Attorneys For Plaintiffs and The Class

1 Felicia Medina (SBN 255804) Therese Y.
Cannata (SBN 88032)

fmedina@medinaorthwein.com tcannata@cofolaw.com
2 Jennifer Orthwein (SBN 255196) Karl Olson (SBN 104760)
jorthwein@medinaorthwein.com kolson@cofolaw.com
3 Kevin Love Hubbard (SBN 290759) Michael M. Ching (SBN 209426)
4 khubbard@medinaorthwein.com mching@cofolaw.com
MEDINA ORTHWEIN LLP CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
5 230 Grand Avenue, Suite 201 100 Pine Street, Suite 350
Oakland, CA 94610 San Francisco, California 94111
6 Telephone: (510) 823-2040 Telephone: (415) 409-8900
Facsimile: (510) 217-3580 Facsimile: (415) 409-8904
7
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
12
KEKA ROBINSON-LUQMAN, ALICIA Case No. CGC-20-588012
13 WILLIAMS, and JOHN HILL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
14
Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION
15
v. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
16
PENALTIES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
17 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
18 Defendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-20-588012
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 1. Plaintiffs Keka Robinson-Luqman, Alicia Williams, and John Hill (together “Plaintiffs” or
3 “Class Representatives”), by and through their attorneys, Medina Orthwein LLP and Cannata, O’Toole,
4 Fickes & Olson LLP, bring this individual and class action lawsuit against the City and County of San
5 Francisco (the “City”) for violations of anti-discrimination laws and what the City admits is a longstanding
6 practice of systemic racism against Black employees.
7 2. The City employs more people in San Francisco than San Francisco’s top five private
8 employers combined. 1 Black people make up 15% of the City’s workforce and over half of the City’s
9 Black employees (54%) are concentrated in three departments—the Municipal Transportation Agency
10 (“SFMTA”), the Department of Public Health (“DPH”), and the Department of Public Works (“DPW”).2
11 3. Across all departments, as substantiated in a 2020 Annual Workforce Report released by
12 the San Francisco Department of Human Resources and the Office of Racial Equity, the City admitted to
13 “serious disparities between demographic groups, particularly along racial lines. Most notably, in
14 comparison to those of other races, our Black employees have lower-paying jobs, are less likely to be
15 promoted, and are disciplined and fired more frequently.” 3 Furthermore, SFMTA’s director, Jeffery
16 Tumlin, admitted that the City has “a very long and well-documented history of racism, sexism and other
17 forms of discrimination against [its] own workforce.” 4
18 4. Fueling these disparities is the City’s pattern or practice of perpetuating an anti-Black
19 culture, race clustering Black employees into lower-paying Permanent Civil Service (“PCS”) positions,
20
21 1
Julia Cooper, Largest San Francisco Employers, S.F. BUSINESS TIMES, Jan. 3, 2020,
22 https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/subscriber-only/2020/01/03/largest-san-francisco-
employers.html.
23 2
City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Resources, Resources, Citywide Workforce
24 Demographics, Race/Ethnicity and Department, https://sfdhr.org/race-ethnicity-and-department (last
visited Nov. 22, 2020).
25 3
San Francisco Department of Human Resources and the Office of Racial Equity, 2020 Annual
26 Workforce Report, 11, https://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reports/annual-workforce-report-
2020.pdf (last visited Nov. 25, 2020).
27 4
Mallory Moench, S.F. transit agency grapples with ‘history of racism: Black staff disproportionately
disciplined, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Nov. 18, 2020, SFChronicle.com (last visited Nov. 25, 2020).
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 1
1 or more hazardous roles, and subjecting Black employees to common pay, promotion, training,
2 performance management, job class, and disciplinary policies and practices that suppress Black
3 employees’ pay, promotion, and career-enhancing opportunities, and livelihoods.
4 5. The City’s dysfunctional Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) has failed to take
5 reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and instead has tried to suppress
6 complaints and preserve white supremacy. DHR has been plagued by scandal and corruption that has
7 served to further disadvantage Black employees who seek relief and protection from race discrimination.
8 6. Black employees have formed the Black Employee Alliance (“BEA”) and a Coalition
9 Against Anti-Blackness (“CAAB”) to call for HR leadership, such as recently-departed DHR Director
10 Micki Callahan and Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Division Director Linda Simon, to take
11 accountability for being complicit in the suppression of discrimination complaints made by Black City
12 workers.
13 7. DHR officials themselves have confirmed that discrimination complaints by employees
14 were purposefully edited by the department to downplay the gravity of the accusations, then often
15 disregarded entirely.
16 8. Overall, DHR has failed to thoroughly investigate discrimination complaints by Black City
17 workers. Investigations have been delayed, if commenced at all, and when they are concluded there is no
18 accountability, or the investigation has resulted in retaliation against the Black complainant.
19 9. Statistics quantify the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ common experiences. For example,
20 in 2019, City employees submitted 579 formal EEO complaints. Only five (or 0.86%) of these complaints
21 were sustained. Eight resulted in harassment prevention training and seven in discipline. The largest
22 racial group to submit EEO complaints was Black employees with 32% of the complaints, though they
23 represent only 15% of the City’s workforce.
24 10. In response to the BEA’s and CAAB’s political actions to raise awareness about systemic
25 anti-Black racism, a lawyer for the City sent cease and desist letters to certain members of the BEA and
26 the CAAB designed to bludgeon them into submission for having the temerity to seek redress for well-
27 founded grievances.
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 2
1 11. Here, Class Representatives Robinson-Luqman, Williams, and Hill, stand in solidarity with
2 the BEA and CAAB as Black people who will no longer be silent about racial oppression and the impact
3 it has on their economic, emotional, and physical well-being.
4 12. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated Black employees, seek
5 transformative change and redress in the form of declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, restitution,
6 reinstatement, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs for themselves and on behalf of the Class.
7 II. THE PARTIES
8 13. Plaintiff Keka Robinson-Luqman is a Black woman who, at all times relevant to this
9 action, has worked for the City in San Francisco, California. Ms. Robinson-Luqman has worked for
10 SFMTA as a Junior Management Assistant, job class 1840, since February 22, 2016.
11 14. Plaintiff Alicia Williams is a Black woman who, at all times relevant to this action, has
12 worked for the City in San Francisco, California. Ms. Williams has worked for DPH as a Licensed
13 Vocational Nurse, job class 2312, from 2001 to 2012 and since 2014.
14 15. Plaintiff John Hill is a Black man who, at all times relevant to this action, has worked for
15 the City in San Francisco, California. Mr. Hill has worked for the Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”)
16 as a General Laborer, job class 7514, since 1999.
17 16. Defendant City and County of San Francisco is a municipal corporation organized under
18 the laws and Constitution of the State of California. As of July 1, 2020, the City employs 35,557
19 individuals.
20 III. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
21 17. This Court has jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 10, of the California Constitution and
22 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10 because the action involves issues of state law.
23 18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and
24 395.5 because Defendant has principal places of business in San Francisco County and because
25 Defendant’s unlawful actions giving rise to its liability were committed in San Francisco County.
26 19. Venue is also proper pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b) because Ms.
27 Robinson-Luqman and Ms. Williams filed Complaints of Employment Discrimination with the California
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 3
1 Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) on September 28, 2020, and November 17, 2020
2 and received Case Closure and Right to Sue Notices for their Complaints. Plaintiffs have therefore
3 exhausted all administrative remedies with respect to the claims contained herein.
4 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5 A. Systemic Anti-Black Racism Pervades the City and HR
6 20. The majority of all City employees—77.6%—are PCS employees. The remaining
7 employees are Permanent Exempt (“PEX”) and Temporary Exempt (“TEX”) employees. White
8 employees are nearly twice as likely to be PEX employees (i.e. management) compared to Black
9 employees and, on average, PEX employees are paid $21.82 more per hour, or $45,000 more per year,
10 than PCS employees. This wage gap significantly widens when race is factored in: white PEX employees
11 are paid $35.93 more per hour, or $75,000 more per year, than Black PCS employees. These disparities
12 also exist within each appointment type: white PCS employees are paid $13.21 more per hour than Black
13 PCS employees and white PEX employees are paid $18.11 more per hour than Black PEX employees.
14 Figure 1: Appointment Types and Wages 5
15 All employees Black employees White employees

