employed at Defendant’s Glendale, California location.
13 11. On or about November 2015, Plaintiff informed several managers for
14 Defendant—including Bethann Brody, Catherine Ritenour, and Lori Ceballos—as
15 well as the Defendant’s “WDP&R Leave Administration Team,” that she would
16 need to take a leave of absence to care for her father with a serious health condition
17 in February 2016.
18 12. On or about November 3, 2015, a Set Decoration Staff Meeting was
19 held by the Defendant and employees on working on the Shanghai Disney Resort
20 project were told that everyone would be traveling to Shanghai, China via a one-
21 way ticket in January 2016. This would require Plaintiff to initially fly to
22 Shanghai, China for her employment, return to the United States in February 2016
23 for a period to care for her father, and then return to Shanghai. Defendant’s Set
24 Decoration Manager for the Shanghai Disney Resort project, Bethann Brody
25 (“Defendant Brody”)—who was the manager of the department where the Plaintiff
26 was employed—after learning of Plaintiff’s request for leave of absence, shook her
27 finger at Plaintiff and advised Plaintiff that she should make her “decision
28 carefully.”

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:5

1 13. On or about November 4, 2015, Plaintiff met with Defendant Brody in

2 which Brody told Plaintiff the following during the course of their meeting:
3 (a) “The company doesn’t care about you or your family;”
4 (b) “Why would they (the company) do that for you?”; and
5 (c) “Isn’t there a state-run home in Maryland you can put him (Plaintiff’s father)
6 in?”
7 14. On or about November 9, 2015, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant’s Set
8 Decoration Supervisor, Catherine Ritenour (“Defendant Ritenour”)—who was
9 Plaintiff’s direct supervisor—regarding Plaintiff’s November 4 meeting with
10 Defendant Brody. Defendant Ritenour advised Plaintiff to look into options under
11 the Family Medical Leave Act. Plaintiff requested and received information from
12 Defendant’s Family Leave Team regarding taking a leave of absence for family
13 care.
14 15. On or about November 18, 2015, Plaintiff met with Defendant’s
15 Human Resources Representative, Lori Ceballos (“Defendant Ceballos”), to
16 discuss Plaintiff’s need for a leave of absence to care for her father. Defendant
17 Ceballos encouraged Plaintiff to continue to follow up with the Defendant’s
18 Family Leave Team regarding FMLA as an option in the event Plaintiff’s travel is
19 not approved that would allow Plaintiff to return from China to care for her father.
20 Defendant Ceballos also noted that Plaintiff was not asking for anything
21 unreasonable.
22 16. On or about December 4, 2015, Defendant Ritenour requested
23 approval for Plaintiff’s travel plans to depart January 15, 2016 to Shanghai and
24 return February 12, 2016. In the request submitted, there was no mention that
25 Plaintiff’s need to return in February 2016 was due to her request for a leave of
26 absence to care for her seriously ill father.
27 17. On or about December 9, 2015, Defendant Ritenour informed Plaintiff
28 that her travel request was rejected and that Plaintiff would have to travel for nine

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:6

1 weeks or not at all. Plaintiff offered to purchase her own fight back to the United
2 States so she could care for her father but Ritenour stated there would not be any
3 breaks allowed while in the field. Due to this decision, Plaintiff contacted
4 Defendant’s Family Leave Team and requested to begin processing the necessary
5 paperwork to allow Plaintiff to take a leave of absence under the FMLA.
6 18. On or about December 17, 2015, Defendant Ritenour emailed Plaintiff
7 asking for Plaintiff’s decision as to whether Plaintiff would travel to Shanghai.
8 Plaintiff responded that she did not see how she would be able to travel Shanghai if
9 she would not be allowed to return to care for her seriously ill father even when
10 Plaintiff had offered to pay for the trip back. Ritenour responded “but there’s
11 internet in China, you can manage things that way.” Plaintiff then stated she had
12 the FMLA paperwork ready to submit after obtaining the signature from her
13 father’s medical doctor. Upon learning that Plaintiff was submitting the FMLA
14 paperwork, Defendant Ritenour threatened Plaintiff stating that if Plaintiff cannot
15 travel to Shanghai on Defendant’s terms and instead choose to take a leave of
16 absence to care for her father, Plaintiff’s last day of employment would be
17 December 31, 2015. Plaintiff submitted her FMLA paperwork on or about the
18 evening of December 17, 2015 after working late in the warehouse.
19 19. On or about December 24, 2015, Plaintiff contacted Defendant’s
20 Family Leave Team who verified that her FMLA was approved. Plaintiff emailed
21 Defendant Ritenour to inform her that her FMLA was approved. Ritenour
22 responded via email that Defendant Brody had received confirmation of the FMLA
23 approval and further emailed that Plaintiff “can come in and do any transition on
24 Monday, January 4th and start your leave on the 5th. Or you can start your leave
25 on the 4th and not return until after your leave.”
26 20. On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant Ritenour
27 advising her of Plaintiff’s work plans for the day, discussing the dates to begin her
28 FMLA leave of absence, and that she had a meeting with Defendant Brody that

