Arizona Making, Kelly Civil Rights Failures Attorney General Terry Goddard, Tom Horne, Fellicia Rotellini, Michael Norris Harrison, Attorney Leo Kittay Allstate Imaging, Tucson Medical Center, COMDA Calendars - High Cost of lawsuits, lack of Civil Rights lawyers allows sexist, racist violators to go free Internet, Internet

Parts of three lawsuits filed against Tucson Medical Center, COMDA Calendars and Allstate Imaging and letters to the Arizona Attorney General's Office, local media and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).  If you happen to be writing Civil Rights and most other lawsuits, access the legal data bases by first looking up all the attorneys that deal with a case of your type and then run thier name(s) throught the data base to find lawsuits similar to one you are writing.

PATRICIA A. NOLANI)
CLERK. SUPERIOR COURT
AM 2 5 2003 I
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR PIMA COUNTY
C 0 0 8 5 8 6 7
LAWRENCE MORRIS LEIGHT,
Applicant
)
)         No.
)                   COMPLAINT
) Application for Order to Show ) Cause and order Enforcing
Subpoena
Assigned to:
Vs.
COMDA Calendars Inc., a Toronto, Canada, Corporation, its owners, management, and employees, both individually and as company officers. )
Defendants.                     )
____________________________________________________________________________ )
Applicant Pima County, Arizona, resident Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per, and the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Department of Law allege as follows:
1.       This Court has jurisdiction of the instant application pursuant to A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(3). This action is also filed under Federal Statute Title VII and ADA.
2.  The Civil rights division of the Arizona Department of Law (hereinafter "the Division") is an administrative agency created by A.R.S. section 41-1401-1984 for the purpose of investigating and
conciliating charges of discrimination in employment and public accommodations.
3.   A.R.S. section 41-1481(B) requires the Division to investigate charges of employment discrimination within A.R.S. section 41- 1463, which have been filed with it by members of the public.
4.   To aid in investigating such charges, the Division is authorized by A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) to issue subpoenas compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. Under A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(4) such subpoenas may be served personally or by registered mail.
5.   On February 15, 2008, Lawrence Leight filed a charge of employment discrimination and harassment with the Division against COMDA Calendars. A copy of that charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference herein. That charge was assigned to the Division for investigation.
6.   In Febr uary, 2008, the Division caused to be served on COMM Calendars a set of interrogatories and an administrative subpoena duces tecum requiring answers to question and documents and records which are relevant to Leight's charge.
7.   Those interrogatories and subpoena were served on Respondent.
8.     Respondent has not been grant ed additional time to respond to the interrogatories or the subpoena duces tecum nor has objection been made to the subpoena on the grounds set out at A.R.S. Section 411403(B)(3), e.g. that the evidence does not relate to unlawful practices covered by this chapter, that it is not relevant to the charge which is the subject matter of the investigation, that it does=2 0not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required, or that it is unduly burdensome or oppressive.
9.   A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) provides in relevant part: The Superior Court, upon application by the division or the person subpoenaed, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order (a) requiring such person to appear before Arizona courts, the division, the Board or the duly authorized agent of either, there to produce evidence relating to the matter under investigation if so ordered.... Any failure to obey such order may be punished by such court as a contempt.
10.   The Plaintiff was at all times herein a resident of Pima County, Arizona.
11.     The Defendant, COMDA Calendars, is a Canadian Corporation based in Toronto, Canada.
12.     The Defendants, each and all of them, were acting in their capacities as agents, employees and representatives of said Defendant; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V were at all times relevant herein employees, officers or agents of the Defendant, each and all of them; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and Jane DOES I-V are as yet undetermined, but the Plaintiff will move this Court to amend the Complaint as soon as20their identities are determined; the Defendants, each and all of them were acting in their capacities agents, servants and employees of each and all of the other Defendants and acted for all pertinent purposes within the course and scope of their employment.
