Complaint For Damages

1 Donald R. Holben, Esq.
(SBN 108401)
Nia K. Perkins, Esq. (SBN 323892)
2 DONALD R. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC
5030 Camino de la Siesta, Suite 350
3 San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 220-5555
4 Facsimile: (619) 220-0033
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
6 TYWYSOG LLYWELYN JONES CYMRU,
fka LAWRENCE JOSEPH JONES JR.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL DIVISION
10
TYWYSOG LLYWELYN JONES CYMRU, Case No.:
11 FKA LAWRENCE JOSEPH JONES JR.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
12 Plaintiffs, DAMAGES:
13 v. 1. Discrimination Based on
Race/National Origin, Disability, and
14 BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., a Gender (Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et
Delaware corporation; TOBIAS HANKINS,
an individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, seq.);
15 2. Harassment Based on Race/National
16 Defendants. Origin, Disability, and Gender
(Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.);
17 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination
and Harassment (Gov’t Code §
18 12940(k));
4. Retaliation in Violation of
19
Government Code § 12940(h);
20 5. Whistleblower Retaliation in
Violation of Labor Code §1102.5;
21 6. Hostile Work Environment; and
7. Constructive Termination
22 8. Violation of Labor Code §1101 and
1103
23
24
25 TYWYSOG LLYWELYN JONES CYMRU, fka LAWRENCE JOSEPH JONES JR.

26 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), alleges the following causes of action against Defendants, BELL
27 HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC. (hereinafter “Bell”) and TOBIAS HANKINS (hereinafter
28 “Hankins”), demands a jury trial, and seeks monetary compensation as alleged herein.
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 I.
2 NATURE OF THE CASE
3 By way of this action, Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages for the following: (1)
4 unlawful discrimination based on race/national origin, disability, and gender; (2) harassment
5 based on race/national origin, disability, and gender; (3) retaliation in violation of Government
6 Code Section 12940, et seq; (4) hostile work environment; (5) failure to prevent discrimination
7 and harassment; (6) constructive termination; and (7) violation of Labor Code Sections 1101 and
8 1102.
9 II.
10 PARTIES
11 1. Plaintiff is an individual who, at all times relevant to this matter did reside in, the
12 County of San Diego, in the State of California.
13 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief
14 alleges that Defendant Hankins is an individual who, at all times relevant herein, resided in
15 and/or conducted business in the County of San Diego, State of California.
16 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief
17 alleges that Defendant Bell is a Delaware corporation authorized to conduct business in the State
18 of California and that, at all times relevant herein, did conduct business within the County of San
19 Diego, State of California. Defendant Bell was at all times relevant herein Plaintiff’s employer.
20 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, representative, or
21 otherwise, of DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues them
22 by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show the true
23 names and capacities of said Defendants when they are ascertained.
24 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of the
25 Defendants named as a DOE, along with the named Defendant, is responsible in some manner
26 for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s injuries herein alleged were legally or
27 proximately caused by said Defendants. Wherever it is alleged that any act or omission was or
28 was also done or committed by any specifically named Defendant, or by Defendants generally,
2
1 Plaintiff intends thereby to allege, and does allege, that the same act or omission was also done
2 and committed by each and every Defendant named as a DOE, and Defendant, both separately
3 and in concert or conspiracy with the named Defendants.
4 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant herein
5 was an agent, employee, or representative of the remaining Defendants, and that each Defendant
6 was acting within the scope, course, and authority of that relationship, within the County of San
7 Diego, State of California.
8 III.
9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10 7. The Court has jurisdiction over this action because the amount in controversy,
11 exclusive of costs and interest, exceeds the sum of $25,000.00. Venue is proper in this judicial
12 district, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395(a). At all times relevant herein
13 Defendants either transacted business in the County of San Diego or resided therein, and are
14 within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process.
15 8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant regularly employed five (5) or more
16 persons, bringing it within the provisions of California Government Code, Section 12900 et seq.,
17 which prohibits employers or their agents from discriminating against an individual on the basis
18 of his or her race, national origin, disability, and age, among other characteristics.
