Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/06/2020 09:02 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. Tang,Deputy Clerk

VINCENT MILLER (SBN 291973)

The Law Offices of Vincent Miller
3
16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625
4 Encino, CA 91436
Tel.:213-948-5702
Email: vincentlkvincentmillerlaw.corn
Attorney for Plaintiff, Lauren Rubin
6

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY — CENTRAL DISTRICT

10 LAUREN RUBIN CASE NO. 20STCV02683

Plaintiff, VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR
12 v. I) UNLAWFUL RETALIATION:
LABOR CODE I'I 1102.5;
13
THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, a (WHISTLEBLOWER LAW);
14 municipal entity, STEPHANIE DEWOLFE, an 2) UNLAWFUL RETALIATION:
individual, MARIAM LEE KO, an individual, LABOR CODE tI 995;
15 and DOES 1-10, inclusive 3) RETALATION IN VIOLATION OF
FKHA (CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION
16 Defendants. 12940 et. seq,);
17 4) AGE DISCRIMINATION — (Cal. Gov.
Code-12940 et seq.);
18 5) HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT IN
19
VIOLATION OF FEHA (CAL. GOV.
20 CODE SECTION 12940 et. seq,);
6) FAILURE TO TAKE ALL
21 REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION AND
22 HARASSMENT (Cal Gov. Code-
23 12940(k) et seq.
7) SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SK
24 8) DEFAMATION
9) FALSE LIGHT
25 10) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
26 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

27
28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

2
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, LAUREN RUBIN, alleges as against Defendants THE CITY OF
3
SOUTH PASADENA, STEPHANIE DEWOLFE, MARIAM LEE KO, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

as follows:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

I, At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff, Lauren Rubin, (hereinafter referred to

as "Plaintiff'r "Ms. Rubin") was and is a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of

California. Plaintiff was employed for 13 years in the Finance Department by the Defendant City of
South Pasadena (hereinafter referred to as "City" or "Defendant".)
10
Plaintiff was a highly competent Senior Account Clerk in the City's Finance
Department with a distinguished career, and her job performance was outstanding and unassailable.
12
She was and is a qualified, professional employee who only ever received positive employee
13
evaluations. Plaintiff helped to raise revenues for the City and was commended on many occasions
14
for outstanding work by her supervisors and by the residents and business owners she served.
15
3. For 13 years, starting on her initial hire date of October 3, 2005, Ms. Rubin provided
16
business licensing services to the City without any problems or issues. She did everything in her
17
power to make sure that licenses were always issued in a timely and efficient manner. During her
18
tenure for the City, Ms. Rubin established strong working relationships with residents and business
19
owners who recognized her hard work and friendly and personable service. She enjoyed her work,
20
loved interacting with the community, and planned to continue working for the City of South
21
Pasadena for another 25 years until her retirement.
22
4. Ms. Rubin's former supervisor in the City's Finance Department (a very experienced
23
Finance Director) declared in her written job performance review dated 10/4/06 after her first full
24
year on the job that: "Lauren has integrated herself into the flow of the Finance Department and the
25
entire City organization as quickly and successfully as I have ever witnessed. She got 'up and
26
running'n procedures, technology, software, interpersonal relations within short weeks. At this
27
writing, she is a fully functioning and consistent contributor to the City. Her personal style with
28
customers is welcomingly energetic and solicitous. Her total commitment to the job is equaled by
few persons in this organization. She is growing precociously in her understanding of the

2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUEIN V. CITY Of SOUTH PASADENA
 Department's service delivery mission and her abilities to take on crossover responsibilities with
others. Her actions continually display a genuine care for her customers and her coworkers. Lauren
manages the front counter operations as if she were an owner of this company. Not much more can
be asked of an employee in this or any other organization."
During her tenure with the City, Plaintiff performed the following duties: general
customer service at the front counter, answering the Finance Dept and general City phone lines,
8
handling walk-in payments (including utility bills, building permits, public works fees, etc.),
9
accounts receivable, processing all departmental monies, handling petty cash, processing contractor
10
reports, processing of business licenses (new applications and renewals), etc.
11
6. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was a salaried employee of the City, with
12
various other benefits. In the year prior to the retaliation and illegal termination, Ms. Rubin's
13
compensation included (I) a base salary of $ 52,390 per annum; (2) medical, dental, vision, life and
14
disability insurance valued at about $ 21,500 per annum. It is reasonable to assume that the value of
15
Ms. Rubin's annual compensation package approached or exceeded $ 75,000 per annum. But for her
16
wrongful, retaliatory and discriminatory discharge, Ms. Rubin would have steadily increased her
17
annual compensation levels over the next 25 years. Ms. Rubin will have lost over $ 1,000,000 in wages
and other compensation as a result of her illegal termination by the City.
19
7. Ms, Rubin will not be able to secure employment with comparable pay due to the
20
manner in which she was laid off from her job and defamed. In particular, under California law, the
21
pay and benefits differential, including projected bonuses, raises and promotions, between the job
22
from which Ms. Rubin was discharged and any new job, can be measured over the length of Ms.
23 Rabin 'sproj ected career. See Helmer v. Bingham Toyota Isuzu (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4'" 1122, 1128-
24 1131; Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 996-997; Hope v.

25 California Youlh Authority (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 577, 594.
26 8. Defendant Stephanie DeWolfe (hereinafter "Defendant DeWolfe"), at all times
relevant hereto, was and is the City Manager of Defendant City of South Pasadena, serving this role
purportedly since November 2017. Mariam Lee Ko (hereinafter "Defendant Ko") was and is, at all
times relevant hereto, the Human Resources Manager for the City of South Pasadena. Defendant Ko

3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN ROBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 has a well-documented history of dishonesty and of lying under oath.
Defendant City, at all times relevant hereto, is and was a Municipal governmental

entity, engaged as a matter in economic activity within the County of Los Angeles, State of
California and operated, managed and controlled the South Pasadena Finance Department, which is
and was an administrative agency of the City.
7
10. The Defendant City of South Pasadena has recently acquired a reputation for
8
corruption and lost a trial (Timothy Patrick Green v. City of South Pasadena), by unanimous jury
9
verdict of $ 4.8 million, where uncontradicted testimony and evidence was presented regarding City
10
managers lying repeatedly with no concern of being held accountable by the City. The trial
11
established, with uncontradicted evidence, that City managers ran roughshod over the honest police
12
officers who worked for the City, as City managers targeted them, lied, made up evidence, and
13
destroyed evidence to frame them on trumped up charges of dishonesty. At trial, the City did not
14
even try to put up a defense against allegations of corruption, making no effort to refute the
15
evidence that Officer Green and Sergeant Craig Cooper were terminated based on lies by corrupt
16
and dishonest City managers. In their depositions, City managers including HR head Mariam Lee
17
Ko (defendant here) repeatedly perjured themselves and contradicted each other's testimony. At
18
trial, Ko admitted to committing repeated perjury. Ms. Ko also admitted that the City asked Officer
19
Green to commit fraud against the State of California and file a fraudulent Worker's Compensation
20
application, and that when he refused to lie, the City fired Officer Green for supposedly lying.
21
11. The Timothy Patrick Green v. City of South Pasadena case is directly related to the
22
case here. After City officials and managers learned of the $ 4.8 million verdict, City managers
23
desperately sought new sources of revenue and decided to embark on a fraudulent scheme to shake
24 down the City's residents and taxpayers. This shakedown scheme centered on business licenses
would lead directly to the City's harassment and retaliation of the Plaintiff.
26 12. Prior to the implementation of the business license money-making scheme, Ms.
Rubin had a full workload every day as one of two Senior Account Clerks in the department.
13. In late 2017, City managers, scrambling for funds, made the ill-fated decision to

blindly send out nearly 3,500 letters to residents in the City, demanding they pay for business

4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 licenses. When the letters were sent out, they did not include a standard Business License FAQ
sheet. This FAQ sheet should have let residents know whether they actually needed to pay business
license fees or not. But the Defendant did not want residents to know the truth. The City hoped all
5
recipients of the letter would blindly pay the bill out of fear.
6
14. Ms. Rubin warned City managers repeatedly that their fraudulent fundraising plan
7
would cause considerable problems for the City and would not be manageable. Ms. Rubin was
8
aware of similar plans and the disastrous results in other cities and warned of a predictable angry
9
community response. She pleaded with City managers to not send out more than 150 of these letters
10
at a time and to provide detailed information to help residents determine whether they actually were
11
required to pay for a business license. Ms. Rubin's advice was ignored, and the 3,500+ business
12
license letters were sent out all at once in October 2017, without a Business License FAQ sheet or
13
any other supplementary information.
14
15. City managers have subsequently lied and stated that the scheme was an "amnesty
15
program," and that it was targeted at businesses who "had not paid the previous year's business
16
license fees." In truth, it was an attempt to license and collect fees from every last individual and
17
business entity in the City who was not previously licensed. The City did not care if the individuals
18
really needed to be licensed or not. The hope was to scare as many residents as possible into
19
thinking they had to pay license fees and quickly.
20
16. City resident, Terry Cooper, a professor at the USC Price School of Public Policy,
21
who had not done any business in South Pasadena, yet was hit with a letter, and had to go to a City
22
Council meeting to ask a simple request, "What do I need to do to prove I don't need to pay?" In an
email to the South Pasadena Review, Cooper said that "In my 42 years as a professor, I have never
24 heard that any of my colleagues needed a business license for the city in which they lived. This is
clearly an attempt to generate revenue for the city that has gone wildly astray!" Many other
residents who spoke at the same Council meeting, shared Cooper's suspicion that the Business
License maneuver was an illegal money-grab. The Defendant's Finance Director admitted the
scheme was criminal as he acknowledged that many residents really did not need to pay the license.

