Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/192563042/Sherles-v-SEIU-Local-1000-Original-Complaint
Timestamp: 2014-07-23 01:02:00
Document Index: 505462850

Matched Legal Cases: ['§12940', '§12940', '§1102', '§51', '§52', '§52', '§12940']

P. 1Sherles v SEIU Local 1000 Original ComplaintSherles v SEIU Local 1000 Original ComplaintRatings: (0)|Views: 506|Likes: 0Published by jon_ortizSherles v SEIU Local 1000 Original ComplaintSherles v SEIU Local 1000 Original ComplaintMore info:Categories:Business/LawPublished by: jon_ortiz on Dec 19, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/192563042/Sherles-v-SEIU-Local-1000-Original-Complaint12/21/2013pdftextoriginal 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Choudhary
Law Office Nilesh
Choudhary, 219425 Joel Rapaport, 248847 1909
95811 P: 916.526.2770 F:
916.400.3848 e:
jdrapaport(a),gmail.com Attorneys
for Plaintiff Mechelle
Sherles Robyn
Sherles FfLED Superior
Califorrjia Sdcrgimento By_
DBpt|ty CasB
Numbur: 34 2011 00114741j SUPERIOR
SACRAMENTO MECHELLE
SHERELES;
ROBYN SHERELES, Plaintiff, STATE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000; STATE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; RICH BOYD,
inclusive, Defendants. Case
No. Complaint
for Damages for: 1.
(Gov.
Code, §12940,
subd. G)) 2.
§12940) '
3. Assault; 4.
Battery; 5. Intentional
Emotional Distress; 6. Negligence; 7. Negligent
Emotional Distress* 8.
§1102.5; 9.
§51; 10. Violation
§52.4; 11.
1708.5; 12.
Negligence Retention and Supervision; 13. Violation
§52.1;
Harassment (Gov. Code
§12940). And
Trial. Plaintiffs
Mechelle Sherles, an
and Robyn Sherles, an
allege as follows: Parties Department Assignments Case Management
44 Law and Motion
53 Minors Compromise
45 Complaint 1
1. Mechelle
( Sherles ) is, and at all times was, a resident of the
County of Sacramento. 3 2. Robyn
( Robyn Sherles ) is Registered Domestic Partner ( RDP ) to
Plaintiff 4 Mechelle Sherles, and at all times was, a resident of the
County of 5 Riverside. 6 3. Defendant
1000 ) is, and 7 at
times herein relevant was, a union organization,
place ofbusiness 8 in Sacramento,
California. 9 4. Defendant
( SEIU ) is an International
1000 is a chapter. Thus,
be liable for claims 11
1000 acting as its
at all times material to this 12 complaint. 13 5. Defendant
is, and at
times herein mentioned was, a resident of
County of Sacramento. 15 6. Defendant,
Patterson is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the 16
County of San Joaquin. 17 7.
is ignorant of the true
and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as 18 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and
Defendants 19 by such
names. Sherles
leave of Court to amend this Complaint to 20 allege their true
and capacities when ascertained.
is informed and 21
believes and thereon alleges that
named Defendants is 22 responsible in
manner for the occurrences and
herein alleged and that 23 Sherles'
as herein alleged were
and events. 24 8. At all times herein mentioned,
of the Defendants was the
servant, and 25 employee of the other, and
in'doing
hereinafter alleged was doing so
of their authority as such
servant and employee and
the permission 27 and consent of
other. 28 II. Complaint 1 Facts 2 7. The
1000 is an employer subject to the Fair Employment and Housing Act 3
( FEHA ). 4 8.
liaison to the Fair
practices Commission and ethics 6 compliance coordinator. 7 9. At all times relevant to this complaint she was a member of the Local 1000 and
from 8 approximately
2011 she was a vice chair for bargaining unit 9
4. 10 10. As the vice chair for BU 4 of the
Sherles'
duties were prescribed to her 11
attended union meetings, general membership 12 meetings, executive board meetings, council meetings, statewide bargaining advisory 13 committee meetings, mixers, fundraisers and other special
events. 14 11.
vice chair for BU 4
Sherles became
and 15 discrimination by Bargaining Director, Defendant Rich
( Boyd ). This 16
harassment began
and continued through August of 2010. 17 12.
was hired by the
1000, as Executive Bargaining Director, on or around 18
2009. 19 13.
under FEHA as an employee of the
was, at
times relevant to the facts alleged in this complaint, an
the direction and control, and providing
1000. He reported 22 directly reported to Yvonne Walker,
Local lOOO's president. Further, as the 23 director of bargaining he
and nine bargaining chairs that reported to 24
He was given hotel
SEIU. 25 14.
1000. 26 15. On July 2, 2010,
to his hotel bedroom suite under the
of 27 discussing
matters, but instead he forced himself upon her on a couch and kissed 28 her on the mouth.
immediately stopped this, by pushing
telling Complaint Activity (1)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsLoad more
Recommended Susy Dellacasa-MIlls Declaration in Support of Sherles Case
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library SEIU Local 1000’s Mar. 2, 2012 response
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Local 1000's Objections to Sherles Evidence
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Mechelle Sherles Nov. 1, 2013 Declaration
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Judge David Brown's Ruling
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Local 1000’s dispute what Sherles’ factual assertions in ...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Union Argument That Sherles Was Not an SEIU Local 1000 Em...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Coalition Testimony to DFEH Council Dec, 10, 2013
RecommendedSusy Dellacasa-MIlls Declaration in S...jon_ortizSusy Dellacasa-MIlls Declaration in Support of Sherles CaseSEIU Local 1000’s Mar. 2, 2012 responsejon_ortizSEIU Local 1000’s Mar. 2, 2012 responseLocal 1000's Objections to Sherles Ev...jon_ortizLocal 1000's Objections to Sherles EvidenceMechelle Sherles Nov. 1, 2013 Declara...jon_ortizMechelle Sherles Nov. 1, 2013 DeclarationJudge David Brown's Rulingjon_ortizJudge David Brown's RulingLocal 1000’s dispute what Sherles’ fa...jon_ortizLocal 1000’s dispute what Sherles’ factual assertions in the caseUnion Argument That Sherles Was Not a...jon_ortizUnion Argument That Sherles Was Not an SEIU Local 1000 EmployeeCoalition Testimony to DFEH Council D...jon_ortizCoalition Testimony to DFEH Council Dec, 10, 2013Previous|NextPage 1 of 2