19 IV.
20 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
21 9. Prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California
22 Department of Fair Employment and Housing and obtained a right to sue notice from said
23 agency, which was issued on or about February 19, 2020.
24 V.
25 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
26 10. Plaintiff, Tywysog Llywelyn Jones Cymru, who is of Welsh descent, began
27 working as a Field Service Representative for Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. on or about June 14,
28 2010.
3
1 11. In or about May 2016, an international tribunal sitting in Tokyo, Japan recognized
2 Plaintiff’s “Welsh native incorporeal hereditaments” which, in essence, recognized him as “His
3 Royal Highness Prince Llywelyn, the lawful King of Britons.” In holding this title, Plaintiff
4 administers the affairs of the exiled Welsh government.
5 12. Plaintiff thereafter petitioned a California Court to legally change his name so that
6 it too accurately recognizes his title (i.e. Tywysog Llywelyn Jones Cymru); with his petition
7 being granted on or about March 6, 2017.
8 13. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant Bell, Plaintiff
9 received positive customer feedback regarding his performance. Plaintiff’s performance
10 evaluations were for the most part positive, and he was named employee of the quarter for the
11 entire company for FY2016 Q1.
12 14. Plaintiff’s career path was derailed after he formally complained of being
13 sexually harassed by one of his supervisors, Shawn Shea. Shawn Shea had repeatedly conveyed
14 his dislike for Plaintiff.
15 15. Mr. Shea was observed on multiple occasions watching Plaintiff as he showered
16 in the bathroom at his worksite after returning from the gym. After reporting Mr. Shea’s conduct
17 to Defendant Bell’s Human Resources department, Plaintiff was advised that the conduct was not
18 unlawful sexual harassment because the conduct was “male on male.” Bell Human Resources
19 told Plaintiff that Mr. Shea was “just trying to make sure that [Plaintiff] made it back from [his]
20 lunch breaks on time.”
21 16. Human Resources advised Mr. Shea of the complaint Plaintiff made against him.
22 Subsequently, Plaintiff was effectively ostracized by the entire office.
23 17. In another incident which occurred in or about July 2016, Mr. Shea flew from
24 California to Okinawa, Japan, where Plaintiff was stationed, to give performance reviews to both
25 Plaintiff and a co-worker. During the performance review dinner, Mr. Shea relayed a story about
26 himself and a friend “sharing a Filipino prostitute.” Mr. Shea detailed the incident by describing
27 how he sat in a chair while his friend received oral sex near the end of the bed. Mr. Shea told
28 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworker he “could see her brown hand come up between his legs and
4
1 grab his perfect white ass while performing oral sex” In response, Plaintiff’s co-worker sent
2 Plaintiff a text message while they were all seated at the table, expressing how uncomfortable he
3 was.
4 18. In another incident that occurred in or about July of 2017, Mr. Shea again flew to
5 Okinawa to give Plaintiff and his co-worker their annual reviews. During a lunch meeting, Mr.
6 Shea reached across the table and showed them a photo of him laying on a bed with his bare
7 buttocks exposed and asked them, “What do you think about this?”
8 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges
9 that on or about October 12, 2017, Plaintiff’s co-worker was informed by one of Defendant Bell’s
10 customers that Mr. Shea had shared that same photo with members of the United States Marine
11 Corps.
12 20. On or about November 1, 2017, Plaintiff again reported Mr. Shea’s conduct to
13 Human Resources, along with a copy of the nude photograph of Mr. Shea. Ultimately, Mr. Shea
14 was terminated from his position in or about January 2018.
15 21. In addition to the instances of unlawful sexual harassment, Plaintiff was harassed
16 and discriminated against based upon his heritage and national origin. Specifically, in or about
17 March 11, 2017, Mr. Shea sent Plaintiff an email in which he expressed concern for Plaintiff’s
18 security clearance after reading an article about the inheritance of his “incorporeal
19 hereditaments.”
20 22. On or about March 16, 2017, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant Bell’s
21 Security Manager who advised Plaintiff that his then recent name change could have an adverse
22 effect on his security clearance. After forwarding evidence of Plaintiff’s official name change to
23 the FBI, the FBI determined that the name change would not impact Plaintiff’s security clearance.
24 23. In February of 2018, Plaintiff was scheduled to return to the United States to work
25 at his original job site in Miramar, San Diego. On or about February 9, 2018, Mr. Shea’s best
26 friend and replacement, Defendant Hankins, sent Plaintiff an email in which he advised Plaintiff
27 that he would no longer be working at the Miramar site upon his return to San Diego because he
28 was being reassigned to a position at Camp Pendleton. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the
5
1 reassignment was made in retaliation for his reporting of Mr. Shea’s unlawful conduct which,
2 ultimately, cost Mr. Shea his job. Furthermore, the reassignment violated the express terms of
3 Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant Bell which provided that he would be allowed to return to his
4 original job site upon his return from his international assignment in Okinawa, Japan.
5 24. During this time, Plaintiff continued with his administrative duties for Wales. In
6 or about February or March 2018 , while Plaintiff was on leave recovering from knee surgery,
7 Defendant Hankins sent Plaintiff a text message in which he stated that the company would like
8 to help him with his work for Wales and, to that end, offered him a position in England so that
9 he could be closer to Wales. Defendant Hankins further advised Plaintiff that the company was
10 willing to move hm directly to England ahead of his then scheduled repatriation date of October
11 1, 2018. However, Plaintiff rejected the offer because he would not have felt safe working for a
12 prolonged amount of time in England given the then-current political climate existing between
13 Wales and England.
14 25. On March 30, 2018, while Plaintiff vacationed Wales, Plaintiff participated in a
15 diplomatic protest of the unlawful annexation of Wales.
16 26. While in Wales, Plaintiff received a text message and an email from Defendant
17 Hankins, stating that someone from Fort Worth had advised him that Plaintiff had been arrested
18 in Wales. In response, Plaintiff stated that he had not been arrested and demanded to know who
19 was spreading the false information. In response, Mr. Hankins refused to tell him who was
20 spreading the false information other than saying that it was “management.” Mr. Hankins
21 thereafter sent Plaintiff an urgent demand in which he insisted Plaintiff convey his whereabouts
22 and location.
23 27. On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff’s manager, Mike Sheerin, sent Plaintiff a message
24 requesting Plaintiff call him. When Plaintiff called in at the agreed-upon time, Mr. Sheerin
25 advised him that his Human Resources partner was listening in on the phone call. During the
26 conversation, Mike Sheerin and his Human Resources partner instructed Plaintiff to either
27 voluntarily terminate his employment with Bell or immediately cease the political work that he
28 had been doing for Wales.
6
1 28. Plaintiff asked Mr. Sheerin, “What does ceasing and desisting my political work
2 for Wales look like?” In response, Mr. Sheerin told Plaintiff he was required to remove all social
3 media posts regarding the political movement and cease engaging in any political demonstrations
4 in Wales. Mr. Sheerin further instructed Plaintiff remove all of his personal social media that
5 reflected Plaintiff’s name, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s Instagram, Facebook profile,
6 and Twitter. Mr. Sheerin stated that Plaintiff must choose a priority- his job or his political efforts
7 for Wales.
8 29. Plaintiff asked if he could speak to an attorney prior to making his decision. Bell
9 gave Plaintiff twenty-four hours. On or about May 4, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to Mr. Sheerin
10 in which he provided a recap of their conversation. Mr. Sheerin responded to Plaintiff’s email by
11 noting his disagreement with “the intent and spirit of the phone call.”
12 30. On or about July 5, 2018, some seven months after Mr. Shea was terminated from
13 his position, Mr. Shea sent Plaintiff a Facebook message stating he was aware that it was Plaintiff
14 and on of Plaintiff’s co-workers that reported him for sexual harassment. Mr. Shea then stated
15 that “what comes around goes around.”
16 31. On or about July 9, 2018, Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment as alleged
17 herein to the DFEH.
