Myer Law Firm - Archives - Friedman v. Kaiser Original Complaint

Locate Books About Being Vegan

Click on the Desired Book

Copy of Friedman v. Southern California Permanente/Kaiser Lawsuit − Original Complaint

CASE NO. BC224249

ORIGINAL FILED FEB 03 2000 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR CAUSES OF ACTION, INCLUDING: 1) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON RELIGION/VEGAN; 2) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN DISCRIMINATION-FREE WORKPLACE; 3) RETALIATION; 4) BATTERY; 5) INVASION OF PRIVACY; 6) NEGLIGENCE; 7) MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION; 8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, 9) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, 10) BREACH OF IMPLIED IN FACT CONTRACT, AND 11) BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

MYER LAW FIRM, SCOTT D. MYER, ESQ. (SBN 126048), 11040 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 320, Los Angeles, CA 90025-7515, 310.277.3000 310.444.3244, Fax 310.444.3214, Email myerlaw@bestlawyer.com, Attorney for Plaintiff, JEROLD DANIEL FRIEDMAN, also known as JERRY FRIEDMAN,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JEROLD DANIEL FRIEDMAN, also known as JERRY FRIEDMAN,

Plaintiff,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, a California partnership; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION ADDED CHOICE HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation; MACTEMPS, an unknown business entity; AQUIENT, an unknown business entity, doing business as MACTEMPS; LASER DESIGNS, Corporation Which Will Do Business in California as MACTEMPS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

___________________________________

Plaintiff, JEROLD DANIEL FRIEDMAN, also known as JERRY FRIEDMAN, alleges and states as follows:

THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION:

1. At all material times, Plaintiff, JEROLD DANIEL FRIEDMAN, also known as JERRY FRIEDMAN, (hereinafter referred to either as "Plaintiff" and/or "FRIEDMAN"), was a resident of the County of Los Angeles and the State of California.

2. The employment contract upon which the Plaintiff sues herein was made in and to be performed in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California, in particular at 9521 Dalen Street, Downey, California 90242.

3. At material times, Plaintiff worked for MACTEMPS, as hereinafter defined, and/or for KAISER, as hereinafter defined, in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California, and therefore the unlawful employment acts complained of herein occurred in Los Angeles County, State of California.

4. Plaintiff, a male, is, and was at all times relevant herein, a strict Vegan. As a strict Vegan, the Plaintiff fervently believes that all living beings must be valued equally and that it is immoral and unethical for humans to kill and exploit animals, even for food, clothing and the testing of product safety for humans, and that such use is a violation of natural law and the personal religious tenets on which the Plaintiff bases his foundational creeds. He lives each aspect of his life in accordance with this system of spiritual beliefs. As a Vegan, and his beliefs, the Plaintiff cannot eat meat, dairy, eggs, honey or any other food which contains ingredients derived from animals. Additionally, the Plaintiff cannot wear leather, silk or any other material which comes from animals, and cannot use any products such as household cleansers, soap or toothpaste which have been tested for human safety on animals or derive any of their ingredients from animals. This belief systems guides the way that he lives his life. The Plaintiff's beliefs are spiritual in nature and set a course for his entire way of life; he would disregard elementary self-interest in preference to transgressing these tenets. The Plaintiff holds these beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views, and has lived in accordance with his beliefs for over nine (9) years. As an example of the religious conviction that the Plaintiff holds in his Vegan beliefs, the Plaintiff has even been arrested for civil disobedience actions at animal rights demonstrations. This Vegan belief system guides the way that the Plaintiff lives his life. These are sincere and meaningful beliefs which occupy a place in the Plaintiff's life parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious individuals adhering to the Christian, Jewish or Muslim Faiths.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, a California partnership, (hereinafter referred to as "SOUTHERN GROUP"), is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant KAISER HOSPITALS is an entity subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §12900, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "FEHA"), in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "KAISER HOSPITALS"), is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant KAISER HOSPITALS is an entity subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §12900, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "FEHA"), in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "KAISER PLAN"), is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant KAISER PLAN is an entity subject to suit under the FEHA, in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION ADDED CHOICE HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "KAISER ADDED PLAN"), is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant KAISER ADDED PLAN is an entity subject to suit under the FEHA, in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "KAISER INTERNATIONAL"), is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION is an entity subject to suit under the FEHA, in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

10. Defendants SOUTHERN GROUP, KAISER HOSPITALS, KAISER PLAN, KAISER ADDED PLAN and KAISER FOUNDATION are herein individually and collectively referred to as "KAISER."

