Doug Vogel vs Laguna Playhouse

LARA & LUNA APC

Edward Lara, State Bar No. 210766

Linda Luna Lara, State Bar No. 240809

Dean Chhim, State Bar No. 276170

16700 Valley View Ave., Suite 170

La Mirada, California 90638

Telephone: 562-444-0010

Facsimile: 949-288-6953

ELara@LaraLunaLaw.com

LLara@LaraLunaLaw.com

DChhim@LaraLunaLaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff DOUG VOGEL

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

Assigned for All Purposes

DOUG VOGEL, an individual, Plaintiff, vs.

THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant.

CASE NO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED DISABILITY AND MEDICAL CONDITION) [Gov. Code § 12940(a)];

2. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED DISABILITY [Gov. Code § 12940(m)];

3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS [Gov. Code, § 12940(n)];

4. RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER FEHA [Gov. Code, § 12940(h)];

5. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5;

6.VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 6310;

7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

8. DECLARATORY RELIEF;

9. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, DOUG VOGEL, an individual, complains of Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them (collectively, “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff DOUG VOGEL (hereinafter, “Mr. Vogel” or “Plaintiff”) is and, at all relevant times mentioned herein, was an individual, who is a resident of Orange County, in the state of California. Plaintiff, at all relevant times mentioned herein, was an employee of Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE, and DOES 1 through 50.

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE (hereinafter, “Laguna Playhouse” or “the Company”), at all relevant times mentioned herein was and currently is, a corporation licensed to do business in California and was and currently is conducting business throughout California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Laguna Playhouse maintains a place of business located at 606 Laguna Canyon Road, Laguna Beach, California, in the County of Orange.

3. Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names as their true names and capacities whether corporate, individual, associate, or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of this court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, once the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each Defendant fictitiously named herein caused or contributed to the occurrences, events, and happenings described herein, caused or contributed to the damages complained of by Plaintiff, and/or engaged in and/or participated in the wrongful activities set forth herein. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants Does 1 through 50’s business activities in the State of California were and are substantially greater than their business activities in any other state or country, and that a substantial predominance of their business activity is conducted in California. As such, Defendants Does 1 through 50 are citizens of California.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times relevant

herein, Defendants, and Does 1 through 50, and each of them, aided and abetted, and acted in concert with and/or conspired with, each and every other Defendant to commit the acts complained of herein and to engage in a course of conduct and the business practices complained of herein.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the individual Defendant(s), and Does 1 through 50 and each of them, acted within their course and scope of employment, authority, and/or apparent authority as an officer, director, employee, agent, and/or representative of the other Defendants, and each of them.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times mentioned herein, the actions by Defendants, and Does 1 through 50, and each of them, were done under the authorization, consent, instruction, and/or approval, express or implied, of each of the other Defendants and were duly ratified by Defendants, and each of them, and, thus, is imputed to each Defendant.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times, Defendant Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50 were alter-egos of one another. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that there is such unity of interests and ownership between these defendants that separate status no longer exists and, further, observance of the fiction of separate existence among these defendants would sanction fraud and promote injustice.

8. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a defendant or defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each defendant acting individually, jointly, and severally.

9. Whenever and wherever reference is made to individuals who are not named as Plaintiff or Defendants in this Complaint but were agents, servants, employees, and/or supervisors of Defendants, such individuals at all relevant times acted on behalf of Defendants within the scope of their employment.

10. Plaintiff has complied with all applicable conditions precedent (exhaustion of administrative remedies) to jurisdiction herein.

11. Plaintiff timely filed charges against Defendants with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) on February 24, 2021, and received “Right to Sue” notices as to Defendants.

12. Hereinafter in the complaint, unless otherwise specified, reference to a Defendant or Defendants shall refer to all Defendants, and each of them.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

A. Overview of Mr. Vogel’s Employment with the Laguna Playhouse

13. Plaintiff Doug Vogel (“Mr. Vogel”) began working for the Laguna Playhouse on or about January 3, 2017 as a “Director of Development.”

14. Over the course of his employment with the Laguna Playhouse, Mr. Vogel regularly reported conduct and practices at the Laguna Playhouse that he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be unlawful and otherwise violate state and/or federal statute. Specifically, Mr. Vogel became aware that the Laguna Playhouse was accepting alcohol donations from an alcohol distributor of gin and vodka and selling those donations at theatre shows. Mr. Vogel believed in good faith that this was done in violation of state or federal statute, namely, Business and Professions Code Section 25503.9, which prevents non-profits from selling alcohol. As such, Mr. Vogel advised members of the Laguna Playhouse’s Board and the alcohol vendor’s representative of his reasonable and good-faith belief that these transactions were illegal. Mr. Vogel would also go on to report that the Laguna Playhouse’s Executor Director was violating the terms of a county contract. Finally, and most egregiously, Mr. Vogel blew the whistle on the Laguna Playhouse’s procurement of a substantial loan from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) by what he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be by fraudulent means. More specifically, Mr. Vogel obtain information tending to show that the Laguna Playhouse’s CFO had vastly overstated the Company’s purported number of employees in its application for PPP funding in order to obtain a higher loan amount. In fact, Mr. Vogel came to learn that the Laguna Playhouse’s CFO had inflated the claimed number of employees in the Company’s PPP application by using independent contractors who were actors and crew from past shows in order to increase its employee count from

twelve to as high as 145. Notably, Mr. Vogel made these reports and protected disclosures to his employer, government agencies, and person(s) with the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the suspected violations.

15. However, in clear retaliation for his whistleblowing activities, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Mr. Vogel to a relentless campaign of hostility, heightened scrutiny, marginalization at work. As a result of the retaliatory and unlawful treatment that he experienced at work, Mr. Vogel started experiencing a drastic decline in his health, including symptoms of dizziness and shortness of breath, which prompted him to seek medical attention. At the advice of his health care providers, Mr. Vogel sought reasonable accommodations from the Laguna Playhouse in the form of a recuperative leave of absence, which was eventually extended by his physicians to December 19, 2020. Despite being aware of Mr. Vogel’s actual or perceived disabilities, and his need for reasonable accommodations, the Laguna Playhouse failed to discharge its affirmative duties to engage Mr. Vogel in the good-faith, interactive process or to otherwise provide him with reasonable accommodations, as required under the law. Instead, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Mr. Vogel to heightened scrutiny, hostility, and unwarranted reprimands, which culminated in his unlawful termination for pretextual reasons. Ultimately, the Laguna Playhouse made the cold and calculated decision to fire Mr. Vogel on or about November 19, 2020, in order to silence him.

B. Mr. Vogel Reports Suspected Illegal Sales of Alcohol Donations by the Laguna Playhouse

16. During his employment with the Laguna Playhouse, Mr. Vogel became aware that the Laguna Playhouse was accepting alcohol donations from an alcohol distributor of gin and vodka and selling those donations at theatre shows. Mr. Vogel believed in good faith that this was done in violation of state or federal statute, namely, Business and Professions Code Section 25503.9, which prevents non-profits from selling alcohol. As such, Mr. Vogel advised both members of the Board and the alcohol vendor’s representative of his reasonable and good-faith belief that these transactions were illegal. On or about August 7, 2019, a representative from the alcohol distributor confirmed to Board Chair, Glenn Gray (“Mr. Gray”) that Mr. Vogel spoke with him about these laws. The Director of Major Giving, Teryll Sindell, was also copied in these e-mails and was asked

to provide tickets to the alcohol vendor.