18 32. On September 24, 2018, Dr. MacHue, who worked at the Camp Foster Family
19 Medicine Clinic in Okinawa, Japan, recommended Plaintiff for FMLA leave as a result of the
20 workplace stress and hostile work environment to which had been subjected during the course of
21 his employment with Defendant Bell.
22 33. On September 25, 2018, just one day after being recommended for FMLA leave,
23 Mr. Anthony Caldwell from Defendant Bell’s IT Department advised Plaintiff that his computer
24 lost its trust relationship with the Bell network which effectively prevented Plaintiff from
25 accessing the engineering sites and performing one or more of his essential job functions.
26 Plaintiff thereafter repatriated to the United States on or about October 1, 2018.
27 34. On February 15, 2019, Defendant Hankins called Plaintiff and asked him to meet
28 at a location on Camp Pendleton so that they could speak in person. During the course of that
7
1 meeting, Defendant Hankins presented Plaintiff with a “Final Written Warning” which stated
2 that a customer had complained about his 2018 performance and that, while acknowledging his
3 period of FMLA leave, his “availability and dependability” were questionable.
4 35. Starting February 19, 2019, and continuing through February 26, 2019, Plaintiff
5 emailed the site lead at Okinawa, Darrell Stanley, regarding Plaintiff’s 2018 performance
6 evaluation. In response, Mr. Stanley stated, “the final written warning was overly harsh. I cannot
7 reconcile the statements in the warning with what I provided in the review. I am sorry if I
8 provided ammunition against you for this. That was not my intent. Performance reviews are
9 meant to provide both pros and cons of the employee, but I do not agree with a review being used
10 for the purpose of threatening termination. They are supposed to be used as a yardstick to measure
11 employees in order to rank them, and also provide feedback to the employee to let them know
12 where they need improvement. Just a personal observation about this warning. It sounds like
13 someone has made their mind up that you should go, and this is the official way to set that up.
14 My suggestion is to outperform their expectations while you look for other career opportunities
15 within the company that have a different management chain.” Ultimately, in late February 2019,
16 Plaintiff received a negative performance review for 2018 which was essentially a verbatim
17 recitation of the purported deficiencies that were noted in the final written warning.
18 36. On or about April 11, 2019, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant Hankins
19 in which he advised Plaintiff that he would once again be sent on an international deployment
20 commencing in November 2019 notwithstanding the fact that he had just completed an overseas
21 deployment. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that
22 the redeployment orders were retaliatory for his having complained about Mr. Shea’s unlawful
23 sexual harassment and for his refusal to cease all of his Welsh activities. Ultimately, the unlawful
24 discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory conduct to which he was exposed during the course of
25 his employment with Bell created a hostile working environment that any reasonable person in
26 Plaintiff’s position would have found to be intolerable. As a result of that environment, Plaintiff
27 was forced to tender his resignation as he was constructively terminated from his position with
28 Defendant Bell.
8
1 VI.
2 CAUSES OF ACTION
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Discrimination Based On Race/National Origin and Gender Pursuant to Gov’t Code
4 §12940 et seq.
5 (Against Defendants Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. and DOES 1 through 25)
6 37. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges by reference all previous paragraphs, and
7 each and every part thereof, of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as though fully set
8 forth herein.
9 38. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code sections 12940, et
10 seq. (the “FEHA”) were in full force and effect and were binding on Defendant Bell Helicopter
11 Textron, Inc. These sections mandate that Defendant Bell, as an employer within the meaning of
12 the FEHA, refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of, among others,
13 race/national origin, gender, and disability. Due to Defendant Bell’s unlawful treatment of
14 Plaintiff as alleged herein, Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully discriminated against based
15 on his race/national origin, gender, and disability, all in violation of California Government Code
16 sections 12940, et seq.
17 39. Plaintiff was discriminated against based on his gender when Defendant Bell
18 subjected Plaintiff to explicit and inappropriate comments to him of a sexual nature. An
19 employee or agent of Defendant Bell watched Plaintiff while he showered and showed him
20 inappropriate photographs involving nudity. All of such conduct was unwarranted and
21 unwelcome by Plaintiff.
