FILED Superior Court of California County of Riverside 1 || NANCYROSE HERNANDEZ 312097 LAW OFFICE OF NANCYROSE HERNANDEZ. 46/2020 2 || 31556 Railroad Canyon Road Cc. Mundo 3 || Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Electronically Filed Tel: (951) 708-1497 4 || Fax: (951) 905-1632 __ || Email: nancyrose@lawofficeofnancyroschernandez.com 5 6 || Attorney for Plaintiff, ILEANA GUTIERREZ 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, 8 9 ILEANA GUTIERREZ, an individual; Case No. RIC2000084 10 ‘f Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2 vs. 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12900, et 13 || MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL seq. (Sexual Harassment) DISTRICT, a public entity; JESUS HOLGUIN, | 2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNI 4 | an individual; MARTINREX KEDZIORA, an GOVERNMENT CODE §12900, et 15 || individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; seq. (Harassment) 3. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNI 16 Defendants. GOVERNMENT CODE §12900, et 7 seq. (Discrimination) 4. RETALIATION (Cal. Lab. Code § 18 1102.5) 5. VIOLATION OF FEHA-FAILURE 19 ‘TO PREVENT HARASSMENT a (Govt. Code § 12940(k)) 6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 21 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 7. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF 22 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 2 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AMOUNT 24 DEMANDED EXCEEDS $25,000 Plaintiff, ILEANA GUTIERREZ, alleges as follows, 26 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 27 1. Plaintiff, ILEANA GUTIERREZ (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), was at all times 28 relevant to this action a resident of Riverside County, State of California. ae No 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:1 2. Defendant, MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to] as “EMPLOYER” or collectively as “Defendants"), is a public entity and was and is at all] 2 a times relevant to this action doing business in the County of Riverside, State of 4 California, 3. Defendant, JESUS HOLGUIN (hereinafter referred to as “HOLGUIN” or collectively as 5 “Defendants”), is an individual and was at all times relevant to this action a resident of ° Riverside County, State of California. HOLGUIN is a Board Member of EMPLOYER in 7d Riverside County, State of California. 8 |) 4. Defendant, Martinrex Kedziora (hereinafter referred to as “KEDZIORA” or colle 9 0 ly as “Defendants”) is an individual and was at all times relevant to this action a resident of Riverside County, State of California, KEDZIORA is the Superintendent for i EMPLOYER in Riverside County, State of California, 12 5. Plaintiff was employed by EMPLOYER in the County of Riverside, State of California. B 6, Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that EMPLOYER, is and at all “ relevant times was, a public entity existing and doing business under the laws of the State of California, and that it employed more than 50 persons and was an employer as defined oe in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). 16 |) 7, The true names and capacities of defendants named as Doe 1 through Doe 50, inclusive, 7 are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this complaint, setting forth the 18 true names and capacities of these fictitious defendants when they are ascertained. 19 Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitious 20 defendants has participated in the acts alleged in this first amended complaint to have 21 been done by the named defendants. 2 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, at all relevant times, each H of defendants, whether named or fictitious, was the agent, servants, employees, and/or x joint venturers of each of the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged to have 5 been done in the complaint, acted within the scope and authority of such agency or - employment, and/or venture or ratified the acts of the other, as aforesaid, when acting as %6 a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as| ar an agent, employee, and/or joint venturer. 2 SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 |] 9. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully restated herein. 10. In or about January 2006, Plaintiff began her employment with EMPLOYER, working as| 2 3 a teacher. Plaintiff maintained her teaching position with EMPLOYER for twelve years, 4 and she was thereafter promoted to an Assistant Principal position which she maintained for five years. Since in or about 2014, Plaintiff was the Assistant Principal at > EMPLOYER'S Bear Valley Elementary School. © || 11. ptaintiftis informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant to this iy action, Plaintiff was and is qualified for her position of employment with EMPLOYER. 