17. On or about August 8, 2019, Ellen Richard, Executive Director of the Laguna Playhouse (“Ms. Richard”), referred this practice and relationship with the alcohol distributor as an “illegal relationship” and requested Mr. Vogel to “please find something that says it is illegal too.” In an email to Ms. Richards, Mr. Vogel confirmed that the alcohol distributor was offering money for each bottle of alcohol sold to try to get around these laws. On or about August 15, 2019, Ms. Richard emailed Mr. Vogel with language from the Business and Professions Code regarding a licensee’s gifting of goods or promotional items in connection with sales of their product in an attempt to get the alcohol distributor’s promotional items out of the theatre’s lobby. In response to this request, Mr. Vogel presented the pertinent Business and Professions Code section to the Laguna Playhouse’s management and Board Members. After Mr. Vogel spoke about this with Executive Staff members and discussed with Board Chair, Mr. Gray, Mr. Vogel was authorized to accept this change of relationship by Ms. Richard and Mr. Gray under the condition that they would no longer be selling donated products.

18. Mr. Vogel was surprised when on May 27, 2020, there were discussions between the alcohol distributor and the Laguna Playhouse to have a Father’s Day promotion where bottles of liquor would be given in exchange for a donation of $100 to the Organization. On May 27, 2020 Ms. Richard wrote to Mr. Vogel, “I am kind of assuming that nothing is happening with [the alcohol distributor]? We are almost out of time – going to be too late for Father’s Day in a red hot minute. Please let me know. I will be sad to see the $5,000 disappear. And wonder if Melinda will bring it up at the board meeting.” Mr. Vogel warned the Laguna Playhouse’s management that this was a questionable practice given the laws, but was nevertheless forced to adhere to management’s directives, including being instructed to falsify the number of bottles sold so that the vendor would not be upset at the results.

C. Mr. Vogel is Instructed to Input False Budgeting Information in a County Grant Proposal by the Laguna Playhouse’s CFO

19. In or around October of 2019, Mr. Vogel was tasked with putting together a $200,000 budget for a County Grant for the benefit of the Laguna Playhouse. Mr. Vogel was tasked

with the budgeting task by Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Ancalade (“Mr. Ancalade”). Mr. Vogel began receiving requests by executive officers of the Laguna Playhouse to include false information regarding expenses on a grant application in order to obtain additional funding. On or about October 17, 2019, Mr. Vogel was asked by Mr. Ancalade and Director of Youth Theatre, Dylan Russell (“Ms. Russell”) to discuss the budget while Mr. Vogel was completing a grant proposal to the County of Orange for government funding for the Laguna Playhouse. They kept demanding that Mr. Vogel increase weekly hours for Ms. Russell and to add an overall increase of 15% to the indirect expenses to cover other expenses the organization had in the form of overhead as they were only allowed by the County to allot 11% of the budget to administrative staffing – Mr. Vogel refused to pad numbers and informed them that he had to put the actual numbers that would be used and not just add another 15% of expenses. Mr. Vogel insisted that he could only add real projections and that he could not inflate numbers since it was so drastically different from the hours he put in the proposal. Mr. Vogel pushed back and refused, insisting that he could not increase indirect costs in that way.

20. The next day, October 18th, Mr. Vogel was working on the budget once again when he received a request from the County of Orange to reduce his administrative costs to be at 11% of the total budget he was allotted. The CFO, Mr. Ancalade, again asked Mr. Vogel to increase indirect costs by taking the total amount of direct expenses and to increase those by 15%. Mr. Vogel told him that this could not be done as it would not be an accurate reflection of real costs and would affect them later as the funds paid were based on reimbursements for staffing time and actual paid costs. When Mr. Vogel went to Ms. Russell to let her know he had to decrease her staffing a bit to make the budget threshold of $200,000 and only allot 11% of the budget to admin and could not just pad the indirect costs by a certain percentage, he found Ms. Russell and Mr. Ancalade having a private conversation about having his grants and outreach manager report to them instead of him. As they were having bi-weekly meetings to stay on the same page, Mr. Vogel confronted them on having a meeting without him regarding the budget and plans to take one of his staff. Mr. Vogel proceeded to make necessary adjustments without their further input and submitted the budget and

it was accepted.

21. On October 22, 2019, Mr. Vogel met with Ms. Russell, Mr. Ancalade and Executive Director, Ms. Richard, to discuss the budget that he submitted and the grants and outreach position. Ms. Richard agreed it should stay in Mr. Vogel’s department as it was mostly a fundraising position and made it clear that Mr. Vogel was the lead on the county project and that they needed to make sure they did their part to comply with the grant. The Laguna Playhouse did not comply with the grant, although the contract started on January 1, 2020. They did not actually carry out the program until April and therefore could not bill for many months of staffing pay at a loss of $16,000 a month as necessary staff were not hired or trained.

D. Mr. Vogel Reports that Ellen Richard Was Violating the County Contract

22. On July 17, 2020, Mr. Vogel participated in a planning call with County Program Manager, Rebeka Sanchez, Erin O’Flaherty, Mr. Ancalade, and Ms. Russell. During the call, Mr. Vogel was shocked to hear that Mr. Ancalade and Ms. Russell were complaining to the County Program Manager that Ms. Richard was not supporting the program, specifically the youth theatre production of “She Kills Monsters.” This production was part of the contract and would be a violation of the county contract for the Laguna Playhouse not to produce. Mr. Vogel contacted Glenn Gray following the call and Mr. Gray sent Mr. Vogel an email asking for the phone numbers for Ms. Russell and Mr. Ancalade. Mr. Vogel provided this information under the assumption that Mr. Gray would look into this.

23. On or about August 5, 2020, just days before the production of “She Kills Monsters,” Ms. Richard was looking to cancel the live panel portion of the production. Mr. Vogel informed Ms. Richard and staff that this would be a violation of the contract and that they needed to continue with the panel as planned. Ms. O’Flaherty needed approval to promote the production in terms with the contract and Ms. Richard would not give approval. Mr. Vogel was forced to make the call and approved Ms. O’Flaherty to send out flyers promoting the production. Mr. Vogel stated in an email, “If we do not have the panel, than we are in violation of the contract with the county. We would have to inform them that we cannot technically move forward with the outreach portion of

the productions at this time.” The following day on August 6, 2020, Mr. Vogel sent an email to the county project staff copying Mr. Gray applauding staff for their work on the production and stating the importance of the program and why it needs full support from management and the Board of Directors.

E. Mr. Vogel Discovers that the Laguna Playhouse Receives PPP Loan Funding and He Questions How those Funds Are Being Used and Faces Retaliation

24. In or around April of 2020, the Laguna Playhouse was shut down due to the COVID19 Pandemic. During the Pandemic, most of the employees were asked to work remotely, however, a small group of employees close to the Executive Director continued to work in the theatre. In order to avoid having other employees going into the building during the pandemic, Ms. Richard changed the locks and keypads so that outside workers could not access the building. As the Company and employees adjusted to working remotely, Mr. Vogel noticed that some employees continued working full time while he and others were furloughed to 20 hours per week, and 22 other employees were terminated. After terminating 22 of the employees, the Company was left with about 12 employees on staff.

25. Around April 18, 2020, Mr. Vogel became informed by Paul Singarella, Past Chair of the Board that the Laguna Playhouse was given a Small Business Administration Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funding. In an exchange with Ms. Richard, she confirmed with Mr. Vogel that the Laguna Playhouse got PPP funding and that the Board Chair’s bank received additional funds for processing the loan.