5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
He confessed that, "basically 80 percent or more of people who received FTB letters probably
3
won't need a license."
4
17. When the letters were sent out it was highly predictable that the City's residents
5
would be outraged and become irate by the money shakedown. Indeed, the scheme generated a
6
flood of residents visiting the Finance Department counter to lodge complaints. The Finance
Department was immediately overwhelmed with the phone literally ringing off the hook and mail
pouring into the office. Many of the residents took their anger and frustration toward the City out on
9
the stafl'working at the desk in the Finance Department — Ms. Rubin. Many residents viciously
10
attacked Ms. Rubin verbally in person and on local social media websites.
11
18. The avalanche of angry responses from the public would have overwhelmed any
12
department. Ms. Rubin was constantly berated in person and over the phone on a daily basis. The
13
City did nothing to protect her or help her in this intolerable situation she was thrust into by the
14
City. City managers were nowhere to be seen; except they implemented a new method for irate
15
citizens to berate Ms. Rubin: through email. At one point, on top of her regular duties, which
16
already required her to do full-time work, Ms. Rubin was inundated by the business license scheme
17
with 800 voicemails requiring a response, hundreds of emails, and a stack of mail about 3 feet high,
18
while angry community members flooded into City Hall on a daily basis.
19
19. The City's business license scheme caused Ms. Rubin extreme emotional distress, as
20
she suffered a number of adverse health effects which have been documented in her medical record.
21
She suffered from severe, debilitating migraines and vertigo to the point where she couldn't drive
22
and had to take Uber to work with severe anxiety and tension. The situation caused her quality of
23
life to suffer greatly as it became nearly impossible for her to enjoy time spent with friends, family,
24 and her young children at home.
20. On November 3, 2017, the South Pasadena Review ran a story titled, "City
26 Overwhelmed with Public Concern over Business License Code," which showed that City
management's business license plan was ill-advised. The story referred to a "widespread
community uproar, after the City notified residents, most of whom were unaccustomed to obtaining
a business license, that they had until December 31 to comply with the license requirement." The

6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTII PASADENA
 story quoted community members who expressed skepticism about the timing of the letter in "in
light of the $ 4.8 million verdict that just weeks ago before came down against the City of South
Pasadena (Officer Timothy Green v. City of South Pasadena)." Professor Cooper and other residents
tied the business scheme directly to the Offtcer Green case, and protested being fraudulently hit up
for cash to cover the costs of the City's past corrupt and dishonest practices.
21. City Finance Director, David Batt, admitted that the City's sudden blanketing of the
community with demands for payment on business licenses overwhelmed the City's Finance
Department staff as the "counter is swamped." This is exactly what Ms. Rubin predicted about the
10
illegal scheme and had repeatedly warned management about just months earlier. But instead of
taking ownership of its mistakes, the City would retaliate against Ms. Rubin and put her on
12
administrative leave, then force her out of her job, under the pretense of downsizing and
13
outsourcing the department.
14
22. The response to the City's shakedown of residents was so overwhelming that the
15
City was forced to call an emergency public meeting which was attended by the City Manager,
16
Mayor and City Council members. Suddenly, the fraudulent shakedown scheme was made into an
17
"amnesty program." Subsequently, another huge batch of letters was sent out.
18
23. The amount of verbal and emotional abuse which Ms. Rubin suffered - while her
19
managers hid in their offtces - was witnessed by everyone in the Finance and Planning
20
Departments, as well as members of the Police Department, and the Public Works Director.
21
Defendant Ko in HR was made aware of this emotionally damaging work environment in a meeting
22
that she had with Ms. Rubin in November 2017. Defendant Ko offered no support for Ms. Rubin.
23
24. The City's Finance Department never recovered from implementation of the scheme.
24 The Defendants moved swiftly to cover up their roles in the fraud. On February 21, 2018,
25 Defendant Ko brought every Finance Dept employee one-on-one into a private meeting where she
26 forced them to sign a retroactive NDA, warning them against revealing anything happening in the
27 Finance Department without the prior consent of Defendant DeWolfe, under threat of termination.
28 25. Ms. Rubin was so surprised by being forced to sign an NDA, she asked Ko if

anything had happened to warrant it; Ko responded with: "do you want something to happen?"

7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 Defendants Ko and DeWolfe were unequivocally trying to intimidate the staff including Plaintiff
from blowing the whistle. Defendants Ko and De Wolfe and the City began plans to remove the
older workers from the Finance Department and replace them with younger, less qualified
5
employees.
6
26. After the community uproar and media coverage, rather than take ownership for its
7
actions, City management removed the Finance Department supervisors and replaced them with
8
interim directors who were ill-equipped to handle the tasks of a department they were assigned to
9
oversee on a daily basis: Defendant Ko and Ms. Karen Aceves, the City's "Principal Management
10
Analyst," were those directors. They provided no support to Ms. Rubin regarding the ongoing
11
fallout from the mass mailing shakedown scheme, and neither had any prior documented experience
12
in accounting or finance operations. Furthermore, at this point Ko became both Ms. Rubin's
13
manager, and her HR contact for reporting workplace grievances and concerns, a clear conflict of
14
interest.
15
27. In March 2018, Ko was officially installed as the "Interim Finance Director," with
16
Aceves assisting Ko with control of monies and responsibility for handling incoming checks and
17
direct deposits, which has always been the responsibility of the Finance Director. Plaintiff tried to
18
advise Defendant Ko and Aceves both in person and via email about incoming monies not being
19
directed into the correct accounts (previously the Finance Director's responsibility), and that there
20
was at least $ 200,000 sitting in bank accounts that had not been accounted for, a situation with dire
21
implications for upcoming audits, among other issues. Ko and Aceves inexplicably and
22
inappropriately assigned duties of the Finance Director to Ms. Rubin, and, at times, Aceves would
23 hand checks to Ms. Rubin, telling her to "just figure out what to do with them."
24 28. The removal of the heads of the Finance Department created a dangerous vacuum.
25 Defendant Ko was now responsible for safeguarding and managing City monies and Plaintiff
26 became increasingly concerned that standard procedures were not being followed and monies were
27 not being accounted for properly and could be potentially lost or stolen.
28 29. Ms. Rubin sent out multiple emails to both Ko and Aceves alerting them to the

financial irregularities and mishandling of a substantial amount of government and public monies

8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 coming in and not being accounted for by Ko and Aceves. Ms. Rubin got no response from either of
them. Due to lack of supervision, Plaintiff become more and more concerned that no one was

actually performing the duties of Finance Director. She told Aceves about her concerns and

6
Aceves'esponse
was: "I don't know what to tell you."

30. In April 2018, Defendant DeWolfe brought in what she claimed to be an independent
7
outside finn using one Andrew Green, to do a sham "audit" of the Finance Department. Green was
8
fresh off his termination for a massive decade-long embezzlement scheme in the City of Pasadena,
9
where Green oversaw one of the largest such scandals in Los Angeles County history. DeWolfe was
10
previously the City of Pasadena's Assistant City Manager and worked with Green at the City of
11
Pasadena, and it is alleged upon information and belief that she played a direct role in hiring Mr.
12
Green to work there. This was hardly an "independent audit," and there were apparently no other
13
firms even considered for this cushy $ 90,000+ consulting gig. Mr. Green's association with a
14
financial scandal and the corrupt way in which he was hired further raised Piaintifl"s concerns about
15
financial improprieties and mismanagement.
16
31. When she hired Mr. Green to work for the Defendant City, Defendant DeWolfe
17
notably went out of her way to try and shield his identity from the public (and possibly from the
18
Defendant City's City Council as well). In Mr. Green's contract with the City it was declared that
19
"Consultant represents that it has no known relationships with third parties, City Council members,
20
or employees of City which would (1) present a conflict of interest with the rendering of services
21
under this Agreement under Government Code Section 1090, the Political Reform Act
22
(Government Code Section 81000 et seq.), or other applicable law, (2) prevent Consultant from
23
performing the terms of this Agreement, or (3) present a significant opportunity for the disclosure
24 of confidential information." Plaintiff was concerned not only by Andrew Green's history of
25 corruption, but also by the way in which Defendant DeWolfe furtively brought him on board
26 without any sort of competitive bidding process, and that Green's hire appeared to be in violation of
California Public Contract Code.
28 32. Under Mr. Green's management of the City of Pasadena's Finance Department,
Pasadena City employees were caught embezzling $ 6.4 million over a decade, more than the

9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
amount stolen in the notorious City of Bell scandal. Four years prior to the embezzlement being
3
uncovered, Mr. Green had terminated (he claims "laid off') various employees responsible for
internal auditing and checks and balances, including George Owens, Pasadena's well-respected
internal auditor. If Defendant DeWolfe's goal really was to maintain a healthy Finance Department,
6
then Mr. Green is the last person who she should have brought into the City of South Pasadena. It is
7
alleged upon information and belief that Defendant DeWolfe hired Mr. Green and his firm for
8
corrupt purposes.
33. Highly alartned, Ms. Rubin checked the City bank statements every day and
10
continued to be very concerned about the linancial irregularities and incoming monies not being
11
recorded properly.
12
34. On April 16, 2018, Ms. Rubin was so alarmed by these irregularities that she went to
13
Defendant Ko's office to express her concerns and about the upcoming audit. Plaintiff specifically
14
spoke with Ko about monies not being processed and accounted for properly. Ko inexplicably
15
responded that Ms. Rubin needed to "step it up." By the expression "step it up," Ko's message to
16
Ms. Rubin was clear: do whatever we tell you to and stop talking about the City's financial
17
irregularities, or you will be retaliated against.
18
35. On May 8, 2018, there was a staff meeting with the entire Finance Department in
19
which Ms. Rubin was told that she was to start handling water related issues as well as all of her
20
other duties. She complied but pointed out that she was still extremely behind in her work due to
21
the ongoing fallout from the business license scheme. At this point, Ms. Rubin felt that all of the
22
illegal activity and financial mismanagement she had been trying to warn them about was starting
to come to a head.
24 36. On May 9, 2018, the Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff and came up with a
25 pretext for investigating Ms. Rubin, even though they would later change pretexts. Plaintiff was
26 called into a private meeting with "Assistant to the City Manager" Lucy Demirj ian and Defendant
27 Ko, who informed Rubin that she was being placed on administrative leave "because of a pending
28 investigation into procedures within the Finance Department regarding the handling and processing
of monies (accounts receivable), including checks issued to the City of South Pasadena." On May