8 Plaintiff is currently a Doctoral student 9 Master’s degrees in Education and Educational Administration, Pla 10 Bachelor's degree in Liberal Studies, and holds a CLAD and Clear Administrative mn Credentials, Plaintiff is highly regarded by her peers and has established a professional ‘a reputation, engaging in professional growth and leadership. Furthermore, Plaintiff has a dedicated much of her personal time to volunteering and mentoring students, teachers, 7 faculty members, and the community, 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at the time Plaintiff was hired oe by EMPLOYER, and thereafter, EMPLOYER promised a workplace that was fair. te Plaintiff was promised she would not be subjected to discrimination, harassment, or 7 retaliation. Plaintiff was promised reasonable accommodations and a fair interactive 18, process. 19 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HOLGUIN is EMPLOYER'S, 20 Board Member President, HOLGUIN holds power over others in the Distriet due to his 21 mantle of authority and longevity of his position for over sixteen yeats, and he should be n held to high standards of conduct and responsibility based on his position of power with 2B the District. 4 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that KEDZIORA is EMPLOYER’S| . Superintendent and holds the utmost duty and authority over employees, including Plaintiff, with the District. As Superintendent for EMPLOYER, KEDZIORA should be %6 held to high standards of code of conduct and responsibility based on his duty owed to ar employees of the District. 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 || 15. Plaintitris informed and believes and thereon alleges that EMPLOYER has a heightened 2 responsibility for the conduct of Board Members, supervisors, administrators, and high- a ranking managerial employees, such as HOLGUIN and KEDZIORA, and must take i additional precautions to ensure that the high-ranking agents, representatives, and/or employees are properly trained on the rules of professional conduct, including training ° and education on the laws prohibiting sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation ° in the workplace, such as FEHA. EMPLOYER owed a duty to Plaintiff, to maintain a iy safe and healthful work-environment and to take remedial action to prevent sexual 8 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace. 9 || 16. Plaintifris informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or about 2010, Plaintiff and 10 her husband, Jose Gutierrez (“Mr. Gutierrez”) (a teacher for EMPLOYER), became Tm acquainted with HOLGUIN and his family, including his wife, Patricia Holguin (“Mrs. 12 Holguin”) (EMPLOYER’S employee at Bear Valley Elementary School), daughter, B Elizabeth Holguin (EMPLOYER’S employee, Clerk 1), and daughter, Ashley Holguin (a 14 substitute teacher and counselor for EMPLOYER), from working for EMPLOYER. G 17. Plai ‘is informed and believes and thereon alleges that EMPLOYER'S Board Policy prohibits district employees from discriminating against or harassing any other district te employee or job applicant on the basis of the person's actual or perceived race, religious 7 creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, pregnancy, physical or mental 18 disability, medical condition, genetic information, veteran status, gender, gender identity. 19 gender expression, sex, or sexual orientation, 20 || 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that from in or about January 2017 21 through August 2017, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances from 2 HOLGUIN. HOLGUIN’S conduct was visual in nature and caused Plaintiff to feel 23 uncomfortable and unsafe in her working environment. To Plaintiff, the conduct by 4 HOLGUIN was pervasive, severe, and unwelcomed, affecting her terms and conditions 7 of employment, violating applicable law. HOLGUIN sent Plaintiff a series of messages, including but not limited to the following: %6 a, On January 9, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “...anything to make a you happy.” 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 b, On March 16, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “...Enough time to see 2 you. 3 c, On March 18, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “... You look pretty!” 