16 Average % in Average % in Average % in
Hourly Rate appointment Hourly Rate appointment Hourly Rate appointment
17
PCS $49.20 77.62% $42.93 76.95% $56.14 73.47%
18
PEX $71.02 6.97% $60.75 5.79% $78.86 10.50%
19
21. Regardless of appointment type, the City pays white employees more than any other racial
20
or ethnic group and $15.31 more per hour, or $32,000 more per year, compared to Black employees.
21
Figure 2: Average Hourly Wages by Race/Ethnicity 6
22
Race/ Ethnicity
23 July 1, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 1, 2018 July 1, 2017
Group
24
25 5
Micki Callahan, 2020 Annual Workforce Report, Phase 1, March 10, 2020,
26 https://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reports/annual-workforce-report-2020.pdf.
6
27 Demographics, Race/Ethnicity and Avg. Hourly Rate, https://sfdhr.org/race-ethnicity-and-department
(last visited Nov. 22, 2020).
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 4
1 White $58.53 $57.03 $54.71 $53.14
Black $43.22 $41.92 $40.45 $39.05
2
22. White employees are also more than twice as likely to be promoted than Black employees.
3
Black employees are nearly twice as likely to be released than be promoted by the City.
4
Figure 3: Promotions and Releases by Race/Ethnicity 7
5
6 Race/ Ethnicity
FY 19-20 FY 18-19 FY 17-18 FY 16-18
Group
7 Promotions
8 White 31.65% 30.17% 32.01% 30.25%
9 Black 12.07% 12.95% 12.20% 13.27%
Releases
10
White 34.25% 29.57% 27.26% 31.44%
11
Black 22.72% 21.73% 31.59% 26.91%
12
23. SFMTA, DPH, DPW, and PUC are departments and/or agencies controlled and operated
13
by the City. SFMTA operates and oversees the City’s transportation system, including the San Francisco
14
Municipal Railway (“Muni”) fleet of buses, light rail trains, and cable cars, parking and traffic, bicycling,
15
walking, paratransit, and taxis. DPH and its governing and policy-making body, the San Francisco Health
16
Commission, operate and oversee the City’s hospitals, emergency medical services, and “all matters
17
pertaining to the preservation, promotion and protection of the lives, health and mental health of San
18
Francisco residents.” 8 DPW operates and oversees the construction and maintenance of civic buildings,
19
streets, bridges, and public stairways. PUC provides retail drinking water and wastewater services to San
20
Francisco, wholesale water to three Bay Area counties, and green hydroelectric and solar power to the
21
City’s departments.
22
24. In addition to employing over half of the City’s Black employees, SFMTA, DPH, and DPW
23
24 7
Demographics, Race/Ethnicity and Promotions, https://sfdhr.org/race-ethnicity-and-department (last
25 visited Nov. 22, 2020); City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Resources, Resources,
26 Citywide Workforce Demographics, Race/Ethnicity and Releases, https://sfdhr.org/race-ethnicity-and-
department (last visited Nov. 22, 2020).
27 8
San Francisco Department of Public Health, About DPH, San Francisco Health Commission,
https://www.sfdph.org/dph/hc/default.asp (last visited Nov. 20, 2020).
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 5
1 employees receive 65% of the City’s corrective actions and discipline. Citywide, Black employees receive
2 the highest percentage (37%) of corrective actions and discipline compared to other racial and ethnic
3 groups. Indeed, Black employees received double the corrective actions and discipline compared to white
4 employees even though the City employs nearly twice as many white employees than Black employees.
5 Employees in SFMTA, the department where Black employees are most clustered, are by far disciplined
6 at the highest rates, receiving nearly half (47%) of the entire City’s corrective actions and discipline. The
7 majority (51%) of all corrective actions and discipline within SFMTA are issued to Black employees.
8 Similarly, Black employees make up less than 8% of PUC, yet receive nearly a third (31%) of the
9 department’s discipline. In other words, the proportion of Black employees who are disciplined in PUC
10 is over four times the proportion of Black employees in PUC. In comparison, the proportion of white
11 employees who are disciplined in PUC is less than the proportion of white employees in PUC.
12 Figure 4: Employees and Corrective Actions/Discipline by Race/Ethnicity 9
13 Total Corrective
Dept. Type White Black
Actions/Discipline
14
Employees 29.09% 15.17%
15 Citywide 555 Corrective Actions/
19.10% 37.30%
16 Discipline
Employees 21.01% 12.10%
17
DPH 66 Corrective Actions/
18 24.24% 24.24%
Discipline
19 Employees 28.82% 17.21%
DPW 33 Corrective Actions/
20 18.18% 36.36%
Discipline
21
Employees 13.23% 29.81%
22 SFMTA 261 Corrective Actions/
10.34% 50.96%
Discipline
23
Employees 45.23% 7.63%
24 PUC 16
Corrective Actions/ 43.75% 31.25%
25
9
26 City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Resources, Corrective Action and Discipline
by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, Sept. 11, 2019,
27 https://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Resources/Corrective-Action-and-Discipline-by-Race-
Ethnicity-and-Gender.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2020).
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 6
Discipline
1
Employees 20.38% 19.29%
2 DPH, DPW,
& SFMTA 360 Corrective Actions/
13.61% 44.72%
3 Discipline
5 25. The City is aware of its discrimination against Black employees with respect to pay,
6 promotions, and discipline. Hundreds of Black employees have filed formal EEO complaints with the
7 City’s Department of Human Resources over the years, including 186 complaints in 2019 alone.
8 According to the San Francisco Examiner, the City settled or lost at least 55 race discrimination lawsuits
9 between January 1, 2007 and December 14, 2018.
10 26. Despite repeated complaints to management, unions, and DHR and its EEO division, as
11 well as lawsuits, settlements, and filings with federal, state, and city agencies, the City has failed to
12 meaningfully address its systemic discrimination and harassment of Black employees. Indeed, Black
13 employees were promoted less, released more, and their wage disparity compared to white employees
14 decreased a mere 20 cents per hour, or $400 per year in the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year compared to the 2018-
15 2019 Fiscal Year. This after the City hired an ombudsman who issued a report on its systemic racism in
16 January 2019 and after the City hosted two public hearings before its Board of Supervisors in November
17 2018 and February 2019. The City also notably created a new Office of Racial Equity in October 2019.
18 27. At the heart of the City’s failure to address its systemic discrimination is the City’s reckless
19 and ineffective Department of Human Resources. DHR is a department controlled and operated by the
20 City. DHR provides human resource services to the City and its departments. Among its many
21 responsibilities, DHR classifies the City’s positions, manages Memoranda of Understanding and the
22 Municipal Code related to compensation, negotiates and administers the provisions of collective
23 bargaining agreements between the City and labor organizations representing City employees, creates
24 hiring processes for citywide positions, trains and advises departments on hiring processes, and
25 investigates and resolves discrimination and harassment complaints.
26 28. DHR routinely ignores and dismisses City employees’ complaints, which are largely
27 submitted by Black employees. As detailed above, less than 1% of the complaints submitted to DHR’s
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 7
1 EEO division in the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year were sustained or resulted in harassment prevention training
2 and discipline.
3 29. Upon information and belief, Black employees have repeatedly complained about DHR’s
4 mismanagement of complaints. In addition to concerns about the rate that complaints are ignored, Black
5 employees have expressed concerns about DHR’s slow pace and DHR employees misleading aggrieved
6 employees during the process.
7 30. For instance, it recently came to light that one of DHR’s managers in its EEO division, an
8 employee who handled hundreds of discrimination complaints submitted by City employees, admitted to
9 misleading an aggrieved Black employee for months, forging a settlement agreement with the employee,
10 and deleting records. According to this manager, Rachel Sherman, she could not sustain the aggrieved
11 employee’s discrimination complaint because such a finding “would not be popular” with the head of the
12 EEO division. 10 The Black Employee Alliance and Coalition Against Anti-Blackness reported similar
13 incidents, including a case in which an employee was provided a fraudulent settlement agreement,
14 withdrew their lawsuit per the agreement, and then were notified that the agreement was fraudulent. 11
15 B. Defendant Underpaid and Failed to Promote Ms. Robinson-Luqman, Ignored her

