Mindy Sturge Vs SEIU-UHW and Marcus Hatcher (July 10, 2018)
Mindy Sturge Vs SEIU-UHW and Marcus Hatcher (July 10, 2018)
Mindy Sturge Vs SEIU-UHW and Marcus Hatcher (July 10, 2018)
FILED BY FAX
1 SOF I.ryRA A. SUBBOTIN ALAIVIEDA COTJT{-T-Y
BOTIN State Bar No. 1Q4944
2 Avenue, No. 152 Jrrly 1O, 20l A
B A 94705 CLER,K OF
-T-HE SLJPERIOR
ts T (510) 923'0451 CO(JR
By Slrabra lyarnu, Depu
F 510) 924-0065
4 CASE NIJIMEIER:
Attorncy for MindY Sturge RG 1 A905355
D
13
) Case No. RG18905355
I4 \
)
l5 t
) FIRST AMENDED COMPI"AINT
10 ) FOR DAT4AGES
[Employpent]
L7 l
I
18 )
I
DefendanL.s-
19 Jury Trial Dcmanded
20
ZT
22 qENEML ALL..EGATIoNS
23 I' Plaintiff Mindy Sturge (SturgB) is a 4o year old single mother ofl
z4 two children who is a California resident. Sturgc has becn employed by dcfendant i
SEIU United Healthcare Workers West for ovcr 10 years, most rrcently the
25
in i
26 positign of Coordinator 3. She was recruited into the union aft'cr she was fired fro{
i
28
i
Defend.ant SEIU United Healthcare workers
west (SEIU'
1
2.
a state-wide local union of the service Employees
International Union'
2
uHw), irs
unions in the United States and
SEIU-UHW claims to be one of the largest hospital
3
california' Its main offrce is in
4
has appr,oximately 100,000 members throughout
are women workers who pay
5
oakland, cA. The majority of sEIU'UHW',s members
regular ilues to the union in order to ad'vance workplace
rights' sEIU-UHW',s
6
stated mission is to protect the rights of workers, and
in keeping with that mission
7
for its
8
it promises to provide a discrimination and harassment'free workplace
president was Dave Regan
q employees. At all relevant times herein, SEIU-UHW's
(Regan), who is also vice presid.ent of sEIU',s international union'
which has over
10
policy to refer all complaints
11 two millions members nationwide. It is sEIU-UHW',s
Anti'
t2 of harassment to Regan, who had specifi.c duties under SEIU-UHW's
and' thorough investigation of
13
Harassment policy, including insuring that a prompt
be advised of
would be und.ertaken and that all concerned parties would
complai:nts
T4
within the meaning of
15
the results of that investigation. SEIU'UHW is an employer
(FEHA), Cal' Govt' code
16 the california Fair Employment and Housing Act
28
10
meaning of California Civil Code 53294'
Sturge has exhausted her administrative remedies
with respect
11
b.
such exhaustion, includ'ing those arising under
the
12
to those claims requiring
(ror14): She duly fiIed a complaint'
13
california Fair Employment and Housing Act
and
naming both sEIU-UHW and Hatcher and alleging gender discrimination
I4
harassrnLent/hostile work environment, with the
california Department of Fair
15
Right to sue letter'
16
Employrnent and Housing. sturge requested an immediate
for SEIU-UHW' On JuIy
I7 which was issued on April 23, 2018 and. served on counsel
g, 2018, Sturge fi.Ied an Amended complaint of Discrimination to provide additional
18
19
details rls to the actions taken by defendants'
20
6. Throughout her many years of employment with sEIU-UHW'
She loved her job
2t sturge :received positive feed.back and good performance ratings'
and believed in the union's mission. She reported
directly and indirectly to
22
defend,aLnt Hatcher and other managing agents of
SEIU-UHW, including but not
23
engaged in the
24
limited to Regan. Hatcher, Regan, and others in management who
conducl; described below, had the power to and did affect
the terms and conditions of
25
27
28
25
inappropriate behavior with Sturge and women co-workers'
9'SEIU-UHW,smanagementwasawareof,engagedin,and/or
26
the inappropriate and discriminatory conduct to
which sturge and her co'
ratifie<I
27
28
First Amended ComPlaint
abused sturge in front of co'
1
\vorkers were subjected. Most recently, Regan verbally
concern about Regan's
2
rvorkers (including other managers) after Sturge expressed
r:ommentrs during a meeting that ad.dressed inappropriate workplace conduct'
3
sturge after she reported Hatcher's assault'
.Regan aliio shunned.
4
California
D
10. SEIU.UHW's cond.uct violated the express provisions of
,Government Code S12940 and proximately caused Sturge damages' including
6
physical manifestations'
7
serious emotional distress with both mental and
11. SEIU-UHW'sconduct was malicious, oppressive and/or fraudulent
8
and was und.ertaken with a conscious d.isregard of Sturge's rights. Accordingly,
I
be proven at trial'
10
Sturge isr entitled. to punitive damages in an amount to
to
12. Pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code S12965(b), Sturge is entitled
11
recover her attorneys fees and costs in bringing
her action, including her expert
t2
13
witness:[ees.
t4
(BatterY - Hatcher)
15
1'6 of
13. sturge realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs
16
23
15. Sturge did not consent to this touching, which was intentional on
Sturge'
24
the parrb of Hatcher and which resulted in physical injuries to
16. Sturge also suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress as
25
27
17. Defend.ant Hatcher's conduct was malicious, oppressive and/or
28
4
(Harassment- Ca1. Govt. Code S12940(r)(3) 'Hatcher)
5
1'6 and
6
18. sturge realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs
8 of her complaint as though fully set forth herein'
7
by
19. sturge was subjected to a hostile work environment created
8
in her workplace'
Hatcher,s inappropriate behavior toward sturge and other women
9
in personal
10
This behavior included unwanted flirting, pressure to engage
and other women'
11
relationsrhips, and remarks that were demeaning toward Sturge
such that it
t2 This behavior was unwanted and was severe and/or pervasive
job more diffrcult' and was
permeated Sturge's work environment, made Sturge's
13
had first'hand
t4 demoralizing to sturge and others. sturge was aware of and
co'workers'
15
knowledge of the affect that Hatcher's behavior had on her
distress
20. Sturge suffered and continues to suffer serious emotional
16
as a
as a direlct and proximate result of the inappropriate conduct she experienced
I7
which was ratified
18
result ollHatcher,s conduct in the SEIU'UHW workplace, all of
is entitled to recover
19 by SEIS-UHW. Pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code S12965(b), Sturge
expert witness
20 her attorneys fees and costs in bringing her action, including her
fees.
2T
and
22
21. Hatcher's conduct was malicious, oppressive and/or fraudulent
8 expressl5r not limited to Hatcher and Regan (to whom aII harassment complaints
were to tre referred, per sEIU-UHW',s written policy), engaged
in discriminatory and
I
embarrassment, a
10
harassing conduct against sturge, resulting in her humiliation,
conduct
11
physical assault, and a violation of her right to privacy. SEIU-UHW's
to take aII
12
violated cal. Govt. code s12940(D, which requires an employer
of the kind experienced
13 reasonallle steps to prevent discrimination and harassment
16 duties (ernd. its own internal policies), Sturge incurred' damages in the emotional
proven at trial'
I7 distress, and other consequential damages in an amount to be
her attorneys
18
Pursuant to cal. Govt. Cod,e s12965(b), Sturge is entitled to recover
fees and. costs in bringing her action, including her expert
witness fees'
19
25. SEIU-UHW's actions, undertaken and/or ratifred by its
20
and were
2t managi:ng agents, were malicious, oppressive and/or fraudulent
sturge is
22 undertaken with a conscious disregard for sturge's rights. Accordingly,
24
(Defam and DOES 1-10)
25
26. Sturge realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
26
27
through 6 of her complaint as though fully set forth herein.
28
16
and/or other employees within SEIU-UHW'
that
t7
2g. Sturge is further informed. and believes and thereon alleges
Hatcher: made false, defamatory, and unprivileged
verbal statements' the exact
18
with SEIU'
19
oliwhich are as yet unknown, about Sturge to others affrliated
d.ates
relationship
20 uHw, {alsely and. maliciously claiming that Sturge had a consensual
which they were
27
with hi:m. The exact statements made by Hatcher, the dates upon
republished are known to
22 made, ernd the pelsons to whom they were made and/or
23 defendants.
29. SEIU-UHW and. its agents furthered the false and defamatory
24
outside the union
25 narrative about sturge by announcing to others both within and
policy' as
26 that Hatcher was fired, for violation of the union's non'fraternization
opposeil to Hatcher having violated. SEIU'UHW's
anti'harassment policv and/or
27
28
3
his consensual relationship(s) with other union staff and/or members.
4
80. On or before November I7,2017, agents and/or employees of
defend.ants, whose identities are not yet known, reported to an online public blog
5
(Sternburger with Fries) that Sturge "was fired", a statement that was false' The
6
that had
7
statement also implied that sturge had been frred for the same misconduct
another blog post
8
led to Hatcher's termination. This false allegation was repeated in
I on July 6, 2018. The source(s) of these statements is as yet unknown but Sturge is
10
informed and believes that the statements originated from within SEIU'UHW'
11
Sturge wiII amend, to includ.e the names of the source of these defamatory
12
statements once their identities are known'
31. The unprivileged statements made about Sturge were false and
13
defamatory per se, and were mad.e without any reasonable belief
in their truth'
t4
and honesty'
15
These statements directly impugned Sturge's character, morals,
were
16
causing her serious emotional distress. Certain of these statements
some of
T7
republished outside SEIU-UHW, and Sturge herself was forced to republish
18
these defamatory statements to third parties'
19
82. Defendants' statements were malicious, oppressive and/or
Sturge's
20 fraud.ul:nt and their conduct was undertaken with a conscious disregard of
rights. Accordingly, Sturge is entitled to punitive d'amages in an amount to be
2T
22
proven at trial.
23
(r)
24
25
33. Sturge realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1'6 and
74-17 of her complaint as though fully set forth herein.
26
27
34. The actions taken by Hatcher, as described herein, amounted to
28
4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
D
7
1. For comPensatorY damagesi
8
2. For emotional distress damagesi
9
S.Forattorneysfees'penalties,andcostspursuanttostatutei
10
4. For Punitive damagesi
15
18
19
22
JURY DEMAND
23
Plaintiff hereby d.emands, a trial by jury of aII causes of action alleged
24
25
herein.
71.
26
KYRA A. SUBBOTIN
27
28
land
bharland@unioncounse Inet
_: -
.By UpS- OVERNIGHT I caused said document to be
placed with UPS
;let"terf;ervice for delivery to the above address '
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
.[
the foregoing is true and coriect u"a tnut this declaration was executed this date at
Berkeley, Califcrrnia.
52533 1