4 “Not really but somehow I was attracted to go there....And there you were...” d. On April 2, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “I’m fine, had some issues 5 during the last 72 hours or so and you posted something that made me feel much 6 better and wanted to say that to you at the moment, it was like you knew what I 7d was going though and you posted it.” 8 ce. On April 3, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “You make them soft.” 9 £ On April 12, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “..,1 look forward to 0 seeing you in a fee (sic) minutes.” ul g, On May 20, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, *...S0 how many loves do} RD you have.” “I wish I knew more about you.” “.,.Want to hear it from you.” B h, On May 27, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “how did you know I ‘i woke up thinking that’ G i. On June 6, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “or should I say you are stuck with me at both do you have the address.” “We waited few outside to say te good night but you took too long to come out.” 7 j. On June 8, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “you look beautiful!” 18 k. On June 11, 2017, HOLGUIN’S text to Plaintiff states, “...Miss you already!” 19 |) 19, Plaintiffs informed and believes and thereon alleges that HOLGUIN’S unweleomed 20 advances were not only frequent in messages, but also extended to unwelcomed physical 21 touching, including hugging, prolonged leering, stalking tendencies, and disseminating 2 unsolicited personal information, making Plaintiff feel uncomfortable and unsafe in her oy workplace, creating a hostile work-environment, Although hugging may seem culturally o acceptable, the hugging by HOLGUIN was sexual in nature, prolonged, and 0s uncomfortable, making Plaintiff feel that the physical contact was different than culturally acceptable contact. Prior to 2017, HOLGUIN did not make frequent visits to %6 Plaintiff's school location; however, beginning in January 2017 and continuing ar throughout the year, HOLGUIN made numerous unannounced visits to Plaintiff's school 28 site, and he would find Plaintiff on the schoo! campus, stare at her with conviction, and 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 he would make physical contact with Plaintiff, stalking her while she was working, 2 Plaintiff felt HOLGUIN’S conduct was becoming more frequent, aggressive, and 3 pervasive, especially considering HOLGUIN knew that Plaintiff was a married woman, 4 and HOLGUIN was a married man, thus the inappropriate conduct and seduction threatened and offended the sanctity of her morals and marriage. > 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on August 28, 2017, Plaintiff 2 emailed EMPLOYER’S Chief Human Resource Officer, Dr. Robert J. Verdi (“Verdi”) iy and EMPLOYER'S Board Member, Gary Baugh (“Baugh”), to request a meeting to 8 disclose and complain about the persistent sexual harassment by HOLGUIN, 9 || 21. Plaintifris informed and believes and thereon alleges that on August 29, 2017, Verdi 10 contacted Plaintiff via a telephone call and scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff. During the| " meeting with Verdi, Plaintiff disclosed that she felt sexually harassed by HOLGUIN’S Y unwelcomed sexual advances, and she provided Verdi with the text messages referenced a in paragraph 18 of this Complaint and incorporated herein by this reference. Verdi ‘i responded, “I would be very angry if it was done to my wife who is also a teacher at is another district.” Verdi informed Plaintiff that he would notify EMPLOYER'S Superintendent, KEDZIORA. Further, Plaintiff disclosed that she feared that she would te be subjected to retaliation in the workplace because of HOLGUIN’S position of power, 7 his connections, and because his family members (wife and daughters) worked at her 18 school location. Verdi responded that he would speak with HOLGUIN and instruct him 19 to stop the behavior, specifically the frequent unweleomed advances and unsolicited 20 contact. 21 |] 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on August 30, 2017, Verdi 2 contacted HOLGUIN to inform him that Plaintiff did not wish for him to contact her in 23 the future. In response, HOLGUIN requested to have a meeting with Plaintiff; however, 4 based on the nature of HOLGUIN’S pervasive, offensive, and harassing conduct, Plaintifi 0s declined. Plaintiff simply wanted HOLGUIN to leave her alone, so she could work in peace without the fear of being stalked or harassed in the workplace. 