Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
The plaintiff is seeking damages for the injury of the first cause of action for discrimination in hiring. The plaintiff therein sites sufficient facts and unambiguously includes each of the elements for the cause of action. The plaintiff is a protected applicant for employment and the defendant is a covered employer under the Cal. F.E.H.A., Gov. Code sec. 12900 et seq. The plaintiff states the facts of the adverse treatment of a supervisor of the defendants and the support of those acts by the Executive Director and a V.P. of the Board of Directors.
The plaintiff enquired as to, and discloses the discriminatory intent of the hiring policies. The plaintiff exhausted every administrative remedy not only by the powers of the Cal. D.F.E.H., but also in appealing to the public entities that fund as an independent contractor the defendants, the County of Sacramento, and the City of Sacramento.
The plaintiff has made a prima facie case in that she has clearly stated that she is a member of a protected class, qualified for the jobs offered and denied to her, suffered adverse action, and learned from the defendants on what basis others got the job she was seeking.
The plaintiff is seeking damages for the injury of the second cause of action for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. The plaintiff makes it very clear, in every conversation, that she is seeking to marry one employee and that they are denied that right by the employment contract of the employee and that the plaintiff is in fact denied the right to marry any employee by an employment contract that restricts the marriage of any person, Civ. Code sec. 1669.
The plaintiff states the facts of the defendants’ outrageous conduct after they learned of the plaintiff and the employee’s intentions, and the intent and reckless disregard for both the law, Civ. Code sec. 1669, and the emotional needs of the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that the defendant was aware of the severe emotional distress being inflicted and reacted by contacting her case manager at S.M.H., transferring her to a different shelter, and harassing her. (See Part 4 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.