ABSTRACT: On July 3, 2014, COMPLAINT, JOHN HANSON,
Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. M128436, was filed in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF
MONTEREY. The COMPLAINT consists of ALLEGATIONS
COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in
Employment), SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination), THIRD CAUSE OF
ACTION (Denial of Due Process Rights), FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory
Relief), FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Age-Based Discrimination in Employment-
Disparate Impact), SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract), SEVENTH CAUSE OF
ACTION (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
(Whistleblowing) against Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea) and PRAYER FOR
RELIEF. The CAUSES OF ACTION and PRAYER FOR RELIEF sections are
reproduced; the COMPLAINT document is embedded.
A CASE PROGRESS CONFERENCE is scheduled for January 6, 2015, Courtroom
14 at 9:00 A.M.
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
OF MONTEREY
JOHN
HANSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case
No. M128436
COMPLAINT
FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination
in Employment)
65. Hanson
hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully
set forth herein.
66. The City
discriminated against Hanson with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, as the City tried to force Hanson from
his occupation and vested property right to continued employment. The City stigmatized
Hanson, deprived him of due process and other California Constitutional rights
relating to his employment, and subjected Hanson to punitive action, including termination,
both as a result of animus against him based upon age and upon a related campaign
of discrimination and arbitrary action carried out against him by the City, including
activities related to his military service, his disability, his visibility
within the Carmel community, his friendly professional relationships with City
staff and officials, his unexcelled knowledge of the Carmel community and his
willingness to speak his mind to Stilwell, Paul and others in matters of public
consideration and importance. Stilwell, Paul, and other City officials engaged
in adverse employment actions against Hanson, in significant part upon a false
perception of disability and a failure of the City to investigate and
understand the perception of the limitations of disability and to accommodate
the disability.
67. As a direct,
foreseeable and proximate result of the City's acts and omissions, Hanson
suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish,
loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses.
68. As a further
direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City's acts and omissions,
Hanson suffered and continues to suffer lost earnings and other employment
benefits, future lost earnings, back pay, front pay, lost interest, medical expenses,
and other general and special damages, all to Hanson's detriment and damage in
an amount to be proven at trial.
69. Hanson has
been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate his statutory rights and is
entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.
70. Hanson made
timely complaints of discrimination, and the City provided no prompt or
effective remedies or investigations of the claims of discrimination.
71. The
discriminatory actions of the City were motivated by discriminatory animus of
the City officials, including Stilwell and Paul, acting with the support of
City officials.
WHEREFORE,
Hanson prays for judgment as described below.
SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful
Termination)
72. Hanson
hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully
set forth herein.
73. Hanson did
not abandon, waive, or knowingly and voluntarily relinquish his employment
rights in 2007, contrary to the City's claims in 2013 and 2014, and was entitled
to the rights and benefits afforded by law for permanent public employees whose
rights of property and due process are valid and binding rights. The City confiscated
Hanson's property, discriminating against Hanson because of his age and for
other arbitrary reasons and pretexts, and depriving Hanson of his liberty
interest in his employment, as alleged herein. The actions of the City and its
agents were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and/or a prejudicial abuse of
discretion. The City's abuse of discretion has deprived Hanson of his
employment, his reputation and his future means of livelihood. The City did not
afford Hanson any of his due process, liberty or property rights under the law.
The contract terms imposed by the City as part of the 2007 document do not
support the City's claims, and Hanson is legally entitled to a judicial ruling
on the grounds, or lack of grounds, for termination.
74. As a result
of the conduct of the City, Hanson has suffered termination of his employment,
and has lost back pay, front pay, benefits, and other economic or financial
proceeds, and has suffered emotional distress.
WHEREFORE,
Hanson prays for judgment as described below.
THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Denial
of Due Process Rights)
75. Hanson
hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully
set forth herein.
76. At all times
relevant herein, Hanson was entitled to due process rights under the California
Constitution and laws. The City unlawfully denied him his rights, denied him
notice and an opportunity to be heard, denied him his rights to a reasonably neutral
hearing office, and failed to provide him with his legal rights to a hearing
before final action was to be taken.
WHEREFORE,
Hanson prays for judgment as described below.
FOURTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory
Relief)
77. Hanson
hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully
set forth herein.
78. There is a
present and active controversy between Hanson and the City about the matters
relating to Hanson's employment and due process rights, and Hanson seeks
judicial determinations as to the legality and propriety of the City's actions,
and particularly in regard to the City's efforts to deprive Hanson of his employment
without adequate due process.
79. Hanson has
made every reasonable effort to exhaust any remedies provided for by law to
clarify and determine the rights of the parties.
WHEREFORE,
Hanson prays for judgment as described below.
FIFTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Age-Based
Discrimination in Employment- Disparate Impact)
80. Hanson
hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully
set forth herein.
81. The City's
use of salary, benefits, and costs of retirement plans of its older employees
as criterion for employment decisions adversely impacts older workers as a
group, within the meaning of Government Code section 12941, because these older
workers have the highest salaries, most expensive benefits. and most expensive retirement
plans. The facially neutral-appearing employer practices in purging older workers
from the City work force in fact had an impermissible disproportionate adverse impact
on the rights of the protected class of older workers, and the age of these
older workers had no bearing upon, or manifest relationship to, bona fides job
requirements for the positions held by these employees.
WHEREFORE,
Hanson prays for judgment as described below.
SIXTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach
of Contract)
82. Hanson
hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully
set forth herein.
83. Having
deprived Hanson of his pre-termination rights, the City in 2013 sought to
terminate Hanson under the invalid 2007 contract, and breached that contract as
well by denying Hanson his rights, by creating and then relying upon a false
set of "facts" to terminate Hanson for alleged good cause, and by
denying Hanson even the severance pay guaranteed by the invalid 2007 contract.
The Employment Agreement states that the City could terminate Hanson's
employment for cause without his consent only in the event that Hanson is
convicted of a felony or other crime involving moral turpitude or any offense
involving a violation of his official duties or if it is determined by the City
Administrator that Hanson misappropriated public funds, commingled public funds
with personal funds, engaged in willful corrupt conduct in office, or conducted
himself in a manner to be determined as willful conduct that constitutes
misconduct according to the City's personnel rules. Hanson has not engaged in
any such conduct, nor has he been charged or convicted of any crime, nor has
the City given notice or produced any evidence of such conduct.
84. The City
breached the invalid Employment Agreement by terminating Hanson, by making
false charges against him, by failing to timely notify him of charges against
him and by failing to conduct or complete an investigation of its charges
against Hanson in a timely manner, by wrongfully failing and refusing to
reinstate Hanson to his employment as Building Official, and by impairing
Hanson's contract, as alleged herein. All such actions by the City were
impermissibly motivated by animus and by a City goal of reducing salaries and
pension rights by terminating or otherwise forcing older workers from their
positions with the City.
85. The City and
its agents, officers. officials and/or employees, failed to take all reasonable
steps required by law to end harassment in employment based on age, and to act
promptly and effectively to prevent and remedy harassment.
86. The City
failed to reasonably prevent Stilwell's and Paul's abuse of their power, failed
to investigate and prevent the their continuing violation of Hanson and other
employees' rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of age,
failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate
complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to
Stilwell's and Paul's actions. and endorsed, ratified. and sanctioned their
actions.
87. As a direct,
foreseeable and proximate result of the City's acts and omissions, Hanson has
suffered substantial losses and damages.
SEVENTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Whistleblowing) against Defendant
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea)
88. Hanson
hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully
set forth herein.
89. The conduct
of the City constituted wrongful termination of Hanson in violation of public
policy.
90. As a result
of the conduct of the City, Hanson has suffered termination of his employment,
and has lost back pay, front pay, benefits, and other economic or financial
proceeds, and has suffered emotional distress.
91. The City's
conduct was willful, knowing and intentional.
WHEREFORE,
Hanson prays for judgment as described below.
PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff John
Hanson prays for judgment as follows on the six causes of action herein:
1. On the first. second, third, fifth. and
seventh causes of action herein, Hanson seeks an award of compensatory damages
and costs as permitted by law, including a money Judgment for loss of
employment, back pay, front pay, benefits, mental pain and anguish, and
compensation for emotional distress according to proof, economic and special
damages, including compensatory damages for lost past and future wages and
employment benefits, and other economic injury and damages according to proof;
2. On the fourth cause of action herein, Hanson
seeks an order determining and declaring Hanson's rights with regard to his
employment and due process rights, and further determining and declaring the
illegal nature of the City's actions with regard to the deprivation of Hanson's
employment without adequate due process;
3. On the sixth cause of action herein, Hanson
seeks an award of compensatory damages and costs as permitted by law, including
a money Judgment for loss of employment, back pay, front pay, benefits, and
economic and special damages, including compensatory damages for lost past and
future wages and employment benefits, and other economic injury and damages
according to proof;
4. For reasonable attorney fees and costs;
5. For an award of interest, including
prejudgment interest, at the legal rate;
6. For costs of suit; and
7. For such other and further relief as the Court
deems proper
Dated: July 3,
2014
Signed Molly E. Erickson
Michael W. Stamp
Molly E. Erickson
STAMP I ERICKSON
Attorneys for
Plaintiff,
John Hanson
SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
MONTEREY
JOHN HANSON, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case No. M128436
COMPLAINT
No comments:
Post a Comment