Complaints of Discrimination, and Subjected her to Racial Harassment
16
17 31. On February 22, 2016, Ms. Robinson-Luqman was hired as a 1840 Junior Management
18 Assistant within SFMTA.
19 32. Throughout her tenure at SFMTA, Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s white female supervisor,
20 Roberta Boomer (the Board Secretary, job class 9190), has subjected her to relentless harassment and
21 discrimination. Ms. Boomer has made every effort to degrade Ms. Robinson-Luqman, devalue her
22 identity as a Black Muslim woman, and make her feel as though she does not belong at SFMTA.
23 33. Ms. Boomer has made comments to Ms. Robinson-Luqman, the only Black woman who
24
10
Michael Barba, Email explains ‘terrible decisions’ behind HR manager forging deal, S.F. EXAMINER,
25 Oct. 2, 2020, https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/email-explains-terrible-decisions-behind-hr-manager-
26 forging-deal/.
11
Michael Barba, Supes seek answers after Human Resources manager accused of forgery, S.F.
27 EXAMINER, Sept. 23, 2020, https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/supes-seek-answers-after-human-
resources-manager-accused-of-forgery/.
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 8
1 reports to her, intended to inflict racial trauma and cause her to feel unsafe in the workplace. On multiple
2 occasions during check-in and division meetings, Ms. Boomer has told Ms. Robinson-Luqman: “they used
3 to do things like hang nooses at the office here.”
4 34. Ms. Boomer has shown Ms. Robinson-Luqman that she sees Black people as inferior and
5 subordinate–including Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s infant daughter. In June 2017, when Ms. Robinson-
6 Luqman brought her then two-month-old daughter into the office, Ms. Boomer referred to her daughter as
7 her “future employee.” On October 12, 2017, Ms. Boomer began to refer to Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s
8 daughter as “miss thing.” Ms. Boomer has never used this language to refer to any of her non-Black
9 colleagues’ children. Alarmed that her white supervisor was stereotyping her two-month-old daughter,
10 Ms. Robinson-Luqman asked Ms. Boomer not to refer to her daughter as “miss thing” and told her that
11 she was assigning a stereotypical “Black girl attitude” to her daughter. Following this complaint, Ms.
12 Boomer again referred to Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s daughter as “miss thing” at least three more times. In
13 addition to stereotyping Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s daughter, Ms. Boomer uses stereotypical language with
14 Ms. Robinson-Luqman: Ms. Boomer referred to Ms. Robinson-Luqman and at least two other Black
15 women that Ms. Robinson-Luqman has witnessed as “girlfriend,” emailed her to say a flight was “mo
16 betta” on December 14, 2017, and emailed her on January 28, 2020 saying “I’se tired.” Ms. Boomer does
17 not use this language with any of Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s non-Black colleagues.
18 35. Ms. Boomer has weaponized racist stereotypes to harm Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s
19 reputation in the workplace and prevent her from advancing her career. On Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s
20 August 26, 2020 performance review, under the “respect” performance goal, Ms. Boomer wrote that Ms.
21 Robinson-Luqman has “no regard” for her facial expressions and that her facial expressions make others
22 uncomfortable. Although Ms. Boomer eventually deleted this comment from Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s
23 performance review, it is nevertheless revealing of her discriminatory animus. Additionally, on January
24 23, 2018, Ms. Boomer told a coworker to stay away from Ms. Robinson-Luqman because she was “raging”
25 due to Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s stated frustration. Ms. Robinson-Luqman once again took it upon herself
26 to alert Ms. Boomer to her racism and informed Ms. Boomer that she was stereotyping her as an “angry
27 Black woman.”
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 9
1 36. Ms. Boomer’s refusal to see past her racial prejudice is demonstrated by her staunch
2 resistance to learning about discrimination, equity, and inclusion. She has met Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s
3 efforts to alert her to her racial bias with hostility and retaliation. Indeed, Ms. Boomer told Ms. Robinson-
4 Luqman that she reconsidered giving Ms. Robinson-Luqman the Assistant Board Secretary title after Ms.
5 Robinson-Luqman told Ms. Boomer she was stereotyping her as an angry Black woman. Additionally,
6 on January 30, 2020, when Ms. Robinson-Luqman told Ms. Boomer that leaving a poster hanging of Dr.
7 Martin Luther King Jr. in one of the stations was insufficient to demonstrate a real commitment to diversity
8 and inclusion, Ms. Boomer accused her of “snickering,” said that her comment was “not very nice” and
9 that Ms. Robinson-Luqman was “disparaging” her.
10 37. Ms. Boomer has also refused to attend diversity and equity trainings. In February 2018,
11 Ms. Boomer told Ms. Robinson-Luqman that she left a diversity and inclusion training because she “was
12 tired of hearing about what white people did to Black people.” Ms. Boomer has demonstrated time and
13 time again that she is unwilling to put in the work to address her racism, and told Ms. Robinson-Luqman
14 as much when, on May 30, 2019, Ms. Boomer said she would not attend the City’s equity training because
15 she had “real work to do.”
16 38. In addition to the constant racial harassment to which she was subjected, the City has
17 denied Ms. Robinson-Luqman equitable pay, promotions, and opportunities for advancement.
18 39. The City has deceived and exploited Ms. Robinson-Luqman since she was hired as a Junior
19 Management Assistant in 2016. Well-aware that Ms. Robinson-Luqman was over-qualified for her
20 position, 12 Defendant assigned Ms. Robinson-Luqman all the job duties that were previously performed
21 by two employees. To further exploit Ms. Robinson-Luqman, the City assigned Ms. Robinson-Luqman
22 Board Secretary job duties—managerial-level duties associated with Ms. Boomer’s 9190 job
23 classification. These job duties were previously assigned to Caroline Celaya, a non-Black 0923 Manager
24 II multiple levels above Ms. Robinson-Luqman, who earns at least $20,000 more than her annually.
25 40. Ms. Robinson-Luqman performed these additional high-level tasks without additional pay.
26
12
While Ms. Robinson-Luqman has a bachelor’s degree, her non-Black colleague, Caroline Celaya, has
27 a higher job classification and earns more than Ms. Robinson-Luqman although she does not have a
bachelor’s degree (which is a minimum requirement for her Manager II position).
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 10
1 To compel Ms. Robinson-Luqman to continue to work out of class without commensurate compensation,
2 in August 2017, Ms. Boomer told Ms. Robinson-Luqman that she was training her to take over her Board
3 Secretary position when she retired in 2020. Ms. Boomer repeated this promise many times after this
4 initial commitment. The salary schedule for Board Secretary is $66,000 to $104,000 more per year than
5 the salary schedule for Junior Management Assistant as of July 1, 2020.
6 41. On multiple occasions throughout 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, Ms. Robinson-Luqman
7 complained to Ms. Boomer about her inequitable compensation. Ms. Boomer has brushed off every
8 complaint Ms. Robinson-Luqman has made. For instance, in December 2017, after Ms. Robinson-
9 Luqman raised concerns about working out of class, Ms. Boomer attempted to justify Ms. Robinson-
10 Luqman’s unequal pay and job title by telling her that her husband would soon be making more money,
11 which should help her financially. Ms. Robinson-Luqman also complained about being denied career-
12 enhancing opportunities. On several occasions, Ms. Robinson-Luqman has asked Ms. Boomer to invite
13 her to lunches Ms. Boomer coordinates with the City secretaries. Although Ms. Boomer has invited Ms.
14 Celaya to these lunches, she has never invited Ms. Robinson-Luqman.
15 42. Instead of promoting Ms. Robinson-Luqman or increasing her pay to reflect her job duties,
16 Ms. Boomer continued to deceive and exploit her. She attempted to pacify Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s
17 unequal pay and promotion concerns by assigning her the “Assistant Board Secretary” title on February
18 9, 2018, again assuring her that she would have an excellent chance of being hired for the Board Secretary
19 position following her retirement because she was consistently letting the Board of Directors know that
20 she was training Ms. Robinson-Luqman for the position.
21 43. Recognizing that Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s job duties were well beyond the scope of her
22 classification, in March 2018, Ms. Boomer changed Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s classification in the budget
23 to “Senior Management Assistant.” This classification is two levels higher and a salary range 7% higher
24 than Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s current position. Ms. Robinson-Luqman did not received any increase in
25 salary following the reclassification.
26 44. Ms. Boomer’s decision to reclassify Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s job position left her with two
27 options: she could either appoint Ms. Robinson-Luqman to the Senior Management Assistant position by
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 11
1 classifying that position as PEX, or she could force Ms. Robinson-Luqman to take an exam to reapply for
2 the position she had been performing for more than two years. When Ms. Robinson-Luqman asked Ms.
3 Boomer to appoint her to the elevated position she was already performing so that she could be fairly
4 compensated for her work, Ms. Boomer refused, telling her: “I want to play by the rules.” Notably, neither
5 Ms. Boomer nor Ms. Celaya were required to take an exam to apply for their positions.
6 45. SFMTA’s Human Resources (“SFMTA-HR”) and leadership have both refused to provide
7 any recourse. In May 2018, Ms. Robinson-Luqman expressed her concerns about reapplying to her
8 position to then Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin, and on September 4, 2019, she complained to a
9 SFMTA-HR representative who told her that she had no choice but to reapply to her position if Ms.
10 Boomer refused to appoint her.
11 46. Consequently, Ms. Robinson-Luqman is officially performing the role of a job
12 classification two levels above her and has continued to work out of class without additional pay. On
13 August 22, 2019, she took the Senior Management Assistant exam and did not receive the requisite score
14 for the Senior Management Assistant position. As such, Ms. Robinson-Luqman continues to perform
15 Senior Management Assistant job duties without the corresponding job title or compensation. Moreover,
16 Ms. Robinson-Luqman works under the constant threat of being removed from this position, since her job
17 classification does not align with the classification for the role she is performing.
18 47. After years of assigning Ms. Robinson-Luqman out of class work without commensurate
19 pay, and after years of baiting her with a promised promotion to Board Secretary, Ms. Boomer attempted
20 to block Ms. Robinson-Luqman from the promotion for which she was purportedly grooming her.
21 48. On June 22, 2020, Ms. Robinson-Luqman learned that a requirement for five years of
22 experience would be added as a minimum qualification for the Board Secretary position, even though the
23 job description for this position as of May 15, 2020 did not have any minimum qualifications. Upon
24 information and belief, Ms. Boomer was responsible for adding this minimum qualification. Although
25 Ms. Robinson-Luqman had only 4.5 years of experience, she applied to the position when it opened on
26 July 15, 2020.
27 49. Upon information and belief, eight people applied to the Board Secretary position, and
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 12
1 according to the Chair of the Board, Gwyneth Borden, several applicants did not have five years of
2 experience.
3 50. In September 2020, Ms. Robinson-Luqman learned that she would not receive an interview
4 for the position. The position was ultimately given to Christine Silva, an Asian woman.
5 51. Ms. Boomer’s refusal to appoint Ms. Robinson-Luqman to the Senior Management
6 Assistant position, in addition to adding a minimum qualification she knew Ms. Robinson-Luqman lacked,
7 contributed to this denied promotion. After Ms. Robinson-Luqman learned that she did not receive an
8 interview for the position in September 2020, she asked Ms. Borden why she was not moving forward.
9 Ms. Borden told Ms. Robinson-Luqman that Tracy Pon, a SFMTA-HR representative, did not think Ms.
10 Robinson-Luqman’s experience was “professional” because she is classified as an 1840 Junior
11 Management Assistant.
12 52. Although Ms. Boomer is transitioning out of her position and, as of November 4, 2020,
13 Ms. Robinson-Luqman reports to Ms. Silva, Ms. Boomer continues to ask Ms. Robinson-Luqman to
14 perform Board Secretary tasks. When Ms. Robinson-Luqman complained to Ms. Borden about being
15 required to perform Board Secretary tasks, even after she was denied the Board Secretary promotion, Ms.
16 Borden told Ms. Robinson-Luqman that she was not being a team player.
17 53. Ms. Robinson-Luqman has complained on numerous occasions about Ms. Boomer’s
18 harassment and failure to equitably pay and promote her. The City has recklessly handled Ms. Robinson-
19 Luqman’s complaints and has done nothing to remedy her discriminatory work environment, despite being
20 on notice.
21 54. On February 7, 2020, Ms. Robinson-Luqman filed a complaint of discrimination with
22 DHR’s EEO division. Her complaint was assigned to DHR Manager Rebecca Sherman—who
23 subsequently resigned after grossly mishandling a Black female employee’s EEO complaint of
24 discrimination. Ms. Sherman admittedly lied to this employee about her investigation findings and forged
25 a settlement agreement that promised her a promotion and payment of more than $500,000. 13 Ms.
26
13
Michael Barba, Email explains ‘terrible decisions’ behind HR manager forging deal, S.F. EXAMINER,
27 Sept. 23, 2020, https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/email-explains-terrible-decisions-behind-hr-manager-
forging-deal/
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 13
1 Sherman similarly mishandled Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s complaint. Following her EEO intake interview
2 on February 27, 2020, Ms. Robinson-Luqman did not receive any communication from Ms. Sherman.
3 Ms. Robinson-Luqman escalated her concerns to Jeffrey Tumlin, Director of SFMTA, and Virginia
4 Harmon, an EEO officer. Ms. Robinson-Luqman also submitted an inquiry with the DFEH and had an
5 intake interview on May 19, 2020. During this interview, the DFEH investigator told Ms. Robinson-
6 Luqman to follow through with the EEO process before taking further action with the DFEH.
7 55. After four months of silence from the EEO, Ms. Robinson-Luqman was informed that her
8 charge had been reassigned to a different EEO officer, Jan Kawano. Ms. Robinson-Luqman has continued
9 to inquire about the status of her EEO complaint with Ms. Kawano, who has informed her that she is
10 handling other complaints and has not been able to complete Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s complaint, nearly
11 nine months after it was filed.
12 56. In spite of the City’s failure to investigate her claims, Ms. Robinson-Luqman has remained
13 vigilant and has continued to escalate her concerns to upper-level management, but to no avail. On
14 October 1, 2020, Ms. Robinson-Luqman emailed Kimberly Ackerman, the Director of HR for SFMTA,
15 to complain about the City’s failure to equitably pay and promote her.
16 57. Despite countless complaints about discrimination, to date, the City has not taken any
17 action to remedy Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s disparate treatment and unequal pay.
18 C. Defendant Subjected Class Representative Alicia Williams to a Hostile Work

19 Environment, Recklessly Handled Her Complaint of Discrimination, and Denied
Her Opportunities for Advancement
20
21 58. Ms. Williams has worked as a DPH Licensed Vocational Nurse for nearly 19 years.
22 Throughout nearly two decades with the City, Ms. Williams has reported to managers who have harassed
23 her, degraded her, and disciplined her—all on the basis of racist stereotypes about Ms. Williams and Black
24 people. For instance, in 2011, Ms. Williams’s white female manager, Maggie Rykowski, told Ms.
25 Williams that none of the employees in her department liked Ms. Williams and that they were afraid of
26 her. Ms. Rykowski solicited employees to complain about Ms. Williams, including an employee who
27 wrote a letter to HR claiming that Ms. Williams threatened her life and her husband’s life. This employee
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 14
1 later wrote a letter retracting this statement and said that she and her husband did not in fact feel threatened
2 by Ms. Williams.
3 59. The City has contorted Ms. Williams’s complaints about her racist managers into grounds
4 by which to discipline Ms. Williams. For instance, soon after Ms. Williams filed a grievance against Ms.
5 Rykowski through her union, Ms. Rykowski issued a written suspension against Ms. Williams for
6 allegedly leaking patient information when attempting to defend herself against another disciplinary
7 action.
8 60. In 2012, Ms. Williams was transferred to a white male manager, Clayton Hooper. Mr.
9 Hooper consistently made racist comments to Ms. Williams, including, but not limited to: claiming he
10 was a “white man trapped in a Black woman’s body,” telling Ms. Williams she does not have a “friendly-
11 looking face,” using racist and stereotypical language with Ms. Williams that he does not use with non-
12 Black employees, claiming that Ms. Williams folds her arms, rolls her neck, and waves her finger in the
13 air while saying “I ain’t doing this” (Ms. Williams does not use the word “ain’t”), and making racist
14 remarks about Ms. Williams’s hair texture (for instance, calling her hair “unkempt”) and clothing. Mr.
15 Hooper also required Ms. Williams to write a Black History Month essay—which he returned to her with
16 redlines—to attend a Black History event hosted by the City.
17 61. Leslie Dubbin, another manager in Ms. William’s division, also weaponized harmful
18 stereotypes about “angry Black women” against Ms. Williams and told her that she hoped Ms. Williams
19 would get assistance for “all of her mental health issues.”
20 62. Ms. Williams filed a complaint about Mr. Hooper’s harassment through the City’s
21 Whistleblower Program. Upon information and belief, the Whistleblower Program did nothing to
22 investigate her complaint or address Mr. Hooper’s harassment.
23 63. After only three months of working under Mr. Hooper, he and Ms. Dubbin terminated Ms.
24 Williams for purported “insubordination” and “damaging city property.” Relying on harmful stereotypes
25 about Black people and the complaints and discipline Ms. Rykowski solicited and lodged against Ms.
26 Williams, Mr. Hooper and Ms. Dubbin alleged that Ms. Williams engaged in a pattern of violence against
27 DPH employees and that in “an angry fit of rage,” Ms. Williams threw a computer tower. None of this
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 15
1 was true. Ms. Williams, who has approved work accommodations that prevent her from lifting more than
2 ten pounds, could not have picked up the computer tower, let alone thrown it in a “fit of rage.”
3 64. In or around May 2012, Ms. Williams was terminated and out of work for nearly two years.
4 Notably, the City did not allow her to return to the office to collect her belongings because “everyone was
5 afraid of her.” Ms. Williams was not restored to her position until August 2014, when an arbitrator found
6 that her managers were “racially tinged.” Despite this finding, Ms. Williams was placed on a “last chance
7 agreement,” whereby she would be immediately terminated for any complaint brought against her from
8 2014 to 2016. The City also required Ms. Williams to attend weekly anger management classes.
9 65. After losing two years of income and two years of service with the City because of actions
10 than an independent third party confirmed were “racially tinged” and unjustified, Ms. Williams continued
11 to endure a hostile work environment when she was transferred to Laguna Honda Hospital (“Laguna
12 Honda”) in August 2014. As one of the few Black clinicians in the hospital, Ms. Williams’s non-Black
13 managers have targeted her for harassment and have failed to protect her from discrimination.
14 66. On January 8, 2020, when Ms. Williams went to the Laguna Honda wellness facility—
15 which is only accessible to Laguna Honda employees—Ms. Williams found a note that said: “Alicia the
16 monkey, black monkey.” Upon information and belief, this note was written by a non-Black employee
17 who regularly harassed Ms. Williams in the wellness facility by telling her she does not belong at Laguna
18 Honda and turning on high beam bright lights in the facility—even after Ms. Williams informed him that
19 the lights trigger her.
20 67. Ms. Williams immediately reported the racist note to her union representative, Willie
21 Hayes, who escalated her complaint to the head of the wellness center, Jennifer Carlton Wade, and Jacky
22 Spencer-Davies, the acting Chief Nursing Officer at the time. Ms. Wade and Ms. Spencer-Davies
23 informed Ms. Williams that her complaint would be handled by EEO officer Hallie Albert; however,
24 following Ms. Williams’s EEO intake interview, Ms. Williams did not hear from Ms. Albert for months.
25 When Ms. Williams reached out to Ms. Albert to inquire about her complaint in April 2020—four months
26 after she complained about the note—Ms. Albert informed Ms. Williams that the perpetrator could not be
27 identified after reviewing video footage and entry logs.
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 16
1 68. Ms. Spencer-Davies and Ms. Wade failed to take any action to address this overt act of
2 racism. Neither Ms. Spencer-Davies nor Ms. Wade took any steps to address Ms. Williams’s hostile work
3 environment, nor did they take any action to investigate this incident or protect Ms. Williams from
4 discrimination beyond referring her to Ms. Albert.
5 69. Following this act of racial hatred and her managers’ failure to address this incident, Ms.
6 Williams felt particularly unsafe in her work environment. She took a medical leave of absence from
7 January 10, 2020 until February 10, 2020.
8 70. Soon after Ms. Williams returned from leave, her manager at the time took a leave of
9 absence, and Ms. Williams was assigned to report to Ms. Spencer-Davies. Unfortunately, Ms. Spencer-
10 Davies reported directly to Ms. Rykowski—Ms. Williams’s former manager who encouraged other
11 employees to complain about her, terminated her, was found by an arbitrator to have brought “racially
12 tinged” allegations against her.
13 71. At the direction of Ms. Rykowski, Ms. Spencer-Davies changed Ms. Williams’s schedule.
14 Ms. Williams informed Ms. Spencer-Davies that the schedule change would require her to use Family
15 Medical Leave Act leave to attend classes to receive her Registered Nursing (“RN”) certification. Ms.
16 Spencer-Davies refused to accommodate Ms. Williams’s schedule, told Ms. Williams she needs to make
17 a choice between work and school and that she should be happy that she has a job, and threatened to
18 terminate Ms. Williams if she did not comply with her modified schedule. Upon information and belief,
19 Ms. Spencer-Davies and Ms. Rykowski have accommodated other non-Black employees to allow them to
20 attend RN classes.
21 72. Furthermore, beginning in March 2020, Ms. Spencer-Davies banned Ms. Williams from
22 working overtime. Meanwhile, Ms. Spencer-Davies allowed a non-Black employee, who has a lower job
23 classification than Ms. Williams, to work 112 hours per week over the course of three months.
24 73. In addition to preventing Ms. Williams from taking classes that would allow her to advance
25 her career and barring her from overtime opportunities, Ms. Spencer-Davies subjected Ms. Williams to
26 unwarranted discipline at Ms. Rykowski’s direction. On May 18, 2020, Ms. Rykowski instructed Ms.
27 Spencer-Davies to send Ms. Williams home without question due to a complaint raised by Ms. Williams’s
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 17
1 white colleague, who claimed that Ms. Williams refused to be screened for COVID-19 before entering the
2 hospital. Without asking Ms. Williams for her side of the story, Ms. Spencer-Davies sent Ms. Williams
3 home and threatened her with discipline and termination.
4 74. Ms. Spencer-Davies and Ms. Rykowski continue to fabricate and solicit baseless grounds
5 to discipline Ms. Williams. Ms. Spencer-Davies issued four disciplinary memos regarding Ms. Williams’s
6 schedule on June 15, 2020, June 19, 2020, July 5, 2020, and July 7, 2020.
7 75. The City’s failure to protect Ms. Williams from harassment and discrimination has created
8 a work environment where it is impossible for Ms. Williams to advance her career on terms equal to that
9 of her non-Black counterparts. For instance, Ms. Williams’s managers’ refusal to accommodate a
10 schedule that would allow her to attend RN classes, while allowing her non-Black peers to attend these
11 classes, has prevented Ms. Williams from receiving any promotion. Indeed, although Ms. Williams has
12 worked for the City for nearly two decades, she has never been eligible for a promotion. Any promotion
13 Ms. Williams could receive requires her to have RN certification, and year after year, Ms. Williams has
14 been assigned to managers who have discriminatorily blocked her from attending RN classes.
15 76. Even though Ms. Williams does not have an RN degree, she is assigned RN-level job
16 duties—without commensurate pay. In fact, prior to Ms. Williams’s transfer to Laguna Honda, an RN
17 held her current job position. Ms. Williams is also expected to perform her assigned job duties without
18 the support staff that is routinely provided to non-Black employees—at San Francisco General, a team of
19 employees is assigned to perform the same role Ms. Williams performs, alone, at Laguna Honda.
20 Moreover, when Ms. Williams took a leave of absence from January 10, 2020 until February 10, 2020, a
21 team of approximately five employees at Laguna Honda were assigned to take over her role. The City
22 has denied Ms. Williams assistance or backup of any kind and instead forces her to perform out of class
23 work without additional compensation.
24 D. Defendant Has Exploited and Refused to Promote Class Representative John Hill
25 77. The Water Department is an entity of the Public Utilities Commission, a City department
26 that has been rocked with scandal as of late: on November 30, 2020, Harlan Kelly, PUC Chief resigned
27 amidst charges for honest services fraud by the FBI for accepting bribes in exchange for unfair business
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 18
1 advantages to a construction company executive and permit consultant. The Chief has been linked through
2 contracts to Mohammed Nuru, the former DPW Director at the center of a bribery investigation within
3 the City. 14
4 78. Mr. Hill has worked for the City of San Francisco in the Department of Water as a 7514
5 General Laborer since 1999. Black employees have historically been underrepresented in the PUC. For
6 years, Mr. Hill was one of 10 or fewer Black employees out of 200-250 on his yard at a time. He and
7 another Black employee are the first and second highest in seniority on his yard. Neither have ever
8 received a promotion but have watched as almost every other non-Black employee has been hired and
9 promoted within just a few years. Mr. Hill has trained countless new employees over the years and has
10 twice served in Acting Supervisor positions. Despite passing the civil service test with the highest scores
11 amongst his competitors, performing work as a Supervisor without compensation, and maintaining a
12 perfect attendance and performance record, the City has refused to promote him.
13 79. From 1999 to 2009, Mr. Hill worked diligently in his position, gaining the recognition of
14 the then Supervisor I, Brian Hill (“Supervisor Hill”). When Supervisor Hill went out on leave in 2009,
15 Mr. Hill was appointed as Acting Supervisor I, job class 7215, during his periodic absences. Under the
16 union’s collective bargaining agreement, a person who performs the role of a higher paying position for
17 more than ten days should be paid at the level of the higher paying position. Mr. Hill was never paid for
18 performing the work of Acting Supervisor I between 2009 and 2012.
19 80. Historically, 7414 General Laborer positions have had few opportunities for advancement.
20 Those positions that were available were offered to non-Black and mostly white employees who were able
21 to pursue training as plumbers while working for the City. Mr. Hill, by comparison, was repeatedly
22 informed that if he were to pursue a trade in plumbing, he would have to resign from his permanent
23 position due to what the City leaders said is an inability to perform his role while learning a trade. Mr.
24 Hill also witnessed many temporary 7215 Supervisor I positions created as a means to boost salaries for
25
26
14
Megan Cassidy, SFPUC chief charged with accepting bribes in alleged City Hall corruption scheme,
27 SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Nov. 30, 2020, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/FBI-raids-
San-Francisco-home-of-PUC-chief-Harlan-15763755.php.
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 19
1 employees near retirement. Upon information and belief, every person who received these temporary
2 positions was white.
3 81. In early 2012, Mr. Hill was notified of his eligibility for two 7215 Supervisor I positions
4 that were open in Sunol and Millbrae. Both yards are staffed by predominately white employees. Mr.
5 Hill received the highest rank in the Civil Service test and applied for both positions. He received an
6 interview for the Sunol position, but was told before entering the interview that participating would only
7 be for practice because the recipient of the position had already been determined – it would go to a family
8 member of the retiring white Supervisor. Mr. Hill did not receive an interview for the Millbrae yard
9 despite his qualifications and test score.
10 82. In November 2015, Mr. Hill applied for a 7281 Supervisor II position. He ranked first on
11 the 2014 Civil Service test. The hiring committee refused to fully credit Mr. Hill for the work he
12 performed in the 7215 Supervisor I position in an acting capacity between 2009 and 2012, and instead
13 granted him only three months of experience. The City further refused to grant Mr. Hill a waiver for
14 evidencing past supervisory experience at a prior job that no longer contained active records of his
15 employment. Such a waiver is available and common for internal hires who are white, and has been
16 utilized for other white employees in Mr. Hill’s department. Rather than promote Mr. Hill, the City
17 promoted a white man and friend of Water Department Manager David Brigg, who had no experience in
18 PUC. Mr. Hill reported this transfer as unfairly denying opportunity within the PUC and his yard. As a
19 result, Chief Harlan Kelly allegedly considered promotions within the yard. Despite Mr. Hill’s high
20 placement on the test, another person was promoted as Acting Supervisor rather than Mr. Hill.
21 83. On May 16, 2016, Mr. Hill was notified of his eligibility for an open 7215 Supervisor I
22 position in a different city department. Mr. Hill attended an interview but did not receive the position.
23 84. On September 14, 2015, Mr. Hill was appointed to a temporary and project-based, three-
24 year 7215 Supervisor I position. Under that role, he performed the duties of Supervisor for three years
25 successfully. He had no performance problems and received positive feedback. During Mr. Hill’s tenure,
26 he has witnessed countless colleagues be placed into similar temporary positions that ultimately lead to
27
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 20
1 permanent positions, regardless of a person’s performance or ranking, or in some cases, extended periods
2 of temporary placement when an employee is unable to pass the civil service test.
3 85. No such allowances were provided to Mr. Hill. Instead, Mr. Hill was met by management
4 at every turn with attempts to discipline him in order to limit his opportunities for advancement. Every
5 claim against him was successfully proven to be unwarranted and ultimately dropped.
6 86. Mr. Hill went out on protected leave from September 2018 to February 2019 to care for his
7 ailing brother. When he returned, he was informed by a colleague—a Laborer serving as Acting
8 Supervisor—that his supervisory responsibilities were terminated and that he should return to the yard in
9 his previous Laborer position.
10 87. Mr. Hill followed up with then Director Katie Miller to determine why he was demoted.
11 In response, Ms. Miller first began to tell Mr. Hill that the Director of the City Garden Project, Catherine
12 Sneed, did not find him to be Supervisor material. When Mr. Hill pressed for additional information
13 regarding a claim he had not heard before, Ms. Miller immediately retracted her statement and denied that
14 she had even discussed Mr. Hill with Ms. Sneed. Ms. Miller then suggested to Mr. Hill that he should go
15 out and “prove” how good of an employee he could be.
16 88. Mr. Hill followed up with Ms. Miller’s suggestion that he prove himself by reminding her
17 that he had successfully worked as a Laborer for 20 years and as a Supervisor for the previous three years.
18 When he discussed his concerns with Operations Manager Bill Teahan, Acting Supervisor Anthony
19 Travis, and Ms. Miller, Mr. Teahan told Mr. Hill that he would be put on a six-week performance review
20 to determine his next step. Not only was a performance evaluation for his position as Laborer unnecessary,
21 given Mr. Hill’s experience and prior performance, but Mr. Hill had successfully performed above his
22 position for the previous three years. When Mr. Hill questioned whether this review was disciplinary in
23 nature or in response to his work, Mr. Teahan emphatically denied that it was, but became irritated with
24 Mr. Hill and shouted at him to leave the office and return in six weeks to discuss further. Mr. Hill left the
25 office without a clear understanding of what would take place in six weeks. He never received a follow-
26 up regarding this purported “review.”
27
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 21
1 89. Mr. Hill also learned that, during his absence, a less-senior white male colleague had been
2 temporarily placed in the position of Supervisor I, in Bill Hill’s absence—the same job Mr. Hill had
3 performed successfully years earlier. When Mr. Hill asked for an explanation of how his colleague was
4 placed in the position and what protocols were used to fill the vacancy, Mr. Miller could only tell him that
5 his colleague had “done a good job” and that she was unaware as to why Mr. Hill would not have received
6 notice of the vacancy. To Mr. Hill’s knowledge that colleague had also not passed the Civil Service test
7 at the time of his appointment and maintains the role in an acting capacity due to his failure to pass the
8 civil service test.
9 90. PUC management and DHR are aware of the inequities within the Water Department but
10 have refused to remedy them. In August 2020, the State Personnel Board (“SPB”) issued a report
11 regarding its investigation into PUC hiring practices by PUC Executive Director Alice Stebbins. In its
12 findings, the SPB made clear that the PUC had failed to create and implement a policy for nepotism, an
13 important means of ensuring merit-based placements are not replaced by placements based on prior
14 relationships. 15
15 91. On February 14, 2019, Mr. Hill raised his complaints to former PUC Chief Harlan Kelly.
16 Mr. Kelly acknowledged what he called a “lack of diversity promotions” within the department due to
17 personal connections. Rather than address the issue, Mr. Kelly suggested that Mr. Hill move to a different
18 department to seek opportunity for promotion, indicating his strong belief that Mr. Hill stood no chance
19 of promotion within the department he had faithfully worked for 20 years.
20 92. In June 2019, Mr. Hill reported his concerns to the Equal Employment Opportunity
21 Commission. He later received a notice from DHR that it was aware of his complaint and would
22 investigate the matter fully. DHR then sent the matter to the PUC to investigate. Mr. Hill attended one
23 interview with PUC-HR that lasted for less than 20 minutes and in which Mr. Hill was asked very little
24 about his experiences. The result of PUC’s “investigation” was that no wrongdoing had taken place.
25
26
27 15
California State Personnel Board, Special Investigation Report California Public Utilities Commission
(Aug. 6, 2020), https://spb.ca.gov/reports/SICPUCFinalReport082020.pdf
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 22
1 93. The extent of nepotism within the PUC is well known and discussed extensively amongst
2 its employees. In early 2020, Mr. Hill’s yard had a retirement party for one of the outgoing Supervisors.
3 During a speech, the outgoing Supervisor made a comment that there was a lot of talk about people’s
4 problems with nepotism, but that the yard is “family” and went on to say, “nepotism for life.”
5 94. In November 2020, Mr. Hill learned the PUC had made changes to its testing policy after
6 his placement dropped from number one to number fifteen on the list. Whereas the test previously
7 consisted of entirely multiple choice, it was now changed to include essay questions and multiple choice,
8 although the Supervisor positions require very little in terms of administration. Such a change in a test
9 that Mr. Hill has historically done well on raises questions about the disparate impact of the tests and the
10 means by which they are administered.
11 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
12 A. Class Definition
13 95. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all Black employees (union and non-union)
14 who are classified as non-management, permanent civil service employees in the Department of Public
15 Health, Municipal Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Public Utilities Commission, and
16 any other department from November 25, 2017 (for the California Equal Pay Act claim) or September 28,
17 2019 (for all other claims) through the date of trial.
18 96. Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent.
19 97. This action should proceed as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section
20 382 because the Class is ascertainable, there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation, and
21 the Class is manageable. Class certification in this action would produce substantial benefits to the
22 litigants, the members of the Class, and the Court.
23 B. Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder
24 98. The approximately 4,000 Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all Class
25 Members is impracticable.
26 C. Community of Interest
27 99. There is a well-defined community of interest because common questions of law and fact
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 23
1 exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual
2 members of the Class. Those common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to:
3 a. Whether the City has had a systemic policy and/or practice of paying its Black employees less
4 than what is paid to its employees of other races for performing substantially similar work, when viewed
5 as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar conditions;
6 b. Whether the City has a systemic policy and/or practice of disproportionately hiring Black
7 employees for lower-level and lower-grade positions as compared to employees of other races, leading to
8 overall lower compensation;
9 c. Whether the City has had a systemic policy and/or practice of disproportionately excluding
10 Black employees from management and leadership positions as compared to employees of other races
11 leading to lower overall compensation;
12 d. Whether the City’s systemic policy and/or practice of paying its Black employees less than that
13 paid to their counterparts of other races violates the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal.
14 Gov’t. Code § 12940(a) and/or San Francisco Police Code § 3303 (“Section 3303”);
15 e. Whether the City’s systemic policy and/or practice of disproportionately hiring Black employees
16 for lower-level and lower-grade positions as compared to employees of other races violates the FEHA
17 and/or Section 3303;
18 f. Whether the City’s systemic policy and/or practice of excluding Black employees from
19 management and leadership positions as compared to employees of other races violates the FEHA and/or
20 Section 3303;
21 g. Whether the City’s systemic policy and/or practice of paying its Black employees less than that
22 paid to their counterparts of other races violates the California Equal Pay Act, as amended, Cal. Labor
23 Code § 1197.5 (“CEPA”);
24 h. Whether the City’s systemic policy and/or practice of paying its Black employees less than that
25 paid to employees of other races was willful;
26 i. Whether the City’s performance evaluation systems lead to lower overall compensation and
27 fewer promotions for Black employees as compared to employees of other races;
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 24
1 j. Whether the City’s systemic failure to respond to HR complaints represents a failure of its
2 affirmative duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or
3 retaliation from occurring;
4 k. Whether the City’s failure in its affirmative duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
5 discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation from occurring violates the FEHA; and
6 l. Whether the City’s systemic targeting of Black employees with unjustified disciplinary actions
7 at disparate rates, when compared to their non-Black colleagues, constitutes unlawful discrimination on
8 the basis of race against Plaintiffs and the Class.
9 D. Typicality of Claims and Relief Sought
10 100. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed Class. Plaintiffs, like the
11 members of the proposed Class, are Black employees who worked for the City in California during the
12 Class Period.
13 101. On information and belief, Plaintiffs Robinson-Luqman, Hill, and Williams, like the
14 members of the proposed Class, have been paid less than employees of other races for substantially similar
15 work, and been denied opportunities for advancement in a manner that is disproportionate as compared to
16 employees of other race; and been subject to the City’s failure to prevent discrimination and harassment.
17 102. The relief sought by Plaintiffs herein are also typical of the relief sought on behalf of the
18 proposed class.
19 E. Adequacy of Representation
20 103. Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the Class
21 because it is in Plaintiffs’ best interest to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation
22 due to the members of the class, and to obtain injunctive relief to protect the Class from further
23 discrimination. Plaintiffs’ interests align with those of Class Members. Plaintiffs have selected counsel
24 who have the requisite resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and are experienced
25 labor and employment attorneys who have successfully litigated class actions and other cases involving
26 similar issues.
27 104. This suit is properly maintained as a class action under C.C.P. § 382 because the City has
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 25
1 implemented an unlawful scheme that is generally applicable to the Class, making it appropriate to issue
2 final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole. This suit
3 is also properly maintained as a class action because the common questions of law and fact predominate
4 over any questions affecting only individual members of the class. For all these and other reasons, a class
5 action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy set
6 forth herein.
7 VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
8 COUNT I
Race Discrimination, Pay
9 FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code section 12940, et seq.; Section 3303, S.F. Pol. Code section 3303
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
10
11 105. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as alleged above as if
12 fully set forth herein.
13 106. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA and Section 3303 were in full force and effect
14 and fully binding upon Defendant. Plaintiffs and the Class were members of a group protected by the
15 statute, in particular Government Code section 12940(a) and S.F. Police Code section 3303(a), prohibiting
16 discrimination in employment based on race.
17 107. The unequal pay provided to Plaintiffs and the Class by Defendant constitutes
18 discrimination based on race and violated Government Code section 12940(a) and S.F. Police Code
19 section 3303(a)(1).
20 108. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiffs
21 and the Class have suffered and continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment
22 benefits, and have incurred other economic losses.
23 109. As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
24 Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to
25 the Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
26 COUNT II
Race Discrimination, Promotions
27 FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code section 12940, et seq.; S.F. Pol. Code section 3303
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 26
3 111. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA and Section 3303 were in full force and effect
4 and fully binding upon Defendant. Plaintiffs and the Class were members of a group protected by the
5 statute, in particular Government Code section 12940(a) and S.F. Police Code section 3303(a), prohibiting
6 discrimination in employment based on race.
7 112. Defendant’s failure to promote Plaintiffs and the Class because of their race constitutes
8 discrimination based on race and violated Government Code section 12940(a) and S.F. Police Code
9 section 3303(a)(1).
12 benefits, and have incurred other economic losses.
14 Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to
15 the Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
16
17 COUNT III
Unequal Pay
18 CEPA, Cal. Lab. Code section 1197.5, et seq.
19
22 116. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class in violation of the CEPA by
23 paying Black employees at wage rates less than the wage rates paid to employees of other races for equal
24 and substantially similar work. Specifically, Defendant paid Black employees less than employees of
25 other races for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility,
26 and performed under similar working conditions.
27 117. Defendant willfully violated the CEPA by intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 27
1 paying Black employees less than employees of other races for equal and substantially similar work.
2 118. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, violation of the CEPA, and/or willful, knowing, and
3 intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer harm,
4 including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic
5 damages.
6 119. Plaintiffs and the Class are therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available
7 under law, including wages, interest, and liquidated damages.
9 COUNT IV
Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment
10 FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code section 12940(k)
11
14 121. Under California Government Code § 12940(k), it is an unlawful employment practice for
15 an employer “to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring.”
16 122. Through its above-described actions and omissions, Defendant failed in its affirmative duty
17 to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation from
18 occurring in violation of the FEHA.
19 123. Among other failures, Defendant failed to pay and promote Plaintiffs and Class Members
20 equally compared to similarly situated, non-Black employees despite repeated complaints to management,
21 senior leadership, Human Resources, and the Legal Department.
22 124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiffs and the Class
23 have suffered lost wages, employment benefits, other compensation and benefits, and other economic
24 damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
25 125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiffs and Class
26 Members have suffered injury, including but not limited to emotional distress, entitling them to
27 compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 28
1 126. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant
2 to California Government Code section 12965(b).
3 COUNT V
Race Discrimination, Discriminatory Discipline
4
FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code section 12940(k)
5 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
8 128. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA was in full force and effect and fully binding
9 upon Defendant. Plaintiffs and the Class were members of a group protected by the statute, in particular
10 Section 12940(a), prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race.
11 129. Defendant’s employees employ customs, practices, policies, and conduct of targeting
12 Black employees with unjustified disciplinary actions at rates much higher than their non-Black colleagues
13 are subject to discipline.
14 130. Defendant’s policies, customs, practices, and conduct with respect to the implementation,
15 execution, and administration of disciplinary proceedings has a disparate, adverse, and discriminatory
16 impact on Black employees and constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race against Plaintiffs
17 and the Class.
20 benefits and have incurred other economic losses.
22 Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all
23 adding to the Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
24
25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26 Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request the following relief:
27 a. Certification of the class claims identified in this action as a class action under
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 29
1 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of the Class;
2 b. Designation of Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class;
3 c. Designation of Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as Class Counsel;
4 d. A declaratory judgment that that Defendant’s policy and practice of discriminating
5 against Black employees as complained of herein violates the FEHA, Section 3303 and
6 the CEPA;
7 e. A preliminary and permanent injunction:
8 i. Prohibiting Defendant from engaging in any conduct violating the rights of
9 Plaintiffs and Class Members as secured by the FEHA, Section 3303, and the CEPA
10 and other such injunctive relief as will prevent Defendant from continuing their
11 discriminatory practices and from engaging in any further unlawful practices,
12 policies, customs, usages, and race discrimination as set forth herein;
13 ii. Requiring Defendant to adjust the wages and benefits for the respective Plaintiffs
14 and Class Members to the level or employment status that they would be enjoying
15 but for the Defendant’s discriminatory policies, practices and/or procedures;
16 iii. Requiring Defendant to develop, adopt, and apply written policies, to be approved
17 by the Court, which will ensure Defendant’s compliance with the FEHA, Section
18 3303, and the CEPA;
19 iv. Requiring Defendant to train its Human Resources and employees in supervisory
20 roles in the requirements and proper enforcement of the FEHA, Section 3303, and
21 the CEPA;
22 v. Requiring Defendant to provide other injunctive relief as just and necessary to
23 Plaintiffs and Class Members who establish that they are entitled to such injunctive
24 relief; and
25 f. Wages, salary, employment benefits, and other compensation or benefits denied to or
26 lost by Plaintiffs and Class Members in an amount in accordance with proof presented
27 at trial;
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 30
1 g. Compensatory damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members in an amount in accordance
2 with proof presented at trial;
3 h. Civil penalties as provided by the Labor Code if applicable;
4 i. An award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees;
5 j. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest or liquidated damages; and
6 k. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
9 Dated: December 9, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
10
_____________________________
11 Felicia Medina
12 Jennifer Orthwein
Kevin Love Hubbard
13 MEDINA ORTHWEIN LLP
14 Therese Cannata
Karl Olson
15 Michael Ching
16 CANNATA, O’TOOLE, FICKES & OLSON
LLP
17
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CGC-20-588012 31

Attorneys For Plaintiffs and The Class

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Attorneys For Plaintiffs and The Class

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 Felicia Medina (SBN 255804) Therese Y.

Cannata (SBN 88032)

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

6 practice of systemic racism against Black employees.

11 3. Across all departments, as substantiated in a 2020 Annual Workforce Report released by

17 forms of discrimination against [its] own workforce.” 4

18 4. Fueling these disparities is the City’s pattern or practice of perpetuating an anti-Black

3 employees’ pay, promotion, and career-enhancing opportunities, and livelihoods.

13 7. DHR officials themselves have confirmed that discrimination complaints by employees

23 represent only 15% of the City’s workforce.

3 it has on their economic, emotional, and physical well-being.

7 II. THE PARTIES

16 as a General Laborer, job class 7514, since 1999.

20 III. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

4 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5 A. Systemic Anti-Black Racism Pervades the City and HR

14 Figure 1: Appointment Types and Wages 5

15 All employees Black employees White employees

12 Figure 4: Employees and Corrective Actions/Discipline by Race/Ethnicity 9

6 employees during the process.

15 B. Defendant Underpaid and Failed to Promote Ms. Robinson-Luqman, Ignored her

18 Assistant within SFMTA.

3 to do things like hang nooses at the office here.”

23 performance review, it is nevertheless revealing of her discriminatory animus. Additionally, on January

9 that Ms. Robinson-Luqman was “disparaging” her.

15 she had “real work to do.”

5 the salary schedule for Junior Management Assistant as of July 1, 2020.

14 Celaya to these lunches, she has never invited Ms. Robinson-Luqman.

20 she was training Ms. Robinson-Luqman for the position.

25 salary following the reclassification.

10 Boomer refused to appoint her.

11 46. Consequently, Ms. Robinson-Luqman is officially performing the role of a job

26 July 15, 2020.

10 Robinson-Luqman’s experience was “professional” because she is classified as an 1840 Junior

21 54. On February 7, 2020, Ms. Robinson-Luqman filed a complaint of discrimination with

11 nine months after it was filed.

17 action to remedy Ms. Robinson-Luqman’s disparate treatment and unequal pay.

18 C. Defendant Subjected Class Representative Alicia Williams to a Hostile Work

16 redlines—to attend a Black History event hosted by the City.

19 would get assistance for “all of her mental health issues.”

22 investigate her complaint or address Mr. Hooper’s harassment.

19 the lights trigger her.

27 identified after reviewing video footage and entry logs.

4 discrimination beyond referring her to Ms. Albert.

7 January 10, 2020 until February 10, 2020.

12 tinged” allegations against her.

3 home and threatened her with discipline and termination.

23 work without additional compensation.

18 performing the work of Acting Supervisor I between 2009 and 2012.

2 positions was white.

9 despite his qualifications and test score.

9 his previous Laborer position.

15 out and “prove” how good of an employee he could be.

26 up regarding this purported “review.”

8 civil service test.

19 of promotion within the department he had faithfully worked for 20 years.

10 means by which they are administered.

11 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17 2019 (for all other claims) through the date of trial.

18 96. Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent.

22 litigants, the members of the Class, and the Court.

23 B. Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder

8 overall lower compensation;