26. On or about April 28, 2020, Ms. Richard sent an email to all the trustees and the board members to advise them as follows, “[w]e did receive our SBA Payroll Protection loan. It is too early to tell how much of this money will be forgiven as the full rules have not been released… Regardless, it is an important source of cash for us right now. I want to thank Glenn Gray who stewarded the loan through [bank]. And I also want to recognize and thank Jeremy Ancalade, our CFO, for preparing the 470-page submission.”

27. Despite holding the position of Director of Development and performing key functions such as finding grants and funding for the playhouse, Mr. Vogel was demoted to a 20 hour

a week position and was changed from exempt to non-exempt beginning on April 6, 2020 and was asked to sign a “contract” to that effect and to get approval from Ms. Richard to perform work when exceeding such hours. Mr. Vogel was also asked to exhaust vacation and sick days to cover his payroll. Considering the work that Mr. Vogel was given and after work duties he had to perform given Ms. Richard’s instruction, the work could not be done in the 20 hours week. Despite only getting paid 20 hours a week, he was a dedicated employee and put in the work necessary to complete his work and search out funding, grants to raise funds for the organization, at times putting in 10 to 12 hours a day. Mr. Vogel noticed that the employee he had recently hired was allowed to work 40 hours per week without having to request the extra hours. In order to get clarity regarding this discrepancy, Mr. Vogel sent an email to the General Manager, Denys Baker (“Ms. Baker”), asking about the situation.

28. On or about June 22, 2020, after finding out that the Laguna Playhouse received PPP funding, Mr. Vogel once again vocalized and questioned Ms. Baker as to why he and certain other employees were having to use vacation and sick time when they were given PPP funding. He asked what the PPP loan funds were being used for. Mr. Vogel reported to Ms. Baker that even though he understood he was only being paid 20 hours a week as a non-exempt worker, he was in fact putting in over 10 hours a day in order to finish his many tasks. She admonished him for not reporting this but he was never given any timecards. Instead of answering the questions Mr. Vogel posed about how the PPP funding was being used in relation keeping up employee pay, she restored Mr. Vogel to full time status and to exempt status. Unfortunately, not all employees’ used vacation and sick time were restored with the PPP funding.

29. Approximately two months thereafter, on or about August 9, 2020, Mr. Vogel filed a complaint against the Executive Director of Laguna Playhouse, Ms. Richard. Mr. Vogel complained about Ms. Richard negatively impacting his ability to perform his job and otherwise creating a hostile work environment. Mr. Vogel sent his complaint to the Artistic Director, Ann Wareham (“Ms. Wareham”) per the employee manual. Mr. Vogel decided to send his complaint to Ms. Wareham instead of the General Manager, Ms. Baker, because he believed Ms. Baker could be

biased, since Ms. Baker had been working with Ms. Richard for nearly 30 years and was feeling growing hostility after his exchange in asking about how the PPP loan was being used and for reporting that she was violating the county contract. At the time that he made a complaint about the hostile work environment created by Ms. Richard, he did not realize that his work was being sabotaged for questioning about the use the PPP funds, not getting paid all wages for the work he was doing and for requesting reimbursement of vacation and sick pay he and other employees were forced to use during the PPP funding period but is informed and now believes that was a basis for the hostile environment he was facing.

30. A few days after Mr. Vogel submitted his complaint, he was informed by the Chair of the Board, Mr. Gray, that a third party attorney would be contacting Mr. Vogel. On or about August 20, 2020, Mr. Vogel was contacted by that attorney, who had set up a Zoom meeting for August 25, 2020. The day of the meeting, that attorney interviewed Mr. Vogel for a few hours and she (the attorney) would continue to purportedly interview nine other staff members and review Mr. Vogel’s personnel file. She instructed Mr. Vogel to send her all hostile emails from Ms. Richard. Mr. Vogel complied.

31. Mr. Vogel continued performing his work duties and Ms. Richard’s attacks escalated after he submitted his complaint against her. Ms. Richard continued contacting other staff members requesting work completed without informing Mr. Vogel about the work. Moreover, Ms. Richard would complain about not liking his final work product and Mr. Vogel would stand up for himself and the employees and tell her that he was not informed about the request. Ms. Richard continued sending aggressive emails and Mr. Vogel continued pointing out that he felt uncomfortable with the way she responded.

32. On July 9, 2020, Mr. Vogel was forwarded an email from Teryll Sindell where it was noted that the Laguna Playhouse received a PPP loan on April 6, 2020 and that the amount of jobs retained were 145. Mr. Vogel was shocked and reasonably and in good-faith believed that the CFO, Mr. Ancalade, overstated the number of employees to get increased PPP loan funding.

33. On August 27, 2020, Mr. Vogel sent an email to Maureen Finn, a trustee of the Miki

Young charitable trust after she had asked regarding how she could help with the PPP loan forgiveness. For months, Mr. Vogel attempted to have Mr. Ancalade speak with Ms. Finn, but he would not. Mr. Vogel thought it was strange that Mr. Ancalade was being evasive about the PPP loan and applying for forgiveness.

34. On or about September 24, 2020, Ms. Richard sent an email to staff informing them that they had missed a grant. Mr. Vogel immediately requested to review the grant status list from the Grant Writer, Erin O’Flaherty (“Ms. O’Flaherty”), and found out that they missed another grant and directed her to start working on the reports and that Mr. Vogel would work on the grant and make a late submission of the grant on September 28, 2020. Mr. Vogel discovered that other grants were close to overdue, missing significant information, and had to make significant corrections.

35. A few days later, on September 29, 2020, Mr. Vogel informed Ms. Richard and the General Manager, Ms. Baker, that he needed to discuss Ms. O’Flaherty’s missing grants with her and establish better grant procedures. Ms. Richard and Ms. Baker stated that Ms. O’Flaherty was a stellar employee and demanded that Ms. Baker be on the call. Mr. Vogel expressed his concern about Ms. Baker being on the call and having Ms. O’Flaherty feel threatened. Ms. Richard insisted on Ms. Baker being present. After Mr. Vogel persisted that it was not a good idea for Ms. Baker to be on the call, Ms. Richard asked instead for Mr. Ancalade to be present on the call as an alternative. Mr. Vogel agreed. Two days later, Mr. Vogel received an email informing him that a complaint against him had been filed and from now on Ms. O’Flaherty would be reporting to Mr. Ancalade. Mr. Vogel was asked not to contact Ms. O’Flaherty. After reviewing this email, Mr. Vogel knew that either Ms. Baker or Mr. Ancalade had spoken to Ms. O’Flaherty about Mr. Vogel’s concerns over her performance. Mr. Gray told Mr. Vogel to not continue emailing the investigator with personnel matters and that he needed to lay low because many people, including Mr. Vogel could not turn out well after the investigation was over.

36. On September 30, 2020, the day before he was notified a complaint had been filed against him, Mr. Vogel started receiving several email attacks and accusations from Ms. Richard. Ms. Richard had pulled out the grant that was submitted in a day and pointed out the errors. Mr.

Vogel also received an email from a board member requesting an invoice that he had received. Ms. Richard asked Mr. Vogel why the board member had to ask three times to receive the invoice. Mr. Vogel immediately informed Ms. Richard that the board member had indeed received the invoice and that Ms. Richard’s claims were false. Ms. Richard had received the documents from the emails by Mr. Ancalade, the CFO who was retaliating against Mr. Vogel.