10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RURIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 31, 2019 the City changed their pretext and sent Ms. Rubin a certified letter claiming that she was
instead being investigated for "inefficiency of inexcusable neglect of duty, - i.e. failure to perform
duties required by an employee within their position," a blatantly dishonest characterization of an
exemplary employee who always took pride in her work and who had dedicated 13 years of her life
6
to serving the City of South Pasadena. Clearly, Ms. Rubin was placed onto administrative leave for
7
bogus reasons, based on her age, and in a direct retaliatory response to Plaintiff expressing her
8
concerns to Ko about financial irregularities.
9
37. Ms. Rubin was escorted out of the office mid-day, for all to see, as if she were a
10
criminal, and was then inappropriately subjected to an "investigation" and interrogation by a former
11
police officer, Lawrence E. Lewis, "hired as a private investigator," as if she had engaged in
12
unlawful wrongdoing. The investigator interrogated her multiple times and for hours on end about
13
her work. During this lengthy faux investigation process, Ms. Rubin continued to suffer from
14
extreme stress and anxiety and many adverse health effects, all of which have been documented.
15
38. City officials would later come up with yet another pretext and lie that Ms. Rubin
16
was ultimately let go in a "lay off," rather than through termination. But in light of the original fake
17
investigation of Ms. Rubin in the summer of 2018, the City's story doesn't square with the facts.
18
Defendants subjected Ms. Rubin to an improper investigation to shut her up for blov ing the whistle
19
to Ko and the City, to harass her, and to try to trump up fake findings of wrongful conduct by Ms.
20
Rubin, to justify termination.
21
39. The City demanded that Ms. Rubin meet the ex-cop, Mr. Lewis, on June 12, 2018 in
22
the Mayor's Conference Room located inside of City Hall. Prior to this meeting, Ms. Rubin met
23
with her Union Rep outside of City Hall so he could brief her and prepare her for what to expect
24 during the investigation/interrogation. While Ms. Rubin was meeting with her Union Rep, a witness
saw Ms. Aceves hiding out nearby them, eavesdropping on them. When Aceves realized that she
had been spotted, she quickly left the scene.
40. The investigator's assignment from the City was to falsely establish a charge on Ms.
Rubin for "neglect of duty." Subsequently, the investigator hammered her with questions premised
on the City's lie that Plaintiff didn't tell Ko that she was behind on her work due to the business

11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
license scheme. Ms. Rubin told him it was well-known to Defendants that she was behind in her
3
work. She explained that not only were there public meetings and newspaper articles written about

this, but Ms. Rubin had talked to many of her co-workers about it on a daily basis, had a previous
meeting with Ko about it in November 2017, and had even mentioned it to a City Council member.
Plaintiff re-iterated to the investigator that the meeting she had with Ko on April 16, 2018 was
strictly to report her concerns about financial improprieties, as noted above.
41. Ko recently lied that Plaintiff only met with her on April 16. 2018 to say she was

behind in her work and that Plaintiff did not report to her about the financial improprieties. The
10
record of the investigation will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ko lied about that.
42. Shortly after.lanuary 23, 2019 Ms. Rubin would discover that in the summer of
12
2018, while she was being "investigated," Ko was also having private meetings with Union Reps
13
making the case for getting rid of Ms. Rubin. Ko lied to the Union Reps that she, DeWolfe and the
14
City were getting rid of Ms. Rubin due to 'financial improprieties." Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the
15
time, these defamatory statements by Defendant would reverberate throughout the City'
16
administrative departments as word spread that she was being terminated and was "laid off" for
17
mishandling government and taxpayer dollars, and she was let go to spare her a criminal
18
investigation and prosecution.
19
43. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that Defendant DeWolfe, as Ko's
20
supervisor, concocted the defamatory statements that Plaintiff was fired for financial improprieties
21
and made these defamatory statements to Defendant Ko and advised/instructed her to make these
22
statements to the Union Reps, to intentionally destroy her reputation.
23 44. In August 2018, Mr. Green claimed to have completed his sham "audit" of the
24 Finance Department, and the City concluded its intrusive and extremely stressful investigation of
Ms. Rubin as they tried to get rid of her. Only after they realized that they could not successfully
concoct reasonable sounding grounds for an official termination did they fall back on their biased
"audit" and decide to use a "lay off'retext instead. Initially, however, the Defendants did not

inform the Plaintiff that she was being terminated/laid off.

45. The City's purported laying off of Plaintiff could not be for "legitimate non-

I2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 discriminatory reasons," as the Defendants had shifting explanations for letting Plaintiff go and lied
about them. In truth, the "layofF'as actually a termination for reasons — she was over 40 and she
blew the whistle on the City's fraudulent shakedown of community residents and financial
improprieties. If this had legitimately been a "lay olf," due to downsizing or outsourcing of the
Finance Department, the City would have offered Ms. Rubin an open position in other areas of
administration. However, Plaintilf was never offered another position within the Finance
8
Department or the City at large.
9
46. After Ms. Rubin was forced out, new positions were created in the Finance
10
Department, none of which were offered to Ms. Rubin. To this day, there are younger workers at the
11
front counter performing what used to be Ms. Rubin's duties. According to the City's personnel
12
rules, Ms. Rubin should have been automatically placed onto an "appropriate re-employment list."
13
47. Ms. Rubin continued to be kept in the dark about her employment status. Then on
14
November 2, 2018, 6 months after she was placed on administrative leave, Rubin learned from an
15
article in the South Pasadena Review that she was being terminated. The City, through DeWolfe,
16
further retaliated against Ms. Rubin in order to conceal their illegal conduct and "justify" their
17
discharge of Ms. Rubin; the Defendants, including DeWolfe, published in writing and made oral
18
statements, before and after Ms. Rubin's discharge, a smear job variety of false "cover stories"
19
regarding Ms. Rubin's purported competence, qualifications and character, including the assertion
20
that Ms. Rubin was "terrible at processing business
licenses.*'8.
21
On November 8, 2018, Ms. Rubin received official notice from the City that she v as
22
being "laid off" effective December 8, 2018 based on the results of Green's sham audit.
23 49. On November 29, the City sent Ms. Rubin a "Separation Agreement and General
24 Release" document, offering her $ 10,000 plus an extra month of salary if she was willing to release
25 the City from all legal claims and waive her right to sue the City. Inconsistent with the City's claim
26 this was a "layoff," the document included language which threatened to only give out neutral job
27 references to her if she agreed to sign it, and Defendants tried to pressure her into signing off on it
within 2 days. The other older employees forced out by Defendants bowed to this pressure and
signed the settlement agreements with the City. But Ms. Rubin refused. The City terminated

13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN ROBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
Plaintiff with December 8, 2018 as the official "layofF'ate.
3
50. On January 23, 2019, after Ms. Rubin had been forced out of her job, there was a
4
Union Meeting of South Pasadena City Workers. At this meeting, one of the Union Representatives,
stated that the reason that Ms. Rubin was laid off was due to her committing "financial
improprieties." So, she was being smeared with the very financial improprieties she'd tried to
prevent. This blatant lie and character attack stemmed from meetings that City Officials (namely
Ko and it is alleged upon information and belief, DeWolfe) had with each other and with Union
9
Reps, which the Rep then made public by relaying them to all members of the Union in a public
10
forum. Defendants DeWolfe and Ko defamed the Plaintiff with the blatant lies that Ms. Rubin was
11
the one who committed financial irregularities, not them.
12
51. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Plaintiff was contacted by individuals who had
13
attended the meeting with the Union Rep. These individuals informed Plaintiff about the false
14
statements made about her, specifically about "missing" and/or "misappropriated" funds which
15
made Ms. Rubin look like a criminal. The staff members were further told that if Ms. Rubin wasn'
16
laid off, her fate would have been much worse (she would have faced criminal charges).
17
52. After that January 23, 2019 meeting, word spread quickly throughout the City that
Ms. Rubin was responsible for "misappropriation of funds" and she got calls from other individuals
19
who weren't even at the meeting relaying what had been said about her and informing her that
20
people who were in the meeting walked away from it thinking that Ms. Rubin was responsible for
21
criminal acts.
22
53. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Ms. Rubin was also informed that De Wolfe made
23
defamatory statements about Plaintiff during the public portion of the City Council meeting on
November 7, 2018, which is streamed live over the Internet and stored as a video file for anyone to
view later. Plaintiff viewed this file after the January 23, 2019 union meeting and confirmed that the
defamatory statements were made. DeWolfe stated that Ms. Rubin was incompetent at her job of
processing business licenses, that the whole department had to be re-organized due to her
incompetence and poor customer service, and that she was responsible for the problems caused by
the illegal business license shakedown of community residents.

