gyS^ENDORSE; D

' FEB - 9 2018

1 Lawrance A. Bohm (SBN: 208716)
By:.
iI C. Freeman
TealO. Miller (SBN: 311159) . Deputy Clerk
2 Michael D. McCoy (SBN: 317868)
3 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
4600 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 210
4 Sacramento, Califomia 95834
Telephone: 866.920.1292
5 Facsimile: 916.927.2046
6 Attomeys for Plaintiff,
KARUNA ANAND
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10 KARUNA ANAND, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY
11
Plaintiff, TRIAL !
CN 12
la
t- <^ Action Filed:
c : 00
Q
3 v~i
WD c ^
13
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 1. Disability Discrimination
14
D > O CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; 2. Failure to Engage
own.
0^ d : J 15 and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, 3. Failure to Accommodate
o^ S
g o^ 4. FEHA Retaliation
^ < s 16 Defendants. 5. Failure to Prevent Discrimination
and Retaliation :
^ 2a 17
6. CA. Labor Code Section 6310 and
18 98.6
O H I
7. CA Labor Code Section 1102.5
19 8. CA Health and Safety Code 1278.5
o
20 9. CFRA Interference/FMLA
10. Violation of Government Code
21 8547
22
23 Plaintiff Karuna Anand respectfully submits this Complaint for Damages and Demand for
24 Jury Trial and alleges as follows: ;
25 CASE OVERVIEW I
26 The Califomia Department of Health and Corrections provides medical care and
27 psychiatric services to some of Califomia's most vulnerable patients. CDCR cares for those who
28 have committed crimes, but have such acute psychological issues that they must be hospitalized.
1
1
Plaintiffs Compiaint for Dainages and Demand for Jury Triai Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. ! Teal O. Miller, Esq.
CaseNo.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
•20ieFEB"9 PM 3^25
i^jSC CQUR'IHUUSL
 1 The CDHC also employs psychologists as they finish their PhD programs and accumulate hours
2 required to sit for their license. The patients are powerless to leave, and unlicensed psychologists
3 are inexperienced, and have little power in the agency's hierarchy. Rather than care for its
4 patients, who rely solely on CDCR for their mental and physical well-being, CDCR violated
5 numerous state laws that require licensed professionals to supervise unlicensed, inexperienced
6 healthcare providers. Due to CDCR's intentional and repeated violations, two patients committed
7 suicide within a two-month period. Many CDCR mental health professionals resigned due to lack
8 of patient safety. One medical doctor, the Chief of Psychiatry, refiised to quit, and refused to
9 follow CDCR's orders to break patient safety laws. CDCR insisted that this doctor ignore
10 Califomia law, and when she refused, they demoted this Chief of Psychiatry to the mail room,
11 and forced her to sort mail and screen letters for pomography. CDCR then abruptly terminated
(N 12 her. i
Er OO
13 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
14 1. Plaintiff KARUNA ANAND, MD (hereafter "ANAND" or "Plaintiff) was at all
5> S
O UJ u.
« d 3 15 times relevant to this action, a recruit, employee, or wrongfully terminated employee of
16 Defendant, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

IN 17 ("CDCR" or "Defendant"), located in Sacramento, Califomia. -

Z< 18 2. Venue and jurisdiction are proper because Defendant is a state agency,
O (/3
O
19 headquartered in Sacramento County, its officers and directors are in Sacramento Coimty, several
20 witnesses are located m Sacramento County, and the alleged wrongful termination decisions were
21 made in Sacramento County.
22 3. Defendant CDCR was at all times relevant to this action a public agency in the
23 State of Califomia. Defendant was at all times relevant an employer as defined by Califomia law.
24 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the tme names and capacities ofthe Defendants sued herein
25 as DOES 1 through 100. Defendants Does 1 through 100 are sued herein under fictitious names
26 pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
27 and on that basis alleges, that each Defendant sued under such fictitious names is in some manner
28 responsible for the wrongs and damages as alleged herein. Plaintiff does not at this time know

Piaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. Califorma Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. , Teal O. Miller, Esq.
CaseNo.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 the tme names or capacities of said Defendants, but prays that the same may be inserted herein
2 when ascertained.
3 5. At all times relevant, each and every Defendant was an agent and/or employee of
4 each and every other Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action stated herein,
5 each and every Defendant was acting wdthin the course and scope of this agency or employment,
6 and was acting with the consent, permission and authorization of each remaining Defendant. All
7 actions of each Defendant as alleged herein were ratified and approved by every other Defendant
8 or their officers or managing agents.
9 STATEMENT OF FACTS ;
10 6. Dr. Karuna Anand (hereinafter "PLAINTIFF") began employment as a
11 psychiatrist in March 2010 at the Califomia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
r4 .12 ("CDCR") at the Califomia Healthcare Facility - Stockton ("CHCF Stockton") as a Staff
I-l IT) 13 Psychiatrist.
; on o^
14 7. In or around March 15, 2014, PLAINTIFF became a Senior Psychiatrist.
O
^
w 2^
J
OS
15 8. A Senior Psychiatrist's duties include but are not limited to: recmiting and
O
^ S2 16 retention; directing and supervising medical staff; planning and directing psychiatry and mental
17 health services in both an inpatient and outpatient setting; and making sure that mles and
E SS
18 regulations are followed. Senior Psychiatrists are also expected to work with the Chief of Mental

O
19 Health ("CMH"). ;
20 9. On or around August 17, 2015 PLAINTIFF became Acting Chief Psychiatrist at
21 DEFENDANT'S Stockton location.
1

22
10. In or around April 2016, PLAINTIFF complained to the Medical Board of
23
Califomia ("MBC") that psychiatrists were told to sign off on unlicensed psychologists' orders.
24
The MBC responded that they do not regulate psychologists.
25
11. In or around April 2016, PLAINTIFF complained to the Board of Psychology
26
("BOP") that unlicensed psychologists were employed in CDCH-Stockton without written
27
approval fiom the DPH.
28
/// i

Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al ) Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 12. In or around April 2016, multiple unlicensed psychologists acquired their licenses.
2 CDCR management put pressure on them to sign off on unlicensed psychologists' work, even
3 though these psychologists had just been licensed themselves. Normally, newly-licensed
4 psychologists will work with more senior psychologists while they continue to gain experience.
5 The newly-licensed psychologists felt that they were not qualified to immediately work in a
6 supervisory position, and that doing so would present a patient safety risk. Several newly-licensed
7 psychologists quit as a result and transferred to the Department of State Hospitals ("DSH").
8 13. In or around April-May 2016, PLAINTIFF discussed DEFENDANT'S illegal
9 mles that psychiatrists sign off oh psychology orders with Dr. Shelley Minor ("Dr. Minor"), Chief
10 of Psychology. Dr. Minor told PLAINTIFF that she wrote a letter to CDCR and CDCR
11 headquarters ("HQ") outlining these practices, and that they are illegal. Dr. Minor was the clinical
12 director of the Mental Health Crisis Bed.
e 00
—> t n
J c« o\
13 14. On or about August 24, 2016, PLAINTIFF met with Acting Chief Psychologist /
2 ;5 14
Chief of Mental Health Dr. Yashobra Rao ("Dr. Rao"), visiting Chief Psychologist/Chief of
3> o
own. 15 Mental Health Dr. Corin Kottraba ("Dr. Kottraba"), Senior Psychologist Supervisor Dr. Tani
^ go 16 Shaffer ("Dr. Shaffer"), and senior Psychology Specialist Dr. Heather Pearson ("Dr. Pearson").
5 < g
g O u
o ? I 17
OQ S 5
Dr. Rao and Dr. Kottraba directed PLAINTIFF to give a directive to staff psychiatrists imder her

O <Z)
18 supervision to take on the responsibility of signing off on orders written by unlicensed staff
o
vo
19 psychologists.
20 15. On or around August 24, 2016, PLAINTIFF made a patient safety complaint to
21 Dr. Rao and Dr. Kottraba that the presence of unlicensed psychologists v^thout a required written
22 weiiver in a licensed facility put patient safety at risk. The DPH requires that each unlicensed
23 psychologists obtain a written waiver before they work in a licensed facility. DEFENDANT
24 employed multiple unlicensed psychologists in their licensed facility without a waiver.
25 16. On or around August 24, 2016, PLAINTIFF made an additional patient safety
26 complaint to Dr. Rao and Dr. Kottraba. PLAINTIFF informed them that it is against the law for
27 psychiatry MDs to sign off on psychology orders. Psychiatrists are not trained psychologists, and
28 are not quedified to sign-off on psychology orders. Such an action would constitute approval of

Plaintifrs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 work orders and supervision, which is outside of psychiatrists' expertise, as well as unlawful.
2 After PLAINTIFF informed them of the law and psychiatrists' ethical obligations, they proceeded
3 to tell PLAINTIFF that as the psychiatrist supervisor, PLAINTIFF can direct the psychiatrists to
4 do this under the "5% clause" in their duty statement. PLAINTIFF again told Dr. Rao and Dr.
5 Kottraba that that would be "unethical and illegal," at which point they left PLAINTIFF'S office.
6 17. On or around August 26, 2016 PLAINTIFF met v^th Dr. Rao and Chief Executive
7 Officer Raul Recarey ("Mr. Recarey") regarding the unlawful order PLAINTIFF received. Dr.
8 Rao said that she had spoken with Chief Psychologist Dr. Mike Golding ("Dr. Golding"), and he
9 stated that psychiatrists could co-sign work orders written by unlicensed psychologists on patients
10 they carried together, implying that she had not given an illegal or unlawful order. Mr. Recarey
11 stated that he would consult the CDCR legal department about the matter, but in the meantime he
12 had no intention of changing the organizational plan and reporting stmcture in the department.
W
P 00
( J 00 o 13 Mr. Racarey wanted PLAINTIFF to continue to work with Dr. Rao. PLAINTIFF understood this
14 to mean that Mr. Recarey expected PLAINTIFF to continue to follow Dr. Rao's unlawful orders.
3 >o
o i=Jg J^ 15 18. Mr, Recarey never followed up with PLAINTIFF regarding whether he spoke to
16 the department legal team about the legality of Dr. Rao's orders,
s ^ S
g o fi 17 19. On or around August 26 or 27*, 2016, Dr. Rao told PLAINTIFF that she was upset
o H i
CQ S s 18 at PLAINTIFF for her refusal to follow Dr. Rao's direct orders, and for escalating the matter to
li
O 1/3
19 HQ.
o
vo 20 20. On or around August 28, 2016, Dr. Rao failed to provide PLAINTIFF with the
21 "supervision agreement for unlicensed psychologists" after PLAINTIFF said that she needed it
22 to address the unlicensed psychologist supervision issue.
23 21. On or around September 12, 2016, Dr. Rao withdrew licensed psychologists'
24 support to the unlicensed psychologists in the Mental Health Crisis Bed. This forced psychiatrists
25 to directly supervise the unlicensed psychologists.
26 ///
27 ///
28 III

Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bolun, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 22. On or around September 13, 2016, PLAINTIFF leamed that Dr. Rao falsely told
2 Mr. Recarey that PLAINTIFF was handling employee work visas. PLAINTIFF received an email
3 from Dr, Rao and Mr. Recarey that stated, "employee work visas will be directed to Chief of
4 Mental Health for authorization and approval regardless of the employee's line of supervisors."
5 23. On or around September 14, 2016, PLAINTIFF emailed Mr. Recarey for
6 clarification on the previous day's email, and told him that she had not authorized work visas.
7 She received a reply from Mr. Recarey, which stated that, "Visa process was being handled by
8 you and I don't see the need for you to manage this task..." PLAINTIFF defended herself and
9 stated that she had "absolutely not handled anyone's visa process."
10 24. On or around September 19, 2016, subordinate staff psychiatrists informed
11 PLAINTIFF that Dr, Rao constantly undermined PLAINTIFF'S authority as Chief of Psychiatry
12 by leaving PLAINTIFF off of emails to subordinates and the state regarding the department. As
W
H ^
= 00
ij V3 0\
13 Chief of Psychiatry, PLAINTIFF was supposed to be included on emails to her staff and the state
14 regarding psychiatry issues in the Department.
3 >o
O W bu
cJ J 15 25. On or around September 21,2016, Dr. Rao transferred PLAINTIFF' s support staff
o g ^ 16
office technician to another department, and left PLAINTIFF to handle all administrative duties
J sg
5: < z 17 in the Psychiatry Department by herself The Chief of Psychiatry had always previously had the
^§ i
o E3 18 help of at least one support staff office technician. PLAINTIFF had to take over all administrative
CQ
li 2
O t/3
O
VO
19 duties, on top of her work as a psychiatrist and managing the department.
20 26. On or around September 25, 2016, Dr. Minor called PLAINTIFF and wamed her,
21 "watch your' back, Rao is out to get you. Don't tmst her." Dr. Minor shared that she had seen Dr.
22 Rao speaking with PLAINTIFF'S subordinate psychiatrists, and that CHS A Investigators had
23 spoken to her to witness an alleged exchange between PLAINTIFF and one of her subordinates
24 that Dr. Minor felt was untme.
25 27. On or around October 11,2016 Dr. Rao gave PLAINTIFF a probation report titled
26 "P' and 2""* probation report," where PLAINTIFF was rated as "needs improvement" on most
27 categories. The report included multiple false and unsubstantiated statements. PLAINTIFF
28 received no verbal or written counseling prior to this report, and all of her previous performance

Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et a l Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 evaluations in the previous six years at CDCR had been standard to outstanding, including her
2 most recent 2015 report, which rated her as "outstanding" over all.
3 28. On or around October 21,2016, PLAINTIFF and her union representative,
4 Lt. Avalos, met with Mr. Recarey. PLAINTIFF informed Mr. Recarey of the false, derogatory,
5 and unsubstantiated statements in the report. PLAINTIFF further shared that she had seen
6 evidence of being "set up" by Dr. Rao, after Dr. Rao accidentally sent emails intended for other
7 people to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF explained to Mr. Recarey that these actions were in
8 retaliation for PLAINTIFF'S refiisal to follow Dr. Rao's illegal orders. Mr. Recarey replied, "If
9 there is something illegal going on here, then go call the police."
10 29. On or around October 21, 2016, PLAINTIFF received an email from Dr. Rao
11 which was intended for someone else. PLAINTIFF saw in the email that Dr. Rao was trying to
CN 12 "set up" PLAINTIFF by giving her one directive, and when she followed that directive, telling
w 3:
t=: OO
I—I m
(J !/3 Ov 13 others that she was not doing her job.
,2; n" <;
14 30. On or around October 24, 2016, PLAINTIFF was placed on FMLA leave for
3 > o
own.
15 stress. PLAINTIFF felt emotionally traumatized after being ordered to violate the law and medical
16 ethical practices, then facing retaliatory false statements and punitive actions for her refiisal.
17 31. On or around October 31,2016, PLAINTIFF broke her right foot.
li
o c«
18 32. On or around November 5, 2016, PLAINTIFF'S union representatives met with
o
vo 19 Dr. Rao and Mr. Recarey on PLAINTIFF'S behalf, and Dr. Rao assured them that she would redo
20 the October 11, 2016 probation report to only include what she could substantiate. Dr. Rao never
21 followed up on her promise to amend the probation report.
22 33. On or around January 5,2017, Dr. Rao denied PLAINTIFF a merit salary increase.
23 34. On or about January 12,2017, PLAINTIFF was informed that Dr. Rao had rejected
24 PLAINTIFF on probation and PLAINTIFF would no longer be wording as Chief Psychiatrist
25 position.
26 35. On or around Febmary 14,2017, PLAINTIFF was reinstated at her last permanent
27 position as a senior psychiatrist supervisor. Although she was given her old title of senior
28 psychiatrist supervisor, she was given duties of a more junior line staff psychiatrist. Further,

Plaintiffs Compiaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Triai Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 PLAINTIFF was given the case load of two (2) staff psychiatrists and was asked to cover for a
2 third who was on vacation for two (2) weeks. At one point, PLAINTIFF had three (3) times the
3 case load of other psychiatrists.
4 36. On or around Febmary 14, 2017, PLAINTIFF asked for a motorized cart as an
5 accommodation for her broken foot. Carts were available to senior personnel for travel around
6 the premises. PLAINTIFF was assigned one cart, which tumed out to be inoperable. No
7 replacement cart was made available to her when she informed supervisors that the one she was
8 assigned did not work.
9 37. On or around April 8, 2017 Dr. Rao accused PLAINTIFF of yelling at Dr. Rao's
10 friend and ally. Dr. Shaffer. Despite a lack of any wdtnesses or evidence to support this claim. Dr.
11 Rao and Mr. Recarey opened an investigation into PLAINTIFF'S edleged behavior.
12 38. Between April 8 and April 19, 2017, Dr. Rao and Mr. Recarey sent PLAINTIFF
13 an investigation report containing false allegations that PLAINTIFF had been dishonest and had
14 mistreated staff. The investigative report contained no evidence to support these allegations.
15 Conversely, PLAINTIFF had documentation to support that she had acted honestly, and had
16 statements from the very employees PLAINTIFF was accused of misfreating that it was in fact
17 Dr. Rao who had mistreated them.
18 39. On or around April 10, 2017, Mr. Recarey and Dr. Rao disabled PLAINTIFF'S
19 state computer log-in and disconnected her cell phone.
20 40. On or around April 19,2017, after PLAINTIFF retumed from stress leave, Mr.
21 Recarey directed PLAINTIFF to work in the mail room. Her duties included sorting letters and
22 searching prisoners' incoming mail for pomographic pictures, which Plaintiff found emotionally
23 traumatizing.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

