Laserfiche WebLink
1 37. By engaging in the conduct alleged herein, these Defendants, and each of them, acted <br /> 2 oppressively, maliciously, fraudulently, and/or outrageously toward Plaintiff,with conscious disregard <br /> 3 for her known rights and with the intention of causing, and/or willfully disregarding the probability of <br /> 4 causing, unjust and cruel hardship to Plaintiff. In so acting, these Defendants intended to and did vex, <br /> 5 injure, and annoy Plaintiff. <br /> 6 38. Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Government <br /> 7 Code § 12965(b), and appropriate and effective equitable or injunctive relief pursuant to California <br /> 8 Government Code § 12965(c). <br /> 9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION <br /> 10 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY <br /> U <br /> 11 (Against All Defendants) <br /> a <0 12 39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth <br /> HF-u <br /> W 13 herein. <br /> y„ 14 40. Irrespective of any employment contract, the Employer Defendants' right to discharge Plaintiff <br /> w 15 was subject to limits imposed by public policy of the State of California. <br /> Wa 16 41. It is settled that an employer's discharge of an employee in violation of a fundamental public <br /> O 17 policy embodied in a constitutional or statutory <br /> � �c P y y provision gives rise to a tort action for wrongful <br /> 18 termination in violation of public policy. <br /> 19 42. Employer Defendants' discharge of Plaintiff violated the public policy of the State of <br /> 20 California, as expressed in provisions of the California Labor Code including but not limited to, the <br /> 21 FEHA, the California Constitution, and California Labor Code § 1102.5. Such violations may serve <br /> 22 as the basis of an action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. See Lazar v. Superior <br /> 23 Court(1996) 12 Cal, 4th 631. <br /> 24 43. Plaintiff's employment was terminated by Defendants in retaliation for making several <br /> 25 protected complaints regarding Defendants' unlawful practices and her refusal to participate in such <br /> 26 practices. <br /> 27 44. Such actions are unlawful in violation of the laws and public policy of the State of California, <br /> 28 and have resulted in damages and injury to Plaintiff, including general damages in an amount to be <br /> PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIZ'S COMPLAINT <br /> 8 <br />