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:7

1 afternoon to “discuss any loose ends.” Plaintiff worked the entire day until 4:00
2 p.m. and then sought out Defendant Ritenour to obtain signatures on her FMLA
3 paperwork. When Plaintiff arrived at Ritenour’s office, she was met by Defendants
4 Catherine Ritenour, Bethann Brody and Lori Ceballos. Defendant Ritenour
5 refused to sign the Plaintiff’s FMLA paperwork. Instead, Plaintiff was informed
6 that she was being terminated from the Defendant company since Plaintiff needed
7 time off to care for her ailing father.
8 V.
9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 Interference in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act
11 [29 U.S.C. § 2615(A)(1)]
12 21. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1
13 through 20, as though fully set forth herein.
14 22. At all times mentioned in this complaint, the Family and Medical
15 Leave Act (the “FMLA”) was in full force and effect and was binding on
16 Defendant.
17 23. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for a period of in excess of 12
18 months immediately prior to January 4, 2016.
19 24. During the 12 months immediately prior to January 4, 2016, Plaintiff
20 worked at least 1,250 hours for Defendants.
21 25. The FMLA provides eligible employees the right to take up to 12
22 weeks of family care and medical leave in any 12-month period with the provision
23 of health benefits while on such leave and a guarantee of employment to the same
24 or a comparable position upon the expiration of the leave. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612(a),
25 2615(a).
26 26. Family care and medical leave includes leave to care for a parent with
27 a serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a).
28 ///

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:8

1 27. Plaintiff’s father suffered from dementia and heart failure, both of
2 which required continuing treatment and constituted serious health conditions
3 within the meaning of the FMLA. 29 U.S.C.§ 2611(11); 29 C.F.R. § 825.113(a).
4 28. At all relevant times, the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, 29
5 C.F.R. § 825.100, et seq., were in full force and effect and were binding on
6 Defendant. The DOL regulations provide, “Any violations of the [FMLA] or of
7 these [Department of Labor] regulations constitute interfering with, restraining, or
8 denying the exercise of rights provided by the Act.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b).
9 29. At all relevant times, Section 2615 of Title 29 of the United States
10 Code was in full force and effect and binding upon the Defendant. Section
11 2615(a)(1) prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining, or otherwise
12 denying the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right provided under the
13 FMLA. Unlawfully interfering with the exercise of an employee’s rights includes
14 discouraging an employee from using such leave. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b); see Xin
15 Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003).
16 30. Plaintiff provided timely and reasonable notice to Defendants of her
17 need to take leave to care for her father who had a serious health condition. See 29
18 C.F.R. §§ 825.302-825.303.
19 31. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff exercising her FMLA rights by
20 discouraging Plaintiff from using her FMLA leave.
21 32. Defendants termination of Plaintiff’s employment constitutes an
22 interference with Plaintiff’s attempt to exercise her rights under the FMLA.
23 33. Defendants violations of the FMLA were willful in that Defendants
24 knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter and whether such conduct was
25 prohibited.
26 34. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ termination of
27 Plaintiff and conduct of the Company, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
28 suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:9

1 pecuniary loss according to proof, and interest thereon, and emotional distress and
2 mental suffering according to proof at trial.
3 35. Plaintiff seeks twice the value of her damages for losses of wages and
4 benefits, plus interest, as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
5 2617(a)(1)(iii) and 29 C.F.R. § 825.400(c), for the reason that Defendants have
6 failed to act in good faith and did not have reasonable grounds for believing they
7 were not violating the FMLA and cannot establish a defense based thereon.
8 36. FMLA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
9 incurred by a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff
10 has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the initiation and
11 prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
12 attorneys’ fees and costs herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
13 and costs.
14 VI.
15 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
16 Discrimination in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act
17 [29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2)]
18 37. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing
19 paragraphs 1 through 36, as though fully set forth herein.
20 38. The FMLA provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any employer to
21 discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing
22 any practice made unlawful by this title [of the FMLA].” 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2).
23 The FMLA further provides that an employer is prohibited from discriminating
24 against employees or prospective employees who have used or tried to use FMLA
25 leave. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c). “[E]mployers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave
26 as a negative factor in employment actions. . . .” Id.
27 ///
28 ///