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant MACTEMPS, an unknown business entity, (hereinafter referred to as "MACTEMPS ENTITY"), is a corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant MACTEMPS ENTITY is an entity subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §12900, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "FEHA"), in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant AQUIENT, an unknown business entity, doing business as MACTEMPS, (hereinafter referred to as "AQUIENT"), is a corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant AQUIENT is an entity subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §12900, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "FEHA"), in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant LASER DESIGNS, Corporation Which Will Do Business in California as MACTEMPS, (hereinafter referred to as "LASER"), is a corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Defendant LASER DESIGNS is an entity subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §12900, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "FEHA"), in that Defendant is an employer who regularly employs five or more persons.

14. Defendants MACTEMPS ENTITY, AQUIENT and LASER are herein individually and collectively referred to as "MACTEMPS," and is an employment or job placement agency.

15. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who thereafter sues such Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §474. Plaintiff is informed and believes that such DOE Defendants are California residents. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show such true names and capacities when they have been determined. Each Defendant was an agent of the other Defendants and ratified the conduct of the other Defendants and the other employees of KAISER and MACTEMPS.

16. Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to "Defendants, and each of them," such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of Defendants acting individually, jointly and/or severally.

17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant and/or employee, co-venturer and/or co- conspirator of each of the remaining Defendants, and was at all times herein mentioned, acting within the course, scope, purpose, consent, knowledge, ratification and authorization of such agency, employment, joint venture and conspiracy.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

18. This is a Civil Rights action for money damages, brought by an employee/contractor and employee/applicant who worked for, and then was offered employment with KAISER. The Plaintiff is an ethical Vegan, who had his work terminated, and his job offer rescinded solely because he refused to take a mumps vaccination which did not comport with his strongly held ethical principals and beliefs, rising to the level of religious beliefs. The Plaintiff has suffered severe and irreparable injuries as the result of the Defendants' actions.

19. Plaintiff was hired by MACTEMPS on or about June 10, 1997, to work for KAISER, as a computer contractor.

20. The Plaintiff had absolutely no contact with any of KAISER's patients, nor was it anticipated that he would ever have any such contact with any of KAISER's patients in the rendering of his services for KAISER. The Plaintiff merely worked in a KAISER-owned pharmaceutical warehouse from where client pharmacies order their bulk drugs. The warehouse has executive offices where the Plaintiff performed the majority, if not all, of his work duties.

21. The Plaintiff's job was, and as was to be, performed almost exclusively within this office warehouse type facility, and was not located within, about or at any hospital, doctor's office and/or medical clinic facility.

22. Throughout his contract and employment with MACTEMPS working for KAISER, KAISER's Supervisor in charge of the Plaintiff promised to try to have Plaintiff hired.

23. In or about, March 1998, Plaintiff's KAISER Supervisor secured a position for the Plaintiff in which the Plaintiff could be hired, and a salary based on $23.50 per hour, or $48,800.00 per year, was agreed to. This agreement was confirmed in writing.

24. Upon learning that contractors becoming employees are required to be vaccinated against rubeola, rubella, mumps and varicella, the Plaintiff had his blood drawn by KAISER's Occupational Health Department on or about March 20, 1998.

25. On or about March 26, 1998, the Plaintiff was told that to finish the process of becoming an employee he would need the mumps vaccine.

26. The Plaintiff confirmed with the Center for Disease Control that the vaccine for mumps is grown in chicken embryos. Because of the manner in which the mumps vaccine is grown, the Plaintiff could not proceed with that vaccination.

27. To be vaccinated with a vaccine either made with animal products and/or tested on animals would violate the Plaintiff system of beliefs and would be considered immoral by the Plaintiff.