13.     Acts complained of herein took place primarily within Pima County, Arizona.
14.     Plaintiff is a male of Hebraic descent who was employed as a Se nior Sales Associate by the Defendant.
15.     Defendant is in the business of selling calendars with advertisement/logo of calendar-purchasing clients. Defendant had at least one employee for twenty consecutive weeks in calendar years 2007-2008.
16.     Plaintiff filed a charge of employment harassment and discrimination with the Civil Rights Division on February 15, 2008, alleging among other things, that during his employment employees of COMM Calendars made unwelcome and unsolicited racist, swear words against the Plaintiff and comments and innuendos, including repeatedly calling the defendant "weido", swearing before other employees regarding the defendant, wearing of Gang Colors, requiring the Plaintiff to purchase goods during time of employment to take Mexican-only client calls, other religious prejudice and failing to desist despite both repeated complaint to the manager, Dan Valdez, and complaint to other employees.
17.   That Dan Valdez additionally withheld promised first-week wages from the Plaintiff.
18.   That additional habitual and various religious prejudice, racist pride, wrongful accusation and punishment was levied against the Plaintiff by Manager Dan Valdez, wrongly in favor of Hispanic and
Catholic employees, making COMDA Calendars a hostile and illegal work environment.
19.   The Defendant was fired from his job by Dan Valdez after evacuating in his pants while speaking to a customer on a sales call while being so loudly and sadistically mocked by other employees that he could not hear the call; that another employee also continued to mock the Plaintiff despite his objection; that senior management in Toronto was apprised of the situation but took no constructive action to address Plaintiffs complaints and objections to the illegal ways in which COMDA Calendars was run and managed.
COUNT I - Violation of Arizona Discrimination Laws
20.&nbs p;  The facts previously set out give rise to a cause of20action for discrimination pursuant to Arizona law. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of gender, religion, race or ethnicity, or to otherwise create a hostile work environment. The Defendants, each and all of them, discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and allowing a hostile work environment because of the Plaintiff's gender and their racial and other prejudice, and regardless of both. The Defendants, each and all of them, knew or reasonably should have known of the individual Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff was constructively discharged and seriously harmed by this conduct. As such, the Plaintiff seeks recovery for his damages.
COUNT II - Constructive Discharge
21. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for constructive discharge wh en the Plaintiff criticized the bad management and judgment of employees. Despite repeated requests that the Defendants stop the harassment and verbal abuse, the Defendants failed to correct the situation. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff by the Defendants was wrongful, in bad faith, and in violation of the public policy of the State of Arizona as embodied in the State's discrimination laws, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Being constructively discharged from his employment
has damaged the Plaintiff. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff was done in bad faith, with malice and with evil minds.
COUNT III - Violation of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964
22.   The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Plaintiff was a member of a protected class and the Defendant is a covered employer; The Plaintiff has set forth facts demonstrating employment discrimination, retaliation and other violation of his civil rights. Said actions were willful and warrant the implementation of damages for the harms the Plaintiff suffered.
23.   The Plaintiff has suffered damages because of the actions and inaction of the Defendants. The Defendants' conduct proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, mental and physical anguish, indignation, wounded love, shame and despair. In addition to these injuries, the Defendants' conduct has proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer pecuniary losses and lost employment opportunities.
24.     The conduct of the Defendants described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
COUNT IV - Arizona Wage Law Violations
25.   The Defendants actions caused severe harm to the Plaintiff, including monetary losses, severe emotional distress, harm to the Plaintiff's reputation and humiliation among others; said harms are permanent in nature.
