10
an
12
13
14
15
16
uy
18
19
20
an
22.
23
26
25
26
27
28
e e
ED
SPER SOE
Law Office of Ritchie M. Lewis SBN #231100
8608 Utica Ave., Su 212 MAR 23 2015
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730
Ph: 909 948-9890 Jullette Jot
Fax: 909 948-9820
Attorney for Josetti Fields
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Tosetti Fields, ) Case No. : RI e ISENAS
)
Plaintiff ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
vs. ) 1. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code
) 1102.5
County of Riverside, } 2, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of
DOES Ithrough 25, inclusive, ) Publie Policy
.
Defendants )
)
COMES NOW Plaintiff Josetti Fields (hereinafter “Fields”) alleges causes of action
against the County of Riverside (hereinafter “Riverside”) and DOES 1 through 25 as follows:
1. Plaintiffs an individual who is and at all relevant times has been a resident of San
Bernardino County, California
2. Defendant Riverside is a public entity in the State of California duly organized under
the laws of the State of California, and provided, among other things, employment to employees.
County of Riverside is a governmental entity, which came into legal existence in or about 1893.
3. Defendant County of Riverside conducted business in the County of Riverside, State of
California and was plaintiff's employer until January 2015. The County of Riverside principal
place of business was in the City of Riverside, California. Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant
from her employment in the City of Riverside.
=
r
@
BW cloz § o ww10
an
12
3
14
15.
16
uv
18
19
20
an
22.
23
24
26
21
28
4, Plaintiff'is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as
Does | through 25 and for that reason has sued such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff
‘will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when their
informed and believes, and based on such information and
identities are ascertained. Plaintiff i
belief alleges, that each of said DOES named as a Defendant in this action is in some fashion
liable and legally responsible as alleged in this Complaint for the injuries and damages Plaintiff
has sustained.
5. In doing the things alleged in this Complaint, all of the Defendants were employees,
agents and or alter egos of their co-Defendants, As agents and employees, they acted within the
course and scope of such employment and agency. The conduet of each of the Defendants and
their agents and employees was authorized and /or directed and /or was subsequently ratified by
cach of their co-Defendants, Defendants are vicariously liable for all employees, agents, and or
servants performing services on behalf of them.
6. The allegations of this complaint on information and belief are likely to have
evidentiary support afier a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein
mentioned, defendants, and each of them, when acting as a principal, were negligent in the
selection and hiring of each and every employee, agent and or servant and every other defendant
as its agents, servant or employee.
8, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cach and every one of the
wrongful acts of the employees, agents, and servants and or Doe defendants, were performed
under the instructions and approval, express or implied of the County of Riverside.
9. Prior to filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff presented a claim to the County of Riverside
pursuant to Calif, Government Code 911.2. Riverside acted on the claim by rejecting it on
February 27, 2015. This complaint is timely filed within the six (6) months after the rejection of
the claim.
10, Plaintiff, was an employee for Riverside until she was terminated and was hired as an
Information Technology Officer for Riverside with the Auditor-Controller’s Office . Three
210
qn
12
13
4
15,
16
uv
38
as
20
2.
22.
23
24
25
26
an
28
anonymous emails (attached) were circulated amongst County employees accusing executive
management, for the County of Riverside of illegal activity. The first email was disseminated on
or about June 24, 2014 and among other things, accused Auditor Controller Paul Angulo of
spending over $100,000 on personal Harvard and Berkley training at taxpayer’ s expense. It also
accused Mr. Angulo of spending over $50,000 of taxpayer's money to finance MPA graduate
programs for Frankie Ezzat and another management level employee but will not pay for
advanced degrees for other employees.
11. As the perceived illegal activity of misappropriating, deceit and or concealing the use
of government finds by a County executive became personal to Mr. Angulo and Ms. Ezzat, Ms.
Ezzat became concerned with the source of the email. At all relevant times, Ms, Ezzat reported
to Mr. Angulo.
12, Plaintiff was asked on or about June 25, 2014 by Ms. Ezzat, who directly supervised
Plaintiff knew who sent the disparaging email on June 24, 2014. To evidence the
County’s obsession with the source of the email as opposed to the accuracy thereof, Ms. Ezzat
asked Plaintiff if she could determine if the source of the email was from a County or personal
computer. Plaintiff informed Ms, Ezzat in June 2014 she was unaware who sent the email.
13, On or about July 7, 2014, within days of Plaintiff returning from vacation, Ms. Ezzat
made her suspicions known when she asked Plaintiff if County employee Marla Pendleton was
the source of the email and if Plaintiff could determine who was forwarding the email throughout
the county as other departments acknowledged receiving the June 24, 2014 email.
14, Knowing that Ms. Ezzat believed Ms. Pendleton was the whistleblower and Plaintiff
informed Ms. Ezzat she did not believe Ms. Pendleton was the source of the email, Plaintiif
knew she had become a witness for Ms. Pendleton against the County of Riverside as she was
privy to the Marla Pendleton suspicions by Riverside County management.
15. Ms. Ezzat felt so strongly that Ms. Pendleton was the email source, in early July 2014
she admitted to Plaintiff she believed Ms. Pendleton was the source as she had access to all of
the information contained in the email. Ms. Ezzat added that two County managers were also of
the opinion Ms. Pendleton authored the June 24, 2014 email. County Manager Ms. Elias told
3