22 40. Plaintiff was also discriminated against based upon his nation origin of Welsh
23 descent. Plaintiff F is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges
24 Defendant Bell expected Plaintiff’s subsequent name change to result in the revocation of his
25 security clearance. When the FBI determined that Plaintiff’s clearance would not be impacted
26 by his name change, Defendant Bell sought to force Plaintiff out of his position by change his
27 situs, sending Plaintiff on numerous overseas deployments, and giving Plaintiff negative
28 performance reviews.
9
1 41. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Bell’s willful, knowing, and intentional
2 discrimination against Plaintiff in the workplace, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
3 pain, humiliation, stress, anxiety, and emotional distress, all of which are not currently
4 ascertained, but which will be proven at trial. Plaintiff was further prevented from performing
5 the work required of him in his position, thereby causing him loss and damage to his professional
6 reputation and to the opportunity to advance in his career with Defendant Bell.
7 42. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendant Bell’s willful,
8 knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue
9 to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount
10 not currently ascertained, but which will be proven at trial. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to
11 general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
12 43. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Bell’s violation of the FEHA,
13 as hereinabove alleged, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an effort
14 to enforce the terms and conditions of the employment relationship with Bell, and to redress its
15 violation of the FEHA, and has, thereby, incurred and will continue to incur legal fees and costs,
16 the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff but which are recoverable
17 at trial.
18 44. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts alleged herein maliciously,
19 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
20 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
21 Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an
22 amount according to proof at trial.
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Harassment Based On Race/National Origin And Gender Pursuant to Gov’t Code §
24 12940 et seq.
25 (Against All Defendants)
26 45. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges by reference all previous paragraphs, and
27 each and every part thereof, of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as though fully set
28 forth herein.
10
1 46. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code sections 12940, et
2 seq. (the “FEHA”) were in full force and effect, and were binding on Defendants. These
3 sections prohibit Defendants from harassing any employee on the basis of, among others, his or
4 her race/national origin, disability, or gender. Due to Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff as
5 alleged herein, Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully harassed based on his race/national
6 origin and gender, all in violation of California Government Code sections 12940, et seq.
7 47. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and
8 intentional harassment of Plaintiff in the workplace, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
9 suffer pain, humiliation, stress, anxiety, and emotional distress, all of which are not currently
10 ascertained, but which will be proven at trial. The unlawful conduct to which Plaintiff has been
11 subjected materially interfered with his ability to perform one or more of his essential job
12 functions, thereby causing him loss and damage to his professional reputation and to the
13 opportunity to advance in his career with Defendant Bell.
14 48. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants’ willful, knowing,
15 and intentional harassment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss
16 of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount not currently
17 ascertained, but which will be proven at trial. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to general and
18 compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
19 49. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants’ FEHA violations
20 as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an effort to
21 enforce the terms and conditions of the employment relationship with Defendants and to redress
22 their FEHA violations and has, thereby, incurred and will continue to incur legal fees and costs,
23 the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff and which are recoverable
24 at trial.
25 50. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts alleged herein maliciously,
26 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
27 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
28
11
1 Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an
2 amount according to proof.
3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4 Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment
5 (Against Defendants Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and DOES 1 through 25)
6 51. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges by reference all previous paragraphs, and each
7 and every part thereof, of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth
8 herein.
9 52. Defendants and each of them knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff was
10 being subjected to a work environment in which his race/national origin and gender were
11 substantial factors in his being subjected to a severe and pervasive pattern of discriminatory,
12 harassing, and retaliatory conduct as well as adverse employment actions being taken against
13 him.
14 53. Defendants and each of them knew, or should have known, of the unlawful
15 conduct to which Plaintiff was being subjected because he made numerous complaints to that
16 effect, and no action was taken to prevent the unlawful conduct from continuing. The actions
17 and failures to act as alleged herein constitute a failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent
18 discrimination from occurring, in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(k).
19 54. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and
20 intentional discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff in the workplace, and its failure to
21 prevent same, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, humiliation, stress, anxiety,
22 and emotional distress, all of which are not currently ascertained, but which will be proven at
23 trial. The unlawful conduct to which Plaintiff has been subjected materially interfered with his
24 ability to perform one or more of his essential job functions, thereby causing him loss and
25 damage to his professional reputation and to the opportunity to advance in his career with Bell.
26 55. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct
27 as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other
28 employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount not currently ascertained, but which
12
1 will be proven at trial. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to general and compensatory damages in
2 an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
3 56. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants FEHA violations
4 as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an effort to
5 enforce the terms and conditions of the employment relationship with Defendants, and to
6 redress its violation of the FEHA and has, thereby, incurred and will continue to incur legal fees
7 and costs, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff, but which are
8 recoverable at trial.
9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(h)
11 (Against Defendants Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and DOES 1 through 25)
14 herein.
15 58. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was engaged in protected activities in
16 reporting and complaining about conduct by, among others, his former supervisor and Defendant
17 Hankins, that he believed was unethical, illegal, and discriminatory under the laws of the State of
18 California, to responsible agents and employees of Defendant Bell.
19 59. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Plaintiff’s having engaged in protected
20 activities as alleged herein, Defendant Bell took adverse employment actions against him as
21 herein alleged.
23 that, given the close proximity in time between Plaintiff’s having engaged in the protected
24 activities as alleged herein and the adverse employment actions that were taken against him, a
25 legal nexus and causal link exists between those protected actions and the adverse employment
26 actions taken against his by Defendants as alleged herein.
27 61. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendant’s willful, knowing, and
28 intentional retaliation against Plaintiff in the workplace, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue
13
1 to suffer pain, humiliation, stress, anxiety, and emotional distress, all of which are not currently
2 ascertained, but which will be proven at trial. Plaintiff was further prevented from performing
3 one or more of his essential job functions, thereby causing him loss and damage to his professional
4 reputation and opportunity to advance in his career with Bell.
5 62. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendant’s willful, knowing,
6 and intentional discrimination/retaliation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue
7 to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount not
8 currently ascertained, but which will be proven at trial. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to general
9 and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
10 63. As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants’ violation of the
11 FEHA as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an effort
12 to enforce the terms and conditions of the employment relationship with Defendant Bell and to
13 redress its violation of the FEHA and has, thereby, incurred and will continue to incur legal fees
14 and costs, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff but which are
15 recoverable at trial.
16 64. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and
17 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
18 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled
19 to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to
20 proof.
21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5
23 (As Against Defendants Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and DOES 1 through 25)
26 herein.
27 66. Subsection (b) of Labor Code Section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation by an employer
28 against an employee who discloses information about a violation of state or federal statute; and/or
14
1 refuses to participate in an activity that would result in violation of a state or federal statute, or a
2 violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation; subsection (c)
3 prohibits retaliation against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result
4 in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with local, state, or
5 federal rule or regulation. The California Legislature enacted Labor Code § 1102.5 (b) and (c)
6 with the express intent “to protect employees who refuse to act at the direction of their employer
7 or refuse to participate in activities of an employer that would result in a violation of law.”
8 67. As more fully alleged herein, Plaintiff engaged in protected activities, and is
9 therefore protected by the mandates of Labor Code § 1102.5(b) and (c). Plaintiff disclosed
10 information to Defendants regarding what he believed to be violations of California Gov’t Code
11 § 12940(h) and federal employment laws. As a result, and shortly following his having engaged
12 in such protected activities, Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment action(s) in violation
13 of Labor Code Section 1102.5.
14 68. After making his complaints, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by engaging
15 in the conduct alleged herein. To the extent that one or more individuals participated in such
16 conduct, that conduct is imputed to Defendant Bell as those individuals were agents of Defendant
17 who had supervisory responsibilities over Plaintiff.