26.     The Defendants' conduct was intentional or was based upon a reckless disregard for the harm that would be caused and subjects the Defendants to punitive damages.
27.   The conduct of the Defendant described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff=2 0has suffered loss of time and expenses, including fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingl y, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests judgment as follows:
1.   That the Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages including but not limited to emotional distress, back pay, front pay, lost benefits and sales commissions, interest on any sums certain, treble damages pursuant to statute;
2.   That the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages;
3.   That the Plaintiff recovers his costs;
4.   That the Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems proper; and,
0A
5. That the Plaintiff be awarded any attorneys' fees incurred herein.
Dated August 8, 2008.
Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per
WHEREFORE, THE APPLICANT respectfully requests the Court to order Respondent COMDA Calendars Incorporated, it's owners, managers and/or representative(s) to appear before the Court to produce responses to
interrogatories and subpoena relating to the charges of employment discrimination filed by Lawrence Leight, at reasonable time and date set by the Court.
DATED this 11th day of August 2008.
LAWRENCE LEIGHT
STATE OF ARIZONA            )
)
County of Pima                                           )
Lawrence Morris Leight, being acquainted with the facts, aver that I have read the above and foregoing application and know the contents thereof and that the same is true of my own personal knowledge except as to those statements made on information and belief and as to them, I believe them to be true.
Lawrence Morris Leight, Applicant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me t his                th day of August 2008.
Notary Public in and for the State of Arizona. My commission expires:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Civil Rights Division
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
Lawrence M. Leight         &n bsp;               vs.                                     Comda International Calendars West
(Charging Party)                                                                                            (Respondent)
CRD No.: T08-0222                                 &n bsp;                                  EEOC No.:35A-2008-00327C
On February 15, 2008, you filed a charge with the Civil Rights Division alleging employment discrimination. Arizona law provides that you may bring a civil action in Superior court of the county where the alleged discriminatory action took place. Should you decide to file a civil action, you must do so within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice or within one year of the date you filed the charge, whichever comes first. A.R.S. 41-1481(D.)
This NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE is being issued for the following reason(s):
                                           This office has made a final determination or has otherwise completed its processing of your charge and will be taking no further action.
                                         &n bsp; The Civil Rights Division has not completed the processing of your charges, but there are
approximately 90 days left before the expiration of the one year deadline for filing a civil action in Superior Court.
q     Although your charge was sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for processing, you may also have a right to sue under the A rizona Civil Rights Act, and there are approximately 90 days left before the expiration of the one year deadline for filing a civil action in Superior Court.
Charging Party has submitted a written request. (Note: A Notice of Right to Sue cannot be issued until 90 days after the date the charge was initially filed unless the Civil Rights Division has issued a final determination.)
If you have any questions concerning this notice, please contact (520) 628-6500. If you need legal assistance, you should seek the advice of an attorney.
Sincerely,
BY:
,
Ernest Granillo,
ance Manager
Diana L. Varela, Chief Counsel Compliance Section
Sent by regular mail on this 16th  day of May, 2008
Hand delivered to charging party at our office on this 16th day of May, 2008
cc: Comda International Calendars West(Respondent)
AUG Z 5 len
PATRICIA A. NOLANb
CLERK. SUPERIOR COURT
Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per Plaintiff
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZOMM-LI 110GLER IN AND FOR PIMA COUNTY
LAWRENCE MORRIS LEIGHT,                      )
Case NoC 0
" 5 8 67
CERTIFICATE OF COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION

Vs. Applicant
)
COMDA Calendars Inc., a Toronto,

)
Canada, Corporation, its owners, management, and employees, both

)
)
individually and as company officers.

)


Defendants.

)

Assigned to:
_____________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, LAWRENCE LEIGHT, pro per, and hereby certifies that the largest award sought, including punitive damages but excluding interest, attorney's fees and costs, exceeds the limits set by local Rule for compulsory arbitra tion. This case is not subject to the Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration.
DATED August 11, 2008.
Lawrence Leight
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Arizona <arizona@adl.org>
To: lawrencemleight@aol.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:57 am
Subject: Complaint

Lawrence,
 
I received your complaint about 3 former employers and incidents of racism and harassment. You wrote in your email,  that the AGs office had accepted your cases but I need to know where they stand as of present. I did go to the link you suggested, ripoffreport.com, but found not mention of the AZ Ags office or any action taken by them in any of the information provided on this site.
 
Anti-Defamation League
AZ Regional Office
p 602.274.0991 f 602.230.1768
www.adl.org

______________________________________________________________________________

Bud Foster, political specialist/reporter KOLD News 13
bfoster@kold.com
7831 North Business Park Drive
Tucson, Arizona 85743
 
 
Bud Foster:
 
Thank you for taking a few minutes to converse with me near the University of Arizona student union today, Monday, September 21, 2009 at about 5 PM.  Appreciating watching you do a news story live - used to be an amateur high school news editor in 1979 for the Catalina High School Trumpeteer.
 
In addition to your business card, you also handed me the business card of Lieutenant John C. Meister, apparently of the Pima County Adult Detention Center (john.meister@sheriff.pima.gov), without stating any reason for doing so.
 
Because I am somewhat aware of how very busy you must be covering candidates for the major political parties, will simply recap information relayed to you.  Please email me if you are interested in the stories and angles as presented, or are interested for, really, any other reasons.
 
I mentioned that I had filed three Civil Rights Lawsuits against local companies for racist and sexist harassment.  Those companies are: Comda Calendars, Allstate Imaging, and Tucson Medical Center - where I was sexually harassed within three hours of beginning my humble employment, and repeatedly, and so severely that I could not continue my job.  These lawsuits are viewable at Phoenix based Ripoff Report on the Internet as filed with the Pima County Superior Court, copies given to the Arizona Attorney General's Office, which must approve any and all Civil Rights lawsuits before they may be filed.
  
I stated my educational qualifications, (BA - Claremont College, Management Engineering; BS, MS
Stanford University, Industrial Engineering, all obtained co-terminally in 1987).  I was the valedictorianof Catalina High School here in Tucson, Arizona, graduating in three years with straight A's, newspaper editorand member of the speech team.
 
.... 
You mentioned to me that it was difficult for you to (envision, approximately) being sexually harassed out of a job, questioned whether and how this was my fault, and mentioned that you had been fired.  You also mentioned that you could in fact "believe" the McCarthyism angle.  I stated that you looked like too nice a guy to be fired.
 
 
Lawrence Morris Leight
 
 PS:  People have such very high expectation of reporters, politicians, employers...please give me any and all feedback, would be fascinated.  If you can find me employment, help me in any way, particularly in ways that are "straight up", transparently accountable, honest and efficient...but if they are not too efficient, will be checking my emails.  I already have the business cards of three police detectives, have visited the local FBI office more than twice...an attempted murder took place in the house my grandparents moved to after World War 2 to get away from bombed out London.  The daughter of local Mormon Bishop and former U of A Professor Ralph Price, Michelle Marie Price, put a "steak knife" into the right side of my chest on March 23, 2008.
 
I have the arrest documents if you are interested in this story...no, I have been on local TV more than once for very short spots - the teacher's strike in 1979 - the year I interviewed president to be Reagan at a local high school; briefly with John Jay and Rick playing guitar on the U of A mall...my simply meaning is that really do have more stories, and in fact the stories that can avert coming international nuclear wars and prevent tens of thousands of starvation deaths...it's making the angles human and interesting enough...please show me how personally, I haven't watched TV much at all and for years and years.

______________________________________________________________________________


 Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per [lawleight@yahoo.com]


Tucson, Arizona 85716-5506

Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR PIMA COUNTY

LAWRENCE MORRIS LEIGHT,

)
)

No.

Applicant

)

COMPLAINT


) Application for Order to Show



) Cause and order Enforcing

Vs.

) Subpoena


)

Allstate Imaging Inc., a California

)

Assigned to:

Corporation, it's owners, management, )

and employees, both individually and


as company officers.

)

Defendants.
)

_______________________________)

Applicant Pima County, Arizona, resident Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per, and the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Department of Law allege as follows:

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the instant application pursuant to A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(3). This action is also filed under Federal Statute Title VII and ADA.