28. The Plaintiff advised, Defendants, and each of them, that he could no be vaccinated because the use of animal products in the vaccine and/or animal testing of the vaccine violated his beliefs, including but not limited to when the Plaintiff wrote a letter on or about March 27, 1998, to the Plaintiff's direct Supervisor at KAISER, that he is a Vegan, but that he was willing to take any other alternative, in line with his beliefs, to comply with the spirit of the vaccine requirement. The Plaintiff stated that he would be willing to be checked periodically for mumps symptoms, and will follow any other regimen for disease control which does not involve the suffering or death of any human or non-human animal. Further, the Plaintiff offered to work off-site, since technology allows him to perform his work even if he is not at the company's work place.

29. The Plaintiff's direct Supervisor at KAISER, immediately after reading the letter verbally replied to the Plaintiff by saying, "Okay, because I know how you are," meaning that he would not have to take the mumps vaccine because she knew of his strongly held beliefs.

30. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Plaintiff's direct Supervisor at KAISER was ordered, by KAISER's Occupational Health Department, to send the letter Plaintiff wrote to KAISER's attorneys.

31. On or about April 10, 1998, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from Human Resources indicating that since he did not pass the health screening that that day would be his last day of employment at KAISER. Plaintiff's Supervisor was not at work that day, so when the Plaintiff told the assistant managers they called the Plaintiff's Supervisor in. Despite the Plaintiff's Supervisor's attempts to have the Plaintiff reinstated, she could not get the decision reversed. This shows that the Plaintiff was not fired for any reason other than the Plaintiff's refusal to take the mumps vaccine.

32. The policy of health screening employees is not uniformly enforced. While the Plaintiff had already been working at the same job at KAISER for ten (10) months, never was he asked to be screened until he was to become a direct employee of KAISER. Only upon being asked to become a direct employee of KAISER was he screened, even though it is KAISER's policy for all workers to be screened, even a one-day temporary employee, but he and many other workers in the facility were never screened.

33. Further, based on information and belief, and based thereon, it is alleged, certain visiting doctors, who come into actual contact with patients, have never been screened for the mumps antibodies nor have they been given the mumps vaccine.

34. Further, based on information and belief, and based thereon, it is alleged, visiting doctors who object to taking the mumps vaccine, who come into actual contact with patients, are given an "informal exemption" from the requirement to take the mumps vaccine in order not to offend these visiting doctors and the institutions from which they are visiting.

35. The massive prior non-compliance previously for contractors and "informal exemption" for visiting doctors with the requirement for mumps vaccination shows that the Defendants, and each of them, have failed to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiff's religious creed, and despite the fact that he is working in a non-medical facility.

36. Substantial medical authority, previously brought to the attention of the Defendants by the Plaintiff supports the view that vaccination of the Plaintiff for the alleged ailments required is not necessary in order to protect the patients and staff of KAISER.

37. Several preventable diseases, to wit, including, but not limited to Polio are more dangerous, more harmful and more devastating to the health, safety and well-being of both employees and patients, and do not require vaccination, even without the reason falling within a protected category, such as religious creed.

38. Several preventable diseases, to wit, including, but not limited to, Hepatitis are more dangerous, more harmful and more devastating to the health, safety and well-being of both employees and patients, and have only optional vaccination upon signing a notice of risks, even without the reason falling within a protected category, such as religious creed.

39. The fact that vaccination for other preventable diseases, especially those that are more dangerous than mumps, are either not required or optional, shows that the Defendants, and each of them, have failed to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiff's religious creed, and despite the fact that he is working in a non-medical facility.

40. Based upon the Plaintiff's refusal to be vaccinated with any vaccines derived from or tested on animals, which would violate his strongly-held religious, moral and ethical beliefs and creeds, and despite the Plaintiff's offers of accommodation, the Plaintiff was terminated from his employment on or about April 10, 1998, and had his job offer with KAISER revoked.

41. The Plaintiff believes that this termination discriminated against him on the basis of his religious views in violation of the California Government Code §12940, and other Constitutional, Statutory and Common Law Rights.

42. In engaging in the above conduct, the Defendants acted with malice and oppression, and deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's rights, thus entitling the Plaintiff to punitive damages against the Defendants.

