Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00251/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

First Amended Complaint for Damages 1 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pamela M. Sayad (State Bar No: 103798) 

Brenda F. Biren (State Bar No: 113072) 

SAYAD & BIREN, APC 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 700 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 392-4100 

Facsimile: (415) 392-4001 

pms@sayad-biren.com 

bfb@sayad-biren.com 

Barbara Giuffre (State Bar No: 158180) 

LAW OFFICES OF BARBARA GIUFFRE 

351 California Street, Suite 700 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 981-9114 

Facsimile: (415) 434-0513 

Barbara@igc.org 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

ANGEL WARNSO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANGEL WARNSO, ) Case No.:C 06-00251 MMC

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) FIRST AMENDED

 ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

v. ) 

 ) 

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., a corporation; ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

ROYAL AHOLD USA, a corporation; ) 

ROYAL AHOLD, a Netherlands corporation;) 

HENRY SMITH, an individual; JASON ) 

STRANAHAN, an individual; CATHY ) 

QUIGGLE, an individual; KEN HOBBS ) 

an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, ) 

inclusive. ) 

Defendants. ) 

)

Plaintiff Angel Warnso (“Plaintiff Warnso”) complains of Defendants U.S. Foodservice, 

Inc., a corporation, Royal Ahold USA, a corporation, Royal Ahold, a Netherlands corporation 

and Does 1 through 50, inclusive ( “Defendants”), Defendant Henry Smith, an individual, 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 2 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Jason Stranahan, an individual, Defendant Cathy Quiggle, an individual, Defendant 

Ken Hobbs, an individual (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Smith”, “Defendant Stranahan” 

“Defendant Quiggle,” “Defendant Hobbs” respectively, and collectively referred to as “All 

Defendants”) and each of them, and for causes of action alleges: 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 

otherwise of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff 

who therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend 

this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 

Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the Defendants 

designated herein as a Doe was, in some manner, negligent or otherwise responsible for the 

occurrence and injuries alleged herein. 

2. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was the agent and 

employee of each and every other Defendant and in doing the things herein alleged was acting 

within the course and scope of such agency and employment, and in doing the acts herein alleged 

was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each of the remaining Defendants. 

All actions of each Defendant as herein alleged were ratified and approved by the officers or 

managing agents of each and every other Defendant. 

3. Plaintiff Angel Warnso, at all times relevant herein, was a resident of San Joaquin 

County. From January 2001 until August 2005, she worked for Defendants as Returns and 

Refusals Clerk/Cashier at Defendants’ Livermore facility in the County of Alameda. 

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant U.S. 

Foodservice is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business in the County of 

Alameda. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Royal Ahold USA is a corporation. 

Defendant Royal Ahold is a Netherlands corporation. Defendant U.S. Foodservice is a 

subsidiary of Royal Ahold USA and/or Royal Ahold.

5. Defendant Henry Smith is an individual and at all times relevant herein was 

employed by Defendants as Supervisor/Lead at the Livermore facility in the County of Alameda. 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 3 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Smith was Plaintiff’s supervisor and/or acted in a supervisory capacity towards 

Plaintiff during his employment with Defendants. Defendant Jason Stranahan is an individual 

and at all times relevant herein was employed by Defendants as a supervisor in Defendants’ 

Livermore Facility in the County of Alameda. Defendant Cathy Quiggle is an individual and at 

all times relevant herein was employed by Defendants as the Director of Human Resources of 

the Livermore Facility in the County of Alameda. Defendant Ken Hobbs is an individual and at 

all times relevant herein was employed by Defendants as a supervisor in Defendants’ Livermore 

Facility in the County of Alameda. 

6. Plaintiff Warnso was constructively terminated from her employment in violation 

of public policy on or about August 18, 2005. 

7. At all times during her employment, Plaintiff performed her job in a competent 

and satisfactory manner. 

8. At all times, Defendants purported to follow personnel policies, procedures and 

practices that prohibited them from terminating Plaintiff without good cause and in violation of 

public policy and from discriminating against, harassing or retaliating against Plaintiff during her 

employment. In addition, Defendants had policies, procedures and practices providing that they 

would promptly investigate allegations of sexual harassment and “implement appropriate 

corrective and preventive actions in response to complaints it receives.” 

9. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to 

discrimination and unlawful harassment on the basis of her gender. Plaintiff Warnso was 

retaliated against and constructively terminated when she complained about her own treatment 

and the illegal treatment of other women. 

10. During her employment, Plaintiff Warnso was subjected to, among other things, 

the following unrelenting and illegal conduct:

x Being told by Defendant Smith that he was separated from his wife, that he was lonely 

and wanted to have sex with her 

x Being persistently harassed and bothered by Defendant Smith as he demanded that she 

have sex with him 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 4 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

x Being told malicious gossip by Defendant Smith about how other women that worked at 

the warehouse facility had sex with “half the warehouse guys” 

x Being called a “fucking bitch” and being told words to the effect “I’m going to fuck you 

up” when she would tell Defendant Smith to leave her alone 

x Learning that Defendant Smith spread vicious lies in the warehouse about her having had 

a sexual relationship with him and words to the effect that “she wasn’t any good” 

x Learning that Defendant Smith said that she “wasn’t very good [sexually]” 

x Learning that Defendant Smith told at least one co-worker that Plaintiff Warnso “is very 

hairy from the waist down” and that he knew this because he had sex with her; and 

x Complaining about how other female employees were being illegally treated and nothing 

was being effectively done to stop it.

 Plaintiff Warnso was subjected to retaliation and constructively terminated from her 

employment on August 18, 2005 when she could no longer tolerate the harassment and 

retaliation.

11. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to Defendants, verbally and in writing, and in 

particular to Defendant Quiggle about the illegal conduct to which she and others had been 

subjected at work. Defendants Stranahan and Hobbs were aware of these complaints of 

harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Defendants and Defendant Hobbs, Defendant 

Quiggle, and Defendant Stranahan did not respond to these complaints, did not appropriately 

investigate them and did not take appropriate corrective action as required by Defendants’ own 

internal policies and/or by relevant state and federal law.

12. Defendants also failed to protect Plaintiff from retaliation after Plaintiff made her 

complaints. Plaintiff Warnso was retaliated against in numerous ways. Among other things, 

Defendant Smith retaliated against Plaintiff Warnso for her rejection of his sexual advances by 

spreading lies about her in the workplace and complaining to her supervisor that she was a bad 

employee. She received poor performance appraisals, criticizing her for not getting along with 

Defendant Smith, when she had been told by HR not to talk to him. Again, Defendants did not 

respond to her complaints, did not investigate and did not take any action to protect Plaintiff 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 5 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Warnso from further harassment or retaliation. Finally, Plaintiff Warnso was constructively 

terminated in retaliation for her complaints. 

 13. Plaintiff Warnso filed timely administrative charges with the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair 

Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Plaintiff was issued right to sue letters from both 

agencies. In or about November 2005, Plaintiff filed timely additional administrative complaints 

with the DFEH. Plaintiff received right to sue letters from the DFEH. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA) 

(Against Defendants and Defendant Smith) 

As a first, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants and 

Defendant Smith, and for a cause of action alleges: 

14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, as 

though set forth here in full. 

15. In perpetrating the conduct described in paragraph 1 through 13, the Defendants 

and Defendant Smith, and each of them, including Does 1 through 50 and/or their agents and 

employees, engaged in a continuing and ongoing pattern and practice of unlawful sexual 

harassment in violation of the California Government Code sections 12940 et seq.. Defendants 

and Defendant Smith, and each of them, sexually harassed Plaintiff and/or failed to take 

immediate and appropriate corrective action. The unlawful harassment was sufficiently 

pervasive and severe as to alter the conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment to create a hostile, 

intimidating and/or abusive work environment in violation of the law. 

16. Defendants are strictly liable for the sexual harassment and discrimination by 

Defendant Smith and by Defendants’ other supervisors and managers. 

17. Plaintiff Warnso is a female who is a member of the class protected by the 

proscriptions contained in the FEHA, which make it an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer to discriminate against employees because of gender. 

18. The acts and omissions of Defendants and Defendant Smith, and each of them, as 

aforesaid, were in violation of the FEHA. Said statute imposes certain duties upon Defendants, 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 5 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 6 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and each of them, concerning discrimination against persons, such as Plaintiff, on the basis of 

gender. Said statute was intended to prevent the type of injury and damages set forth herein. 

19. Plaintiff filed timely Charges of Discrimination with the DFEH and EEOC and 

has received notices of her right to sue. 

20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned unlawful conduct of 

Defendants and Defendant Smith, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer a substantial loss 

of earnings and a loss of other employment benefits, has had her career set back, and has 

suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, shame, despair, embarrassment 

and mental anguish, all in an amount within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, and 

according to proof at trial. 

21. In addition, Plaintiff was obligated to hire attorneys and to incur damages in the 

form of attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), Plaintiff 

requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants and Defendant Smith. 

22. The acts of Defendants and Defendant Smith alleged above were done 

maliciously, oppressively, fraudulently and with the wrongful and unlawful intent of harming 

and injuring the Plaintiff, with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in 

conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive 

damages against Defendants and Defendant Smith. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment 

From Occurring In Violation of the FEHA) 

(Against Defendants, Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Hobbs, Defendant Quiggle) 

As a second, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants 

and/or Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Hobbs and Defendant Quiggle and for a cause of action 

alleges: 

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 22 as 

though set forth here in full. 

24. As alleged herein and in violation of the FEHA, Defendants, Defendant Smith, 

Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Hobbs and Defendant Quiggle, and each of them, breached 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 6 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 7 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their affirmative duty to take the reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and 

harassment from occurring in the workplace. In addition, they failed to investigate the sexual 

harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment 

and discrimination and to protect Plaintiff from retaliation. As a direct and proximate result, 

Plaintiff was subjected to the sexually discriminatory and harassing conduct alleged herein.

25. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned unlawful conduct of 

Defendants and Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Hobbs and Defendant Quiggle, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer a substantial loss of earnings and a loss of other employment 

benefits, has had her career set back, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, 

emotional distress, shame, despair, embarrassment and mental anguish, all in an amount within 

the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, and according to proof at trial. 

26. Plaintiff was obligated to hire attorneys and to incur damages in the form of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b), Plaintiff 

requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants and Defendant Stranahan, 

Defendant Hobbs and Defendant Quiggle. 

27. The acts of Defendants and Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Hobbs, Defendant 

and Defendant Quiggle alleged above were done maliciously, oppressively, fraudulently and 

with the wrongful and unlawful intent of harming and injuring Plaintiff, with an improper and 

evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is 

therefore entitled to recover punitive damages against all Defendants. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 

(Against All Defendants ) 

As a third, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of All Defendants 

and for a cause of action alleges: 

28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 inclusive, as 

though set forth here in full. 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 7 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 8 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29. Defendants, Defendant Smith, Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Smith, Defendant 

Quiggle, and Defendant Hobbs, and each of them, engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct 

by intentionally and/or recklessly subjecting Plaintiff, and/or permitting Plaintiff to be subjected 

to, unwanted, unwelcome and non-consensual sexual advances, abuse, harassment and 

discrimination based on sex, and retaliation. Defendants, and each of them, ratified such conduct 

by failing and/or refusing to take any and all reasonable steps necessary to prevent such conduct 

from occurring and recurring, by failing to take appropriate disciplinary action following such 

conduct, and, in the case of Defendants Stranahan, Hobbs and Quiggle, who hold management 

positions with Defendants, by engaging in the conduct as alleged herein. As a direct and legal 

result, Plaintiff was harmed, and continues to suffer harm, in an amount to be proven at trial. 

30. Plaintiff repeatedly demanded that Defendants and Does 1 through 50 leave her 

and other women in the workplace in peace, stop the harassing and offensive conduct, but 

despite her protests and requests, Defendants did not effectively stop the conduct.

31. Despite the fact that Plaintiff complained to Defendants about the sexually 

harassing and discriminatory conduct to which she (and others) were subjected, Defendants and 

Does 1 through 50 and each of them, their agents and assigns failed to investigate the matter in 

an adequate manner necessary to prevent foreseeable harm to Plaintiff. 

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, Defendant Smith’s, Defendant 

Stranahan’s, Defendant Hobbs’ and Defendant Quiggle’s acts and/or failure to act, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer a substantial loss of earnings and other employment benefits and 

has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation and disgrace, emotional distress, shame, despair, 

embarrassment and mental anguish, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount according to proof, 

but within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 

33. The acts of All Defendants alleged above were done maliciously, oppressively, 

fraudulently and with the wrongful and unlawful intent of harming and injuring Plaintiff, with an 

improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages against All Defendants. 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 8 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 9 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) 

(Against All Defendants ) 

As a fourth, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of All Defendants 

and for a cause of action alleges: 

34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 inclusive, as 

though set forth here in full. 

35. As employees of Defendants and/or Does 1 through 50, Plaintiff was owed a duty 

of due care by Defendants, and each of them, to ensure that she was not exposed to foreseeable 

harms. 

36. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff was 

being subjected to sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation, and that by failing to 

exercise due care to prevent Defendant Smith and other Company employees, officers, agents or 

supervisors from engaging in a sexually and harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory course of 

conduct could and would cause Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. 

37. Defendants and each of them failed to exercise their duty of due care to prevent 

their employees, managers, supervisor and/or officers from sexually harassing and discriminating 

against and retaliating against Plaintiff. 

38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, Defendant Smith’s, Defendant 

Stranahan’s, Defendant Hobbs’, and Defendant Quiggle’s acts, as well as the acts of Does 1 

through 50, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer a substantial loss of earnings and other 

employment benefits and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation and disgrace, 

emotional distress, shame, despair, embarrassment and mental anguish, all to Plaintiff’s damage 

in an amount according to proof, but within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 9 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 10 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence) 

(Against All Defendants) 

As a fifth, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of All Defendants, 

and each of them, and for a cause of action alleges: 

39. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 38, inclusive, as 

though set forth here in full. 

40. At all times material hereto, All Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable 

care should have known, that Plaintiff was being subjected to the unlawful conduct described 

herein above. As Plaintiff’s employer, Defendants had an obligation to investigate, remedy and 

protect Plaintiff in the workplace. 

41. At all times material herein, Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, 

that the incidents, conduct, acts, and failures to act described herein above, would and did 

proximately result in emotional distress to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, loss of sleep, 

anxiety, tension, depression, suicidal ideation and professional and personal humiliation. 

42. At all times material herein Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable 

care should have known, that unless Defendants investigated the facts referenced herein as well 

as intervened to protect Plaintiff, and to adequately supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, 

discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to act, of Defendant Smith, 

and/or Defendants’ supervisors, managers, agents or employees as alleged herein above, said 

conduct, acts, and failures to act would continue and/or would continue subjecting Plaintiff to 

personal injury and emotional distress. 

43. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that 

unless Defendants intervened to protect Plaintiff, and to adequately supervise, prohibit, control, 

regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to act of Defendant 

Smith and others as described herein, Defendants’ failure to so protect, supervise, and intervene 

would have the effect of encouraging, ratifying, condoning, exacerbating, increasing and 

worsening said conduct, acts, and failures to act.

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 10 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 11 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44. At all times material herein, Defendants had the power, ability, authority, and 

duty to so intervene, supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and/or penalize the conduct 

of Defendant Smith and/or Defendants’ supervisors, managers, agents or employees as described 

herein above.

45. Despite said knowledge, power, and duty, Defendants negligently failed to act so 

as to prevent, supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and/or penalize such conduct, acts, 

and failures to act, or to otherwise protect Plaintiff. 

46. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of All Defendants to protect 

Plaintiff, and to adequately supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise 

penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to act of Defendant Smith and/or Defendants’ 

supervisors, managers, agents or employees as alleged herein above, said conduct, acts, and 

failures to act were perceived by them as, and in fact had the effect of, ratifying, encouraging, 

condoning, exacerbating, increasing, and/or worsening said conduct, acts, and failures to act. 

 47. At all times material herein, the failure of All Defendants to protect Plaintiff, and 

to adequately supervise, prohibit, control, regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the 

conduct, acts, and failures to act of Defendant Smith and/or Defendants’ supervisors, managers, 

agents or employees violated Plaintiff’s rights under federal, state and/or common law. 

48. As a direct and proximate result of All Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer a substantial loss of earnings and other employment benefits and 

has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, shame, despair, 

embarrassment and mental anguish, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount not yet ascertained, 

but within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this claim 

and insert the amount when the same is ascertained or on proof thereof. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention) 

(Against Defendants) 

As a sixth, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and 

each of them, and for a cause of action alleges: 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 11 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 12 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 48, inclusive, as 

though set forth here in full. 

50. Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff a duty to protect her from 

employees who they knew or should have known created a risk of injury to her. Defendants, and 

each of them, breached such duty by hiring, supervising and/or retaining Defendant Smith, 

Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Hobbs and/or Defendant Quiggle as well as other employees, 

managers and supervisors. The Defendants knew or should have known with reasonable 

diligence, that they should not have done so because they were not fit to manage, supervise 

and/or work for Defendants and exercise any kind of control over Plaintiff and her work 

environment. Defendants, and each of them, breached such duty by continuing to employ the 

individual Defendants, as well as other employees, supervisors and managers and by failing to 

adequately supervise the workplace despite the fact that they knew, or should have known, that 

the workplace was infested with pervasive and illegal behavior which was hostile, offensive, and 

demeaning to Plaintiff and other female employees. 

51. As a proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants in hiring, supervising 

and/or retaining Defendants Smith, Stranahan, Hobbs and Quiggle as well as other employees, 

supervisors and managers, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional and mental distress, anguish, 

humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety. The exact nature and 

extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of Court to assert 

the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact duration or 

permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some if not all 

of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character. 

52. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits 

of this Court.

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 12 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 13 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Constructive Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy) 

(Against Defendants) 

As an seventh, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants, 

and each of them, and for a cause of action alleges: 

53. Plaintiff Warnso hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 52, 

inclusive, as though set forth here in full. 

54. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code Section 12900, et

seq. was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. Said statute requires 

Defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee or interfering in any 

employment relationship on the basis of sex, among other things. In addition, said statute 

prohibits Defendants from retaliating against an employee who exercises her statutory or other 

legal rights under this statute.

55. Furthermore, sex discrimination in employment violates the public policy of 

California contained in Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution. 

56. During Plaintiff Warnso’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was 

discriminated against on the basis of her sex/female and retaliated against as a result of 

complaining about her disparate treatment with regard to the terms and conditions of her 

employment and for complaining about discrimination and harassment directed at her coworkers, all in violation of the exercise of her protected statutory and constitutional rights and in 

violation of public policy.

57. When Plaintiff Warnso resisted and complained about the conduct set forth above 

and refused to submit to such conduct, Defendants and Defendants Hobbs, Stranahan and 

Quiggle retaliated against Plaintiff such that she could no longer tolerate her working conditions.

She was constructively terminated in her employment. 

58. By reason of the aforementioned conduct and circumstances, Defendants violated 

the fundamental public policies of the state of California, as set forth in the FEHA and violated 

the California constitution, which mandate that employees be free from sexual harassment and 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 13 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 14 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discrimination in the workplace, and that employees who oppose such conduct be free from 

retaliation, intimidation and adverse employment actions. 

59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff Warnso has 

suffered and continues to suffer a substantial loss of earnings and other employment benefits and 

has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation and disgrace, emotional distress, shame, despair, 

embarrassment and mental anguish, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount according to proof, 

but within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.