F. Mr. Vogel Is Placed on a Medical Leave of Absence After Heightened Scrutiny and Retaliation

37. Unfortunately, days after receiving the complaint against him, Mr. Vogel started to experience symptoms of dizziness and shortness of breath, which prompted him to seek medical attention. He was placed off work from October 5, 2020 until October 9, 2020. During his visit to Urgent Care on October 8, 2020, Mr. Vogel found out he had hypertension and was placed off work until October 16, 2020.

38. On or about October 9, 2020, Mr. Vogel received an email from CFO, Mr. Ancalade, acknowledging that Mr. Vogel was off work sick. In the email, Mr. Ancalade antagonized Mr. Vogel for having Ms. Sindell ask him to update them on grants since the Grant Writer was reporting to Mr. Ancalade. Mr. Ancalade stated that just because Ms. O’Flaherty used to report to Mr. Vogel, it did not mean that now he reports to Mr. Ancalade. Mr. Vogel was off work and decided not to respond to Mr. Ancalade’s email. Mr. Vogel found out through Ms. Sindell that Mr. Ancalade had received a call from Ms. Sindell earlier that day to ask him about the PPP loan. Mr. Ancalade informed Ms. Sindell that he had used independent contractors who were actors and crew from past shows to inflate the employee number (from 12 to 145).

39. On or about October 14, 2020, Mr. Vogel went to his primary care physician for a follow-up exam, whereupon he received blood pressure medication and his off-work note was extended.

G. Mr. Vogel Reports PPP Loan Fraud to Laguna Playhouse’s CPA Firm

40. On or about October 9, 2020 after speaking to Ms. Sindell, Mr. Vogel called a CPA firm, who happened to be the Laguna Playhouse’s auditor (the “CPA firm”), regarding information he had received and reported that he believed that the Laguna Playhouse was engaging in PPP loan

fraud by overstating the amount of employees working for the Company in its application. He indicated that he believed in good faith that that the Laguna Playhouse reported that they had 145 employees in its application instead of the correct number, 12 employees. Mr. Vogel informed the auditor that the Laguna Playhouse had falsified its application for the PPP loan. The auditors told Mr. Vogel they would send an email to Ms. Richard and Mr. Ancalade asking to review the loan application in detail. In an email from a partner from the CPA firm to CFO Mr. Ancalade and Executive Director, Ms. Richard on October 10, 2020, the partner from the CPA firm noted, “Several of our clients are asking about PPP loan forgiveness recently and asking us to review their application paperwork and calculations so they can be in the best position to qualify for loan forgiveness. We’d be happy to review your application and computations if you would like to send them over. Thanks and we look forward to connecting soon.” The partner from the CPA firm forwarded this email to Mr. Vogel and indicated he would report back to him when he got more information but he never followed up with Mr. Vogel.

41. On or about October 12, 2020, Mr. Vogel sent an email to Mr. Gray asking about the status of the open investigation against him and to inform him that he was off work sick. Mr. Gray said he would get back to Mr. Vogel the following day to set up a time to discuss the results they discussed with the Executive Committee. The following day, Mr. Vogel received a call from Mr. Gray and the Vice Chair, Lisa Hale (“Ms. Hale”), letting Mr. Vogel know that the investigation against Ms. Richard did not rise to the level of her creating a hostile work environment. Mr. Vogel was confused, as he had asked on the status about the investigation against him not Ms. Richard’s investigation. Mr. Gray and Ms. Hale told Mr. Vogel to “chill and go to the beach.”

H. Mr. Vogel Reports PPP Loan Fraud to the City Council of Laguna Beach

42. On or about October 19, 2020, Mr. Vogel emailed the City of Laguna Beach Mayor and Council members to inform them he had filed a complaint with the US Department of Justice regarding fraud in connection with the PPP loan applied for by the Laguna Playhouse. The email states, “While it was brought to my attention by a donor who questioned the info through public documents, they shared with me, I learned that our CFO and Executive Director processed a loan

[…] claiming 145 employees. There were only approximately 12 employees retained at the time the loan was submitted and I believe only that same number of employees was retained through July after receiving funds. The loan was processed through [a bank], who our Chair of the Board, Glenn Gray, was the CEO of when the loan was processed. After reporting this information to our auditor […] on October 9th, they informed Ellen Richard and our CFO, Jeremy Ancalade, requesting to review the information. Today I was called by Glenn Gray and informed I was put on administrative leave. I bring this to your attention as it is my duty to report possible fraud and it could lead to problems with the forgiveness of the loan and sustainability with donors. While I already am victim of retaliation for this and other ethical violations I have reported to our Board's leadership, you are also now aware should this be of concern to the city. I have worked hard to create sustainability for Laguna Playhouse including a […] partnership with Orange County Health Care Agency that I secured for mental health educational outreach services and it is my hopes that by contacting you today, you may be able to take potential action to protect the future of Laguna Playhouse.”

I. Mr. Vogel is Wrongfully Terminated Under the Pretext of a Layoff During a Medical Leave of Absence

43. On or about October 19, 2020, Mr. Vogel received an email in the morning from the General Manager asking him if he would be back to work on October 19, 2020. Mr. Vogel said he would be back on that day. A few hours later, Mr. Vogel received a call from the Chair of the Board, Mr. Gray, informing Mr. Vogel that he (Mr. Vogel) would be placed on paid administrative leave and that there were purportedly complaints from other employees against him. After the call was over, Mr. Vogel noticed that his email was locked as well as all his account passwords. When Mr. Vogel went to his office within the hour to retrieve some of his personal items, he encountered the lock of his office door had already been changed.

44. On October 21 and October 24, 2020, Mr. Vogel went to see his doctor and was placed on a leave of absence through December 19, 2020. It was noted that in addition to high blood pressure, Mr. Vogel experienced other symptoms, including sleep trouble, appetite trouble and extremely high anxiety.

45. On or about November 19, 2020, while Mr. Vogel was still on a leave of absence, he was abruptly provided with a termination notice by the Laguna Playhouse and told that he was being terminated on the pretext of a purported layoff, even though he had received substantial funding for the Laguna Playhouse just months prior.

46. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Vogel believes and alleges that he was wrongfully terminated by the Laguna Playhouse for being a whistleblower associated with reporting PPP loan fraud, PPP loan misuse, reporting illegal sale of an alcohol by a non-profit in violation of the Business and Professions Code and for his refusal to include false financial information in applying for a County grant, in violation of the California Labor Code. Mr. Vogel also alleges that he was discriminated against on account of his actual or perceived disabilities or medical conditions, denied a good-faith interactive process and reasonable accommodations, subjected to unlawful retaliation, and otherwise wrongfully terminated in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (ACTUAL AND/OR PERCEIVED DISABILITY AND MEDICAL CONDITION)

[Violation of Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a)]

(By Plaintiff Against Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

48. Defendants the Laguna Playhouse, and Does 1 through 50, are “employers” within the meaning of, and are subject to, the FEHA, as employers of five or more employees. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (d).)

49. Plaintiff was continuously employed by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, at all times herein.

50. Under the law, Government Code §§ 12926 and 12940, and the accompanying regulations, “are to be broadly construed to protect applicants and employees from discrimination due to an actual or perceived physical or mental disability or mental condition that is disabling,

potentially disabling or perceived to be disabling or potentially disabling. The definition of disability . . . shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage by the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). . . . [T]he primary focus in cases brought under the FEHA should be whether employers and other covered entities have provided reasonable accommodation to applicants and employees with disabilities, whether all parties have complied with their obligations to engage in the interactive process and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability, which should not require extensive analysis.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11064, subd. (b).)