43. On or about January 26, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was filed as Charge Number 340990605.

44. By virtue of a work-sharing agreement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, a Charge of Discrimination filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on the date that the Charge was filed was and is also deemed to be a Charge of Discrimination filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

45. On or about February 3, 1999, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing issued the Plaintiff a Notice to Complainant and Respondent/Notice to Complainant of Right-To-Sue (i.e., a Right to Sue Notice). The Plaintiff received this Notice a few days thereafter, and this complaint is being filed within one-year thereafter.

46. In or about July 1999, the Plaintiff first became aware that the TB test performed on the Plaintiff previously on or about March 20, 1998, included injecting the Plaintiff with bovine (cow) serum.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON RELIGION/VEGAN BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940:

47. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 46, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by this reference. This cause of action is pled against all Defendants, and each of them.

48. Defendants were at all material times employers and/or employment agencies within the meaning of California Government Code §12926(c) and, as such, barred from discriminating or retaliating in employment decisions on the basis of religious creed and/or religious beliefs, as set forth in California Government Code §12940, including §12940(a) and §12940(j).

49. Plaintiff was at all material times an employee covered by California Government Code §12940 prohibiting discrimination or retaliation in employment on the basis of religion.

50. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Guidelines on discrimination because of religion, §1605.1 provides in relevant part that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will "define religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views."

51. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against Vegan employees, including Plaintiff, on the basis of religion in violation of California Government Code §12940 by engaging in a course of conduct that included subjecting Plaintiff to unnecessary requirements and harassment and hostility because of his religion, to wit: Vegan. This behavior continued up until the time of Plaintiff's termination and even thereafter in terms of their refusal to reinstate him and his offer of employment.

52. The Plaintiff deeply, ardently and sincerely believes that it is immoral and unethical for humans to kill or slaughter animals, to exploit animals, to use animal products in any product whatsoever, and to test human products on animals, or even use animals ingredients in medications. The Plaintiff lives by a system of beliefs that requires him to value all living beings equally. These canons guide and direct his life in the same manner and with the same strength of traditionally held religious beliefs. This system of beliefs conflicts with the participation and/or encouragement of mandatory vaccination with vaccines and tests made from animal products or tested on animals. As a result, the Plaintiff could not undertake vaccination that utilized animal products or was tested on animals without violating his religious beliefs.

53. Plaintiff's religious beliefs prevent him from being vaccinated with any vaccine made from or with any animal product whatsoever and/or that has been tested on animals in any fashion. As a result, the Plaintiff could not receive the vaccination that KAISER stated was required to complete his hiring process, without violating his spiritual belief that all living beings should be accorded the same value.

54. These views are held by the Plaintiff as his "religious creed" and "religious beliefs."

55. The Defendants refused to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiff's religious beliefs and terminated him from his position and revoked his job offer in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §12940, et seq.

56. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in addition to the practices enumerated above, the Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in other discriminatory practices against him which are not yet fully known. At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to him, the Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard.

57. Further, DOE Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted Defendants KAISER and MACTEMPS and the other Defendants in engaging in illegal discrimination on the basis of religion against Vegan employees, including subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination harassment and hostility because of his religion, in violation of California Government Code §12940(g).

58. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.

59. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses incurred in seeking and performing substitute employment and in earnings, and other employment benefits he would have received had Defendants not taken such adverse employment actions against him.

60. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer loss of income, pain and suffering, post-traumatic stress disorder, embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress, and may suffer medical expenses and other incidental expenses, all to his damage in an amount according to proof.

61. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, in bad faith, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff thus is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.

62. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against him, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress; he may have to incur medical expenses for treatment by health care professionals and for other incidental expenses; and he has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities Plaintiff is hereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

63. As a further direct and proximate result of such acts, the Plaintiff has sustained and suffered injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his body, physical health, strength and activity and shock and injuries to his nervous system, and has also suffered and continues to suffer severe physical and mental pain and anguish in connection therewith, all of which have caused and continue to cause the Plaintiff great mental, physical, spiritual, emotional and nervous pain and suffering. The full extent of the Plaintiff's injuries and damages have not yet been ascertained and the Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the full extent of such injuries and damages when they have been fully ascertained if deemed necessary by this Court.

64. As result of Defendants' discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law and Defendants continue to engage in said alleged wrongful practices. Therefore, Plaintiff requests:

a) That he be made whole and afforded all benefits attendant thereto that would have been afforded Plaintiff but for said discrimination; and

b) That Defendants, their agents, successors, employees and those acting in concert with them be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, usages and customs set forth herein, and that they be required to develop posting polices, grievance procedures and training regarding religious discrimination.

65. As a further and direct and proximate result of the Defendants' violation of Government Code §12940, et seq., as heretofore described, the Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of legal counsel in an effort to enforce the terms and conditions of the employment relationship with the Defendants, and has thereby incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to the Plaintiff, who therefore will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard when the same shall be fully and finally ascertained. The Plaintiff therefore requests that attorneys' fees and costs be awarded pursuant to California Government Code §12965. Therefore, as a result of Defendants' discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of said suit as provided by California Government Code §12965(b).

66. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated will suffer severe and irreparable harm unless an injunction issues:

(a.) Requiring the Defendants, and each of them, to offer the Plaintiff reasonable alternatives to the mandatory vaccination with vaccines and tests made from animal products or tested on animals; and,

(b.) Requiring the Defendants, and each of them, to allow the Plaintiff full seniority for the time that he has missed at KAISER since his termination.

67. The Plaintiff has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law other than the relief requested herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENT FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM, UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(i)

68. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against all Defendants, including but not limited to KAISER and MACTEMPS.

69. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff from occurring, and to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to remedy the harassment, in violation of California Government Code §12940(i), by engaging in the course of conduct set forth in the Paragraphs above, among other things.

70. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, specifically, KAISER and MACTEMPS failed and has failed to the present time to take any disciplinary action against the offenders, nor the other Defendants', such as issuing a formal warning, providing counseling, or imposing probation, suspension, or termination.

71. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that prior to Plaintiff's discriminatory termination, Defendants, and each of them, have never conducted any religious discrimination training and to this date has never posted any religious discrimination harassment policies for its supervisors or employees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST KAISER AND DOES UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(f)

72. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 71, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against the KAISER Defendants, and each of them, and the DOE Defendants.

73. Defendants, and each of them, have retaliated against the Plaintiff in violation of California Government Code §12940(f), by engaging in a course of retaliatory conduct including, among other things, the conduct set forth in the Paragraphs above, when he complained about religious discrimination. This retaliation continued up until the time of Plaintiff's termination, carried out by KAISER and some of its officers and/or employees of KAISER acting at least in part within the course and scope of their employment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST KAISER AND DOE DEFENDANTS

74. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 73, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against the KAISER and DOE Defendants, and each of them.

75. On or about March 20, 1998, Defendants injected the Plaintiff with a medical test that contained animal products and/or products that were tested on animals after having advised the Plaintiff that the injection did not contain animal products and were not tested on animals, knowing that the Plaintiff objected to and did not consent to an injection containing animal products and/or products that were tested on animals.

76. The injection in fact contained animal products and/or products that were tested on animals, a fact that the Plaintiff first reasonably learned on or about July 21, 1999.

77. Based thereon, the injection amounted to a battery upon the Plaintiff's person.

78. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, Plaintiff has sustained and suffered injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his body, physical health, strength and activity and shock and injuries to his nervous system, and has also suffered and continues to suffer severe physical and mental pain and anguish in connection therewith, all of which have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff great mental, physical, spiritual, emotional; and nervous pain and suffering. The full extent of the Plaintiff's injuries and damages have not yet been ascertained and the Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the full extent of such injuries and damages when they have been fully ascertained if deemed necessary by this Court.

79. In doing the wrongful and intentional acts as hereinabove alleged, Defendants acted with oppression and malice and with conscious and willful disregard for the health, safety, general welfare and rights of the Plaintiff. Such action was despicable, shocking and offensive and entitles the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against the Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST KAISER AND DOE DEFENDANTS

80. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 79, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against the KAISER and DOE Defendants, and each of them.

81. The Plaintiff has a right of privacy under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, and common law.

82. Defendants, without Plaintiff's consent, intruded into Plaintiff's privacy by the conduct set forth above, including but not limited to, in particular, injecting animal products and/or products that had been tested on animals into the Plaintiff's body.

83. The intrusions described above were offensive and objectionable to Plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST KAISER AND DOE DEFENDANTS

84. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 83, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against the KAISER and DOE Defendants, and each of them.

85. If the trier of fact does not find that the above-referenced acts were done intentionally, then by virtue of the aforementioned acts, the Defendants negligently and/or recklessly in disregard of the Plaintiff's rights, health and safety, caused physical, mental and emotional injury to the Plaintiff. The Defendants know or should have known that their failure to exercise due care with respect to the Plaintiff's rights would cause the Plaintiff serious injury and damages as alleged hereinabove.

86. The KAISER Defendants, and each of them, knew the Plaintiff's objection to animal products and animal testing.

87. The KAISER Defendants, and each of them, advised the Plaintiff that the screening test did not have any animal products as ingredients and that it had not been tested on animals.

88. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge and skill, including but not limited to, in particular, advising the Plaintiff that the screening test did not contain any animal products and/or products that had been tested on animals.

89. The screening test in fact contained animal products as ingredients and/or had been tested on animals.

90. Had Plaintiff been advised that the screening test in fact contained animal products as ingredients and/or had been tested on animals, he would not have consented to such screening test.

91. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, the Plaintiff has sustained and suffered injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his body, physical health, strength and activity and shock and injuries to his nervous system, and has also suffered and continues to suffer severe physical and mental pain and anguish in connection therewith, all of which have caused and continue to cause the Plaintiff great mental, physical, spiritual, emotional and nervous pain and suffering. The full extent of the Plaintiff's injuries and damages have not yet been ascertained and the Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the full extent of such injuries and damages when they have been fully ascertained if deemed necessary by this Court.

92. On or about November 4, 1999, Plaintiff, pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure §364, caused to be served on the KAISER Defendants a notice of Plaintiff's intention to commence this action. This action is being filed at least ninety days thereafter.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY/NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN CONSENT TO MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §24170, et seq., etc. BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST KAISER AND DOE DEFENDANTS

93. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 92, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against the KAISER and DOE Defendants, and each of them.

94. California Heath and Safety Code §24170, et seq., including §24175(a), §24173, 11525 and 11530, requires the consent of all human subjects before medical experimentation can be performed on such human subjects.

95. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the requirement that all employees of KAISER be vaccinated for mumps if they did not have mumps anti-bodies was a part of a Human Medical Experiment being conducted on KAISER employees.

96. The Plaintiff did not consent to be a part of a Human Medical Experiment.

97. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, the Plaintiff has sustained and suffered injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his body, physical health, strength and activity and shock and injuries to his nervous system, and has also suffered and continues to suffer severe physical and mental pain and anguish in connection therewith, all of which have caused and continue to cause the Plaintiff great mental, physical, spiritual, emotional and nervous pain and suffering. The full extent of the Plaintiff's injuries and damages have not yet been ascertained and the Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the full extent of such injuries and damages when they have been fully ascertained if deemed necessary by this Court.

98. Plaintiff is further entitled to a $5,000.00 civil liability penalty by virtue of Defendants, and each of their, failure to obtain consent prior to experimentation, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §24176.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM

99. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 98, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against all Defendants, and each of them.

100. The conduct set forth hereinabove was extreme and outrageous and an abuse of the authority and position of Defendants, and each of them. Said conduct was intended to cause severe emotional distress, or was done in conscious disregard of the probability of causing such distress. Said conduct exceeded the inherent risks of employment and was not the sort of conduct normally expected to occur in the workplace. Defendants, and each of them, abused their position of authority toward Plaintiff, and engaged in conduct intended to humiliate Plaintiff and to convey the message that he was powerless to defend her rights. Defendants KAISER and MACTEMPS abused their authority and directly injured Plaintiff by their ratification of Defendant KAISER's acts and by its owners' and employees' actions in failing to protect, and violating the rights of Plaintiff.

101. The foregoing conduct did in fact cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme emotional distress. As a proximate result of said conduct, Plaintiff suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and emotional distress, and will continue to suffer said emotional distress in the future in an amount according to proof.

THEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM

102. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 101, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against all Defendants, and each of them.

103. In carrying out the above conduct, Defendants breached a duty owed to Plaintiff to provide a workplace free from unfair treatment, discrimination and retaliation, and abused their positions of authority towards him. Said conduct exceeded the inherent risks of employment and was not the sort of conduct normally expected to occur in the workplace. KAISER and MACTEMPS violated the above duty directly by ratifying KAISER's and the other defendants' and employees' conduct.

104. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known, that the above conduct would cause Plaintiff extreme emotional distress. As a proximate result of Defendants' negligent conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer extreme humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress in an amount according to proof.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM

105. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 104, inclusive, above, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against all Defendants, including KAISER and MACTEMPS.

106. During the entire course of Plaintiff's employment with KAISER and MACTEMPS, there existed an employment agreement between Plaintiff and KAISER and MACTEMPS which included, but was not limited to, the following terms and conditions:

a.) Plaintiff would be able to continue his employment with KAISER and MACTEMPS indefinitely so long as he carried out her duties in a proper and competent manner;

b.) After a certain period of time that the Plaintiff's employment would be switched from MACTEMPS to KAISER;

c.) Plaintiff would not be denied fair treatment, fired or have his job offer rescinded other than good cause;

d.) KAISER and MACTEMPS would not discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of religion, including his Vegan beliefs, or allow him to be retaliated against.

107. This total employment agreement was evidenced by various written documents, oral representations to Plaintiff by KAISER and MACTEMPS' agents and employees and the parties entire course of conduct including the following:

a.) Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that portions of this contract are embodied in KAISER and MACTEMPS' written personnel policies and discipline procedures;

b.) There is an established policy within KAISER and MACTEMPS known to Plaintiff and relied upon by him, that employees such as Plaintiff, who had performed services as good and faithful employees, would be treated fairly, would not have employment decisions made about them without good cause, and would not be subjected to discrimination or retaliation; and,

c.) Plaintiff's employment history at KAISER and MACTEMPS was excellent during the time that he worked there. He received outstanding performance appraisals during his employment. He received praise for his hard work, efficiency, and accomplishments at KAISER and MACTEMPS. He also received oral assurances of his continued employment at KAISER and MACTEMPS as long as he continued to do a good job. He also received oral assurances that his employment would be switched form MACTEMPS to KAISER.

108. As a result of the above representations, Plaintiff came reasonably to expect and to rely on the promise of job security and fair treatment. Such statements and acts by KAISER and MACTEMPS communicated to Plaintiff the idea that he had performed satisfactory and that job opportunities would be available. Plaintiff in good faith relied upon these representations and believed them to be true.

109. Plaintiff's reliance on and belief in and acceptance in good faith of all the assurances, promises and representations as listed in the Paragraphs above, led plaintiff throughout his employment with KAISER and MACTEMPS to reasonably believe that his employment was secure and that there existed thereby a contract of continuous employment with KAISER and MACTEMPS. As independent consideration for this contract of continuing employment, and as evidence of Plaintiff's reliance thereon, in addition to performing her regular duties as an employee of KAISER and MACTEMPS, Plaintiff gave up and refrained from seeking other employment opportunities.

110. Plaintiff undertook and continued employment and duly performed all the conditions of the agreement to be performed by him. Plaintiff has at all times been ready, willing and able to perform and has offered to perform all the conditions of this agreement to be performed by him.

111. Despite the representations made to Plaintiff and the reliance he placed on them, KAISER and MACTEMPS failed to carry out its responsibilities under, and breached the terms of, the employment agreement by, among other things, the following conduct:

a.) By failing to provide Plaintiff with a work environment free from discrimination and retaliation;

b.) By discriminating against Plaintiff based upon his religious views, Vegan;

c.) By failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiff's religious views, Vegan; and,

d.) By retaliating against and discharging Plaintiff when he complained about discrimination and sought to practice his religion, Vegan.

112. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff performed his job in a satisfactory and trustworthy manner.

113. KAISER and MACTEMPS breached the aforementioned total employment agreement by the conduct set forth above without regard to or in compliance with the requirements of the aforesaid agreement, and for reasons that were pretextual and untrue. Despite complaints to management regarding the discrimination by Defendant KAISER and others, it was never stopped. In fact, Plaintiff's unwillingness to accept the discrimination apparently ultimately resulted in increased harassment and other retaliatory termination.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM

114. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 113, inclusive, above, inclusive, are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pled against all Defendants, including KAISER and MACTEMPS.

115. The aforementioned employment agreement contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by which KAISER and MACTEMPS promised to give full cooperation to Plaintiff and his performance under the employment agreement and to refrain from doing any act which would prevent or impede Plaintiff from performing all the conditions of the agreement to be performed by her or any act that would prevent or impede Plaintiff's enjoyment of the fruits of said agreement. Specifically, said covenant of good faith and fair dealing required Defendants to fairly, honestly and reasonably perform the terms and conditions of said agreement.

116. KAISER and MACTEMPS breached said implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by denying Plaintiff a work environment free from discrimination and retaliation. KAISER and MACTEMPS further breached said implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by denying Plaintiff fair treatment, revoking his job offer, and terminating him. Such action were taken at a time when Plaintiff was fully capable of and was in fact performing his job in a fully satisfactory manner. Such actions by KAISER and MACTEMPS were not taken because of unsatisfactory job performance by Plaintiff; they were taken at least in part because of the Defendants' discrimination against Vegans, the Defendants' failure to accommodate Vegan beliefs, values and creeds, and Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination.

117. Plaintiff is informed and believes that KAISER and MACTEMPS breached its contract with Plaintiff without conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under said contract, without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract, and for the purpose of frustrating Plaintiff's enjoyment of the benefits of the contract.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

1. For special and economic damages, including back pay, front pay and other monetary relief, for all Causes of Action, in the amount of Five-Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00), or such higher amount proved at trial;

2. For general and non-economic damages for all Causes of Action, except Ten and Eleven;

3. For punitive damages according to proof for all Causes of Action, except Six, Seven, Nine, Ten and Eleven;

4. For a $5,000.00 civil liability penalty by virtue of Defendants, and each of their, failure to obtain consent prior to experimentation, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §24176.

5. For prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;

6. For injunction relief including requiring Defendants to adopt reasonable postings and changes in personnel policies and procedures regarding religious discrimination and retaliation, requiring training about religious discrimination harassment for all employees, for a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, successors and employees and those acting in concert with them from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, usages and customs set forth hereinabove, and for such other relief as the Court may deem proper;

7. That a judgment or permanent injunction declaring that alternatives to mandatory vaccination with vaccines and tests made from animal products or tested on animals, must be provided, upon a statement of violation of religious beliefs, including but not limited to Vegan;

8. That a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, and each of them, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all persons acting in concert with, at the direction of, in combination with or participating with them and other persons subject to their authority or control from enforcing any policy against providing alternatives to mandatory vaccination with vaccines and tests made from animal products or tested on animals;

9. For an injunction allowing the Plaintiff to be reinstated in his position as a computer expert for KAISER should he so desire;

10. For costs of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees, including pursuant to Government Code §12965(b); and,

11. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

DATED: February 3, 2000

MYER LAW FIRM

________________________
BY: SCOTT D. MYER, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
JEROLD DANIEL FRIEDMAN,
also known as JERRY FRIEDMAN

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury in this action.

DATED: February 3, 2000

MYER LAW FIRM

________________________
BY: SCOTT D. MYER, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
JEROLD DANIEL FRIEDMAN,
also known as JERRY FRIEDMAN

For More Information Contact:

Scott D. Myer
MYER LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1508
(310) 277-3000
Fax (310) 855-3380
Email info@myerlaw.com

Locate Books About Being Vegan

Click on the Desired Book

Scott D. Myer

Rated by Super Lawyers

loading ...

Friedman v. Southern California Permanente, Kaiser, et al.
Los Angeles Superior Court Case no. BC224249