60. The acts of All Defendants alleged above were done maliciously, oppressively, 

fraudulently and with the wrongful and unlawful intent of harming and injuring Plaintiff Warnso, 

with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 

rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendants, Defendant 

Hobbs, Defendant Stranahan and Defendant Quiggle. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation) 

(Against Defendants and Defendant Smith) 

As an eighth, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants and 

Defendant Smith, and each of them, and for a cause of action alleges: 

61. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 60, inclusive, as 

though set forth here in full. 

62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants (including 

their supervisors, managers, agents and employees) and Defendant Smith, and each of them, 

including Does 1 through 50, and/or their agents or employees, acting within the course and 

scope of their employment, caused to be published false and unprivileged communications set 

forth herein, tending to directly injure Plaintiff in her business and personal reputation by 

accusing her of a want of chastity, among other things. 

63. These false and unprivileged statements set forth above were published, with 

express and implied malice on the part of Defendants and/or Defendant Smith, to individuals 

other than Plaintiff, with the designed intent to injure Plaintiff and her good name, reputation and 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 14 of 17
First Ame ed Complaint for Damages nd 15 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ability to work and to deny her the ability to continue working in her profession. These 

statements were motivated by hatred and ill will on the part of Defendants and/or Defendant 

Smith. Said conduct of Defendants and/or Defendant Smith was not privileged under California 

law.

64. As a proximate result of the defamatory statements made by said Defendants 

and/or Defendant Smith, and each of them as aforesaid, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer injury to her personal, business and professional reputations, and further has suffered and 

continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish, and substantial losses of earnings 

and benefits all to her damage in an amount according to proof, but within the minimum 

jurisdiction of this Court. 

65. Defendants and/or Defendant Smith committed the acts alleged herein 

maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff and 

acted with an improper and evil motive, and in an intentional, deliberate, cold, callous, malicious 

and cavalier manner, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Because said acts taken

toward Plaintiff was carried out by managerial employees acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, 

callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to 

recovery of punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against All Defendants, including 

Defendants, Defendant Smith, Defendant Stranahan, Defendant Hobbs, Defendant Quiggle, and 

each of them, as follows: 

1. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages, including, but not 

limited to lost wages, vacation pay, bonuses, employee benefits, and all other sums of money, 

together with interest on said amounts, in an amount according to proof and within the minimum 

jurisdiction of this Court; 

2. For a money judgment awarding Plaintiff an additional sum according to proof as 

damages for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress in an amount according to proof and 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 15 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 16 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

within the minimum jurisdiction of this Court; 

3. For an award of punitive damages; 

4. For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Government Code 

Section 12965(b) or any other applicable law; 

5. For pre- and post-judgment interest; 

6. For an order that Defendants, jointly and severally, institute and carry out 

appropriate and necessary policies, practices and programs that are consistent with the 

requirements of state law, including, but not limited to, EEO monitoring that will provide equal 

employment opportunities for women and which will eradicate the effects of its past and present 

unlawful employment practices; 

7. For a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, jointly and severally, their 

officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from 

engaging in sexual harassment or any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis 

of sex. 

8. For any other relief that is just and proper. 

Dated: February 1, 2006 

SAYAD & BIREN 

By:_____________________

 PAMELA M. SAYAD 

LAW OFFICES OF BARBARA GIUFFRE 

By:_____________________

 BARBARA GIUFFRE 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 16 of 17
First Amended Complaint for Damages 17 No. C 06-00251 MMC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues in this case. 

Dated: February 1, 2006 

SAYAD & BIREN 

By:_____________________

 PAMELA M. SAYAD 

LAW OFFICES OF BARBARA GIUFFRE 

By:_____________________

 BARBARA GIUFFRE 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

C:\Documents and Settings\saybir.SAYBIR1\My Documents\CLIENT FILES\2400 - Stokes Williams and Warnso\Warnso Final 

Complaint1-25-06.doc 

Case 3:06-cv-00251-MMC Document 18 Filed 03/03/06 Page 17 of 17