26 |) 25, plaintiffs informed and believes and thereon alleges that on August 31, 2017, Plaintiff ar attended an Assistant Principal’s meeting, and following the meeting, Plaintiff 28 approached KEDZIORA to ask him if he knew about her disclosures and complaints 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 against HOLGUIN, regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. KEDZIORA 2 ‘unempathetically and bluntly responded, “Honey, I know everything. We need to move 3 on.” Plaintiff felt humiliated, ignored, and shunned by KEDZIORA’S response, as well 4 as, completely isolated and unprotected in her work-environment. Despite knowing Plaintiff disclosed sexual harassment in the workplace, KEDZIORA belittled Plaintiff by > intentionally calling her a pet name, (“Honey”) to minimize HOLGUIN’S conduct and to ° add insult to injury. That same evening, KEDZIORA, HOLGUIN, and EMPLOYER'S iy Trustee/Board Member, Susan Smith (“Smith”) attended Mr. Gutierrez’s Back to School 8 Night at Serrano Elementary School together. Please note, according to a pre-published 9 Back to School Night schedule, HOLGUIN was not assigned, nor scheduled to attend the 10 Serrano Elementary Back to School Night (emphasis added). HOLGUIN had knowledge iW that Plaintiff disclosed HOLGUIN’S sexual harassment to Verdi and that Plaintiff ‘a requested that HOLGUIN refrain from contacting her, and in retaliation for making said B complaints, HOLGUIN, KEDZIORA, and Smith made a point to harass Plaintiff's 7 husband in the workplace, intimidating him and berating him in front of co-workers, is students, parents, and faculty. HOLGUIN intentionally and with conviction, walked into Mr. Gutierrez’s classroom and boastfully circulated, making his presence known while te Mr. Gutierrez was presenting to parents. Plaintiff's husband felt harassed, humiliated, and| 7 threatened by HOLGUIN’S conduct, which was ratified and condoned by KEDZIORA a and EMPLOYER. 19 || 24. Plaintiffs informed and believes and thereon alleges that immediately following 20 HOLGUIN’S unannounced, unexpected, and unscheduled visit to Mr. Gutierrez’s 21 classroom, Plaintiff contacted Verdi to make, yet another complaint of harassment and 2 resulting retaliation against HOLGUIN. Plaintiff explained to Verdi that she felt the 23 conduct of HOLGUIN and KEDZIORA showed a lack of sensitivity, and that her a complaint was not being taken seriously. As a result of her complaint of sexual 7 harassment, she and her husband were now subjected to retaliation in the form of intimidation and humiliation. Verdi responded by stating that KEDZIORA takes Board %6 Members to Back to School Nights; however, as stated above, HOLGUIN was not ar assigned, nor scheduled to attend Mr. Gutierrez’s Back to School Night. HOLGUIN’S 28 and KEDZIORA’S conduct was intentional and conspired, done with the intent to 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 intimidate and retaliate, With each complaint that Plaintiff made to her superiors, 2 including Verdi, she was dismissed, ignored, and EMPLOYER engaged in sweeping her 3 complaints “under the rug,” condoning and ratifying the unlawful conduct, 4 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on September 5, 2017, Verdi contacted Plaintiff to schedule an appointment with Plaintiff and KEDZIORA. > Thereafter, on September 8, 2017, Plaintiff, along with her husband, Mr. Gutierrez, 2 attended a meeting with KEDZIORA. Plaintiff showed KEDZIORA the text messages iy from HOLGUIN on Plaintiff's cellular phone; however, KEDZIORA stated that it was 8 not necessary to review. 9]| 26. Plainti is informed and believes and thereon alleges that throughout October 2017, Mrs. 10 Holguin repeatedly contacted Plaintiff and Mr. Gutierrez, despite Plaintiff's explicit request that the HOLGUIN family cease contact with them. Again, Plaintiff wanted to p work in peace, and she did not want to be harassed or subjected to retaliation for B disclosing and complaining of sexual harassment in the workplace. Further, Plaintiff “ made serious allegations against Mrs. Holguin’s husband, regarding his inappropriate and| is unwelcomed sexual advances, and because both women were employees of EMPLOYER, working at the same school location, Plaintiff did not feel it was te appropriate to discuss the complaints without KEDZIORA, Verdi, or another Human 7 Resource representative present. a 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on October 9, 2017, 19 KEDZIORA requested another meeting with Plaintiff, Mr. Gutierrez, and EMPLOYER’S| 20 Board President, Cleveland Johnson (“Johnson”); however, Verdi was not present during 21 the meeting. The meeting ensued for approximately two hours and forty-five minutes 2 whereby KEDZIORA accused Mr. Gutierrez that he and HOLGUIN were conspiring, H together to disseminate the allegations. KEDZIORA and Johnson suggested that Plaintiff 4 should simply “forgive” HOLGUIN and that Plaintiff should “beg HOLGUIN for his 0s forgiveness.” Johnson further interrogated Plaintiff, asking why she refused to meet with HOLGUIN and his wife. The meeting ended with KEDZIORA blaming Plaintiff by %6 stating, “I see the way you look at him.” KEDZIORA was insinuating that Plaintiff, who ar ‘was the victim in this situation, was somehow asking for or inciting HOLGUIN’S 28 conduct, Plaintiff was offended, humiliated, and emotionally distraught over the 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES