Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03539/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03539-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lisa Bradley
Defendant
Patricia Jones
Plaintiff
ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

STIPULATION TO ALLOW FILING OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case No. C-05-3539-EMC - 1 - 

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 

BAYER & BORLASE 

HEATHER E. BORLASE [SBN 216729] 

ALAN B. BAYER [SBN 216706] 

912 Cole Street, #238 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

Telephone: (415) 558-9960 

Facsimile: (415) 558-9970 

Email: heatherborlase@aol.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Patricia Jones 

CARTER, CARTER & FRIES 

JAMES A. CARTER [SBN 33119] 

MICHELLE Q. CARTER [SBN 184005] 

88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 989-4800 

Facsimile: (415) 989-4864 

Email: michelle@carterfries.com 

Of Counsel: 

FRANK L. KOLLMAN [appearing pro hac vice] 

KELLY C. HOELZER [appearing pro hac vice] 

KOLLMAN & SAUCIER, P.A. 

20 South Charles Street, 8th Floor 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

Telephone: (410) 727-4300 

Facsimile: (410) 727-4391 

Email: khoelzer@kollmanlaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICIA JONES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 

CORPORATION, a California business entity, 

form unknown, LISA BRADLEY, an 

individual, and DOES 1-50, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C-05-3539-EMC 

STIPULATION TO ALLOW FILING OF 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT ; ORDER

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 34
STIPULATION TO ALLOW FILING OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case No. C-05-3539-EMC - 2 - 

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 

The Parties to the above-entitled action hereby stipulate to allow Plaintiff, Patricia Jones 

to file the First Amended Complaint on January 11, 2006. Said First Amended Complaint is 

attached hereto as Exhibit “1”. Said First Amended Complaint is to be filed in identical form 

and substance to Exhibit “1” and comports in all manners to the Court’s Ruling of December 22, 

2005. 

 On January 10, 2006, during the parties Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 (f) 

meet and confer discussion, counsel for Plaintiff learned that they had mistakenly calendared the 

date for filing of the First Amended Complaint as January 11, 2006, instead of January 9, 2006. 

Due to this inadvertent mistake, Plaintiff failed to file the First Amended Complaint by January 

9, 2006. 

 In the interest of judicial economy, the parties hereby stipulate to allow Plaintiff to file 

her First Amended Complaint on January 11, 2006 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: January 11, 2006 

 

KOLLMAN & SAUCIER BAYER & BORLASE 

By: /s/Kelly C. Hoelzer By: /s/Alan B. Bayer

Kelly C. Hoelzer Alan B. Bayer 

Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

 ___________________________________

 Edward M. Chen

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 Date: January 13, 2006 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 34
EXHIBIT “1” 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 1 

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 

HEATHER E. BORLASE (State Bar Number 216729) 

ALAN B. BAYER (State Bar Number 216706) 

BAYER & BORLASE 

912 Cole Street, #238 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

(415) 558-9960 

fax (415) 558-9970 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PATRICIA JONES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA JONES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 

CORPORATION, a California business entity, 

form unknown, and DOES 1-50, 

 Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C05-3539 EMC 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY 

TRIAL 

1. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON 

GENDER (Government Code 

§12940(a)) 

2. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON 

AGE (Government Code §12940(a))

3. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON 

DISABILITY (Government Code 

§12940(a)) 

4. FAILURE TO TAKE ALL STEPS 

NECESSARY TO REMEDY 

DISCRIMINATION (Government 

Code §12940(k)) 

5. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION 

OF PUBLIC POLICY 

6. DISCRIMINATION IN 

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC 

POLICY 

7. DEMOTION IN VIOLATION OF 

PUBLIC POLICY 

8. WHISTLEBLOWER (Labor Code 

§1102.5) 

9. DEFAMATION 

10. EQUAL PAY ACT (Labor Code 

§1194.5) 

11. IDEMNIFICATION (Labor Code 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 4 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 2 

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 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

§2802)

12. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 

(Business & Professions Code 

§17200 et seq.)

 Plaintiff, PATRICIA JONES, for her cause of action states: 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS:

 1. Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES (hereinafter “JONES”) is an adult female who at all 

relevant times herein resides in Contra Costa County, in California. 

 2. JONES is informed, believes and thereon alleges that defendant 

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION (hereinafter “DEFENDANT” or 

“DEFENDANTS”) is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California, city and 

county of San Francisco, California. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANT was and is 

engaged in providing repair services to elevators and escalators in the San Francisco Bay area. 

 3. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT THYSSENKRUPP is an employer 

within the meaning of California Government Code §§12900, 12926 and 12940 in the 

DEFENDANT regularly employs five or more persons. As employers, the defendants, and each 

of them, are prohibited from harassing, discriminating and retaliating on the basis of sex and/or 

on the basis of age. 

 4. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT THYSSENKRUPP is an employer 

within the meaning of the relevant California Code of Regulations section in that DEFENDANT 

“directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over 

the wages, hours or working conditions of JONES. 

 5. The actions giving rise to the violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, 

Government Code §12900 et seq., as herein alleged, occurred at DEFENDANT’S San Francisco 

location and in San Francisco. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 5 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 3 

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 

 6. JONES sues fictitious defendants DOES 1-50 because their names and/or 

capacities and/or facts showing them to be liable are not presently known. On information and 

belief, JONES alleges that their entities and/or capacities shall be ascertained through discovery. 

JONES will seek leave to amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when the 

name has been ascertained. On information and belief, JONES alleges that each defendant 

designated herein as fictitious defendants were in some manner responsible for the occurrences 

and damages alleged herein. Defendants are sued both in their own right and on the basis of 

respondeat superior.

 7. JONES is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants 

herein, including those fictitiously named, where at all times relevant to this action, the agent, 

employer, partner, supervisor, managing agent, joint venture, alter ego or part of an integrated 

enterprise of the remaining defendants and each were acting within the course and scope of that 

relationship. 

 8. JONES is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the 

defendants herein gave consent to, ratified and authorized the acts alleged herein to each of the 

remaining defendants, including those fictitiously named defendants. 

 9. In December of 2002, JONES joined DEFENDANTS in the position of Service 

Technician. At the time, JONES’ job duties included: traveling to and from job sites performing 

repair and maintenance services on elevators and escalators. JONES was paid an hourly rate of 

approximately $45 an hour. JONES suffered rotator cuff injuries on her previous job, while 

employed for another company providing repair and maintenance services for elevators and 

escalators, and informed DEFENDANTS of her injuries when she began her employment with 

THYSSENKRUPP. 

 10. In March of 2003, JONES was promoted to Superintendent and was given a raise 

to approximately $49 an hour. At the time, JONES believed that she was being paid less than the 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 6 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 4 

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 

male Superintendents that worked for Defendants. At that time, JONES’ job duties included: 

supervising eleven employees, reviewing call backs from previous evening to make sure that 

orders for service requests were filled and billed, dispatching service technicians to answer 

customer complaints, dispatching service technicians to respond to sales request, respond to 

inquiries regarding equipment from service technicians, dispatching adjusters to assist service 

technicians when they had technical problems the were unable to rectify on their own, surveying 

the jobs performed by the service technicians, confirming that service calls were completed in 

compliance with company policy, and attending weekly sales meetings. JONES worked 

approximately 8-10 hours in her Superintendent position. The position did not require her to 

engage in physical activity that would pose a risk of injury to her, in light of her previous rotator 

cuff injuries. 

 11. In July 2003, Edwin Lew, one of JONES’ male subordinates behaved 

unprofessionally towards JONES, resulting in his receipt of a verbal warning for insubordination. 

 12. Also in July 2003, John “Jovino” Schroyer, another one of JONES’ male 

subordinates, was directed to leave the Ramada Inn at 1231 Market Street by the Chief Engineer 

of the Ramada Inn, due to lack of performance on the job, and to his being overtly rude to a 

customer. 

 13. In August 2003 Schroyer requested that JONES give him the day off. His request 

was denied. In spite of this denial, Schroyer called in sick and was out from work anyway. 

 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes that these incidents began the series of events 

that followed involving several of her male subordinates and their efforts to remove her from 

employment with Defendants based on her sex, her complaints of sexual harassment and 

disparate treatment and her efforts to enforce safety regulations, as required by company policy 

and state and federal law. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 7 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 5 

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 

 15. In September of 2003, JONES was promoted to Service Manager in September 

2003, but was not given a pay raise. At that time, JONES’ job duties included: everything 

required of the 23-25 service technicians she directly supervised, analyzing Service Operation 

Analysis Report “SOAR reports” to determine which routs were profitable and which were not, 

producing “Missed Services Report”, analyzing “Call Back Report”, determined how the number 

and cost of repairs impacted profitability, rearranged the routes to make them more efficient. 

JONES worked 12-14 hours a day in her Service Manager position, and worked on weekends. 

This position also did not require her to engage in physical activity that would pose a risk of 

injury to her, in light of her previous rotator cuff injuries. 

 16. In addition to the aforementioned job duties, it was JONES’ responsibility as 

Service Manager to ensure that the safety requirements of the company, California, and the 

Federal Government were all complied with by her team of service technicians. In the time 

immediately preceding JONES’ promotion, Defendants had made it known that their safety 

record was less than satisfactory, and that several client contracts were at risk of being cancelled 

if the issue was not addressed directly. Lisa Bradley and others in supervisory positions to 

Plaintiff JONES made it abundantly clear that one of her main priorities in supervising her team 

was to raise the safety standards of every service technician whom she supervised. In addition 

to the safety concerns, defendants also stressed to JONES that she needed to make the service 

routes worked by her technicians more profitable by consolidating, reassigning and creating new 

service jobs and routes, and by addressing missed services. 

 17. Within a day of JONES’ promotion Schroyer requested time off for vacation. His 

request was denied, due to lack of manpower and its untimeliness. Instead of abiding by JONES 

denial, Schroyer went over JONES’ head to Bradley, who immediately approved the request 

over JONES’ objections. JONES informed Bradley that this action had severely undermined her 

authority, and had impinged on her ability to service THYSSENKRUPP’S customers, in light of 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 8 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 6 

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 

the lack of manpower. It also communicated to Schroyer that Bradley would not stand by 

JONES’ decisions. 

 18. JONES complained to Bradley about Bradley’s failure to support her denial of 

Schroyer’s leave. Bradley responded that the time off would serve as a salve to assuage 

Schroyer’s hurt feelings. Bradley made it clear she would not support JONES in her dealings 

with Schroyer. 

19. One month later, JONES performed a walk-through of Schroyer’s job at 900 Bush 

Street. Schroyer had failed to post and complete his “check-chart” for the job (a legal document 

that Service Technicians are required to fill out to identify the work they performed, and when it 

was performed). This document is often used to establish a defense to liability (or, conversely, 

liability itself), whenever there is an accident concerning an elevator. Additionally, JONES is 

informed and believes and thereon alleges that she noted that she wrote up Mr. Schroyer for not 

having posted the “check chart,” for dirty conditions, leaving parts on the floor, and the overall 

poor ride quality of the elevators at that location. 

 20. Immediately after her inspection of his work, and in accordance with company 

policy, JONES issued Schroyer a Quality Control Survey (“QCS”), detailing the deficiencies of 

his job. The QCS JONES issued Schroyer also served as a Corrective Action Report (“CAR”). 

21. Also that month, JONES performed a walk-through of Joel Ebright’s job at 1221 

Chess Street in Foster City. She attended the walk-through at the request of Scott Hopkinson, 

who had received customer complaints about the deplorable conditions of the job. The walkthrough revealed several deficiencies in his job performance, resulting in a sales complaint. 

 22. In November 2003, JONES attended a safety meeting with Greg Blue, the 

Director of Safety at Defendant THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Inc, 

Superintendents from other offices and members of her staff. Shortly thereafter she held a safety 

meeting in San Francisco to impart the mandates of Mr. Blue’s meeting. During the meeting, 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 9 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 7 

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 

she discussed the newly-mandated company rules, read to the team the written policy concerning 

documenting safety violations, gave examples of instances in which she had forbidden her 

employees to place themselves in danger, and suggested how to address the dangers presented. 

JONES also advised her employees of her required duties to conduct four safety inspections per 

month, including inspections of the employees’ vehicles, personal tools, company tools, PPE 

and their job routes. She reviewed the Maintenance Check Charts, and reminded the Service 

Technicians to place the charges appropriately, reminding them of their public, professional and 

corporate obligation to do so. During that meeting, JONES also stated that some of the 

Technicians had not, despite being repeatedly reminded, requested and directed to do so, 

achieved safety standards consistent with legal and corporate requirements. Further, JONES 

suggested that if the Technicians could not meet these standards, in light of the fact that they 

were certified by the State of California, she might contact the State to inquire about how such 

violations are handled. She further suggested that if she took this action, some of the Service 

Technicians might lose their certification, due to the lack of accountability they had displayed in 

their work performance. Mr. Shroyer responded, in front of his coworkers, that JONES could 

not take such action because representatives of the State had told him and others approximately 

six months earlier that they would not be enforcing the law. He suggested to his coworkers that 

they did not have to abide by State safety requirements, and that they did not have to listen to 

JONES’ directives. JONES responded that if the safety requirements were not abided by, 

Service Technicians would lose their State certification, and their ability to work for Defendant 

THYSSENKRUPP. In an ultimate show of insubordination, Mr. Shroyer continued to argue that 

he could perform his job in any manner without accountability to THYSSENKRUPP, JONES, or 

the State. 

 23. Shortly therafter, JONES held another meeting with her subordinates to go over a 

newly-implemented Overtime Authorization Policy. During the meeting, she presented the “DCCase 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 10 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 8 

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 

19” form, explained that it was a legal document, and instructed as to how it should be 

completed. John Schroyer again used the opportunity to challenge JONES’ recommendations 

and suggestions, and attempted to rally his male coworkers to support him against JONES. At 

this time, JONES supervised approximately twenty-four (24) men and only one (1) woman. 

 24. On or about December 1, 2003, Lisa Bradley issued a written warning. The 

general gist of the warning was that JONES’ reprisals of the men’s work were not warranted, and 

that male Sales Technicians may leave THYSSENKRUPP to work for a competitor if she 

continued to hold them accountable to safety standards established by the corporation and by 

law. Bradley criticized JONES’ style of communication, calling it “dictatorial,” and stated that 

JONES’ male subordinates did not like it. She wrote, “[T]hese behaviors don’t encourage your 

employees to follow your leadership but rather result the opposite [sic] making it difficult to 

effect the changes we need to adhere to company policies.” Bradley further criticized JONES 

focusing on punishment and disciplinary action and job loss as a means to enforce policies. She 

further told JONES that one of the men had filed a complaint against her directly, based 

primarily on her communication style. 

 25. On or about December 2, 2003, JONES issued a rebuttal to the written warning. 

Included within that rebuttal was JONES’ notification to Bradley that the company was not yet 

fully compliant with corporate and government requirements. Also included within that rebuttal 

was JONES’ complaints about her male subordinates’ lack of respect, insubordination, and intent 

to disrupt any professional gathering she held. JONES notified Bradley that she felt she had to 

meet such behavior with disciplinary action, given the men’s insistence on publicly disrespecting 

her and ignoring her. She also related to Bradley specific incidents of misconduct committed by 

John Schroyer and Rod Hafer, and notified Bradley that these men were systematically working 

to undermine her, in front of their coworkers. JONES also told Bradley to “consider the source” 

with respect to complaints and criticisms made by Mr. Schroyer and Mr. Hafer, given their 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 11 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 9 

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 

histories. She informed Bradley that she did not feel Bradley was supporting her personally or 

professionally, and that their harassing behavior was affecting JONES’ effectiveness as a leader; 

she further requested an investigation of her complaints. Finally, she notified Bradley that she 

spent an average of sixty (60) hours a week, including working evenings and weekends to meet 

the responsibilities of her job. 

 26. During the time she worked as Service Manager, she complained to Bradley and 

Gil Crosby that she was not being paid the same as her male counterparts, and requested a raise 

to a level of compensation equal to that of her male counterparts. 

 27. Lisa Bradley and Gil Crosby refused to pay Plaintiff the same amount as her male 

counterparts were being paid while she worked as Superintendent. 

 28. In April 2004, following her complaints of discrimination, harassment, pay 

disparity and safety violations, JONES was demoted two positions to Service Technician. 

 29. At the time of JONES’ demotion, Bradley questioned her about her previously 

reported rotator cuff injuries, and whether they would interfere with her ability to work in the 

field, or whether they would increase her risk of injury in performing such work. JONES is 

informed and believes that Bradley’s questions about her previously reported rotator cuff injuries 

were directly related to her demotion. 

 30. After JONES’ demotion, her job duties required her to be out of the office, in the 

field, doing a lot of heavy lifting, and consistently moving her arms and shoulders in awkward 

and painful manners, in order to perform the manual maintenance and service repairs on the 

elevators and escalators she worked on. Despite Defendants’ actual knowledge of her injuries 

and disability, JONES was not offered a reasonable accommodation. 

 31. Shortly after JONES’ demotion from Service Manager to Service Technician, 

Defendants hired Donovan McKeever, a 33-year-old male, to replace her as Service Manager. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 12 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 10 

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 

 32. JONES is informed and believes that McKeever was paid a higher salary as 

Service Manager than she was. JONES is informed and believes that McKeever had 

considerably less experience in the elevator repair industry than she did at the time he was hired 

to replace her. JONES is further informed and believes that McKeever was required to supervise 

fewer individuals than she was required to supervise. 

 33. Upon her demotion from Service Manager to Service Technician in April of 2004, 

JONES’ salary cut back to its original value of approximately $47 an hour, which JONES 

received when she started her employment with Defendants. Bradley had represented to other 

persons in the Company that JONES would be “Lead Mechanic,” but JONES did not receive the 

same pay rate as Roger Thomas, the former Lead Mechanic that she was replacing. 

 34. JONES filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Department of Fair 

Employment and Housing on June 15, 2004, and the Department issued JONES a right-to-sue 

letter on June 16, 2004. JONES filed her original complaint within one year of the issuance of 

the right-to-sue letter. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination Based on Gender Against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Government Code §12940(a)) 

 35. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth 

below. This cause of action is pled against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Government Code §12940, and the 

corresponding California Code of Regulations were in full force and effect and binding on 

Defendants. These sections, inter alia, require an employer to refrain from discriminating or 

retaliating against employees on the basis of gender. 

 37. JONES is a female. JONES’ gender was a motivating factor in the Defendants’ 

decision to pay her less than similarly situated males for similar work, and to demote JONES, 

among other things. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 13 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 11 

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 

 38. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, described in the general allegations, 

JONES has suffered the loss of promotion opportunities, wage/salary, benefits and additional 

amounts of money JONES would have received had she not been discriminated against, which 

actions resulted in her unlawful demotion. 

 39. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions, JONES has been harmed in 

that JONES has suffered humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress in an amount to be 

established at trial. 

 40. JONES further alleges that Defendants, and each of them, acted with fraud, 

oppression and malice thus entitling JONES to recover punitive damages sufficient to punish and 

make an example of the Defendants and each of them. 

 41. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

 43. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter as 

set forth below. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination Based on Age Against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Government Code §12940(a)) 

44. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth 

below. This cause of action is pled against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 45. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Government Code §12940 and the 

corresponding California Code of Regulations were in full force and effect and binding on 

Defendants. These sections, inter alia, require Defendants to refrain from discriminating or 

retaliating against employees on the basis of age. 

 46. JONES was over the age of 40 at all times she was employed by 

THYSSENKRUPP. JONES’ age was a motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to pay her 

less than similarly situated males for similar work, and to demote JONES, among other things. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 14 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 12 

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 

 47. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, described in the general allegations, 

JONES has suffered the loss of promotion opportunities, wage/salary, benefits and additional 

amounts of money JONES would have received had she not been discriminated against, which 

actions resulted in her unlawful demotion. 

 48. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions, JONES has been harmed in 

that JONES has suffered humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress in an amount to be 

established at trial. 

 49. JONES further alleges that Defendants, and each of them, acted with fraud, 

oppression and malice thus entitling JONES to recover punitive damages sufficient to punish and 

make an example of the Defendants and each of them. 

 50. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

 51. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter as 

set forth below. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination Based on Disability Against 

Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Government Code §12940(a)) 

 52. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set forth 

below. This cause of action is pled against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 53. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Government Code §12940 and the 

corresponding California Code of Regulations were in full force and effect and binding on 

Defendants. These sections, inter alia, require Defendants to refrain from discriminating or 

retaliating against employees on the basis of disability. 

 54. Defendants had knowledge that JONES suffered from torn rotator cuff injuries at 

her previous job. JONES is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendants knew that she 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 15 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 13 

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 

had a disability and/or perceived her to have a disability, as that term is defined under 

Government Code Section §12900 et seq. 

 55. Lisa Bradley, JONES’ supervisor, specifically questioned JONES about her injury 

immediately preceding JONES’ demotion from Service Manager, a position that required her to 

be in the office performing non-manual labor, to Service Technician, a position that required her 

to be in the field performing manual labor. 

 56. JONES’ disability and/or perceived disability was a motivating factor in the 

Defendants’ decision to pay her less than similarly situated males for similar work, and to 

demote JONES, among other things. 

 57. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, described in the general allegations, 

JONES has suffered the loss of promotion opportunities, wage/salary, benefits and additional 

amounts of money JONES would have received had she not been discriminated against, which 

actions resulted in her unlawful demotion. 

 58. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions, JONES has been harmed in 

that JONES has suffered exacerbation of her previous injury, suffered humiliation, mental 

anguish and emotional distress in an amount to be established at trial. 

 59. JONES further alleges that Defendants, and each of them, acted with fraud, 

oppression and malice thus entitling JONES to recover punitive damages sufficient to punish and 

make an example of the Defendants and each of them. 

 60. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

 61. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter as 

set forth below. 

// 

// 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 16 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 14 

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 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Take All Steps Necessary to Remedy Discrimination against Defendant 

THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Government Code §12940(k)) 

 62. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth 

below. This cause of action is pled against Defendants THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

63. Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50, and/or their agents/employees, 

failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination in employment from 

occurring. Further, said Defendant knew or should have known of the discrimination against 

JONES described above, yet failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the nature and 

substance of the discrimination and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action so 

as to discipline any of the offenders. 

64. The response of Defendants, and/or their agents/employees, to that knowledge 

was so inadequate as to establish a deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, the alleged 

offensive practices, and an affirmative causal link existed between Defendants’ inaction and the 

injuries suffered by JONES. 

65. By failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, and 

by failing to properly investigate and remedy the discrimination that occurred, Defendant 

THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50 committed unlawful employment practices in violation of 

the announced policy of this State against such practices. 

 66. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5) as well as 

Government Code §§12940, et seq. 

67. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as 

hereinafter as set forth below. 

/// 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 17 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 15 

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 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy against 

Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

 68. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 67 as though fully set forth 

below. This cause of action is pled against Defendants THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

69. Defendants’ conduct as alleged in this complaint violates the public policy 

articulated by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§12900 et 

seq., prohibiting discrimination in the workplace based on an employee’s gender, sexual 

orientation or race, Article 1 Section 8 of the California Constitution, prohibiting discrimination 

in employment based on a person’s sex, and §1102.5 of the Labor Code, prohibiting 

discrimination in employment against a person who discloses or threatens to disclose 

information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable 

cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation 

or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. In the conduct alleged, the 

Defendants retaliated against JONES for her complaining about her own discrimination and 

harassment, as well as behavior she reasonably believed violated state and/or federal statute, 

including safety statutes, the California Constitution and the California Labor Code. 

 70. California common law prohibits an employer or person from discriminating 

against any employee because that employee has opposed any practices forbidden by law. In the 

conduct alleged, Defendants THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50 retaliated against JONES for 

opposing and reporting discrimination, harassment and other unlawful behavior to management, 

in violation of public policy, as outlined above. 

 71. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s retaliation and failure to take 

immediate and appropriate corrective action as required by California law, JONES has suffered 

the indignity of retaliation, the invasion of her right to be free from retaliation, great humiliation 

and emotional stress. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 18 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 16 

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 

 72. As a further direct and proximate result of said retaliation, JONES has suffered 

mental anguish, outrage, harm to her employability and earning capacity, painful embarrassment 

and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life. 

 73. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

74. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter as 

set forth below. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination in Violation of Public Policy Against 

Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

 75. JONES hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 75, inclusive, of 

this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. This cause of action is pled against Defendant 

THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 76. Defendants, and each of them, subjected JONES to discrimination based on 

JONES’ gender, disability, and age which led to her unequal pay, lack of promotions and 

unlawful termination. 

 77. The actions complained of are in violation of California’s public policy against 

sexual discrimination of any kind which is expressed in Article 1, Section 8 of the California 

Constitution and California Government Code §§12926, 12640, Labor Code §1197.5 and the 

corresponding California Code of Regulations. 

 78. JONES’ gender was a motivating factor in Defendants’ unequal treatment 

including unequal pay, and demotion of JONES. 

 79. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions described in the general allegations, 

JONES has suffered the loss of promotional opportunities, wages/salary, benefits, and additional 

amounts of money JONES would have received had she not been discriminated against, which 

resulted in her unlawful demotion. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 19 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 17 

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 

 80. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions, JONES has been harmed in 

that JONES has suffered humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress in an amount to be 

established at trial. 

 81. JONES further alleges that Defendants, and each of them, acted with fraud, 

oppression and malice thus entitling JONES to recover punitive damages, sufficient to punish 

and make an example of the Defendants and each of them. 

 82. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

 83. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as 

hereinafter as set forth below. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Demotion in Violation of Public Policy Against 

Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

 84. JONES hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 83, inclusive, of 

this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. This cause of action is pled against Defendants 

THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 85. JONES hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 64, inclusive, of 

this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

 86. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Article 1 Section 8 of the California 

Constitution, Government Code §12940 and the corresponding California Code of Regulations 

and Labor Code §1102.5 were in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. These 

sections, inter alia, preclude Defendants from demoting employees on the basis of gender and/or 

age and/or disability, or for their reporting or threatening to report violations of state or federal 

law to state or federal agencies. 

 87. Between September 2003 and April 2004, JONES was performing the duties of 

Service Manager. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 20 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 18 

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 

 88. In April 2004, JONES was demoted from her position as Service Manager, the 

duties of which required her to work primarily in an office, doing non-manual labor, to her 

position of Service Technician, the duties of which required her to work in the field, doing 

manual labor. 

 89. JONES gender was a motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to demote 

JONES. 

 90. JONES’ age was a motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to demote JONES. 

 91. JONES’ actual or perceived disability was a motivating factor in Defendants’ 

decision to demote JONES. 

 92. JONES complaints about safety and other violations of state and federal law were 

a motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to demote JONES. 

 93. JONES complaints about pay inequity were a motivating factor in Defendants’ 

decision to demote JONES. 

 94. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, described in the general allegations, 

JONES has suffered the loss of promotional opportunities, wages/salary, benefits, and additional 

amounts of money JONES would have received had she not been discriminated against, which 

actions resulted in her unlawful demotion. 

 95. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions, JONES has been harmed in 

that JONES has suffered humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress in an amount to be 

established at trial. 

 96. JONES further alleges that Defendants, and each of them, acted with fraud, 

oppression and malice thus entitling JONES to recover punitive damages sufficient to punish and 

make an example of the Defendants and each of them. 

 97. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 21 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 19 

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 

98. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter as 

set forth below. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Whistleblower Retaliation Against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Labor Code §1102.5) 

 99. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 98 though fully set forth below. 

This cause of action is pled against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 100. This cause of action arises under California Labor Code §1102.5(a), (b) and (e). 

An employer may not make, adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an 

employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the 

employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or 

federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Cal. 

Labor Code §1102.5(a). An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing 

information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable 

cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation 

or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Labor Code §1102.5(b). 

 101. Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50 failed to develop and implement 

policies and procedures for prompt and proper investigation of allegations of retaliation against 

an officer for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the 

officer has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or 

federal statute, or violation or noncompliance with a state or federal regulation. In subjecting 

JONES to the misconduct described above and in other respects presently known to plaintiff, 

Defendants willfully, knowingly and intentionally retaliated against plaintiff for disclosing 

information to a government or law enforcement agency, where plaintiff had reasonable cause to 

believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or violation or 

noncompliance with a state or federal regulation. As a result of Defendant’s retaliation against 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 22 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 20 

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 

JONES because of her disclosing of information to a government or law enforcement agency, 

where plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state 

or federal statute, or violation or noncompliance with a state or federal regulation in violation of 

the California Labor Code §1102.5, there are due and owing to JONES monies and damages 

under the terms of that act. As a result of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct, plaintiff has suffered 

and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses and other employment benefits, 

and has incurred attorney’s fees, all to her damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this 

court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Defendants’ actions effectively 

damaged JONES’ career, seriously impacted her livelihood, and damaged her professional 

reputation. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant 

to Civil Code section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 

Plaintiff also seeks penalties in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation 

of Labor Code §1102.5, pursuant to Labor Code §1102.5(e). 

102. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory acts, 

JONES has suffered and continues to suffer substantial humiliation, embarrassment, mental and 

emotional distress, and discomfort, all to JONES’ damage in an amount in excess of the minimum 

jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 

103. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

104. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as 

hereinafter as set forth below. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

 105. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 104 as though fully set forth 

below. This cause of action is pled against Defendants THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 23 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 21 

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 

 106. JONES is informed and believes Defendants, and each of them, by the hereindescribed acts, conspired to, and in fact did negligently, recklessly and intentionally cause 

excessive and unsolicited internal and external publications of defamation, of and concerning 

Plaintiff, to third persons and to the community. These false and defamatory statements included 

express and implied: accusations that Plaintiff violated company policies; that she was a poor 

performer; that she deserved written warnings and disciplinary actions against her; that she was 

incompetent; a troublemaker; made false complaints; was unreliable; was lazy and was 

dishonest. These and other similar false statements expressly and impliedly stated that Plaintiff 

was dishonest, lazy, incompetent and a poor performer. 

 107. While the precise dates of these publications are not known to Plaintiff, she is 

informed and believes that the publications may have started in December 2003, for the improper 

purpose of retaliating against her for her above said complaints and reports about violations of 

the Labor Code and the Fair Employment Housing Act, and were later published and foreseeable 

republished to first cause, and then to justify Plaintiff’s wrongful and illegal demotion. These 

publications were outrageous, negligent, reckless, intentional, and maliciously published and 

republished by Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the 

negligent, reckless and intentional publications by Defendants, and each of them, were and 

continue to be to this day, foreseeably published and republished by Defendants, their agents and 

employees, recipients, in the community Plaintiff hereby seeks damages for these publications 

and all foreseeable republications discovered up to the time of trial. 

 108. During the above-described time-frame, Defendants, and each of them, conspired 

to, and in fact did negligently, recklessly and intentionally cause excessive and unsolicited 

publication of defamation, of and concerning Plaintiff, to third persons, who had no need or 

desire to know. Those third person(s) to whom these Defendants published this defamation are 

believed to include, but are not limited to, other agents and employees of Defendants, and each 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 24 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 22 

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 

of them, and the community, all of whom are known to Defendants, and each of them, but 

unknown at this time to Plaintiff. 

 109. The defamatory publications consisted of oral and written, knowingly false and 

unprivileged communications, tending directly to injury Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s personal, 

business, and professional reputation. These publications included the following false and 

defamatory statements (in violation of Civil Code §§45 and 46(3)(4) and(5)) with the meaning 

and/or substance that Plaintiff: violated company policies, that she was such a poor performer 

that she deserved written warnings and disciplinary actions against her; that she was 

incompetent, dishonest, untrustworthy, a troublemaker and made false complaints. These and 

similar statements published by Defendants, and each of them, expressly and impliedly asserted 

that Plaintiff was incompetent, dishonest, and a poor employee. 

 110. Plaintiff is informed, believes and fears that these false and defamatory per se 

statements will continue to be published by Defendants, and each of them, and will be 

foreseeably republished by their recipients, all to the ongoing harm and injury to Plaintiff’s 

business, professional, and personal reputations. Plaintiff also seeks redress in this action for all 

foreseeable republications, including her own compelled self-publication of these defamatory 

statements. 

 111. The defamatory meaning of all of the above-described false and defamatory 

statements and their reference to Plaintiff, were understood by these above-referenced third party 

recipients and other members of the community who are known to Defendants, and each of 

them, but unknown to Plaintiff at this time. 

 112. None of Defendants’ defamatory publications against Plaintiff referenced above 

are true. 

 113. The above defamatory statements were understood as assertions of fact, and not 

as opinion. Plaintiff is informed and believes this defamation will continue to be negligently, 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 25 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 23 

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 

recklessly, and intentionally published and foreseeably republished by Defendants, and each of 

them, and foreseeably republished by recipients of Defendants’ publications, thereby causing 

additional injury and damages for which Plaintiff seeks redress by this action. 

 114. Each of these false defamatory per se publications (as set forth above) were 

negligently, recklessly, and intentionally published in a manner equaling malice and abuse of any 

alleged conditional privilege (which Plaintiff denies existed), since the publications, and each of 

them, were made with hatred, ill will, and an intent to vex, harass, annoy, and injure Plaintiff in 

order to justify the illegal and cruel actions of Defendants, and each of them, to cause further 

damage to Plaintiff’s professional and personal reputation, to cause her to be demoted, to justify 

her demotion, and to retaliate against Plaintiff for prior ill will, rivalry and disputes in retaliation 

for her objections to violations of federal and state safety regulations, the California Labor Code 

and FEHA. 

 115. Each of these publications by Defendants, and each of them, were made with 

knowledge that no investigation supported the unsubstantiated and obviously false statements. 

The Defendants published these statements knowing them to be false, unsubstantiated by any 

reasonable investigation and the product of hostile witnesses. The acts of publication were 

known by Defendants, and each of them, to be negligent to such a degree as to be reckless. In 

fact, not only did Defendants, and each of them, have no reasonable basis to believe these 

statements, but they also had no belief in the truth of these statements, and in fact knew the 

statements to be false. Defendants, and each of them, excessively, negligently, and recklessly 

published these statements to individuals with no need to know, and who made no inquiry, and 

who had a mere general or idle curiosity of this information. 

 116. The above complained- of publications by Defendants, and each of them, were 

made with hatred and ill will towards Plaintiff and the design and intent to injury Plaintiff, 

Plaintiff’s good name, her reputation, employment and employability. Defendants, and each of 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 26 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 24 

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 

them, published these statements, not with an intent to protect any interest intended to be 

protected by any privilege, but with negligence, recklessness and/or an intent to injury Plaintiff 

and destroy her reputation. Therefore, no privilege existed to protect any of the Defendants from 

liability for any of these aforementioned publications or republications. 

 117. As a proximate result of the publication and republication of these defamatory 

statements by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered injury to her personal, 

business and professional reputation including suffering embarrassment, humiliation, severe 

emotional distress, shunning, anguish, fear, loss of employment, and employability, and 

significant economic loss in the form of lost wages and future earnings, all to Plaintiff’s 

economic, emotional and general damage in an amount according to proof. 

 118. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts alleged herein recklessly, 

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

an improper and evil motive amounting to malice (as described above), and which abused and/or 

prevented the existence of any conditional privilege, which in fact did not exist, and with a 

reckless and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. All actions of Defendants, and each of 

them, their agents and employees, herein alleged were known, ratified and approved by the 

Defendants and each of them. Plaintiff thus is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary 

damages from Defendants, and each of them for these wanton, obnoxious, and despicable acts in 

an amount based on the wealth and ability to pay according to proof at time of trial. 

119. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

 120. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as 

hereinafter as set forth below. 

// 

// 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 27 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 25 

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 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equal Pay Act Violation Against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Labor Code §1197.5) 

 121. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 120 inclusive, of this 

Complaint as through fully set forth herein. This cause of action is pled against Defendants 

THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 122. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Equal Pay Act, Labor Code 

§1197.5, and the corresponding regulations of the California Code of Regulations. 

 123. JONES is a female. From December 2002 up to and including the present day, 

JONES has been employed by Defendants. 

 124. Defendants perform repair and maintenance services for elevators and escalators 

in and around the Bay Area. Defendants employ JONES and at least one person of the male sex. 

 125. JONES was employed by Defendants in the position of Superintendent between 

March 2003 and September 2003. 

 126. JONES is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have paid 

JONES a lower salary than that paid to one or more of the employees of Defendants of the male 

sex, employed as Superintendent. JONES and the other employee(s) of Defendants who are paid 

more than JONES (1) work in the same establishment; (2) perform equal work; (3) perform work 

that requires equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (4) perform their jobs under similar 

working conditions. 

 127. Defendants have failed or refused to pay to JONES the difference between the 

amount JONES has earned in the position of Superintendent, and the amount paid to other male 

Superintendent over the period of time alleged in general allegations set forth above. Pursuant to 

the California Equal Pay act, Labor Code §1197.5, Defendants owe JONES that sum to be 

determined at trial as and for back pay, a sum equal to that amount as for “liquidated damages,” 

interest on the back pay amount, and attorney’s fees and costs of suit. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 28 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 26 

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 

 128. JONES was employed by Defendants in the position of Service Manager between 

September 2003 and April 2004. 

 129. As alleged above Defendants have paid JONES a lower salary than that paid to 

one or more of the employees of Defendants of the male sex, employed as Service Manager. 

JONES and the other employee(s) of Defendants who are paid more than JONES (1) work in the 

same establishment; (2) perform equal work; (3) perform work that requires equal skill, effort 

and responsibility; and (4) perform their jobs under similar working conditions. 

 130. Defendants have failed or refused to pay to JONES the difference between the 

amount JONES has earned in the position of Service Manager, and the amount paid to other 

male Service Managers over the period of time alleged in general allegations set forth above. 

Pursuant to the California Equal Pay act, Labor Code §1197.5, Defendants owe JONES that sum 

to be determined at trial as and for back pay, a sum equal to that amount as for “liquidated 

damages,” interest on the back pay amount, and attorney’s fees and costs of suit. 

 131. Defendants told JONES that she would have the title of “Lead Mechanic” when 

they demoted her from Service Manager to Service Technician. JONES was informed and 

believes and thereon alleges that she was hired to replace a male “Lead Mechanic.” Defendants 

paid JONES a lower hourly rate than that paid to the male “Lead Mechanic” JONES was hired to 

replace when she was demoted from Service Manager. JONES and the male other employee(s) 

of Defendants who was paid more than JONES (1) work in the same establishment; (2) perform 

equal work; (3) perform work that requires equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (4) perform 

their jobs under similar working conditions. 

 132. Defendants have failed or refused to pay to JONES the difference between the 

amount JONES has earned in the position of Lead Mechanic, and the amount paid to other male 

Lead Mechanics over the period of time alleged in general allegations set forth above. Pursuant 

to the California Equal Pay act, Labor Code §1197.5, Defendants owe JONES that sum to be 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 29 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 27 

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 

determined at trial as and for back pay, a sum equal to that amount as for “liquidated damages,” 

interest on the back pay amount, and attorney’s fees and costs of suit. 

 133. Defendants’ violation of JONES rights under the California Equal Pay Act is and 

has been willful in that Defendants and each of them knew they were paying JONES less than 

her male counterparts for equal work. 