8
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 41. On or around April 19,2017, Mr. Recarey stated that PLAINTIFF did not need an
2 official computer password or cell phone to work in the mail room, and that she would work there
3 until fiirther notice. PLAINTIFF felt that she was being retaliated against for requesting
4 accommodations and making protected complaints. Just months earlier, PLAINTIFF supervised
5 the psychiatry department, and now she was sorting mail, and screening letters for nude or
6 pomographic pictures.
7 42. On or around April 19, 2017, PLAINTIFF'S work schedule was unilaterally
8 changed from four (4) ten-hour shifts per week to five (5) eight-hour shifts per week.
9 43. On or around October 6,2017, CDCR provided PLAINTIFF v^dth notice that they
10 would dismiss her from her position as Senior Psychiatrist Supervisor effective October 20,2017.
11
(N 12 44. On or around October 20,2017, PLAINTIFF was terminated.
W S
C 00
UJ i n
(J 1/3 O 13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14 Disability Discrimination: Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a)
3 > o
O W bu
°^ J 15 45. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
^ o
16 by reference.
oil
CQ S S 17
46. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.

li 18 47. At all relevant times. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.

o
vo 19 48. At all times relevant to this matter, the Fair Employment and Housing Act and
20 Govemment Code section 12940 were in full force and effect and binding on Defendant.
21 Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (a), reads: "It is an unlawful employment practice...
22 [fjor an employer, because ofthe race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
23 disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender,
24 gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation of any person, to refuse to hire or
25 employ the person or to refiise to select the person for afrainingprogram leading to employment,
26 or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to
27 employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or
28 privileges of employment."

Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Teal O. Miller, Esq.
CaseNo.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 49. At all times relevant to this matter. Plaintiff suffered from a "mental disability" as
2 defined by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and Califomia Code of Regulations,
3 title 2, section 11065, subdivision (d)(1), and/or a "perceived disability" as defined by
4 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2,
5 section 11065, subdivision (d)(5), and/or a "perceived potential disability" as defmed by
6 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2,
7 section 11065, subdivision (d)(6), and/or a "physical disability" as defmed by Govemment Code
8 section 12926, subdivision (m), and Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065,
9 subdivision (d)(2). In spite of her disability. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential fimctions
10 of her position as defined by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (f), and Califomia
11 Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (e), and was otherwise able to perform
(N
PU ^
12 her job had Defendant provided the reasonable accommodation required by Govemment Code
H <^
e 00
HJ IT)
(J t/5 CTv 13 section 12926, subdivision (p), and Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068,
12 Q" <
14 subdivision (a).
3 > u.
o w o
15 50. Defendant's conduct violated Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (a),
^ go
16 consistent with Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11066. Specifically, Defendant
<i
ill 17 knew of Plaintiffs physical and/or mental disabilities that limited major life activities. In spite of
18 her disabilities, Plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of her position with
O
li C/3
O
vo
19 reasonable accommodation.
20 51. As set forth above. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff because
21 of her disability by denying her reasonable accommodation, terminating her employment, and
22 creating the overall hostile terms and conditions of employment. Defendant condoned an
23 environment that, among other things, tolerated and encouraged discrimination based on
24 disability that materially and negatively impacted the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs
f

25
employment. Defendant's statements and conduct complained of herein violated Govemment
26
Code section 12940, subdivision (a), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, sections
27
11019 and 11020.
28
Ill

10
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Boimi, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 52. Plaintiffs disabilities were a substantial motivating reason for Defendant's
2 decisions to deny Plaintiff reasonable accommodations, make unfavorable changes to Plaintiffs
3 work schedule and duties, terminate Plaintiffs employment, and create overall hostile terms and
4 conditions of employment.
5 53. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
6 54. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations. Plaintiff has
7 been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
8 this Court. Plaintiff also seeks "affirmative relief or "prospective relief as defined by
9 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (a), including back pay, reimbursement of out of
0 pocket expenses and any such other relief that this Court deems proper.
1 55. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's willful and intentional
2 discrimination, Plaintiffhas lost wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
W ^
^ OO

J O 3 56. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff

4 suffered physical injury. Plaintiff experienced insomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an
3O W
> u.
o
^ ^—
a 5 increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach, vomiting, acid refluxflare-ups,aches, pains,
J S2 6 increased heart rate, no desire to do anything, low energy, and fatigue. Plaintiff claims general
5: < 2
i si 7 damages for physical injury in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
O H 1
8 57. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
li
o <z> 9 also suffered mental upset and other emotional distress. Plaintiff claims general damages for
o
vo
20 mental distress in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Failure to Engage in Interactive Process: Gov. Code §12940(n))
23 58. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
24 by reference.
25 59. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.
26 6.0. At all relevant times. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.
27 61. At all times relevant to this matter, the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
28 Govemment Code section 12940, was/were in full force and effect and binding on Defendant.

11
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (n), reads: "It is an unlawful employment practice
2 . . . [f]or an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to engage in a timely, good faith,
3 interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable
4 accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee
5 or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition."
6 62. At all times relevant to this matter. Plaintiff suffered from a "mental disability" as
7 defined by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and the Califomia Code of
8 Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (d)(1), and/or a "perceived disability" as defined
9 by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title
10 2, section 11065, subdivision (d)(5), and/or a "perceived potential disability" as defined by
11 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2,
(N 12 section 11065, subdivision (d)(6), and/or a "physical disability" as defined by Govemment Code
w 3t
5 OO
; C/3 o^ 13 section 12926, subdivision (m), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065,
14 subdivision (d)(2). In spite of her disability. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions
3 > o
O W u.
J -5
a 15 of her position as defined by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (f), and the Califomia
16 Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (e), and was otherwise able to perform
Ks i 17 her job had Defendant provided the reasonable accommodation required by Govemment Code
li 18 section 12926, subdivision (p), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068,
o
vo 19 subdivision (a).
20 63. Although Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant regarding her mental disability
21 and/or physical disability. Defendant failed to accommodate Plaintiffs disabilities as set forth
22 above. Plaintiff was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine whether
23 reasonable accommodation could be made so that she would be able to perform the essential job
24 requirements. Defendant failed to approach Plaintiff to discuss the possible accommodation of
25 her mental disabilities and/or physical disabilities with her or her health care providers in good
26 faith. Defendant did not discuss the nature and extent of Plaintiff s mental health condition or
27 mental disabilities and/or physical disabilities, the advice and recommendation of her health care
28 providers, the extent of the necessary accommodation, and the need for future accommodation as

12
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 well as other important areas of inquiry recognized in the Unites States Equal Employment
2 Opportunity Commission's "Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue
3 Hardship Under the Americans With Disabilities A c f noted by the Califomia Legislature in
4 Govemment Code section 12926.1, subdivision (e). Defendant's obligation to engage in the
5 interactive process of accommodation was not excused or waived by Plaintiff. Because Defendant
6 failed to engage in the important interactive process between employee and employer in
7 determining reasonable accommodation, Defendant conduct violated Govemment Code section
8 12940, subdivision (n).
9 64. Defendant's failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process was a substantial
10 factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
11 65. As an actual and proximate result ofthe aforementioned violations, Plaintiffhas
12 been harmed in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
H m

( J 1/3 ON
13 this Court. Plaintiff also seeks "affirmative relief or "prospective relief as defmed by
14 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (a), including back pay, reimbursement of out-of-
> o
O W u.
15 pocket expenses and any such other relief that this Court deems proper.
^Su
16 66. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's willful and intentional failure to
sg ^
o G
17 engage in the interactive process. Plaintiff has lost wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket
li
O C/3
18 expenses.
o
vo
19 67. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts, Plaintiff
20 suffered physical injury. Plaintiff experienced insomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an
21 increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach, vomiting, acid refiuxflare-ups,aches, pains,
22 increased heart rate, no desire to do anything, low energy, and fatigue. Plaintiff claims general
23 damages for physical injury in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
24 68. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
25 also suffered mental upset and other emotional disfress. Plaintiff clauns general damages for
26 mental distress in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
27 ///
28 ///

13
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Failure to Accommodate: Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m))
3 69. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
4 by reference.
5 70. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.
6 71. At all relevant times. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.
7 72. At all times relevant to this matter, the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
8 Govemment Code section 12940, was in fiill force and effect and binding on Defendant. Section
9 12940, subdivision (m), reads: "It is an unlawful employment practice . . . [f]or an employer or
10 other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical
11 or mental disability of an applicant or employee. Nothing in this subdivision or in paragraph (1)
CN 12 or (2) of subdivision (a) shall be constmed to require an accommodation that is demonsfrated by
W ^
H <^
c OO
(J 1/3 Ov 13 the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined in Section 12926(t),
Z Q" <
14 to its operation."
3 > o
S3 15 73. At all times relevant to this matter. Plaintiff suffered from a "mental disability" as
^ §o
16 defined by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and the Califomia Code of
17 Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (d)(1), and/or a "perceived disability" as defined
li
O t/3
18 by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title
O
VO
19 2, section 11065, subdivision (d)(5), and/or a "perceived potential disability" as defined by
20 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (j), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2,

21 section 11065, subdivision (d)(6), and/or a "physical disability" as defmed by Govemment Code

22 section 12926, subdivision (m), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065,

23 subdivision (d)(2). In spite of her disability. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions

24 of her position as defmed by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (f), and the Califomia

25 Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11065, subdivision (e), and was otherwise able to perform

26 her job had Defendant provided the reasonable accommodation required by Govemment Code

27 section 12926, subdivision (p), and the Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068,

28 subdivision (a).

14
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 74. Plaintiff provided notice relating to her disabilities and requested potential
2 accommodations. Despite Plaintiffs disabilities, she was able to perform the essential duties of
3 her position with reasonable accommodations. However, Defendant refused to accommodate
4 Plaintiff. Shortly after requesting accommodations. Defendant made the appearance of providing
5 an accommodation by providing Plaintiff a golf cart. The cart was not fimctional, and Defendant
6 subsequently failed to provide a functional cart or other accommodation to Plaintiff. Defendant
7 increased Plaintiffs workload, which caused Plaintiff to walk even more each day on her broken
8 foot. Defendant cannot establish that allowing Plaintiffs reasonable accommodation was an
9 "undue hardship" as defined by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (t), and the
10 Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068. Accordingly, Defendant's conduct violated
11 Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (m).
(N 12 75. Defendant's failure to provide reasonable accommodation was a substantial factor
W 5
[-. m
C OO 13 in causing Plaintiffs harm.
1/3 ON
14 76. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations. Plaintiff has
•S2>Io-
O w u. 15 been harmed in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
J S2 16 this Court. Plaintiff also seeks "affirmative relief or "prospective relief as defined by
^ o 1 17 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (a), including back pay, reimbursement of out of
li
O t/3
18 pocket expenses and any such other relief that this Court deems proper.
O
VO
19 77. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's willfiil and intentional failure to
20 reasonably accommodate, Plaintiffhas lost wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
21 78. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
22 suffered physical injury. Plaintiff experiencedinsomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an
23 increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach, vomiting, acid refluxflare-ups,aches, pains,
24 increased heart rate, no desire to do anything, low energy, and fatigue. Plaintiff claims general
25 damages for physical injury in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
26 79. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
27 also suffered mental upset and other emotional disfress. Plaintiff claims general damages for
28 mental disfress in an amount according to proof at time of trial.

15
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FEHA Retaliation
3 (FEHA Retaliation; Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).)
4 80. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
5 by reference.
6 81. This cause of action is asserted against Defendant.
7 82. At all relevant times. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.
8 83. At all times relevant to this action, it was unlawful under Govemment Code section
9 12940, subdivision (h), and Califomia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11021 for Defendant
10 to retaliate against Plaintiff for complaining about illegal discrimination and/or harassment.
11 Defendant violated Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (h), and Califomia Code of
fN 12 Regulations, title 2, section 11021 by retaliating against Plaintiff for his complaints of unsafe
w
^ 00
13 working conditions and Defendant's failure to follow the law in assigning medical and
14 psychological supervisory duties. Defendant conducted disability-based discrimination and/or
3 > o
own. 15
d 3
O g ^
harassment by, among other things, rejecting Plaintiff on probation, terminating Plaintiffs
J [2 2 16 employment, placing Plaintiff on probation, failing to accommodate Plaintiffs disability, and
io|
17 creating the overall hostile terms and conditions of employment.
li
O C/D
18 84. Plaintiffs requests for accommodation and complaints regarding illegal
O
19 discrimination, retaliation, and/or harassment were substantial motivating reasons for Defendant
20 to, among other things, reject Plaintiff on probation, terminate Plaintiffs employment, place
21 Plaintiff on probation, fail to accommodate Plaintiffs disability, and create the overall hostile
22 terms and conditions of emplojanent.
23 85. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
24 86. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned violations,
25 Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the
26 jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff also seeks "affirmative relief or "prospective relief as defined
27 by Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (a), including back pay, reimbursement of out-
28 of-pocket expenses and any such other relief that this Court deems proper.

16
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 87. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's willful and intentional
2 retaliation, Plaintiffhas lost wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
3 88. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
4 suffered physical injury. Plaintiff experienced insomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an
5 increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach, vomiting, acid refluxflare-ups,aches, pains,
6 increased heart rate, no desire to do anything, low energy, and fatigue. Plaintiff claims general
7 damages for physical injury in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
8 89. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts, Plaintiff
9 also suffered mental upset and other emotional disfress. Plaintiff claims general damages for
10 mental distress in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
11 90. The above described actions were perpefrated and/or ratified by a managing agent
12 or officer of Defendant, including but not limited to: Plaintiffs director supervisors. Dr.
W 3
^ 00
Q t/2 Ov
13 Yashodara Rao, CEO Raul Recarey, Chief Psychiatrist Mike Golding, Chief of Mental Health
14 Corin Kottraba, and Senior Psychologist Supervisor Dr. Tani Shaffer. Defendant's managing
3 > o
O W tu
15 agents or officers' conduct was despicable in nature, including but not limited to: intentionally
16 punishing Plaintiff after she made protected complamts in an attempt to protect her patients;

- ^ 3
17 retaliating against Plaintiff for taking protected medical leave by demoting her two levels;
18 retaliating against Plaintiff for taking protected medical leave by forcing her to perform unskilled
19 labor in the mail room, including screening mail for pomographic pictures; refusing to

li 20 accommodate Plaintiffs physical disability; refusing to engage m the interactive process to

O t/3 21 accommodate Plaintiffs physical disability; rejecting Plaintiff on probation; and maliciously
O
VO
22 terminating Plaintiffs employment. These acts were done with malice,fraud,oppression, and in
23 reckless disregard of Plaintiffsrights.Further, these actions were despicable in character and
24 warrant the imposition of punitive damages in a sum sufficient to punish and deter defendant's
25 fiiture conduct.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

17
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Boimi, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination; Government Code section
3 12940(k)
4 91. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
5 by reference.
6 92. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.
7 93. At all times relevant. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.
8 94. At all times relevant, the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Govemment
9 Code section 12940 was in full force and effect and binding on Defendant. Govemment Code
10 section 12940, subdivision (k), reads, "It is an unlawful emplojonent practice... [f]or an employer,
11 labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeshipfrainingprogram, or any training program
IN 12 leading to employment, to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and
E- <^
= 00
(J 1/3 (JN
13 harassmentfromoccurring."
2 Q" <
14 95. Defendant was at all material times an "employer" wdthin the meaning of
3 >o
O W u..
a:
rt^ J
15 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (c), and, as such, barred from illegal conduct as set
O
16 forth in Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (k).
ill 17 96. As an employer, pursuant to Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (d),
li
O C/3
18 Defendant has a duty to prevent unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Defendant knew or
O
VO 19 should have known about the discrimination and retaliation based on disability as set forth above.
20 Defendant failed to implement adequate training, policies, or instmctions that would have
21 prevented the aforementioned discrimination and retaliation of Plaintiff Defendant breached its
22 duty to prevent the discrimination and retaliation of Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant violated
23 Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision (k), and The Califomia Code of Regulations, title
24 2, section 11019, subdivision (b)(3).
25 97. Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination and/or retaliation in the course of her
26 employment vsdth Defendant as described above.
27 98. Defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination and/or
28 retaliation.

18
PlaintifTs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 99. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm.
2 100. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiffhas
3 lost wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
4 101. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffhas been
5 harmed in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this
6 Court. Plaintiff also seeks "affirmative relief or "prospective relief as defined by Govemment
7 Code section 12926, subdivision (a), including back pay, reimbursement of out-of-pocket
8 expenses and any such other relief that this Court deems proper.
9 102. As an actual and proximate result of Defendanf s aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
10 suffered physical injury. Plaintiff experienced insomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an
11 increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach, vomiting, acid reflux flare-ups, aches, pains,
12 increased heart rate, no desire to do anything, low energy, and fatigue. Plaintiff claims general
13 damages for physical injury in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
14 103. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
15 also suffered mental upset and other emotional distress. Plaintiff claims general damages for
16 mental disfress in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
17 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5)
19 104. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
20 by reference.
21 105. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.
22 106. At all relevant times. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.
23 107. Labor Code section 98.6 states that an employer may not "discharge an employee
24 or in any manner discriminate against any employee . . . because the employee . . . has filed a
25 bona fide complaint or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or
26 relating to his or herrights,which are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner." Labor
27 Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), states that "[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf
28 of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the

19
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a govemment or
2 law enforcement agency, to a person vsdth authority over the employee or another employee who
3 has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for
4 providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation,
5 hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses
6 a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or
7 federal mle or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the
8 employee's job duties." Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (c), states that an "employer may
9 not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a
10 violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal mle or
11 regulation."
12 108. Plaintiff made numerous protected complaints to persons with authority over her
13 at Defendant including, but not limited to, the unsafe working environment due to Defendant's
14 policies which ignored Califomia law regarding unlicensed psychologist supervision. Also,
15 Plaintiff refused to give orders that she reasonably believed would lead to an unsafe work
16 environment, violate CA law, and put MDs' medical licenses at risk. Defendant's conduct
17 violated statties such as: Labor Code sections 232.5, 512, 6310, 6311, 6400, 6401, 6402, 6403,
18 and 6404.
19 109. Defendant violated Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5 when it unlawfully
20 retaliated against Plaintiff by taking adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including but
21 not limited to making unfavorable changes to her work schedule and duties, denying her
22 reasonable accommodation, and wrongfiilly terminating her employment.
23 110. Defendant's unfavorable changes to Plaintiffs schedule and duties, denial of
24 reasonable accommodations, termination, and creation of the overall hostile terms and conditions
25 of employment, were substantial factors in causing Plaintiffs harm.
26 111. The conduct of Defendant and its managing agents and employees was a
27 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
28 ///

20
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 112. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffhas
2 been harmed in an amoimt according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
3 this Court.
4 113. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's retaliation. Plaintiff has lost
5 wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
6 114. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
7 suffered physical injury. Plaintiff experienced insomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an
8 increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach, vomiting, acid refiuxflare-ups,aches, pains,
9 increased heart rate, no desire to do anything, low energy, and fatigue. Plaintiff claims general
10 damages for physical injury in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
11 115. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants' aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
tN 12 also suffered mental upset and other emotional disfress. Plaintiff claims general damages for
W 5
H m
-> m
= 00
13 mental disfress in an amoimt according to proof at time of trial.
J c« o

14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

3 > o
O W ti.
DC; J -1
-
a ^
—I
15 Violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5
16
gi 116. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
17 by reference.
li
O </3
18 117. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.
O
VO
19 118. The Califomia Legislature has determined that, in order to protect patients, "it is
20 the public policy of the State of Califomia to encourage patients, nurses, members of the medical
21 staff, and other health care workers to notify govemment entities of suspected unsafe patient care
22 and conditions CDCR Califomia Healthcare Facility Stockton is a "hospital facility" pursuant to
23 Health and Safety Code section 1250, subdivision (a).
24 119. Therefore, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, subdivision (b),
25 "[n]o health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in any maimer, against any patient, employee,
26 member of the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the health facility because that
27 person...[pjresented a grievance, complaint, or report to the facility, to an entity or agency
28 responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the medical staff of the facility, or to any

21
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 other governmental entity." Pursuant to section 1278.5, subdivision (i), "'health facility' means
2 any facility defined under this chapter, including, but not limited to, the facility's administrative
3 personnel, employees, boards, and committees of the board, and medical staff"
4 120. Plaintiff was a member of the medical staff of Defendant.
5 121. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because she reported
6 concems about patient care, services, and hospital conditions. Furthermore, according to The
7 Joint Commission, "[ijntimidating and dismptive behaviors can foster medical errors...All
8 intimidating and dismptive behaviors are unprofessional and should not be tolerated."
9 122. Section 1278.5, subdivision (d)(1) states, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption
10 that discriminatory action was/were taken by the health facility or by the entity that owns or
11 operates that health facility, or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against
(N 12 an employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the facility, i f
W
I - OO
^ t/3 0\
13 responsible staff at the facility or the entity that owns or operates the facility had knowledge of
14 the actions, participation, or cooperation of the person responsible for any acts described in
3 > o
O w [£
3 15 paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), and the discriminatory action occurs within 120 days of the filing
Og ^
J [S 2 16 of the grievance or complaint by the employee, member of the medical staff or any other health
5
g <
OS fi
17 care worker of the facility."
QQ S
o o
Z < 18 123. Discriminatory and retaliatory actions were taken against Plaintiff vsdthin 120 days
o </>
o
vo 19 of presenting complaints regarding patient care, services, and/or hospital conditions.
20 124. Health and Safety Code section 1278.5 has no adminisfrative or judicial
21 exhaustion requirement.
22 125. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffhas
23 been damaged in an amoimt according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
24 this Court.
25 126. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's willful and intentional
26 retaliation, Plaintiffhas lost wages, benefits and other out of pocket expenses.
27 127. As a proximate result of the aforementioned actions of Defendant, Plaintiff
28 suffered physical injury and became mentally upset, stressed and aggravated. Plamtiff has

22
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 experienced insomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an increase in blood pressure, nausea,
2 upset stomach, vomiting, acid reflux flare-ups. Plaintiff claims general damages for mental
3 disfress in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
4 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Violation of Labor Code 6310)
6 128. Califomia Labor Code section 6310 states, "[a]ny employee who is discharged,
7 threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in
8 the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has made
9 a bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory
10 responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her
11 employer, or his or her representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or
tN 12 her employment or place of employment... shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement
H <^
= OO
Ol 0\ 13 for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer."
14 129. California Labor Code section 6400, subdivision (a) states that "[e]very employer
g W
Q
> Otu
Oi ri J 15 shall fiimish emplojonent and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees
0 g ^
16 therein."
1 g I 17 130. Califomia Labor Code section 6404 states that "[n]o employer shall occupy or
li
O t/3
18 maintain any place of employment that is not safe and healthfiil."
O
VO
19 131. Plaintiff made numerous protected complaints to persons with authority over her
20 at Defendant who have authority over her including, but not limited to, reports/complaints patient
21 safety issues, patient care issues, incorrect medical procedures, incorrect psychological
22 supervision, presence of unlicensed personnel in a licensed facility without DPH written approval,
23 unlicensed persormel writing psychological orders without proper supervision. Defendants
24 demands that MDs perform licensed psychologist duties, retaliation, and violations of compliance
25 statutes and regulations
26 132. Defendant violated Labor Code sections 98.6,1102.5, 6310,6400, and 6404 when
27 they retaliated against and terminated Plaintiff for her protected reports/complaints to Defendant
28 regarding medical errors, patient safety issues, patient care issues, patient services issues, living