14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN ROBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 54. In addition to Defendant DeWolfe's defamatory statements at the aforementioned

City Council meeting, DeWolfe also repeated untrue claims about Ms. Rubin's job performance to
the South Pasadena Review in an article which was published on November 2, 2018.
55, Since getting rid of Ms. Rubin, the City has been employing a succession of young

part-time and temp employees to perform all the front counter customer service and related duties
which all used to be part of Ms. Rubin's job.
8
56. In August 2018, shortly after Ms. Rubin had been put on administrative leave but
9
before she had even been officially terminated from her position, the City brought over Ms.
10
Stephanie Pinto from the Recreation Department, and gave her the job title of "Accounting
11
Technician" in the Finance Department. Ms. Pinto sat at Ms. Rubin's old desk and performed many
12
of Ms. Rubin's job duties, including front counter support, customer service, and accounts
13
receivable. Ms. Pinto, who is in her 20s, graduated from college in May 2018 with a degree in
14
"Kinesiology" and had no prior finance experience listed on her resume. To this day, she remains a
15
full-time Finance Department employee, still performing many of Ms. Rubin*s former job
16
functions, and was even promoted to the position of "Management Assistant" in April of 2019.
17
57. On Nov 7, 2019, the Defendant City also posted a job listing for a part-time position
18
in the Finance Dept with the job title "Finance Analyst," with job requirements similar to Ms.
19
Rubin's former position.
20
58. Ms. Rubin was forced out of the job she had served the City so well in for 13 years,
21
was defamed, was denied appropriate investigations of her complaints, placed on an administrative
22 leave of absence and subjected to interrogations in a fake and intimidating investigation. She was
23 constructively terminated, inter alia: (I) in retaliation for her complaints against discriminatory
treatment in violation of Sections 12940(h) of the California Gov't Code ("FEHA"); (2) in retaliation
25 for the disclosures of her working conditions in violation of Section 1102.5 of the California Labor
Code; (3) in violation of Section 12940(a) of FEHA prohibiting age discrimination, As set forth
above, Ms. Rubin was defamed, denied progressive discipline and appropriate investigations and
fired in retaliation for her disclosures, complaints and protests concerning the adverse working
conditions to which she was subjected.

15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 59. As detailed above, there is overwhelming evidence of Defendants'etaliatory animus
and a causal nexus given the temporal proximity of Ms. Rubin's complaints and protests or protected

activity, on the one hand, and the Defendants'etaliatory adverse employment actions, on the other.
See, e.g., Taylor, 144 Cal. App. 4th at 1235. Here, the temporal proximity between Ms. Rubin's oral

complaints and protests and the adverse employment actions was a matter of days and weeks.
60. Defendants'ermination of Ms. Rubin's employment violates the fundamental public
policies prohibiting retaliation against those who complain of or protest against abridgements of these
fundamental public policies. See generally Green v. Arlee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4'" 66, 82
10
(Tameny claim properly alleged when employee was discharged for complaining about employer
violations of FAA safety regulations); Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal. 2d 167 (refusal
12
by sales representative to be involved in price-fixing scheme); Verduzco v. General Dynamic
13
(S.D.CA. 1990 ) 742 F. Supp. 559, 560 (Tameny "whistle-blower claim properly alleged when
14
employee reported to employer certain workers without adequate security clearances had access to
15
restricted military documents).
16
61. Given the abundance of direct and indirect evidence of retaliation and the temporal
17
proximity of Ms. Rubin's complaints and Defendants'dverse employment actions recounted above,
18
the facts in this case plainly support Tameny claims. See generally Morgan v. Regents if University
19
of California (2000) 88 Cal. App. 4'" 52, 69 (causation in retaliation cases established by proof that
20
employer knew of employee's protected activity and proximity in time between protected activity
21
and adverse employment action).
22
62. Here, Ms. Rubin repeatedly expressed her "reasonable concerns" regarding her
23
working conditions. Yanowitz, 36 Cal. 4'" at 1047 (no magic words explicitly citing discrimination
24 are required) as well as her concerns of fraud and financial improprieties. Although Defendants
25 clearly subjected Ms. Rubin to untenable working conditions, it is even more apparent that Ms. Rubin
26 had a palpably reasonable belief that such conditions existed. See Yanowitz, 36 Cal. 4 at 1044.
27 Moreover, as detailed above, there is overwhelming evidence of Defendants'etaliatory animus and
28 a causal nexus given the temporal proximity of Ms. Rubin's complaints and protests or protected

16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
activity, on the one hand, and the Defendants'etaliatory adverse employment actions, on the other.
3
See, e.g., Taylor, 144 Cal. App. 4th at 1235.
4
63. A party may be liable for defamation that induces a termination. See Sheppard v.

Freeman (1998) 67 Cal App.4'" 339, 349. Actionable defamation can be completely interna, that is,
published and received solely by other employees of the defendant employer. AEarwal v. Johnson
(19791 25 Cal.3d 932. 944 (internal company statements regarding "lack of job knowledge and
cooperation"); Kellv v. General Teleohone Co. (19821 136 Cal.ADD.3d 278. 284 (publication by
9
supervisor to other employees); Cruev v. Gannett Co. (19981 64 Cal.ADD.4th 356. 367 (publication
10
by a subordinate to human resources).
11
64. Civil Code Section 46(3) specifically recognizes defamation per se when a statement
12
affects a person's occupational reputation: "Slander is a false and unprivileged publication ...
13
[which] ... [t]ends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade, or business ...."
14
Commonly occurring criticism of performance can be defamation per se and even a performance
15
review can be defamatory if it accuses an employee of "lack of integrity, dishonesty [or]
16
incompetence." See Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (1993) 14 Cal.ADD.4th 958. 965. Examples of
17
defamatory criticism of work performance include "falsely charging a person with a violation of
18
confidence reposed in him." Dethlefsen v. Stull (1948) 86 Cal.ADD.2d 499. 502.
19
65. DeWolfe and Ko claim their intentionally false statements were protected by
20
privilege, that they could lie with impunity and destroy Plaintiff s reputation without accountability
21
for their actions. However, the case law is clear that their defamatory statements were not protected
22
speech. DeWolfe and Ko did not have carte blanche to maliciously destroy Plaintiff s reputation in
23 order to justify its age discrimination and retaliatory termination. The conditional privilege of
24 employment communications is lost if the publication was motivated by malice. See Sheooard. 67
25 Cal. ADD.4'" at 349 (reversing demurrers and summary judgment on plaintiff s defamation counts
26 against employees and remanding for trial on issue of malice); Deaile v. General Teleohone Co.
(1974'1 40 Cal.ADD.3d 841. 847.
28 66. The outrageously offensive comments by DeWolfe and Ko are defamatory per se
and justify recovery for all consequential damages, including those associated with the destruction

17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN ROBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
of Ms. Rubin's ability to obtain work in her chosen profession. See generally Gould v, Maryland
3
Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1153-54 (publications asserting incompetence
are defamatory per se).
67. If the City's adverse decisions and employment actions with respect to Ms. Rubin
were simply a function of its accurate application of legitimate standards of performance, no one
could assail its actions. This, however, is patently not the case here. To the contrary, it is impossible
to attribute the City's adverse actions against Ms. Rubin to an equitable, good faith application of
9
legitimate standards. This conclusion is only buttressed when viewed in context with the
10
discriminatory and retaliatory working conditions to which she was subjected, all of which appear
11
to have been deliberately constructed and perpetrated in order to ultimately terminate her
12
employment and irreparably prejudice her ability to find new employment in a job that pays her
13
comparably to her position at the City of South Pasadena.
14
68. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant DOES 1-10,
15
and each of them, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at
16
this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will file DOE
17
amendments, and/or ask leave of court to amend this Complaint to assert the true names and
18
capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
19
and upon, such information and belief alleges, that each Defendant designated as a DOE was and is
20
in some manner, negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise responsible and liable to Plaintiff for the
21
injuries and damages hereinafter alleged and that Plaintiff s damages as herein alleged were
22
proximately caused by their conduct.
23 69. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times material
24 herein the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees, or ostensible
25 agents, servants or employees of each other. Defendants, and as such were acting within the course
and scope of said agency and employment or ostensible agency and employment, except on those
occasions when Defendants were acting as Principals, in which case, said Defendants and each of
them, were negligent in the selection, hiring and use of the other Defendants.
70. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all times relevant hereto,

18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
Defendants and each of them, acted in concert and in furtherance of the interests of each other
3
Defendant.
4
71. As a result of this illegal termination, Plaintiff is poised to lose over $ 1,000,000 in
5
lost salary and wages and benefits.
72. All of the acts of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation are timely under the
continuing violation doctrine because, commencing in 2017 and continuing through the filing of
this complaint, the Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a series of adverse actions that were similar-in-
kind, i.e., were motivated by the same discriminatory or retaliatory animus, even if otherwise
10
different actions, 1 occurred with reasonable frequency, and did not acquire permanence at the
earliest until the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit.2 Defendants therefore remain liable for this entire
12
course of conduct, including acts predating any statutory period inasmuch as at least one, and, here,
13
many, of the acts occurred within the statutory period.3
14

15

16

17

18

19

20 'Similarity" refers to the discriminatory motivation, nor the form which the discrimination takes. See Richards v.
CH2M Hiii, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal. 4u 798, 823. For example, lack of promotion, undesirable job assignments, and
harassment over a period of years reflects the same discriminatory animus. See Id.

See Richards, 26 Cal. 4u at 826 (statute of limitations does not begin to run when employee first believes his or her
rights have been violated but rather when the unlawful conduct ends, e.g., with the employee's resignation, or when the
23 employer makes it clear "in a definitive manner" that it will not cease its unlawful conduct).

24 3 See Richards, 26 Cal. 4u at 826 (employer may be liable for entire course of conduct, including acts predating the
statutory period, under the continuing violation doctrine provided at least one of the acts occurred within the statutory
25 period, so long as plaintiff can establish similarity of conduct, reasonable Irequency and fact that acts have not acquired
permanence); Id. 26 Cal.4'" at 823 (recurring incidents are sufficient to establish reasonable frequency component of
26 continuing violation test); Yanowiiz, 36 Cal. 4e at 1056 (continuing violation doctrine not limited to harassment claims
and may include retaliation claims); Accardi, CahApp.4u at 35 I (sexual harassment over 11-year period included sexist
27 remarks, sexual advances, and being singled-out for unfavorable assignments; the only incidents occurring within the
limitations period were relatively minor, i.e., mishandling her workers compensation claims, and failure to treat her like
28 other partially disabled employees; nevertheless, employer's acts were part of a "deliberate pattern of discrimination"
entitling employee to recover for harassment over the entire period of her employment); Watson v. Department of
Rehabilitation (1989) 212 Cal.App3d 1271, 1290-91 (series of discriminatory acts and retaliatory harassment for
complaining about discrimination constitutes a continuing violation).