18 69. At all relevant times, Plaintiff reasonably believed that he was complaining about
19 unlawful discrimination based on his status as herein alleged as well as illegal acts and/or
20 omissions which Plaintiff reasonably believed to be unlawful, unethical, and/or against Bell
21 Helicopter Textron Inc.’s established or purported policies.
22 70. DEFENDANTS’ conduct constituted unlawful retaliation in employment based
23 upon Plaintiff’s having engaged in the protected activities as alleged herein, in violation of Labor
24 Code section 1102.5, et seq.
25 71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct as
26 alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses in earnings, future
27 earnings, bonuses, retirement, deferred compensation, and other employment benefits, in an
28 amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff has also suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional
15
1 distress, including: mental anguish, outrage, frustration, severe anxiety about his future, harm to
2 employability, damage to his reputation, embarrassment, and disruption of his personal life.
3 Plaintiff is thus entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses, and hereby demands
4 an award of compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount according to proof at trial.
5 72. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful retaliatory actions against
6 Plaintiff, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, attorneys’ fees and legal expenses, and
7 hereby requests recovery of their attorneys’ fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof
8 at trial.
9 73. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and
10 oppressively, with a wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff, with an evil motive amounting to malice,
11 and with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s right to be free from unlawful
12 harassment/retaliation. Plaintiff is entitled to receive, and hereby demands, an award of punitive
13 damages from these Defendants in an amount according to proof at trial.
14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Hostile Work Environment
16 (As Against Defendants Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. and DOES 1 through 25)
19 herein.
20 75. Plaintiff was at all relevant times herein employed by Defendant Bell. As alleged
21 above, Defendants, and each of them, and their respective employees, subjected Plaintiff to a
22 continuous, pervasive and severe pattern of unwanted harassing conduct based upon Plaintiff’s
23 race/national origin, disability, and gender.
24 76. The unwanted harassing and discriminatory conduct as alleged herein
25 commenced in approximately 2016 and continued unabated through the date of Plaintiff’s
26 separation from his employment with Defendant Bell herein.
27
28
16
1 77. The nature of the discriminatory and harassing conduct was of such severity and
2 pervasiveness that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the
3 work environment to be hostile or abusive.
4 78. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be both hostile and abusive and
5 made complaints to that effect to his direct supervisors at Bell. Rather than taking appropriate
6 action, Defendant Bell sanctioned the unlawful conduct based upon PLAINTIFF’S membership
7 in one or more protected classes.
9 that the conduct complained of herein was carried out at the direction of Defendant Hankins and
10 others in their respective capacities as employees with supervisory authority over Plaintiff.
11 Defendant Bell knew, or should have known, of the unlawful conduct and failed to take
12 immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent the conduct from occurring.
13 80. As a direct result of Defendant Bell’s willful, knowing, intentional, severe and
14 pervasive failure to prevent the hostile and abusive work environment as described herein,
15 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment
16 benefits.
17 81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bell’s willful, knowing and
18 intentional violation and failure to prevent the hostile and abusive work environment as alleged
19 herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to,
20 humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical illness, pain and anguish, all to his damage
21 in a sum according to proof.
22 82. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees
23 which are recoverable at trial. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the precise amount of these
24 expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this complaint when those amounts are more
25 fully known.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
17
1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Constructive Termination
4 83. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all previous allegations in this
5 Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
6 84. Defendant Bell, acting by and through, among others, Defendant Hankins in his
7 capacity as one of Plaintiff’s direct supervisors, intentionally created or knowingly permitted
8 working conditions to exist that were so intolerable that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s
9 position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign his/her position.
10 85. As a direct and proximate result of the working conditions that existed at
11 Defendant Bell during the course of Plaintiff’s employment as alleged herein, Plaintiff was left
12 with no alternative but to resign from his position because of those intolerable working
13 conditions.
14 86. As a direct result of Defendant Bell’s willful, knowing, intentional, severe, and
15 pervasive failure to prevent the hostile and abusive work environment, Plaintiff has sustained
16 and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits.
18 intentional failure to prevent the hostile and abusive work environment as alleged herein,
19 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, humiliation,
20 emotional distress, mental and physical illness, pain and anguish, all in a sum to be proven at
21 trial.