23
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 conditions, incorrect prescription practices and procedures, falsification of patient records,
2 requests to falsify patient records, retaliation, and violations of compliance statutes and
3 regulations.
4 133. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiffhas
5 lost wages, benefits, and has mcurred other out-of-pocket expenses.
6 134. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffhas been damaged
7 in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
8 135. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendant,
9 Plaintiff became mentally upset, sfressed, and aggravated. Plaintiff has experienced insomnia,
10 tension headaches, social isolation, an increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach,
11 vomiting, acid refluxflare-ups,aches, pains, increased heart rate, no desfre to do anything, low
tN 12 energy, and fatigue. Plaintiff claims general damages for mental distress in an amount according
W
R 00
13 to proof at time of trial.
14 136. The above described actions were perpefrated and/or ratified by a managing agent
3> o
O w £ 15 or officer of Defendant. These acts were done with malice, fraud, oppression, and in reckless
^§ u
J S 2" 16 disregard of Plaintiff srights.Further, said actions were despicable in character and warrant the
5 < z
K S ^ 17 imposition of punitive damages in a sum sufficient to punish and deter Defendant's future
li
o
18 conduct.
o
vo 19 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (CFRA Retaliation: Gov., Code § 12945.2, subd. (1))
21 137. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
22 by reference.
23 138. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.
24 139. At all relevant times to this action, the Califomia Family Rights Act of 1993
25 ("CFRA"), Govemment Code sections 12945.1 and 12945.2, was in full force and effect and
26 binding on Defendant, requiring Defendant to provide Plaintiff with up to twelve (12) weeks of
27 qualifying leave and to refrain from retaliating or discriminating against Plaintiff for making such
28 a request.

24
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 140. Plaintiff was a full-time employee whom Defendant employed for over one year
2 and with over 1,250 hours in the twelve-month period immediately preceding her CFRA leave.
3 141. Plaintiff was entitled to take medical leave due to her own serious health condition,
4 as defined by the statute.
5 142. Defendant violated CFRA, Govemment Code section 12945.2, when they
6 unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff having taken
7 protected medical leave to care for her serious health condition by, inter alia, rejecting Plaintiff
8 on Probation while Plaintiff was out on leave, demoting Plaintiff, and terminating Plaintiffs
9 employment.
10 143. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffhas
11 been harmed in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
CN 12 this Court. Plaintiff also seeks all remedies and penalties recoverable under CFRA, Govemment
UJ 3;
t3 00
i—I V~t 13 Code section 12945.2 56^.
i j t/) o>
Z Q" <
14 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 >o
O m tu
15 (Violation of Gov. Code Section 8547)
^ § o
^^2 16 144. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
5 < S
S 2 B 17 by reference.
o H I
OQ S S
18 145. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants.
li
o t/i 19
o 146. At all relevant times. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.
vo
20 147. At all relevant times, Govemment Code section 8547 et. Seq. was in full force and
21 effect protecting State employees from whistleblower retaliation. "The Legislature finds and
22 declares that state employees should be free to report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation
23 of law, or threat to public health without fear of refribution. The Legislature furtherfindsand
24 declares that public servants best serve the citizenry when they can be candid and honest without
25 reservation in conducting the people's business." The Act prohibits retaliation against state
26 employees who "report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public
27 health" (Gov. Code, § 8547.1.) The Act authorizes "an action for damages" to redress acts of
28 retaliation. (Gov. Code, § 8547.8(c).)

25
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 148. During Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff complained verbally
2 and in writing to her supervisors and management about the lack of oversight for unlicensed
3 psychologists, how MDs were asked to approve actions outside the scope of their licensure, that
4 these exfra duties took time from MDs' official work duties, and Plaintiffs subsequent serious
5 concem for patient safety.
6 149. Plaintiffs protected disclosures were a substantial motivating reason for
7 Defendant's decisions to reject Plaintiff on probation, deny Plaintiff reasonable accommodation
8 for her physical disability, make unfavorable changes to Plaintiffs work schedule and duties,
9 demote Plaintiff two levels, assign Plaintiff unskilled labor such as sorting mail, assign Plaintiff
10 emotionally disturbing tasks, such as screening inmate mail for pomography, terminate Plaintiffs
11 employment, and create overall hostile terms and conditions of employment.
tN 12 150. Defendanf s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
w
C 00
D in
oJ 1/3 ON
13 151. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffhas
" ^" -
14 been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
3 > o
O w u.
15 this Court.
16
Si 152. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's willful and intentional
oil 17 discrimination, Plaintiffhas lost wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
OQ S 5
18 153. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts. Plaintiff
li
O
VO 19 suffered physical injury. Plaintiff experienced insomnia, tension headaches, social isolation, an
20 increase in blood pressure, nausea, upset stomach, vomiting, acid refiuxfiare-ups.Plaintiff claims
21 general damages for physical injury in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
22 154. Plaintiff has exhausted her adminisfrative remedies, and timely filed her
23 whistleblower complaint vsdth the State Personnel Board.
24 155. As a proximate result of Defendanf s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffhas lost wages,
25 benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
26 156. As a proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plamtiff has suffered
27 severe emotional distress which has resulted in a myriad of physical problems. Plaintiff claims
28 damages for her mental and physical injuries in an amount according to proof at time of frial.

26
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 1 157. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffhas
2 been harmed in an amoimt according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
3 this Court.
4 PRAYER FOR R E L I E F
5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant and any other defendants
6 who may be later added to this action as follows:
7 1. For compensatory damages, including, but not limited to lost wages and non-
8 economic damages in the amount according to proof;
9 2. For attomeys' fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statutes or legal principles;
10 3. For cost of suit incurred;
11 4. For punitive damages or other penalties recoverable by law;
tN 12 5. For prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed pursuant to all applicable statutes
c; OO
( J t/O ON
13 or legal principles; and
14 6. For such other and fiirther relief as the Court may deem proper.
3 w>n o
o .
oi ri 3 15
Og ^
16
s u a
17 Date: Febmary 9, 2018 By:
li
O </3
18
JCE A. BCffRM, ESQ.
TEAL O. M I L L E R , ' E S Q .
O
VO
19 MICHAEL D. MCCOY, ESQ.

20
Attomeys for Plaintiff,
21
KARUNA ANAND
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

27
Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Anand v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Teal O. Miller, Esq.
Case No.: Michael D. McCoy, Esq.
 IH BRiP 10:^.

?018FEB--9 PH 3:2

CCiym V OF SACRAt^cRTl?