19
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 RIGHT TO SUK LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
3
& HOUSING
4
73. On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff obtained a Right to Sue letter from the California
5

6 Department of Fair Employment & Housing for discrimination based on her age and retaliation.

7 Exhibit A, "Right to Sue Letter."

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: LABOR CODE 8 1102.5
10
(WHISTLEBLOWER LAW)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA. STEPHANIE
12
DKWOLFE, MARIAM LEE KO. DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10)
13
74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 73
14
paragraphs.
15
75. Cal. Labor Code $ 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against any employee for disclosing
16
information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose
17
information, to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a superior in the employer's
18
organization, so long as the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses
19
a violation of law or regulation. This statute reflects the "broad public policy interest in encouraging
20
workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation." Green v. Ralee Eng.
21
CLL (1998) 19 Cal 4'" 66, 77-78.
22
76. Defendant was an employer for purposes under California law. Plaintiff was an
23
employee of the Defendant, performing work on behalf of the Defendant.
24
77. Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff for disclosing violations of or
25
noncompliance with state and/or federal labor laws to persons with authority over her and/or to
26
other employees who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
27
noncompliance, which she had reasonable cause to believe had taken place.
28
78. The City engaged in a fraudulent scheme to shakedown City residents, sending out
mass mailers demanding payment for business licenses, even from residents who were not required

20
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 to get business licenses. Plaintiff repeatedly reported her concerns to her supervisors, that
committing such a scheme would cause enormous problems for the City, and an uproar in the
community. Plaintiff advised the Defendant to instead send out a smaller number of mailers, to
5
provide enough information so that residents could determine whether they were legitimately
6
required to pay for a business license, and to not break the law with a mass shakedown. But the City
7
continued with its scheme.
8
79. The Defendants responded to Plaintiff s whistle blower reports by threatening her
9
and demanding she sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, as part of the Defendants'fforts to cover up
10
their fraudulent actions.
11
80. Defendants Ko and DeWolfe mismanaged the City's Finance Department and
12
mishandled government and taxpayer funds. Ko and DeWolfe may have engaged in criminal
13
conduct with financial improprieties.
14
81. Plaintiff reported her grave concerns to Defendant Ko about mishandling of
15
government dollars, and Ko made no effort to investigate or correct the matter other than the sham
16
audit by Mr. Green, and instead she and Defendant DeWolfe moved to cover it up by framing
17
Plaintiff. DeWolfe and Ko, and the City, set about to retaliate against Plaintiff and lied that she
18
engaged in financial improprieties and criminal conduct.
19
82. Commencing before and during 2018, and continuing to the present, Defendants
20
created and allowed to exist a hostile environment and discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff
21
based on her age, and retaliated against Plaintiff when she spoke to Ko blowing the whistle on the
22
mismanagement and mishandling of monies.
23 83. The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for disclosing violations of or
24 noncompliance with state and/or federal labor laws to person (s) with authority over her and/or to
other employees who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
noncompliance, which they had reasonable cause to believe had taken place.
84. Defendants and each of them, and their respective supervisors, managers, officers,
agents, and employees, retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in activities protected under labor
section 1102.5 by subjecting her to multiple adverse employment actions, stand-alone actions

21
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 and/or an ongoing series of actions which caused substantial and material adverse effects on the
terms and conditions of Plaintiff s employment, and led to her illegal termination.
85. Said actions of retaliation were a direct violation of labor code section 1102.5, and
pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.6, Defendants, and each of them, have the burden of proof to
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that each of the adverse employment actions alleged
herein would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if Plaintiff had not engaged in
8
activities protected by Labor Code section 1102.5.
9
86. At all times herein mentioned, the City had actual and/or constructive knowledge of
10
the retaliatory conduct levied against the Plaintiff by the Defendants De Wolfe and Ko and other

employees and other superiors. Moreover, such defamation, retaliation, harassment, and
12
discriminatory conduct was also conducted and/or condoned by the Defendants.
13
87. The defamation, retaliation and threats against the Plaintiff continued past her illegal
14
Plaintiff termination.
15
88. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the Defendants'etaliatory conduct,
16
ha suffered immense damages, including lost wages and other employment benefits, and
17
other economic damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, but in the minimum of $ 1,000,000.
18
89. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate cause of Defendants'etaliatory conduct and
19
failure to act, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, mental
20
anguish, and emotional distress.
21
90. As a further legal result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has
22
and will continue to incur attorneys'ees and costs in an amount according to proof.
23 91. Defendants'ctions were ratified by managing agents, and were willful, malicious,
24 fraudulent, and oppressive, and committed with the intent to harm Plaintiff in conscious disregard
25 of her rights. Defendants'cts were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff and/or
constituted despicable conduct carried out by the Defendants with the intention of the Defendants to
deprive Plaintiff of property and legal rights, and were authorized and approved by Defendants,
justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof, in order to
deter Defendants from similar conduct in the future.

22
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: LABOR CODE 8 98.6
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANT CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA.
STEPHANIE DEWOLFE. MARIAM LEE KO. DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10)

92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 91
paragraphs.
10
93. Under Cal. Labor Code f 98.6, employers may not discharge, discriminate, retaliate
or take any adverse action against an employee or job applicant for engaging in certain types of
12
conduct protected by the Labor Code, including whistleblowing, making a written or oral complaint
13
that she is owed wages, or "the exercise by the employee... on behalf of himself, herself, or others
14
of any rights afforded to him or her."
15
94. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants violated this
16
statue by discharging, discriminating, and retaliating against Plaintiff for: (1) disclosing violations
17
of or noncompliance with state and/or federal labor laws to person (s) with authority over her and/or
18
to other employee (s) who had the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
19
noncompliance, which she had reasonable cause to believe had taken place; and (2) exercising
20
rights afforded her under the Labor Code.
21
95. Defendant was an employer for purposes under California law. Plaintiff was an
22
employee of the Defendant, performing work on behalf of the Defendant.
23
96. Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for disclosing violations of or
24
noncompliance with state and/or federal labor laws to persons with authority over her and/or to
25
other employees who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
26
noncompliance, which she had reasonable cause to believe had taken place.
27 97. The City engaged in a fraudulent scheme to shakedown City residents, sending out
28 mass mailers demanding payment for business licenses, even from residents who were not required
to get business licenses. Plaintiff repeatedly reported her concerns to her supervisors, that

23
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 committing such a scheme would cause enormous problems for the City, and an uproar in the
community. Plaintiff advised the Defendant to instead send out a smaller number of mailers, to
provide enough information so that residents could determine whether they were legitimately
required to pay for a business license, and to not break the law with a mass shakedown. But the City
6
continued with its scheme.
7
98. The Defendants responded to Plaintiff s whistle blower reports by threatening her
8
and demanding she sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, as part of the Defendants'fforts to cover up
their fraudulent actions.
10
99. Defendants Ko and DeWolfe mismanaged City services and mishandled government
11
and taxpayer funds. Ko and DeWolfe at a minimum engaged in financial improprieties, and at a
12
maximum engaged in criminal conduct.
13
100. Plaintiff reported her concerns to Defendant Ko about mishandling of government
dollars, and Ko made no effort to investigate or correct the matter other than a sham audit by Green,
15
and instead she and DeWolfe moved to cover it up by framing and defaming Plaintiff DeWolfe and
16
Ko, and the City, set about to retaliate against Plaintiff and lied that she engaged in financial
17
improprieties and criminal conduct.
18
101. Commencing before and during 2017, and continuing to the present, Defendants
19
created and allowed to exist a hostile environment, discriminated against Plaintiff for her age, and
20
retaliated against Plaintiff when she spoke out about and blew the whistle on the mismanagement
21
and mishandling of monies.
22
102. The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for disclosing violations of or
23
noncompliance with state and/or federal labor laws to person (s) with authority over her and/or to
other employees who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
noncompliance, which they had reasonable cause to believe had taken place.
103. Defendants and each of them, and their respective supervisors, managers, officers,
agents, and employees, retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in activities protected under labor
section 1102.5 by subjecting her to multiple adverse employment actions, stand-alone actions

24
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 and/or an ongoing series of actions which caused substantial and material adverse effects on the
terms and conditions of Plaintiff s employment, and led to her illegal termination.
104. At all times herein mentioned, the City had actual and/or constructive knowledge of

the retaliatory conduct levied against the Plaintiff by the Defendants DeWolfe and Ko, and other
6
employees and other superiors. Moreover, such retaliation, harassment, and discriminatory conduct
7
was also conducted and/or condoned by the Defendants.
8
105. The defamation, retaliation and threats against the whistleblower Plaintiff continued
9
past her illegal termination.
10
106. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the Defendants'etaliatory conduct,
11
Plaintiff has suffered immense damages, including lost wages and other employment benefits, and
12
other economic damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, but in the minimum of $ 1,000,000.
13
107. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate cause of Defendants'etaliatory conduct and
14
failure to act, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, mental
15
anguish, and emotional distress.
16
108. As a further legal result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, and each of
17
them, Plaintiffs have and will continue to incur attorneys'ees and costs according to proof.
18
109. Defendants'ctions were ratified by managing agents, and were willful, malicious,
19
fraudulent, and oppressive, and committed with the intent to harm Plaintiff in conscious disregard
20
of her rights. Defendants'cts were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff and/or
21
constituted despicable conduct carried out by the Defendants with the intention of the Defendants to
22
deprive Plaintiff of property and legal rights, and were authorized and approved by Defendants,
23
justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof, in order to
24 deter Defendants from similar conduct in the future, should be made.
25

26

27

28

25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: GOVERNMENT CODE 8 12940 (Hl (FEHAI
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANT CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA.
STEPHANIE DEWOLFE. MARIAM LEE KO. DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10)

7
110. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 109
8
paragraphs.
9
111. At all times mentioned, Plaintiff engaged in protective activities contemplated by
10
Government Code f$ 12940, et seq. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, and each of
them, retaliated against her for reporting and speaking out against inappropriate workplace
12
behavior, reporting and speaking out against wrongful and discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory
13
treatment based on age, speaking out against improper conduct, and for generally attempting to
14
protect and secure her rights and rights of others under FEHA.
15
112. Commencing before and during 2017, and continuing to the present, Defendants
16
created and allowed to exist a hostile environment and retaliated against Plaintiff and defamed her
17
on the basis of her protected activity. Such retaliation was in violation of Government Code $$
18
12940, et seq. and the public policy embodied therein.
19
113. Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff for disclosing violations of or
20
noncompliance with state and/or federal labor laws to persons with authority over her and/or to
21
other employees who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
22
noncompliance, which she had reasonable cause to believe had taken place.
23
114. The City engaged in a fraudulent scheme to shakedown City residents, sending out
24
mass mailers demanding payment for business licenses, even from residents who were not required
25
to get business licenses. Plaintiff repeatedly reported her concerns to her supervisors, that
26
committing such a scheme would cause enormous problems for the City, and an uproar in the
27
community. Plaintiff advised the Defendant to instead send out a smaller number of mailers, to
28
provide enough information so that residents could determine whether they were legitimately
required to pay for a business license, and to not break the law with a mass shakedown. But the City

26
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 2
continued with its scheme.
3
115. The Defendants responded to Plaintiff s whistle blower reports by threatening her
4
and demanding she sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, as part of the Defendants'fforts to cover up

their fraudulent actions.

116. Defendants Ko and DeWolfe mismanaged the City administration and mishandled
government and taxpayer funds. Ko and De Wolfe may have engaged in criminal conduct.
117. Plaintiff reported her concerns to Defendant Ko about mishandling of government
dollars and Ko made no effort to investigate or correct the matter other than a sham audit by Green,
10
and instead she and DeWolfe moved to cover it up by framing Plaintiff. DeWolfe and Ko, and the

City, set about to retaliate against Plaintiff and lied that she is the one who engaged in financial
12
improprieties and criminal conduct.
13
118. Commencing before and during 2017, and continuing to the present, Defendants
14
created and allowed to exist a hostile environment, discriminatory toward Plaintiff for her age, and
15
retaliated against Plaintiff when she spoke about and blew the whistle on the mismanagement and
16
mishandling of monies.
17
119. Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiffs for disclosing violations of or
18
noncompliance with state and/or federal labor laws to person (s) with authority over her and/or to
19
other employees who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
20
noncompliance, which they had reasonable cause to believe had taken place.
21
120. Defendants and each of them, and their respective supervisors, managers, officers,
22
agents, and employees, retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in activities protected under labor
23
section 1102.5 by subjecting them to multiple adverse employment actions, stand-alone actions
24 and/or ongoing series of actions which caused substantial and material adverse effects on the terms
and conditions of PlaintifFs employment, and led to her illegal termination.
121. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant City had actual and/or constructive
knowledge of the retaliatory conduct levied against the Plaintiff by DeWolfe and Ko, and other
employees and other superiors. Moreover, such retaliation, harassment, and discriminatory conduct
was also conducted and/or condoned by the Defendants.

27
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 122. The defamation, retaliation and threats against the whistleblower Plaintiff continued

past her illegal termination.

123. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the Defendants'etaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered immense damages, including lost wages and other employment benefits, and
other economic damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, but in the minimum of $ 1,000,000.
124. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate cause of Defendants'etaliatory conduct and
8
failure to act, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, mental
9
anguish, and emotional distress.
10
125. As a further legal result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, and each of
11
them, Plaintiff has and will continue to incur attorneys'ees and costs according to proof.
12
126. Defendants'ctions were ratified by managing agents, and were willful, malicious,
13
fraudulent, and oppressive, and committed with the intent to harm Plaintiff in conscious disregard
14
of her rights. Defendants'cts were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff and/or
15
constituted despicable conduct carried out by the Defendants with the intention of the Defendants to
16
deprive Plaintiff of property and legal rights and were authorized and approved by Defendants.
17

18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

19
VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT:
20
AGE DISCRIMINATION
21

22 (AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA1

23
127. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs I
24
through 126, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
25
128. Under Government Code Section 12940-12950, the Fair Employment and Housing
26
Act ("FEHA"), as well as the Age Discrimination in Employment ACT ("ADEA"). Title 29, United
27 States Code, Sections 621-634, age discrimination against an employee is prohibited.
28 129. Plaintiff is an individual protected by FEHA, in that Plaintiff who at all times herein
relevant was at least 40 years old.

28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 130. Defendant City is an employer and was Plaintiff s employer.
131. Plaintiff is informed and believes that age was a motivating factor in the City'
decision to terminate Plaintiff.
132. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against her because of her age — over
40 - and on December 2, 2018 terminated her because of her age and replaced her with much
younger and less qualified individuals.
133. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis, alleges that the City'
termination of Plaintiff constituted disparate treatment of Plaintiff in violation of FEHA in that
10
City's action was with intent to discriminate against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's age.
134. Plaintiff had been a long-term employee with an excellent employment history
12
including only positive performance evaluations and several accolades. As of December 2, 2018,
13
Plaintiff was in all respects highly qualified for the position she held. The City used as a pretext to
14
terminate her that it was downsizing the City and doing layoffs. But the City did not offer Plaintiff a
15
position elsewhere in another department and proved its intent was not as stated.
16
135. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated as she was qualified for the position and if the
17
department was truly being downsized, she should have been moved to another position in the City.
18
Plaintiff was well qualified for many jobs in the City, but Defendants did not offer her a new
19
position and after terminating her, they replaced her with younger, less qualified employees.
20
136. The conduct, statements and acts of the Defendant and Doe Defendants described
21
herein were an ongoing part of a continuing scheme and course of conduct. Defendant knew the
22
substance of the above described facts and circumstances and ratified the wrongs and injuries
23
mentioned herein when it was in their ability to prevent, remedy and/or correct these wrongs.
24 Defendant continued to ratify and refused to remedy or correct the aforementioned conduct,
notwithstanding the fact that its officials, supervisors and/or managing agents knew or reasonably
should have known of that conduct and its unlawful motivations.
137. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants'onduct, Plaintiff has suffered
special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits and/or out of pocket expenses in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants'onduct,

29
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 2
Plaintiff will suffer additional special damages in the form of lost future earnings, benefits and/or
3
other prospective damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
138. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants'onduct, Plaintiff has
suffered and is suffering pain and suffering mental and emotional pain, distress and discomfort, and
damages to her occupational reputation, all to her detriment, and damage in amounts not fully
ascertained but within the jurisdiction of this court and subject to proof at the time of trial.
139. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendants'cted maliciously with
9
conscious disregard for Plaintiff s known rights and with the intention of causing, and/or willfully
10
disregarding the probability of causing unjust and cruel hardship to Plaintiff.
ll
140. Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys'ees pursuant to California
12
Government Code section 12965(b).
13

14
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
15
HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
16
(CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION 12940 et. Sea.):
17
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA. STEPHANIE
18
DEWOLFE. MARIAM LEE KO. DOE DEFENDANTS 1-101
19

20
141. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs I through 140,
21
inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
22
142. At all times mentioned herein, Government Code )II 12940, et seq. was in full force
23
and effect and was binding upon Defendants. Said law requires Defendants to refrain from
24
harassing any employee based upon age, for engaging in protected activity, and to provide each
25
employee with a working environment free from harassment based on age or protected activity.
143. At all times mentioned, Plaintiff was in the protected class, i.e. over 40 years of age,
27
and engaged in protective activities contemplated by Government Code )tj 12940, et seq. Plaintiff
28
is informed and believes that Defendants, and each of them, harassed her based on her age and for
reporting and speaking out against wrongful and discriminatory treatment, and for speaking out

30
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
against improper conduct, and for generally attempting to protect and secure her rights and those of
3
others under FEHA.
4
144. Commencing during 2017, and continuing to the present, Defendants created and
5
allowed to exist and continue to allow to exist a hostile environment and harassed and continued to
6
harass Plaintiff on the basis of her age. Such discrimination was and is in violation of Government
Code IIII 12940, et seq. and the public policy embodied therein.
145. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant City had actual and/or constructive
knowledge of the harassing conduct levied against the Plaintiff by Ko and DeWolfe, employees and
10
other superiors. Moreover, such retaliation, harassment, and hostile work environment were also
conducted and/or condoned by the Defendants.
12
146. During the term of Plaintiff's'mployment, Plaintiff was subjected to harassment,
13
including a hostile work environment. The hostile work environment consisted of age
14
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation including up to termination from employment and
15
defamation thereafter. The harassing conduct was and is unwelcome and sufficiently severe or
16
pervasive that it had and has the purpose and effect of altering the conditions of Plaintiff s
17
employment and creating an intimidating, hostile, and abusive environment.
18
147. The environment created by the conduct would have been perceived as intimidating,
19
hostile, abusive, or offensive by a reasonable person in the same position as the Plaintiff, and the
20
environment created was and continues to be perceived by the Plaintiff as intimidating, hostile, and
21
abusive. The hostile work environment caused Plaintiff s injury, damage, loss, and harm.
22
148. Said actions and conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, resulted in and
23 continues to cause a hostile work environment and unlawful employment practices pursuant to
24 pursuant to California Government Code sections 12940, et seq.
25 149. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate cause of Defendants'arassing conduct and
failure to act, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, mental
anguish, and emotional distress. Plaintiff was required to and did employ and will in the future
employ physicians and health care providers to examine, treat and care for Plaintiff, and did, and

31
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 2
will in the future, incur medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount of full expenses is
3
unknown to Plaintiff at this time.
150. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the harassment and hostile work
environment, Plaintiff has suffered immense damages, including severe emotional distress, as well
as lost wages and other employment benefits and other economic damages, in an amount to be
proven at trial.
151. As a further legal result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, and each of

them, Plaintiff have and will continue to incur attorneys'ees and in costs according to proof.
10
152. Defendants'ctions were ratified by managing agents, and were willful, malicious,
Plaintiff
12
fraudulent, and oppressive, and committed with the intent to harm Plaintiff in conscious disregard
of her rights. ha timely exhausted administrative remedies.
13

14
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
15
VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING ACT-
16
FAILURE TO TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
17

18 (AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA I

19
153. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 152
20
inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
21
154. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the
22
aforementioned discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected in violation of California
23
Government Code Section 12940(k).
24
155. The conduct, statements and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a
25
continuing scheme and course of conduct. Defendant City knew the substance of the above
26
described facts and circumstances and ratified the wrongs and injuries mentioned herein when it
27
had the ability to prevent, remedy and/or correct these wrongs. Defendant continued to ratify and
28
refused to remedy the aforementioned conduct, notwithstanding the fact that its officials,
supervisors and/or managing agents knew or reasonably should have known, and know or

32
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
reasonably should know, of the conduct and its unlawful motivations.
156. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'onduct, Plaintiff has suffered

special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits and/or out of pocket expenses in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial. As a further direct and proximate result of
Defendants'onduct,
Plaintiff will suffer additional special damages in the form of lost future earnings, benefits
and/or other prospective damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
157. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants'onduct, Plaintiff has

suffered mental and emotional pain, distress and discomfort, and damages to her occupational
10
reputation, all to their detriment and damage in amounts not fully ascertained but within the
jurisdiction of this court and subject to proof at the time of trial. The City allowed and sanctioned
12
and supported harassment of the Plaintiff.
13
158. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendants acted maliciously toward
14
Plaintiff, with conscious disregard for her known rights and with the intention of causing, and/or
15
willfully disregarding the probability of causing, unjust and cruel hardship to Plaintiff.
16
159. Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys'ees pursuant to California
17
Government Code section 12965(b).
18

19 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 (SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SEl
21
(AGAINST DEFENDANTS STEPHANIE DKWOLFE AND MARIAM LEE KO. DOE
22
DEFENDANTS 1-101
23

24 160. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs I through 159,
25 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
26 161. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Plaintiff discovered that DeWolfe and Ko made
27 defamatory statements about her. They repeatedly lied about Plaintiff and destroyed her reputation
28 with statements, oral and in written media, they knew to be false. Specifically, DeWolfe and Ko
were responsible for financial improprieties at the City but made statements to numerous

33
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
individuals and to the public that Plaintiff was guilty of their transgressions, crimes and violations
3
of City policies, state and federal regulations and statutes. The Defendants explicitly stated and
implied that Plaintiff had engaged in the criminal act of misappropriation of funds and was a
criminal.
162. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Plaintiff also discovered that DeWolfe had engaged
in a concerted campaign to publicly destroy her reputation, making false statements about her work

performance in a public City Council meeting. The Defendants lied and said that Plaintiff was
9
responsible for the problems caused by the Defendants'raudulent business license shakedown of
10
City residents. Plaintiff reviewed the video that had been posted online and discovered that
11
DeWolfe told community members as well as City leaders that Plaintiff had been incompetent and
12
was responsible for Ko and DeWolfe's own mismanagement of the City's Finance Department. The
13
community members reasonably understood that the statements from DeWolfe referred to Plaintiff
14
and reasonably understood the statements to mean that Plaintiff, rather than Ko and DeWolfe, was
15
incompetent at her job.
16
163. The clear meaning of DeWolfe's false statements of mismanagement to the City
17
Council and community members, as well as to the media, was that Plaintiff was incompetent and
18
corrupt and the public hearing these statements believed this. This reinforced the destruction of
19
Plaintiff s reputation caused by Ko and DeWolfe's defamatory statements to other individuals and
20
City workers that Ms. Rubin was responsible for fraud and financial improprieties including the
21
criminal misappropriation of funds.
22 164. The Defendants knew that the statements were blatantly false at the time they made
23 them.
24 165. The statements constitute Slander Per Se of Plaintiff and damaged her in her trade,
25 profession and/or occupation and accused her of a crime and/or breaking the law.
26 166. On or about January 2019, Plaintiff gave notice to Defendants regarding their false
statements and in December 2019 reiterated the notice and demanded retraction of the false
statements, but the Defendants failed to withdraw their false statements.

34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 167. On information and belief, these statements have been re-published numerous times

including to members of the community, and as such, Defendants are liable for each and every re-
publication of these knowingly false and defamatory statements.
168. The aforesaid defamatory statements made by DeWolfe and Ko and the DOE
Defendants were and are false and malicious and not privileged. Defendants made said statements
knowing the falsity thereof. The Defendants were fully aware that they had engaged in fiscal
improprieties and that Plaintiff was a whistleblower. The Plaintiff did not engage in any criminal
activity or fiscal impropriety.
10
169. Defendants made the aforesaid defamatory statements with malice and with the
intent to injure Plaintiff s good name and reputation and to interfere with her employment, in that
12
Defendants harbored ill-will toward Plaintiff for being a whistleblower and specifically wanted to
13
harm Plaintiff's reputation in order to justify their wrongful treatment and termination of her, based
14
on Plaintiff s age and out of retaliation as well as to cover up their own wrongdoing.
Plaintiff
15

16

17
170. The aforesaid defamatory statements have harmed plaintiff s reputation; such
statements tend to injure and injured Plaintiff in her occupation. Her future business and
employment prospects have been severely harmed, and ha to incur substantial expense, in
18
order to redress the harm she has suffered, all to Plaintiff s general and actual damages, including
19
exemplary and punitive damages, in an amount which far exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of
20
this Court, and which will be proven at trial.
21

22 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23 (DEFAMATIONI
24 (AGAINST DEFENDANTS STEPHANIE DEWOLFE AND MARIAM LEE KO, DOE
25 DEFENDANTS 1-10)
26 171. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs I through 170,
27 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
28 172. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Plaintiff discovered that DeWolfe and Ko made
defamatory statements about her. They repeatedly lied about Plaintiff and destroyed her reputation

35
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
with what they knew to be false statements. Specifically, the Defendants were responsible for the
3
business license scheme and Defendants DeWolfe and Ko were responsible for any financial
improprieties at the City, but made statements to numerous individuals and to the public, orally, and
in writing, that Plaintiff was guilty of crimes and violations of City policies, state and federal
6
regulations and statutes. The Defendants explicitly stated and implied that Plaintiff had engaged in
7
criminal activities including misappropriation of funds.
8
173. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Plaintiff also discovered that Defendant DeWolfe
9
had engaged in a concerted campaign to publicly destroy her reputation, making false statements
10
about her work performance in a public City Council meeting. Plaintiff reviewed the video that had
been posted online and discovered that DeWolfe told community members as well as City leaders
12
that Plaintiff had been incompetent and was responsible for Ko and DeWolfe's own
13
mismanagement of the City*s Finance Department. The community members reasonably
14
understood that the statements from DeWolfe referred to Plaintiff and reasonably understood the
15
statements to mean that Plaintiff, rather than Ko and DeWolfe, was incompetent at her job.
16
174. The insinuation of DeWolfe's false statements of mismanagement to the City
17
Council and community members, as well as the media, was that Plaintiff was incompetent. This
18
reinforced the destruction of Plaintiff s reputation caused by Ko and DeWolfe's defamatory
19
statements that the Plaintiff had engaged in financial improprieties including the criminal
20
misappropriation of funds.
21
175. Defendants knew that the statements were blatantly false at the time they made them
22
and/or failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the aforementioned
23
statements.
24 176. On information and belief, these statements have been re-published numerous times
25 including to members of the community, and as such, Defendants are liable for each and every re-
26 publication of these knowingly false and defamatory statements.
27 177. Shortly after January 2019, Plaintiff gave notice to Defendants regarding their false
statements and in December 2019 reiterated the notice and demanded retraction of the false
statements, but Defendants failed to withdraw their false statements.

36
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 178. The aforesaid defamatory statements made by the DeWolfe and Ko and the DOE
Defendants were and are false and not privileged. Defendants made said statement knowing the

falsity thereof. The Defendants were fully aware that they had engaged in fiscal improprieties and
that Plaintiff was a whistleblower. Plaintiff did not engage in any criminal activity or fiscal
6
impropriety.
7
179. Defendants'alse statements not only were a substantial factor in causing harm to
8
Plaintiff's professional reputation and career, but also caused her shame, mortification, and hurt
9
feelings.
10
180. Defendants published their false statements with malice intended to injure Plaintiff.
11
181. Defendants made the aforesaid defamatory statements with malice and with the
12
intent to injure Plaintiff s good name and reputation and to interfere with her employment, in that
13
Defendants harbored ill-will toward Plaintiff for being a whistleblower and specifically wanted to
14
harm Plaintiff s reputation in order to justify its wrongful treatment and termination of her.
15
182. The aforesaid defamatory statements have harmed Plaintiff s reputation; such
16
statements have a tendency to injure and have injured Plaintiff in her occupation, her future
17
business and employment prospects have been severely harmed, and Plaintiff had to incur
18
substantial expense, in order to redress the harm she has suffered, all to Plaintiff s general and
19
actual damages, including exemplary and punitive damages, in an amount which far exceeds the
20
jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which will be proven at trial.
21

22 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23 (FALSE LIGHTI
24 (AGAINST DEFENDANTS STEPHANIE DEWOLFE AND MARIAM LEE KO. DOE
25 DEFENDANTS 1-101
26 183. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges, as though fully set forth herein, Paragraphs 1 through
182 of this complaint.
184. Plaintiff had been a long-term employee with an excellent employment history
which included consistently positive performance evaluations and several accolades. As of

37
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
December 2, 2018, Plaintiff was in all respects qualified for the position she held. Plaintiff had a
3
stellar reputation as a hard worker with integrity.
185. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Plaintiff discovered that DeWolfe and Ko made
defamatory statements about her. The Defendants repeatedly lied about the Plaintiff and destroyed
her reputation with statements they knew to be false. Specifically, De Wolfe and Ko were
responsible for any financial improprieties at the City but made statements to numerous individuals
and to the public that Plaintiff was guilty of their acts and violations of City policies, state and
9
federal regulations and statutes. The Defendants explicitly stated and implied that Plaintiff had
10
engaged in criminal activities including misappropriation of funds.
11
186. Shortly after January 23, 2019, Plaintiff also discovered that DeWolfe had engaged
12
in a concerted campaign to publicly destroy her reputation, making false statements about her work
13
performance in a public City Council meeting. Plaintiff reviewed the video that had been posted
14
online and discovered that DeWolfe told community members as well as City leaders that Plaintiff
15
had been incompetent and was responsible for Ko and DeWolfe's own mismanagement of the
16
City's Finance Department, and had been responsible for the problems caused by the business
17
license fraud committed by the City. The community members reasonably understood that the
18
statements from De Wolfe referred to Plaintiff and reasonably understood the statements to mean

Plaintif
19

20

21

22
that Plaintiff, rather than Ko and DeWolfe, was incompetent at her job, and corrupt.
187. The insinuation of DeWolfe's false statements of mismanagement to the City
Council and community members, as well as the media, reinforced the destruction of Plaintiff s
reputation caused by the defamatory statements made by Ko and DeWolfe that the ha
23
engaged in financial improprieties including the criminal misappropriation of funds.
188. The Defendants'ishonest statements painted Plaintiff in a negative light, giving co-
workers and community members a false impression of her that she was a terrible worker who was
caught committing criminal acts, stealing from the government and public
189. The Defendants knew that false impressions about Plaintiff created by the
publications of their false statements would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
The publication of said false information was widely disseminated City-wide and beyond.

38
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
 2
The Defendants knew that this information was false, so Defendants'alse publication went far
3
beyond negligence. This publication of false information qualifies as actual malice. Plaintiff
4
asked the Defendants to remove and retract their false statements, but the Defendants failed to do
5
so.
6
190. Defendants'alse statements severely harmed Plaintiff s professional reputation and
7
cost her work.
8
191. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendants acted oppressively,
9
maliciously, fraudulently, and/or outrageously toward Plaintiff, with conscious disregard for her
10
known rights and with the intention of causing, and/or willfully disregarding the probability of
causing, unjust and cruel hardship to Plaintiff.
12

13
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
14
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
15
(AGAINT ALL DEFENDANTS. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA. STEPHANIE
16
DEWOLFE. MARIAM LEE KO. DOE DEFENDANTS 1-101
17
192. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 191
18
paragraphs.
19
193. Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward Plaintiff when it
20
committed fraud on City residents and financial malfeasance and gross mismanagement and then
21
framed the Plaintiff, subjecting her to an investigation with no basis and lying that Plaintiff
22 committed their own wrongful conduct. The Defendants decided to terminate Plaintiff based on her
23
age and to retaliate against her for being a whistleblower, and then fabricated the basis for her

Plaintiff
24
25

26

27
termination.
194. The Defendants'onduct went beyond cruelly mocking an individual, or mere
insults, or depriving them of enjoyment. Defendants'alicious, unrelenting attack on the Plaintiff
was extreme and outrageous and willful and utterly beyond the standards of decency.
28 195. As a proximate result of such extreme and outrageous acts, ha suffered and

continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment. Plaintiff is informed and

39
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
believes that Defendants acted deliberately and for the purpose of causing her to suffer emotional
3
distress.
4
196. Defendants further acted intentionally and unreasonably because they knew and/or
5
should have known that its conduct was likely to result in in severe emotional distress. Defendants'
conduct did cause Plaintiff to suffer from mental anguish, anxiety, and depression.
197. Plaintiff remains severely emotionally distressed by the wrongful conduct of the
Defendants. All of the tortfeasors were acting under agency of the City, which is vicariously liable
9
for intentional infliction of emotional distress directed at Plaintiff by all of the Defendants.
10
198. Plaintiff seeks damages for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at the
11
time of trial.
12
199. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendants acted oppressively,
13
maliciously, fraudulently, and/or outrageously toward Plaintiff, with conscious disregard for her
14
known rights and with the intention of causing, and/or willfully disregarding the probability of
15
causing, unjust and cruel hardship to Plaintiff.
16
200. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
17

18
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment on all causes of action on all Defendants as
19
follows:
20
1. For special damages, including but not limited to, lost earnings, benefits and/or out of pocket
21
expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, all in an amount set forth above and/or

23 according to proof at the time of trial;

2. For further special damages, including but not limited to, lost future earnings, benefits and other
25
prospective damages in an amount set forth above and/or according to proof at the time of trial;
26
3. For general damages in an amount set forth above and/or according to proof at the time of trial;
27
4. For punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial;

5. For interest: Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment at the maximum legal rate;

40
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2
6. For reasonable attorneys'ees; and
3
7. For costs of suit.
4

DATED: March 3, 2020 THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT MILLER

9
v~~ ~JUG
By VINCENT MILLER
10 Attorney for Plaintiff Lauren Rubin

12

13

14 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

15
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
16

17
DATED: March 3, 2020

19 THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT MILLER

20

22
By VINCENT MILLER
Attorney for Plaintiff Lauren Rubin
24

25

26
27

28

41
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OP SOUTH PASADENA
 VERIFICATION

STA TE OF CALIFORiVL4, COUIVTY OF LOS AIV GELES

VERIFIED
I, Lauren Rubin, am a party in the within action. I have read the foregoing
COMPLAINT and I know its contents.
The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to
9
those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to
10

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
12
is true and correct.
13

14
Executed on March 3, 2020, at Los Angeles County, California.
15

16

17
N RUBIN, Plaintiff
18

19

20
21

22
23
24
25

26
27

28

42
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LAUREN RUBIN V. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
EXHIBIT A —
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
 RTATF OF I ALIFORNIA IR *« I * R* * en . Aca RAViN NFWROM RCIVERNOR

KEVIN Klan, DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
Vv(ua Q)VF .
2218 Kauasn Drive, Suite 1001 51k Grove CA( 95758
I

(800) 884 1684 (Voice) I (800) 700 2320 (TTV) California'4 Relay Service at 711
(

http:I/www.dich.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dish.ca.gov

November 25, 2019

Vincent Miller
16255 Ventura Boulevard, 625
Encino, California 91436

RE: Notice to Complainant's Attorney

DFEH Matter Number: 201911-08395625
Right to Sue: Rubin / City of South Pasadena et al.

Dear Vincent Miller:

Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.

Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.

Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

 RTATE OF CALIFORNIA I 8 *inoo I'.* * n ri H * Anon RAVIN NFWROM ROVERNOR

KEVIN KIEH, DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
2218 Kauaen Drive, Suite 1001EIK Grove I CA 85758I

(8DD) 884-1884 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTV) California'4 Relay Service at 711
(

http //www.dich.ca.gov Email: contachcenter@dfeh.ca.gov

I

November 25, 2019

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

DFEH Matter Number: 201911-08395625
Right to Sue: Rubin / City of South Pasadena et al.

To All Respondent(s):

Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit.
This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of
the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.

Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.

No response to DFEH is requested or required.

Sincerely,

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

 STATR nn I'.AI IRORNIA I R» . 0 S c* nH A nc RAVIN NRWROM ROVE RNOR

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

, Vali Q~y I
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
2218 Kausen Orive, Suite 100 Elk Grove I CA 85758
I I

(800) 884-1884 (Voice) I (800) 700 2320 (TTV) California's Relay Service at 711
(

http:ttwww dich.ca.gov Email: contact.center@dieu ca.gov

I

November 25, 2019

Lauren Rubin
16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625
Encino, California 91326

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

DFEH Matter Number: 201911-08395625
Right to Sue: Rubin I City of South Pasadena et al.

Dear Lauren Rubin,

This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective
November 25, 2019 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH
will take no further action on the complaint.

This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.

To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.

Sincerely,

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, tt 12900 et seq.)

In the Matter of the Complaint of

Lauren Rubin DFEH No. 201911-08395625

Complainant,
vs.

City of South Pasadena

1414 Mission St
South Pasadena, California 91030
10
Stephanie DeWolfe
8300 Santa Monica Boulevard
West Hollywood, California 90069
12
Mariam Ko
13 I

14
Respondents
15
16 1.Respondent City of South Pasadena is an employer subject to suit under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, I'I 12900 et seq.).
17
18 2. Complainant Lauren Rubin, resides in the City of Encino State of California.

19 3. Complainant alleges that on or about November 25, 2019, respondent took the
following adverse actions:
20
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's gender identity or
21
expression, age (40 and over), other.
22
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's gender identity
23 or expression, age (40 and over), other and as a result of the discrimination was
terminated, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied work opportunities or
24 assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
25
26
-1-
27
Complaint — DFEH No. 20191 1-08395625
28 Date Filed: November 25, 2019
 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted
any form of discrimination or harassment, participated as a witness in a
discrimination or harassment complaint and as a result was terminated, denied any
employment benefit or privilege, denied or forced to transfer.

4
Additional Complaint Details: The City discriminated against Plaintiff based on
5 age and retaliated against her blowing the whistle on illegal activities. City Manager
Stephanie DeWolfe and HR Director, Mariam Ko, committed fraud and lied and
6 defamed claimant as part of the cover up of their wrongful conduct and the wrongful
"lay off" claimant when it illegally fired her.
7 conduct of the City. The City pretended to

10

12

13
14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
-2-
27
Complaint — DFEH No. 20191 1-08395625
28 Date Filed: November 25, 2019
 1 VERIFICATION

I,Vincent Miller, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. have read the
I

foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
on information and belief, which believe to be true.
I

On November 25, 2019, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
I

of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Porter Ranch, CA

10

12
13
14
15
16

17
18

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
-3-
27
Complaint — DFEH No. 201911-06395625
28 Date Filed: November 25, 201 9