Free Amended Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 25

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4

ISRAEL G. RANIREZ, ESQ. State Bar No.: 176366 RAMIREZ & ASSOCIATES 653 N. San Pedro St., Ste. C San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 947-7244 Telephone Attorneys for PHILIPPE ZATTA

5 6 7 8 PHILIPPE ZATTA, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 M2MEDICAL, 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 16 COMES NOW Plaintiff PHILIPPE ZATTA and complains 17 against Defendants, and each of them, and demands a trial by 18 jury on all issues, and for causes of action alleges: 19 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 20 ALLEGING JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 1. 22 that at all pertinent times mentioned in this complaint, 23 Defendant M2MEDICAL, 24 (M2MEDICAL), was a California corporation qualified to do 25 business in the State of California and doing business in the 26 County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27 2. 28 Plaintiff PHILIPPE ZATTA (hereinafter referred to as ZATTA) was At all pertinent times mentioned in this complaint, INC., (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C08-01841 RS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BASED ON RACE, COLOR AND NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, The Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981, Government Code Section 12940 (a)]

________________________________ )

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 25

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 2 of 7

1 a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 2 3. At all pertinent times mentioned in this complaint, the

3 parties to this action resided in the County of Santa Clara, 4 State of California. 5 4. The acts alleged herein occurred in the County of Santa

6 Clara, State of California. 7 8 5. Plaintiff filed a timely discrimination charge against

defendant M2MEDICAL with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC)
.

9 Commission

That charge was timely filed, under Title VII Plaintiff filed the

10 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as follows:

11 charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the occurrence of the 12 violations alleged. On January 24, 2008, plaintiff received

13 notice that the EEOC had terminated its proceedings on plaintiffs 14 charge and Plantiff was issued a right-to-sue letter. 15 16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

[Employment Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Based on Race, Color and National Origin in Violation of Title VII of the 17 Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, The Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981, Government Code Section 12940(a)] 18 As a first cause of action, Plaintiff complains against 19 Defendant Corporation and DOES and for a cause of action alleges: 20 6. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 21 through 6 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 22 7. This action is brought pursuant to the Title VII of the 23 Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, The Civil Rights Act of 24 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981, Government Code Section 12940(a) et seq., 25 to obtain relief for plaintiff ZATTA for discrimination in 26 employment by defendant against plaintiff because of plaintiff's 27 race, national origin and color. Plaintiff ZATTA alleges that 28 defendants abused, harassed, retaliated against and terminated
9

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 25

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 3 of 7

1 him from his position because of plaintiff's race, national 2 origin and color, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights By this

3 Act of 1964 and the aforementioned code sections. 4

action, plaintiff ZATTA seeks the following relief, under Title

5 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the discriminatory 6 treatment of plaintiff: monetary relief, including back pay,

7 front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and 8 costs of suit, and injunctive relief, consisting of an order

9 requiring defendant to hire and allow individuals of African 10 ancestry to work at their company free of harassment and 11 discrimination. 12 8. Plaintiff Philippe Zatta, Ph. D., worked as a systems

13 engineer at M2Medical. He was an exemplary employee and even 14 received an award from Defendants for his outstanding work. While 15 at M2Medical, Plaintiff was subjected to harassment and color and national origin

16 discrimination based on his race, 17 (African)

by his co-worker Steve Miller. Miller mocked Plaintiff,

18 making comments about how Blacks had "strong muscles but no 19 brain" and declaring that Blacks were good at sports but not good 20 at things like math and engineering. Mr. Miller harassed Mr. 21 Zatta on an almost daily basis by subjecting him to racist 22 remarks and questioning his academic credentials. He also 23 declared that he could not trust a Black engineer. 24 9. Plaintiff reported this racial harassment to the Vice

25 President of Engineering, Rajan Patel on a number of separate 26 occasions. He also reported it to M2Medical's Director of Human 27 Resources. 28 Instead of addressing the issues raised they ignored

Plaintiff's concerns, and instead of admonishing or firing

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 25

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 4 of 7

1 [vIiller, hey retaliated against Plaintiff by promoting Mr. Miller t 2 and forcing Plaintiff to report to him. 3 10. Vice President of Engineering Rajan Patel overlooked

4 ~iller's racist behavior because Patel also had a history of 5 discriminatory behavior and of making racially offensive and 6 discriminatory remarks about minority immigrant employees. Patel 7 regularly called the Director of Manufacturing, Samir Erras, a 8 "Terrorist" because he was an Arab immigrant. Once after a 9 company ping pong game between Mr. Erras and a Jewish employee, 10 Patel declared with glee that "The Terrorist" had lost a game to 11 a Jew. Patel stated that he hoped the terrorist didn't return 12 with a bomb and blow up M2Medical. On another occasion, in 13 response to questions about Mr. Erras, Patel told Thom Wehman, 14 "Well, what do you expect? He's from the Middle East." 15 11. Plaintiff and other minority, immigrant engineers at

16 M2Medical were treated far differently that their non-immigrant 17 Caucasian counterparts. The discriminatory attitudes exhibited by 18 upper management ratified and encouraged the harassment Plaintiff 19 endured while at M2Medical. After complaining about the abuse 20 they received they were singled out, scrutinized and subjected to 21 unfair, retaliatory and discriminatory harassment. Management did 22 not afford Plaintiff or other minority engineers (Mr. Erras, the 23 Director of Manufacturing and Mr. Luis Berga, a Puerto Rican 24 Engineer who served as V.P. of Operations) the respect and 25 support that their non-minority, non-immigrant counterparts 26 received. When Plaintiff asked to work with Erras, Patel asked 27 him "Aren't you afraid of Arabs?" Patel also told Plaintiff that 28 Erras could not be trusted. Luis Berga was also discriminated

A

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 25

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 5 of 7

1 against because he was Puerto Rican and had an accent. Berga was 2 ignored and isolated by management who went out of their way to 3 make it difficult for Berga to do his job. When these tactics 4 proved ineffective, management resorted to directing profane 5 verbal abuse at Berga in an effort to humiliate him. This sort of 6 demeaning behavior occurred at every level of management. On one 7 occasion, Dr, Thom Wehman, M2Medical4s Director of Regulatory 8 Affairs and Quality Assurance, overheard M2Medical's CEO Jim 9 Causey throw out the mocking comment "Yeah, and he (Plaintiff 10 Zatta) smells bad too." after someone had made a completely It shocked Dr. Wehman to see

11 unrelated comment about Plaintiff.

12 Plaintiff treated with such disrespect, because Dr. Wehman had 13 first-hand knowledge of the fact that Plaintiff was an excellent 14 engineer who was eminently qualified and extremely hard working. 15 12. After Plaintiff, Berga and Erras complained about

16 discriminatory treatment at the company, management targeted them 17 for termination and retaliated against them. Even though 18 Plaintiff, Berga and Erras had totally different jobs and areas 19 of responsibility, management leveled suspiciously-similar, 20 unfounded accusations of wrongdoing at all three of these 21 engineers before terminating them for clearly pretextual reasons. 22 13. At all times relevant herein, defendant Corporation has

23 been an employer, in that defendant is engaged in an industry 24 affecting commerce and has had 15 or more employees for each 25 working day in each of 20 or more weeks in 2007 and 2008. 26 14. Jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action is

27 established in this court by the Title VII of the Civil Rights 28 Act of 1964. This is the proper venue for this action in that

5

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 25

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 6 of 7

1 the discriminatory employment practice alleged herein was 2 committed within this court's judicial district. 3 15. The discriminatory actions of defendant as set forth in

4 the Paragraphs, above, have caused and will continue to cause 5 plaintiff to suffer losses of earnings. 6 16. As a further proximate result of defendant's unlawful

7 and intentional discriminatory actions against plaintiff, as 8 alleged above, plaintiff has been harmed in that plaintiff has 9 suffered the intangible loss of such employment-related 10 opportunities such as experience in the position from which 11 plaintiff was excluded. As a result of such discrimination and

12 consequent harm, plaintiff has suffered such damages in an amount 13 according to proof. 14 17. As a further proximate result of defendant's unlawful

15 and intentional discriminatory action(s) against plaintiff, as 16 alleged above, plaintiff has been harmed in that plaintiff has 17 suffered emotional pain, humiliation, mental anguish, loss of 18 enjoyment of life, and emotional distress. As a result of such

19 discrimination and consequent harm, plaintiff has suffered such 20 damages in an amount according to proof. 21 18. The above-recited actions of defendant were done with

22 malice and/or with reckless indifference to plaintiff's rights. 23 Furthermore, Defendant's conduct warrants the assessment of 24 punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish defendant and 25 deter others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct. 26 19. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to secure relief

27 for the failure by defendant to provide plaintiff with a safe and 28 harmonious employment, and if this court does not enter an order

6

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 25

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 7 of 7

1 compelling defendant to do so, plaintiff will be irreparably 2 injured. 3 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and

4 each of them, as follows: 5 6 7 1. For front pay and/or future lost earnings;

2. For compensatory damages according to proof; 3. For punitive damages in an. amount appropriate to punish

8 defendant and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct; 9 4. For injunctive relief, incluiding but not limited to an order to hire and their allow individuals of of African and

10 compelling defendant 11 ancestry to work at

company

free

harassment

12 discrimination,

and for all other

injunctive relief required to

13 make plaintiff whole for the losses caused by the violations of 14 defendant; 15 5. For costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and

16 expert fees, pursuant to the remedies set forth in Title VII of the 17 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; and 18 19 20 Dated: August 28, 2008 21 22 23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24 Plaintiffs hereby demand 25 Dated: August 28, 2008 26 27 28 By: 6. For such other and further relie; Res

7