2. The Civil rights division of the Arizona Department of Law (hereinafter the Division) is an administrative agency created by A.R.S. section 41-1401-1984 for the purpose of investigating and conciliating charges of discrimination in employment and public accommodations.

3. A.R.S. section 41-1481(B) requires the Division to investigate charges of employment discrimination within A.R.S. section 41- 1463, which have been filed with it by members of the public.

4. To aid in investigating such charges, the Division is authorized by A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) to issue subpoenas compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. Under A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(4) such subpoenas may be served personally or by registered mail.

5. On October 5, 2007, Lawrence Leight filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Division against Allstate Imaging Incorporated. A copy of that charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference herein. That charge was assigned to Keith Shaw for investigation.

6. In October, 2007, the Division caused to be served on Allstate Imaging a set of interrogatories and an administrative subpoena duces tecum requiring answers to question and documents and records which are relevant to Leight's charge.

7. Those interrogatories and subpoena were served on Respondent.

8. Respondent has not been granted additional time to respond to the interrogatories or the subpoena duces tecum nor has objection been made to the subpoena on the grounds set out at A.R.S. Section 41-1403(B)(3), e.g. that the evidence does not relate to unlawful practices covered by this chapter, that it is not relevant to the charge which is the subject matter of the investigation, that it does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required, or that it is unduly burdensome or oppressive.

9. A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) provides in relevant part:

The Superior Court, upon application by the division or the person subpoenaed, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order (a) requiring such person to appear before the division, the Board or the duly authorized agent of either, there to produce evidence relating to the matter under investigation if so ordered.Any failure to obey such order may be punished by such court as a contempt.

9. The Plaintiff was at all times herein a resident of Pima County, Arizona.


10. The Defendant, ALLSTATE IMAGING, INC. is a California Corporation based in Chatsworth.

11. The Defendants, each and all of them, were acting in their capacities as agents, employees and representatives of Said Defendant; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V were at all times relevant herein employees, officers or agents of the Defendant, each and all of them; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and Jane DOES I-V are as yet undetermined, but the Plaintiff will move this Court to amend the Complaint as soon as their identities are determined; the Defendants, each and all of them were acting in their capacities agents servants and employees of each and all of the other Defendants and acted for all pertinent purposes within the course and scope of their employment.

12. The acts complained of herein took place primarily within Pima County, Arizona.

13. Plaintiff is a male of Hebraic descent who was employed as a phone salesperson by the Defendant.

14. Defendant is in the business of selling both remanufactured and other ink and toner cartridges. Defendant had at least one employee for twenty consecutive weeks in calendar years 2007-2008.

15. Plaintiff filed a charge of employment harassment and discrimination with the Civil Rights Division on October 5, 2007, alleging among other things, that during his employment manager(s), closer(s) and employees of Allstate Imaging made unwelcome and unsolicited racist, sexist and anti-semetic comments and innuendos.

16. Defendant's comments also amounted to illegal conversation regarding both drugs and sex, including the sexual violation of a minor and the use of company property to transport felony drugs, that Plaintiff reported these to the Tucson Police as well as other government agencies.

17. Continuous and daily sexism and racism was displayed by employees of this company, not only violating the rights of other employees of these protected classes (women, a black man, older men, pregnant women, those with medical condition, Jews) but making Allstate Imaging a hostile and illegal work environment.

18. Claims made by employees regarding product origins and longevity when compared to Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) contradicted those at the company website, and thus this company has been accused of fraud and defrauding the government.

19. The Defendant was fired from his job by manager Steve Geraci in the presence of two managers flown in from California to specifically address Plaintiffs complaints and objections to the illegal ways in which Allstate Imaging was run and managed.

20. That the de facto requirement that the Plaintiff stay overtime to address these concerns was given no notice.

COUNT I Violation of Arizona Discrimination Laws

21. The facts previously set out give rise to a cause of action for discrimination pursuant to Arizona law. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of gender, religion, race or ethnicity, or to otherwise create a hostile work environment. The Defendants, each and all of them, discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and allowing a hostile work environment because of the Plaintiff's gender and race, and regardless of both. The Defendants, each and all of them, knew or reasonably should have known of the individual Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff was constructively discharged and seriously harmed by this conduct. As such, the Plaintiff seeks recovery for his damages.