51. Government Code § 12940, subdivision (a), provides that it is an unlawful employment practice "[f]or an employer, because of the . . . physical disability, mental disability, [or] medical condition . . . of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment."

52. The FEHA defines “disability” to include “[h]aving a record or history of a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment [that constitutes a physical disability], which is known to the employer,” “[b]eing regarded or treated by the employer . . . as having, or having had, any physical condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult,” or “[b]eing regarded or treated by the employer . . . as having, or having had, a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment that has no present disabling effect but may become a physical disability.” (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (m)(3)–(5).) Under the “regarded as” theory, an actual or existing disability is not necessary. (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 52–53.)

53. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class in that he suffered from an actual or perceived disability and/or medical condition. As alleged more fully above, Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful treatment in retaliation for his whistleblower activities, including being subjected to heightened scrutiny, hostility, and marginalization at work. As a result

of the retaliatory and unlawful treatment that he experienced at work, Plaintiff started experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath, which prompted him to seek medical attention. Ultimately, Plaintiff was placed off of work from October 5, 2020 through October 9, 2020. During his visit to Urgent Care on October 8, 2020, Plaintiff was advised that he had hypertension and was placed off of work until October 16, 2020. On or about October 14, 2020, Plaintiff presented for a follow-up visit with his Primary Care Physician, who prescribed Plaintiff medication and extended his time off of work. On or about October 21, 2020 and October 24, 2020, Plaintiff again presented for a follow-up visit with his health care provider, who noted that Plaintiff suffered from high blood pressure, extremely high anxiety, and problems with eating and sleeping. Based on these symptoms, Plaintiff was placed on a leave of absence through December 19, 2020. At all relevant times, the Laguna Playhouse had notice of Plaintiff’s actual or perceived disabilities and his need for reasonable accommodations in connection with the same, including a recuperative leave of absence through on or about December 19, 2020. (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “Physical Disabilities”).

54. Plaintiff’s Physical Disabilities limited his physical activities and his ability to work while performing his usual and customary duties as an employee at the Laguna Playhouse. At all relevant times, the Laguna Playhouse had notice of Plaintiff’s Physical Disabilities, particularly as Plaintiff regularly kept the Laguna Playhouse apprised of his medical visits, time off requests, and prognosis to return to work. Plaintiff further alleges that he was “regarded” by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, as having had a disease, disorder, condition, or health impairment that had no present disabling effect but may become a physical disability. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (m)(5).) This qualifies Plaintiff as a person protected from discrimination on the basis of a “physical disability” under the FEHA. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (m)(3) – (5).) Defendants also knew that Plaintiff had a disability that impacted his ability to do his work.

55. Despite Plaintiff’s notifications to the Laguna Playhouse of the nature of his Physical Disabilities, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Plaintiff to hostility and discriminatory treatment as detailed above and incorporated herein by reference. As detailed above, Plaintiff was subjected to

heightened scrutiny, hostility, and unwarranted reprimands, which culminated in his unlawful termination for specious and pretextual reasons.

56. Meanwhile, despite being placed on notice of Plaintiff’s Physical Disabilities, the Laguna Playhouse failed to discharge its affirmative duties and obligations to engage Plaintiff in the good-faith, interactive process or to otherwise provide him with reasonable accommodations, as required under the law. Plaintiff was subjected to differential treatment and retaliation by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, because of his Physical Disabilities. Plaintiff's Physical Disabilities were a motivating reason for Plaintiff’s termination. The Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, employed and then terminated Plaintiff after he reported his Physical Disabilities and requested medical attention and accommodations for his Physical Disabilities. Plaintiff was also disparately impacted by the policies and procedures of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50 based on his actual and perceived Physical Disabilities.

57. As a direct, legal, and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s aforementioned protected status, the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his actual or perceived disability including, but not limited to, discriminating against and terminating Plaintiff within a short proximity of time of requesting medical attention and accommodations for his Physical Disabilities and retaliating against Plaintiff in response to his need for accommodation for his Physical Disabilities.

58. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered lost income, employment, and career opportunities, and has suffered and continues to suffer other economic loss, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

59. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

60. The Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing aforementioned harm.

61. The conduct of which Plaintiff complains was carried out by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, willfully, intentionally, and with oppression, malice, and fraud and was carried out with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages according to proof. The aforementioned conduct on which punitive damages is alleged was done with the advance knowledge by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive. The alleged conduct on which punitive damages is alleged was authorized, ratified, and/or committed by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive.

62. Under the FEHA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA

[Violation of Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (m)]

(By Plaintiff Against Defendants THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

64. The Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50 are “employers” within the meaning of, and are subject to, the FEHA as employers of five or more employees. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (d).)

65. Under the law, Government Code §§ 12926 and 12940, and the accompanying regulations:

[A]re designed to ensure discrimination-free access to employment opportunities notwithstanding any individual’s actual or perceived disability or medical condition; to preserve a valuable pool of experienced, skilled employees; and to strengthen our economy by keeping people working who would otherwise require public assistance. These regulations are to be broadly construed to protect applicants and employees

from discrimination due to an actual or perceived physical or mental disability or medical condition that is disabling, potentially disabling or perceived to be disabling or potentially disabling. The definition of disability in these regulations shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) . . . [T]he primary focus in cases brought under the FEHA should be whether employers and other covered entities have provided reasonable accommodation to applicants and employees with disabilities, whether all parties have complied with their obligations to engage in the interactive process and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability, which should not require extensive analysis.(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11064, subd. (b).)

66. Government Code § 12940, subdivision (m), provides that it is an unlawful employment practice "[f]or an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.”

67. Government Code § 12926, subdivision (p) provides: “‘Reasonable accommodation’ may include either of the following: (1) Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. (2) Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.”California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068, subdivision (a), provides that “[a]n employer or other covered entity has an affirmative duty to make reasonable accommodation(s) for the disability of any individual applicant or employee if the employer or other covered entity knows of the disability, unless the employer or other covered entity can demonstrate, after engaging in the interactive process, that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.” (Italics added.)

68. Employers have an affirmative duty to make reasonable accommodation for an employee if it knows of an employee’s disability even if the employee does not request an accommodation. (See, Prlliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 CA4th 935, 949-50.)

69. California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068, subdivision (e), further provides that an employer “is required to consider any and all reasonable accommodations of which it is aware or which are brought to its attention by the applicant or employee, except ones that create an undue hardship. The employer or other covered entity shall consider the preference of the applicant or employee to be accommodated, but has the right to select and implement an accommodation that is effective for both the employee and the employer or other covered entity.”

70. California Code of Regulations, title 2, § 11068, subdivision (g) further provides that “[a]n individual with a record of a disability may be entitled, absent undue hardship, to a reasonable accommodation if needed and related to the residual effects of the disability. For example, an employee may need a leave or a schedule change to permit him or his to attend follow-up or monitoring appointments with a health care provider.”

71. As detailed above and incorporated herein by reference, the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, were made aware that Plaintiff suffered perceived and actual disabilities or medical conditions which required accommodation.

72. Plaintiff needed accommodations associated with his Physical Disabilities, including, but not limited to, time off to attend his medical appointments, modified work duties, an extended recuperative leave, and to otherwise work in an environment that was free of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation on the basis of his actual and perceived disabilities. The Laguna Playhouse retaliated against Plaintiff in the form of failing to accommodate him, failing to engage him in the good-faith interactive process, failing to provide him with a work environment free of retaliation and discrimination, and firing him for pretextual reasons.As more fully set forth above, the Laguna Playhouse retaliated against Plaintiff and failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff by failing and refusing to engage in a good faith interactive process with Plaintiff despite having notice of his perceived and actual disabilities or medical conditions. Plaintiff is further informed and

believes and thereon alleges that the Laguna Playhouse, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment because he needed accommodations in connection with his Physical Disabilities but instead terminated him.As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered lost income, employment, and career opportunities, and has suffered and continues to suffer other economic loss, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

73. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

74. The Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation was a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm.

75. The conduct which Plaintiff complaints of in this Complaint, was carried out by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, willfully, intentionally, and with oppression, malice, and fraud and was carried out with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages according to proof. The aforementioned conduct on which punitive damages is alleged, was done with the advance knowledge by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive. The alleged conduct on which punitive damages is alleged was authorized, ratified, and/or committed by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive.

76. Under the FEHA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS

[Violation of Gov. Code, §12940, subd. (n)]

(By Plaintiff Against Defendants THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the

same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

78. California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068, subdivision (a), provides that “[a]n employer or other covered entity has an affirmative duty to make reasonable accommodation(s) for the disability of any individual applicant or employee if the employer or other covered entity knows of the disability, unless the employer or other covered entity can demonstrate, after engaging in the interactive process, that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.” (Italics added.)

79. California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11069, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]hen needed to identify or implement an effective, reasonable accommodation for an employee or applicant with a disability, the FEHA requires a timely, good faith, interactive process between an employer or other covered entity and an applicant, employee, or the individual’s representative, with a known physical or mental disability or medical condition.”

80. An employer is required to initiate an interactive process when: “(1) . . . an employee with a known physical or mental disability or medical condition requests reasonable accommodations, or (2) the employer […] otherwise becomes aware of the need for an accommodation through a third party or by observation, or (3) the employer . . . becomes aware of the possible need for an accommodation because the employee with a disability has exhausted leave under the California Workers’ Compensation Act, for the employee’s own serious health condition under the CFRA and/or the FMLA […] and yet the employee or the employee’s health care provider indicates that further accommodation is still necessary for recuperative leave or other accommodation for the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11069, subd. (b), italics added.) An employer is required to follow the procedures outlined in California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11069, subdivision (c), in engaging in the interactive process and assessing whether an employee may be accommodated through an alternate position.

81. The FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with an employee and/or the employee’s physician to determine

effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee with a known physical or mental disability or medical condition. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n).)

82. In violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n), and the aforementioned regulations, the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, failed to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with Plaintiff after it had notice of his Physical Disabilities and became aware of his need for reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff needed reasonable accommodations associated with his Physical Disabilities, but not limited to, time off to attend his medical appointments, modified work duties, an extended recuperative leave, and to otherwise work in an environment that was free of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation on the basis of his Physical Disabilities. The Laguna Playhouse retaliated against Plaintiff in the form of failing to accommodate him, failing to engage him in the good-faith interactive process, failing to provide him with a work environment free of retaliation and discrimination, and firing him for pretextual reasons.

83. Plaintiff reported his Physical Disabilities to his managers and requested reasonable accommodations, but they refused to accommodate him. The Laguna Playhouse failed to engage in a good faith interactive process with Plaintiff to discover and provide reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s Physical Disabilities.

84. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered lost income, employment, and career opportunities, and has suffered and continues to suffer other economic loss, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

85. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

86. The Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s failure to engage in the good-faith interactive process was a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm.

87. The conduct which Plaintiff complaints of in this Complaint, was carried out by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, willfully, intentionally, and with oppression, malice, and fraud and was carried out with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages according to proof. The aforementioned conduct on which punitive damages is alleged, was done with the advance knowledge by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive. The alleged conduct on which punitive damages is alleged was authorized, ratified, and/or committed by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive.

88. Under the FEHA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER FEHA

[Violation of Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h)]

(By Plaintiff Against Defendants THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

89. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

90. The Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive are “employers” within the meaning of, and are subject to, the California Fair Employment Housing Act Government Code Section 12900, et seq., (FEHA) as employers of five (5) or more employees. (See, Gov. Code § 12926(d).)

91. Plaintiff was continuously employed by The Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, at all times herein.

92. California Gov. Code Section 12940(h) prohibits covered employers and/or persons from retaliating against employees for exercising any rights under FEHA.

93. California Gov. Code Section 12940 prohibits a covered employer from “[retaliating] or otherwise [discriminating] against a person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision,

regardless of whether the request was granted.” (See, Cal. Gov Code § 12940(l)(4).)

94. Plaintiff engaged in legally protected activity within the meaning of the FEHA by requesting accommodation for his actual or perceived disabilities. As set forth more fully above, Plaintiff requested accommodations associated with his Physical Disabilities, including, but not limited to, time off to attend his medical appointments, an extended recuperative leave, and to otherwise work in an environment that was free of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation on the basis of his actual and perceived disabilities. The Laguna Playhouse retaliated against Plaintiff in the form of failing to accommodate him, failing to engage him in the good-faith interactive process, failing to provide him with a work environment free of retaliation and discrimination, and ultimately terminating his employment for pretextual reasons.

95. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s, conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered lost income, employment, and career opportunities, and has suffered and continues to suffer other economic loss, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

96. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s, conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

97. The Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s, conduct was a substantial factor in causing aforementioned harm.

98. The conduct of which Plaintiff complains was carried out by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, willfully, intentionally, and with oppression, malice, and fraud and was carried out with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages according to proof. The aforementioned conduct on which punitive damages is alleged was done with the advance knowledge by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive. The alleged conduct on which punitive damages is alleged was authorized, ratified, and/or committed by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive.

99. Under the FEHA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § 1102.5

(By Plaintiff Against Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

100. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

101. At all times mentioned herein, California Labor Code § 1102.5 was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants and each of them.

102. California Labor Code § 1102.5(a) provides that an employer: “shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

103. California Labor Code § 1102.5(b) provides that:

“An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance… if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.”

104. California Labor Code § 1102.5(c) provides that “[a]n employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.”

105. Over the course of his employment with the Laguna Playhouse, Plaintiff regularly reported conduct and practices at the Laguna Playhouse that he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be unlawful and otherwise violate state and/or federal statute. Specifically, Plaintiff

became aware that the Laguna Playhouse was accepting alcohol donations from an alcohol distributor of vodka and selling those donations at theatre shows. Plaintiff believed in good faith that this was done in violation of state or federal statute, namely, Business and Professions Code Section 25503.9, which prevents non-profits from selling alcohol. As such, Plaintiff advised both members of the Board and the alcohol vendor’s representative of his reasonable and good-faith belief that these transactions were illegal. Plaintiff would also report that the Laguna Playhouse’s Executor Director was violating the terms of a county contract. Finally, and most egregiously, Plaintiff blew the whistle on the Laguna Playhouse’s procurement of a substantial loan from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) by what he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be by fraudulent means. More specifically, Plaintiff obtain information tending to show that the Laguna Playhouse’s CFO had vastly overstated the Company’s number of its employees in its application for PPP funding in order to obtain a higher loan amount. In fact, Plaintiff came to learn that the CFO had inflated the claimed number of employees in its PPP app lication by using independent contractors who were actors and crew from past shows in order to increase its employee count from twelve to as high as 145.

