Laserfiche WebLink
t City never critiqued Ms. Ortiz's performance during the meeting, nor did the City provide a legitimate <br /> 2 reason for her termination. Furthennore,upon information and belief,the City did not take the required <br /> 3 steps to transition Ms. Ortiz's position to that of a permanent employee after the expiration of her six- <br /> 4 month probationary period, intentionally depriving her of the benefit of certain employment <br /> 5 protections. Thus, it was clear to Ms. Ortiz that her employment was being tenninated, not for any <br /> 6 legitimate reason,but, rather, in retaliation for her protected complaints. <br /> 7 V. CAUSES OF ACTION <br /> 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION <br /> 9 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF <br /> 10 LABOR CODE & 1102.5 (_B) <br /> U <br /> 0.i 11 (Against All Defendants) <br /> 30 <br /> av o 12 17. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each, and every allegation contained in the <br /> F <br /> U <br /> 13 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. <br /> s14 18. At all times herein relevant, Labor Code § 1102.5 was in full force and effect. <br /> 0 <br /> w15 19. California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) provides that "An employer, or any person acting on <br /> Wx g 16 behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information...to a person <br /> zOW <br /> a 17 with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, <br /> 18 or correct the violation or noncompliance...if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the <br /> 19 information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a <br /> 20 local, state, or federal rule or regulation..." <br /> 21 20. Plaintiff disclosed to her employer's information that she had reasonable cause to believe <br /> 22 constituted a violation of state or federal law. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the <br /> 23 information she disclosed constituted violations of state and federal statutes, and the information <br /> 24 Plaintiff reported did in fact disclose violations of state and federal statutes, including the California <br /> 25 Labor Code. <br /> 26 21. Defendants failed to address, remedy, or give Plaintiff the authority to remedy any of these <br /> 27 reported violations. <br /> 28 22. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for making the disclosures described herein by engaging <br /> PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIVS COMPLAIN <br /> 5 <br />