COUNT II Constructive Discharge

22. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for constructive discharge when the Plaintiff criticized the bad management and judgment of Steve Geraci and objected to being asked to stay overtime without warning. Despite repeated requests that the Defendants stop the harassment and verbal abuse, the Defendants failed to correct the situation. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff by the Defendants was wrongful, in bad faith, and in violation of the public policy of the State of Arizona as embodied in the State's discrimination laws, Title VII, civil rights Act of 1964. Being constructively discharged from his employment has damaged the Plaintiff. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff was done in bad faith, with malice and with evil minds.

COUNT III Violation of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964

23. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for violations under Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964; the Plaintiff was a member of a protected class and the Defendant is a covered employer; The Plaintiff has set forth facts demonstrating employment discrimination, retaliation and other violation of his civil rights. Said actions were willful and warrant the implementation of damages for the harms the Plaintiff suffered.

24. The Plaintiff has suffered damages because of the actions and inaction of the Defendants. The Defendants' conduct proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, mental anguish, indignation, wounded love, shame and despair. In addition to these injuries, the Defendants' conduct has proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer pecuniary losses and lost employment opportunities.

25. The conduct of the Defendants described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.

COUNT IV Arizona Wage Law Violations

26. The Defendants actions caused severe harm to the Plaintiff, including monetary losses, severe emotional distress, harm to the Plaintiff's reputation and humiliation among others; said harms are permanent in nature.

27. The Defendants' conduct was intentional or was based upon a reckless disregard for the harm that would be caused and subjects the Defendants to punitive damages.

28. The conduct of the Defendant described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests judgment as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages including but not limited to emotional distress, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, interest on any sums certain, treble damages pursuant to statute;

2. That the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages;

3. That the Plaintiff recovers his costs;

4. That the Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems proper; and,

5. That the Plaintiff be awarded any attorneys' fees incurred herein.

Dated August 8, 2008. 

______________________________________________________________________________

Civil Rights Complaint
Below is what you submitted to crd_intake@azag.gov on Friday, March 07, 2008 at 10:10:25

01_ChargingName: Lawrence Morris Leight
02_ChargingAddress: ----------------------------------
03_ChargingCity: Tucson
04_ChargingCounty: Pima
05_ChargingState: AZ
06_ChargingZip: 85716-5506
07_ChargingHomePhone:
08_ChargingWorkPhone:
09_ChargingFAX:
10_ChargingEmail: LawLeight@yahoo.com
11_AgainstName: Tucson Medical Center, TMC
12_AgainstAddress: 5301 East Grant Road
13_AgainstCity: Tucson
14_AgainstState: AZ
15_AgainstZip: 85712

______________________________________________________________________________

Refiling this report under the www.ripoffreport category "Civil Rights" in preparation for damning legal action against this hospital.

The management staff at Tucson Medical Center did not even know how to take a clear, sure and dead-to-rights complaint regarding sexual harassment on the job.

 Civil Rights Complaint
Below is what you submitted to crd_intake@azag.gov on Friday, March 07, 2008 at 10:10:25
-----
01_ChargingName: -------- ----------
02_ChargingAddress:
03_ChargingCity: Tucson
04_ChargingCounty: Pima
05_ChargingState: AZ
06_ChargingZip: 8571-
07_ChargingHomePhone:
08_ChargingWorkPhone:
09_ChargingFAX:
10_ChargingEmail: ------------------
11_AgainstName: Tucson Medical Center, TMC
12_AgainstAddress: 5301 East Grant Road
13_AgainstCity: Tucson
14_AgainstState: AZ
15_AgainstZip: 85712
16_AgainstPhone: (520) 327-5461
17_AgainstEmail: Foundation@tmcaz.com
18_AdditionalContactName:
19_AdditionalBestCallTime:
20_AdditionalContactDayPhone:
21_AdditionalContactEvePhone:
22_Circumstances:
I was assigned to work at Tucson Medical Center (TMC) by Intermountain Staffing Resources (2900 East Broadway BLVD. Suite 182, Tucson, AZ 85716 phone (520) 318-9322, fax (520) 318-9424, tcalzadillas@intermountainstaffing.com, Staffing Manager Theresa Caladillas) for temporary work in the cafeteria, in this case stacking dishes that had been through a steam cleaner.
A female employee within my first hour of work walked up to me while I was standing in front of the utensil steam cleaner and clearly and deliberately walked up next to me and bumped me strongly with her hips, to which I immediately moved away.
It was clear from the employee's demeaner that she was disgruntled variously or concerned from cutting her finger just before I came on shift, which she showed to the shift manager Phillys when I reported for work my fist day, Thursday, March 6, 2008. (She was told to put a bandaid on the bleeding cut and get back to work.
She seemed to be either, drunk, otherwise intoxicated or on medication, and would not respond to any question but gave answers that were not asked for, corrected herself, and gave the answers again.
She later came directly behind me and reached through my arms to move dishes in front of me, continuously making contact with my hips, sides and arms, also a not safe procedure regarding high temperature cleaning and conveyor equipment, to which I loudly and clearly and politely complained to no response. I then left my shift to complain to Phillys regarding what I consider to be clear sexual harassment, terminating my own employment for the day. A male Hispanic employee turned around to look at me after the incident and lifted his arms up in the air as if to ask what is with her....
23_DiscriminationDateMonth: March
24_DiscriminationDateDay: 06
25Trans_Date_Year: 2008
26_OngoingDiscriminationYesNo: No
27_5EmployementDiscriminationSubType: Sex/Gender
28_AttorneyYesNo: No
29_AttorneyInfo:
30_PendingLegalActionYesNo: No
31_OtherAgenciesContacted:
Palo Verde Hospital (TMC) Human Resources, Pat (receptionist), Shannon Roberts - by phone; plus female administrator on duty in the TMC Administration office - in person.
32_Comments:
This is a clear and unequivocal and simple case of sexual harassment by a female worker in a female-managed division of TMC. The accused displayed behavior that may indicate she is responding to being mistreated/dominated/dysfunctionally instructed with harassment at home or elsewhere, or is on illegal or legal medication for a mental problem. (Not responding to questions, not really directing statements at those she is talking to but apparently at some other, slow staggering movements, leaving shift inexplicably when the administrator was called. Taking charge as if unable to communicate despite never having worked with an employee and the ease of the task.
Just before I left the TMC kitchen a large male Hispanic employee went up to stand behind a female hispanic employee to talk to her while putting his arms on her shoulders...perhaps unreported sexual harassment as well as other workplace violations are occuring without being well and reliably reported.) The victim's time sheet shows a record that indicates the employee worked 1.5 hours before quiting his job. He clearly indicated that the reason was sexual harassment, and failure of the accused to cease harassment despite clear and loud objection stated three times, plus failure of the administrative staff to take clear and reasonable corrective action. It was somewhat more than obvious that the hospital both does not document cases of clear reported harassment nor does it take them seriously and efficiently. Both Phyllys, Mr. Roberts of human resources and the TMC Administration staff were asked by Mr. ------ if they would like to document the incident; he finally gave the administrative staff his email since they not only had no forms to fill out regarding workplace harassment and discrimination, they were unaware of any other procedure apparently.
"I don't think it's necessary to reach through my arms...please stop touching me...please stop reaching around me," the employee who had been on the job less than 2 hours stated very loudly, so that the rest of the staff could hear.
This hospital's kitchen staff runs an unsanitary, ill-trained and dangerous operation.
34_SignedDate: March 7, 2008
Law
Tucson, Arizona
U.S.A.