106. Notably, Plaintiff made these reports and protected disclosures to his employer, government agencies, and person(s) with the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the suspected violation. However, in clear retaliation for his whistleblowing activities, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Plaintiff to a relentless campaign of hosti lity, heightened scrutiny, marginalization at work. As a result of the retaliatory and unlawful treatment that he experienced at work, Plaintiff started experiencing a drastic decline in his health, including symptoms of dizziness and shortness of breath, which prompted him to seek medical attention. At the advice of his health care providers, Plaintiff sought reasonable accommodations from the Laguna Playhouse in the form of a recuperative leave of absence, which was eventually extended by his physicians to December 19, 2020. Despite being aware of Plaintiff’s actual or perceived disabilities, and his need for reasonable accommodations, the Laguna Playhouse failed to discharge its affirmative duties to engage Plaintiff in the good-faith, interactive process or to otherwise provide him with

reasonable accommodations, as required under the law. Instead, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Plaintiff to heightened scrutiny, hostility, and unwarranted reprimands, which culminated in his unlawful termination for pretextual reasons. Ultimately, the Laguna Playhouse made the cold and calculated decision to fire Plaintiff on or about November 19, 2020, in order to silence him.

107. The reasonableness of Plaintiff’s belief that the Laguna Playhouse engaged in illegal conduct by procuring a PPP loan through suspected fraudulent means is supported by several statutes. By way of example and not limitation, the False Claims Act (codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733) prohibits the submission of any “false or fraudulent” claim for payment under a federal benefit program. Further, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1014, it is a federal offense to, “knowingly makes any false statement or report […] for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of the […] Small Business Administration.” Of course, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is the agency responsible for administering the PPP.

108. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Laguna Playhouse’s decision to subject Plaintiff to differential treatment, heightened scrutiny, and ultimately termination, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s report of conduct and practices at the Laguna Playhouse that he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be unlawful and otherwise violate state and/or federal statute, as set forth above.

109. The above acts of Defendants are adverse actions and constitute retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5.

110. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff has lost, and will continue to lose, earnings and benefits and has suffered and/or will suffer other actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

111. In addition, as a proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, Defendant the Laguna Playhouse is subject to statutory civil penalties under California Labor Code § 1102.5(f).

112. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants and each of them,

Plaintiff has become and continues to be emotionally distressed, depressed, anxious, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer physical symptoms from the stress caused by Defendants’ conduct, including, but not limited to, great anxiety, depression, embarrassment, anger, and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

113. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to statute, including but not limited to California Labor Code section 1102.5 as amended by AB 1947, according to proof.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § 6310

(By Plaintiff Against Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

114. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

115. California Labor Code § 6310(b) prohibits discrimination and retaliation against an employee for making a bona fide complaint or whom the employer fears will complain of unsafe working conditions or unsafe work practices.

116. Over the course of his employment with the Laguna Playhouse, Plaintiff regularly reported conduct and practices at the Laguna Playhouse that he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be unlawful and otherwise violate state and/or federal statute. Specifically, Plaintiff became aware that the Laguna Playhouse was accepting alcohol donations from an alcohol distributor of vodka and selling those donations at theatre shows. Plaintiff believed in good faith that this was done in violation of state or federal statute, namely, Business and Professions Code Section 25503.9, which prevents non-profits from selling alcohol. As such, Plaintiff advised both members of the Board and the alcohol vendor’s representative of his reasonable and good-faith

belief that these transactions were illegal. Plaintiff would also report that the Laguna Playhouse’s Executor Director was violating the terms of a county contract. In fact, Plaintiff made a complaint to the Laguna Playhouse that Ms. Richard created a hostile work environment, was sabotaging his work, and creating a toxic environment. Specifically, Plaintiff complained to the Laguna Playhouse’s Artistic Director that he felt “the work environment at the Laguna Playhouse has been becoming toxic, hostile, and uncomfortable” by Ms. Richard’s actions.Finally, Plaintiff blew the whistle on the Laguna Playhouse’s procurement of a substantial loan from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) by what he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be by fraudulent means. More specifically, Plaintiff obtain information tending to show that the Laguna Playhouse’s CFO had vastly overstated the Company’s number of its employees in its application for PPP funding in order to obtain a higher loan amount. In fact, Plaintiff came to learn that the CFO had inflated the claimed number of employees in its PPP application by using independent contractors who were actors and crew from past shows in order to increase its employee count from twelve to as high as 145.

117. Notably, Plaintiff made these reports and protected disclosures to his employer, government agencies, and person(s) with the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the suspected violation. However, in clear retaliation for his whistleblowing activities, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Plaintiff to a relentless campaign of hosti lity, heightened scrutiny, marginalization at work. As a result of the retaliatory and unlawful treatment that he experienced at work, Plaintiff started experiencing a drastic decline in his health, including symptoms of dizziness and shortness of breath, which prompted him to seek medical attention. At the advice of his health care providers, Plaintiff sought reasonable accommodations from the Laguna Playhouse in the form of a recuperative leave of absence, which was eventually extended by his physicians to December 19, 2020. Despite being aware of Plaintiff’s actual or perceived disabilities, and his need for reasonable accommodations, the Laguna Playhouse failed to discharge its affirmative duties to engage Plaintiff in the good-faith, interactive process or to otherwise provide him with reasonable accommodations, as required under the law. Instead, the Laguna Playhouse subjected

Plaintiff to heightened scrutiny, hostility, and unwarranted reprimands, which culminated in his unlawful termination for pretextual reasons. Ultimately, the Laguna Playhouse made the cold and calculated decision to fire Plaintiff on or about November 19, 2020, in order to silence him.

118. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Laguna Playhouse’s decision to subject Plaintiff to differential treatment, increased scrutiny, a hostile work environment, sabotage his work, and ultimately fire him, was motivated by Plaintiff’s whistleblower activities, as set forth above.

119. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered lost income, employment and career opportunities, and has suffered and continues to suffer other economic loss, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

120. The conduct which Plaintiff complains of in this Complaint was carried out by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, willfully, intentionally, and with oppression, malice, and fraud, and was carried out with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages according to proof. The aforementioned conduct on which punitive damages is alleged, was done with the advanced knowledge by an officer, director and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50. The alleged conduct on which punitive damages is alleged, was authorized, ratified and/or committed by an officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50.. Under the Labor Code § 6310(b), Plaintiff is entitled to back pay.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

(By Plaintiff Against Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

121. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

122. Plaintiff was employed by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, at all relevant times herein. Plaintiff was subjected to working conditions that violated public

policy. The fundamental public policies violated by the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, are embodied in, inter alia, California Labor Code sections 6310 and 1102.5, and the California Fair Employment Housing Act, codified at Gov’t Code Section 12900, et seq.

123. Over the course of his employment with the Laguna Playhouse, Plaintiff regularly reported conduct and practices at the Laguna Playhouse that he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be unlawful and otherwise violate state and/or federal statute. Specifically, Plaintiff became aware that the Laguna Playhouse was accepting alcohol donations from an alcohol distributor of vodka and selling those donations at theatre shows. Plaintiff believed in good faith that this was done in violation of state or federal statute, namely, Business and Professions Code Section 25503.9, which prevents non-profits from selling alcohol. As such, Plaintiff advised both members of the Board and the alcohol vendor’s representative of his reasonable and good-faith belief that these transactions were illegal. Plaintiff would also report that the Laguna Playhouse’s Executor Director was violating the terms of a county contract. Finally, and most egregiously, Plaintiff blew the whistle on the Laguna Playhouse’s procurement of a substantial loan from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) by what he reasonably and i n good-faith believed to be by fraudulent means. More specifically, Plaintiff obtain information tending to show that the Laguna Playhouse’s CFO had vastly overs tated the Company’s number of its employees in its application for PPP funding in order to obtain a higher loan amount. In fact, Plaintiff came to learn that the CFO had inflated the claimed number of employees in its PPP application by using independent contractors who were actors and crew from past shows in order to increase its employee count from twelve to as high as 145.

124. Notably, Plaintiff made these reports and protected disclosures to his employer, government agencies, and person(s) with the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the suspected violation. However, in clear retaliation for his whistleblowing activities, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Plaintiff to a relentless campaign of hosti lity, heightened scrutiny, marginalization at work. As a result of the retaliatory and unlawful treatment that he experienced at work, Plaintiff started experiencing a drastic decline in his health, including symptoms of

dizziness and shortness of breath, which prompted him to seek medical attention. At the advice of his health care providers, Plaintiff sought reasonable accommodations from the Laguna Playhouse in the form of a recuperative leave of absence, which was eventually extended by his physicians to December 19, 2020. Despite being aware of Plaintiff’s actual or perceived disabilities, and his need for reasonable accommodations, the Laguna Playhouse failed to discharge its affirmative duties to engage Plaintiff in the good-faith, interactive process or to otherwise provide him with reasonable accommodations, as required under the law. Instead, the Laguna Playhouse subjected Plaintiff to heightened scrutiny, hostility, and unwarranted reprimands, which culminated in his unlawful termination for pretextual reasons. Ultimately, the Laguna Playhouse made the cold and calculated decision to fire Plaintiff on or about November 19, 2020, in order to silence him.

125. The reasonableness of Plaintiff’s belief that the Laguna Playhouse engaged in illegal conduct by procuring a PPP loan through suspected fraudulent means is supported by several statutes. By way of example and not limitation, the False Claims Act (codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733) prohibits the submission of any “false or fraudulent” claim for payment under a federal benefit program. Further, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1014, it is a federal offense to, “knowingly makes any false statement or report […] for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of the […] Small Business Administration.” Of course, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is the agency responsible for administering the PPP.

126. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Laguna Playhouse’s decision to subject Plaintiff to differential treatment, heightened scrutiny, and ultimately termination, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s report of conduct and practices at the Laguna Playhouse that he reasonably and in good-faith believed to be unlawful and otherwise violate state and/or federal statute, as set forth above.

127. Defendants intentionally created or knowingly permitted above-described working conditions.

128. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described acts of the the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer

economic damages, including lost wages and benefits, and other compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

129. As a further direct and proximate result of the above-described acts of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress and has been generally damaged in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

130. As a further direct and proximate result of the above-described acts of the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Plaintiff will necessarily continue to expend sums in the future for the treatment of the emotional injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the Laguna Playhouse’s and Does 1 through 50, inclusive’s, acts in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.

131. The above-described acts of the the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, were willful, intentional, and malicious and done with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy Plaintiff and warrant the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the the Laguna Playhouse and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

DECLARATORY RELIEF

(By Plaintiff Against Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

132. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

133. California Government Code section 12920 sets forth the public policy of the State of California as follows:

It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual

orientation, or military and veteran status.

It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment for these reasons foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general.

Further, the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information in housing accommodations is declared to be against public policy.

It is the purpose of this part to provide effective remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory practices.

This part shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state.

134. Government Code section 12920.5 embodies the intent of the California legislature and states:

In order to eliminate discrimination, it is necessary to provide effective remedies that will both prevent and deter unlawful employment practices and redress the adverse effects of those practices on aggrieved persons. To that end, this part shall be deemed an exercise of the Legislature's authority pursuant to Section 1 of Article XIV of the California Constitution.

135. Moreover, Government Code section 12921, subdivision (a), states in pertinent part: The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

136. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties as it is believed that Defendants may allege that Plaintiff’s termination was based on a non-discriminatory, legitimate reason and Plaintiff’s Physical Disabilities and whistleblowing activities were not substantial motivating factors for the decision to

terminate or any factor whatsoever. Plaintiff contends that the reason given by Defendants was a pretext to mask its true reason(s) for terminating him. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants shall dispute Plaintiff’s contention and shall assert its reason was nondiscriminatory and legitimate.

137. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of his rights and duties, and a declaration that his Physical Disabilities and whistleblowing activities were substantial motivating factors in the decision to terminate him.

138. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in order that Plaintiff, for himself and on behalf of employees in the State of California and in conformity with the public policy of the State, obtain a judicial declaration of the wrongdoing of Defendants and to condemn such discriminatory employment policies or practices. (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203.)

139. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time such that Defendants may also be aware of its obligations under the law to not engage in discriminatory practices and violate the law.

140. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), provides that an aggrieved party, such as the Plaintiff herein, may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs. “In civil actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” Such fees and costs expended by an aggrieved party may be awarded for the purpose redressing, preventing, or deterring discrimination.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(By Plaintiff Against Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

141. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

142. The acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, have caused irreparable

harm to Plaintiff and will continue to cause irreparable harm to current employees unless the complained of conduct is enjoined. There is no immediate, adequate, or speedy remedy at law to redress the continuing discriminatory and retaliatory policies and practices of Defendant the Laguna Playhouse and, therefore, Plaintiff seeks affirmative and injunctive relief as follows:

(a) for an injunction restraining Defendants, and each of them, from continuing or maintaining any policy, practice, custom, or usage which is discriminatory, retaliatory, or harassing in nature against any employee based upon the employee's protected class status, such as disability and/or medical condition;

(b) for an injunction restraining the Defendants, along with their supervising employees, agents, and all those subject to its control or acting in concert with it, from causing, encouraging, condoning, or permitting discriminatory practices as well as the practice of retaliation;

(c) for affirmative relief requiring Defendants, and each of them, to conduct training of all employees to “sensitize” them to the harmful nature of discrimination and retaliation against any employee. The proposed plan of education and training should also include training and detection, and correction and prevention of such discriminatory and retaliatory practices;

(d) for affirmative relief requiring Defendants, and each of them, to notify all employees and supervisors, through individual letters and permanent postings in prominent locations in all offices that retaliation and discrimination violate the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the consequences of violation of such laws and policies;

(e) for affirmative relief requiring Defendants, and each of them, to develop clear and effective policies and procedures for employees complaining of retaliation, discrimination, or other violations of the FEHA so they may have their complaints promptly and thoroughly investigated (by a neutral fact finder) and informal as well as formal processes for hearing, adjudication, and appeal of the complaints; and

(f) for affirmative relief requiring Defendants, and each of them, to develop appropriate sanctions or disciplinary measures for supervisors or other employees who are found to have committed discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory acts, including warnings to the offending person

and notations in that person's employment record for reference in the event future complaints are directed against that person, and dismissal where other measures fail.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: ON

FIRST THROUGH NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION

(By Plaintiff Against Defendant THE LAGUNA PLAYHOUSE and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

1. For backpay, front pay and other compensatory damages, together with prejudgment interest, according to proof;

2. For liquidated damages, according to proof;

3. For general damages, according to proof;

4. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, according to proof;

5. For exemplary and punitive damages, according to proof;

6. For costs of suit incurred herein;

7. For declaratory relief;

8. For injunctive relief;

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

ADDITIONAL RELIEF ON FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For civil penalties (as to the Fifth Cause of Action) according to proof.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Dated: March 25, 2021

LARA & LUNA APC

By: ___________________________________

EDWARD LARA LINDA LARA DEAN CHHIM Attorneys for Plaintiff DOUG VOGEL