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:10

1 39. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by discharging her when

2 she exercised her right or attempted to exercise her right to take FMLA leave to
3 care for her father with a serious health condition.
4 40. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by using her request for
5 FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.
6 41. Defendants further discriminated against Plaintiff by refusing to
7 reinstate her because she attempted or exercised her right to take FMLA leave.
8 42. Defendants violations of the FMLA were willful in that Defendants
9 knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter and whether such conduct was
10 prohibited.
11 43. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ termination of
12 Plaintiff and conduct of the Company, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
13 suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other
14 pecuniary loss according to proof, and interest thereon, and emotional distress and
15 mental suffering according to proof at trial.
16 44. Plaintiff seeks twice the value of her damages for losses of wages and
17 benefits, plus interest, as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
18 2617(a)(1)(iii) and 29 C.F.R. § 825.400(c), for the reason that Defendants have
19 failed to act in good faith and did not have reasonable grounds for believing they
20 were not violating the FMLA and cannot establish a defense based thereon.
21 45. FMLA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
22 incurred by a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff
23 has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the initiation and
24 prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
25 attorneys’ fees and costs herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
26 and costs.
27 ///
28 ///

10

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:11

1 VII.
2 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3 Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy
4 [Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1]
5 46. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing
6 paragraphs 1 through 45, as though fully set forth herein.
7 47. It is, and at all times herein mentioned has been, the law and public
8 policy of the state of California that employers may not terminate an employee for
9 exercising her leave rights. By interfering, discriminating against and terminating
10 plaintiff because she exercised or attempted to her exercise her rights to FMLA
11 leave, Defendants violated California’s public policy. See Xin Liu, 347 F.3d at
12 1137-38.
13 48. Defendants’ unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious
14 and/or done with reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
15 49. As a proximate result of Defendants’ action of wrongfully terminating
16 Plaintiff in violation of fundamental public policy, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of
17 wages, salary, benefits, and additional damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
18 50. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
19 Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish, and emotional distress, in an amount to be
20 proven at trial.
21 51. In committing the foregoing acts, Defendants are guilty of oppression,
22 fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294, thereby entitling
23 Plaintiff to punitive damages in a sum appropriate to punish and make an example
24 of Defendants.
25 52. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, any lost
26 wages and benefits, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.
27 ///
28 ///

11

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:12

1 VIII.
2 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 Unlawful And Unfair Business Practices
4 [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.]
5 53. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing
6 paragraphs 1 through 52, as though fully set forth herein.
7 54. California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., prohibits
8 unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices.
9 55. Defendants have committed unlawful and unfair business practices
10 including, but not limited to, interfering with Plaintiff’s rights under state and
11 federal leave laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, 29 U.S.C. §
12 2615(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2), 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b), 29 C.F.R. §
13 825.220(c), and violating California’s public policy.
14 56. As a result of the Defendants’ unfair and unlawful business practices,
15 Defendants have reaped unfair and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff and
16 members of the public. Accordingly, Defendants should be made to disgorge their
17 ill-gotten gains and to restore them to Plaintiff.
18 57. As a result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff has lost and continues
19 to lose money or property and suffered and continues to suffer injury in fact in the
20 form of wages, salary, employment benefits, and other compensation, and other
21 funds and benefits legally belonging to Plaintiff.
22 58. Plaintiff is entitled to restitution and to an award of attorneys’ fees and
23 costs.
24 IX.
25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and
27 severally, as follows:
28 1. For economic damages according to proof;

12

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 2:18-cv-00041 Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:13

1 2. For non-economic damages according to proof;

2 3. For liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(iii) and 29
3 C.F.R. § 825.400(c);
4 4. For prejudgment interest;
5 5. For declaratory and injunctive relief;
6 6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 2617, et seq.;
7 7. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
8 8. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
9

10 DATED: January 3, 2018 ROUNDS & SUTTER, LLP

11

12

13 By: __/s/ Randall V. Sutter______

RANDALL V. SUTTER
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES