Company Owners Violate Sacramento Hispanic Employees’ Rights, Part 10 of 18

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

60. Defendant UCC also discriminated against Plaintiff because of his vocal opposition to the sexual favoritism at his workplace.
61. The effect of Defendant UCC’s unlawful employment practices has been to limit, classify and to discriminate against plant floor workers in ways which jeopardize and tend to deprive them of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and/or race, and Plaintiff is a victim of such practices, is and will continue to be unlawfully deprived of income in the form of wages and of prospective retirement benefits, seniority, social security benefits, insurance coverage and non-monetary due solely to his sex and/or race.
62. Defendant UCC and/or its agents and employees, supervisors, managers, officers and/or directors knew or should have known of the severe and pervasive sexual favoritism on the basis of verbal and/or written reports of such actions made by Plaintiff to Defendant UCC’s supervisors, managers, officers and/or directors. Despite Defendant UCC’s actual and/or constructive knowledge of such favoritism, Defendant UCC failed to take immediate and/or appropriate corrective action to stop the favoritism. Furthermore, before the resulting unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation occurred, Defendant UCC failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such unlawful actions from occurring.
63. Defendant UCC also subjected plaintiff to discriminatory enforcement of company rules, arbitrary enforcement of rules, arbitrary write-ups, racially hostile comments, innuendos, and offensive and insulting remarks, unfair performance evaluations, contrived terminations, demotions, punishments and retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity.

64. As a proximate result and legal cause of Defendant UCC’s conduct as alleged herein above, Plaintiff has been damaged in that Plaintiff has suffered the loss of wages, salary, benefits, and promotion, in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
65. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was an excellent employees with an outstanding record of dedication, loyalty and efficient service and contribution to Plaintiffs employer’s goal.

66. Defendants and each of them knew or should have known, actually and/or constructively of the harassing actions as described herein above, on the basis that the actions and/or words described above were the actions and/or words of owners, directors, officers, managing agents, supervisors and/or employees of Defendants. (See Part 11 of 18.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information