 134. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

 135. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter as 

set forth below. 

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

 (Indemnification Against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Labor Code §2802) 

 136. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 135, inclusive, of this 

Complaint as through fully set forth herein. This cause of action is pled against Defendants 

THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 137. On December 13, 2004, Plaintiff JONES, while acting under the direct 

instructions of defendants and believing that instructions were proper and lawful, committed the 

following acts: 

 (a) In response to a deposition subpoena issued by counsel for the Plaintiff in 

Dickey O’Dell Lee v. ThyssenKrupp Corporation et seq., Superior Court of California, County of 

Alameda Number HG04138435, filed January 28, 2004, Plaintiff made arrangements to have 

counsel represent her at the deposition, set for December 13, 2004 in San Francisco, California; 

 (b) As alleged above, JONES had previously filed complaints of discrimination 

against Defendants through the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in June of 2004; 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 30 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 28 

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 

 (c) Defendants’ counsel, the Law Offices of Kollman & Saucier out of Baltimore, 

Maryland, contacted JONES through her counsel in November 2004 and informed JONES’ 

counsel that they would prepare JONES for the deposition and represent her at the deposition 

noticed by Dickey Lee’s counsel; 

 (d) JONES advised DEFENDANTS’ counsel that an actual conflict of interest 

between JONES and DEFENDANTS existed, as JONES had filed administrative claims of 

discrimination against DEFENDANTS, and that DEFENDANTS’ counsel was precluded from 

representing JONES at the deposition noticed by Dickey Lee’s counsel under California Rule of 

Professional Conduct 3-310(c)(3) which states that a member shall not, without informed 

consent of each client, represent a client in a matter and at the same time in a separate matter 

accept as a client a person or entity whose interest in the first matter is adverse to the client in the 

first matter. JONES further advised DEFENDANTS’ counsel that she would not consent to its 

representation of her in deposition, given this conflict of interest; 

 (e) JONES elected to be represented at the deposition by the same counsel which 

had represented her in her action against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP, to ensure that no conflict 

of interest would exist; 

 138. JONES incurred legal expenses as a result of having to hire separate counsel to 

prepare her for deposition, respond to a request for production of documents accompanying 

JONES’ deposition notice, and defend JONES in the deposition, in light of the conflict of 

interest existing between her and Defendants’ counsel, totaling over $5,000, directly arising out 

of her duty to attend the deposition as an employee of Defendants. 

 139. Pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code of the state of California, JONES 

requested indemnification for her expenses from Defendants. Defendants have refused to 

indemnify plaintiff and continues to refuse to do so, to plaintiff’s damage in excess of the sum of 

$5,000. 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 31 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 29 

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 

 140. JONES will also seek and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in connection with 

this cause of action under the private attorney general doctrine (Civil Code §1021.5). 

 141. WHEREFORE, JONES prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter as 

set forth below. 

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Business Practices Against Defendant THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50) 

(Business & Professions Code §17200) 

 142. JONES hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 141, inclusive, of this 

Complaint as through fully set forth herein. This cause of action is pled against Defendants 

THYSSENKRUPP and DOES 1-50. 

 143. By violating the foregoing statutes and regulations, the acts of defendants 

constitute unfair and unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code §§17200 

et seq.. 

 144. Defendants’ violation of the California Labor Code and Government Code 

constitutes a business practice because it was done repeatedly in a systematic manner to the 

detriment of JONES. 

 145. For the period during which JONES was employed by Defendants, JONES has 

suffered damages and request disgorgement of profits and/or restitution of all monies from 

defendants in an amount according to proof at time of trial, but in excess of the jurisdiction of 

this Court. 

 146. WHEREFORE, PATRICIA JONES prays for judgment against Defendants 

THYSSENKRUP and DOES 1- 50 as hereinafter set forth below. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 32 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 30 

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 

PRAYER FOR DAMAGES

 1. For compensatory damages, including lost wages, lose employee benefits, 

bonuses, stocks, promotional opportunities, mental anguish, emotional distress, and other special 

and general damages according to proof; 

 2. For an award of punitive damages; 

 3. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 

 4. For an award to JONES of costs, including expert costs, of suit incurred herein on 

all causes of action; 

 5. For an award of JONES of attorney’s fees and costs including expert costs 

pursuant to Government Code §12965(b), Labor Code §1197.5 and Code of Civil Procedure 

§1021.5, the “Private Attorney General Statute”, and Labor Code §2699; 

 6. For wages owed to Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES because of DEFENDANTS’ 

violation of the Equal Pay Act, in the amount to be determined at trial; 

 7. For expenses incurred while acting under the direct instructions of 

DEFENDANTS, pursuant to Labor Code §2802; 

 8. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code §1102; 

 9. For liquidated damages equal to the sum of wages owed to plaintiff PATRICIA 

JONES because of DEFENDANTS’ violation of the Equal Pay Act; in the amount to be 

determined at trial; 

 10. For liquidated damages equal to the sum of wages owed to plaintiff PATRICIA 

JONES because of DEFENDANTS’ violation of Labor Code §2802; 

 11. For injunctive relief directing DEFENDANTS to cease committing the violations 

alleged in this complaint; 

// 

// 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 33 of 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

- 31 

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 

 12. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 

Dated this 11th day of January, 2006 BAYER & BORLASE 

By: /s/ Heather E. Borlase 

 Heather E. Borlase 

 Alan B. Bayer 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 PATRICIA JONES 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury. 

Dated this 11th day of January, 2006 BAYER & BORLASE 

By: /s/ Heather E. Borlase 

 Heather E. Borlase 

 Alan B. Bayer 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 PATRICIA JONES 

Case 3:05-cv-03539-EMC Document 49 Filed 01/13/06 Page 34 of 34