24 expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this complaint when those amounts are
25 more fully known
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
18
1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Violation of Labor Code § § 1101 and 1102
4 89. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all previous allegations in this
5 Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
6 90. Labor Code § 1101 provides; “No employer shall make, adopt or enforce any
7 rule, regulation or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating
8 in politics, or (b) Controlling or directing the political activities or affiliations of employees.”
9 91. Further, Labor Code § 1102 provides: “No employer shall coerce or influence
10 his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or
11 follow any line of political action or political activity.”
12 92. By requiring Plaintiff to cease his political work in Wales, forcing Plaintiff to
13 choose between his political efforts or his job, and forcing Plaintiff to remove all political
14 statements made on his personal social media, Defendants committed violations
15 of sections 1101 and 1102.
17 intentional failure to prevent the hostile and abusive work environment as alleged herein,
18 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, humiliation,
19 emotional distress, mental and physical illness, pain and anguish, all in a sum to be proven at
20 trial.
23 expenses and fees and prays leave of court to amend this complaint when those amounts are
24 more fully known
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
19
1 VII.
2 PRAYER
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
4 follows:
5 1. For general and special damages according to proof;
6 2. For compensatory damages according to proof;
7 3. For punitive damages as against permitted by law;
8 4. For prejudgment interest on such damages as may be authorized by law;
9 5. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and
10 6. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
11
12 Dated: January 15, 2021 DONALD R. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC
13
14
By: ____________________________________
15 Nia K. Perkins, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
16 TYWYSOG LLYWELYN JONES CYMRU,
fka LAWRENCE JOSEPH JONES JR.
17
18
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
19
PLAINTIFF hereby demands a trial by jury.
20
21
22 Dated: January 15, 2021 DONALD R. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC

23
24
25 By: ____________________________________
Nia K. Perkins, Esq.
26 Attorney for Plaintiff,
TYWYSOG LLYWELYN JONES CYMRU,
27 fka LAWRENCE JOSEPH JONES JR.
28
20
1 Tywysog Llywelyn Jones Cymru v. Bell Helicopter Textron. Inc.. et al
San Diego Superior Court Case No.: 37-2020-00040580-CU-OE-CTL
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 I am, and was at the time of service of the papers herein referred to, over the age of 18
5 years, and not a party to the action. I am employed in the County of San Diego, California, in
6 which county the within-mentioned service occurred. My mailing address is 5030 Camino de la
7 Siesta, Suite 350, San Diego, California 92108.
On January 15, 2021,1 served a true and correct copy of the following document(s):
I FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1: Discrimination Based on Race/National
9 Origin, Disability, and Gender (Gov't Code §§ 12940 et seq.); 2. Harassment Based on
Race/National Origin, Disability, and Gender (Gov't Code §§ 12940 et seq.); 3. Failure to
Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (Gov't Code § 12940(k); 4) Retaliation in Violation of
11 Government Code § 12940 (h); 5. Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §
1102.5; 6. Hostile Work Environment; and 7. Constructive Termination; 8. VioLation of Labor
12 Code § 1101 and 1103.
13 on the parties in this action addressed as follows:
14 Tracie Childs
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
16 San Diego, CA 92122
T: 858-652-3100; F: 858-652-3101
17 Tracie.childs(%osletree.com
ATTORNEYS FOR BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC. AND TOBIAS HANKINS
18 || """"—-"—————-—-
BY MAIL: I placed true copies of the above-referenced documents in sealed envelope(s))
addressed as indicated above with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the)
firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the^
U.S. Postal Service on that same date of this Declaration, in the ordinary course of business.
21 || El BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an

agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
documents to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address listed above. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that
the transmission was unsuccessful.
24 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
25 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 15, 2021, at San Diego, California.
26
27 /1,^ ^
2g Martha Villavicenzlo
1
PROOF OF SERVICE

Complaint For Damages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint For Damages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Donald R. Holben, Esq.

8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL DIVISION

25 TYWYSOG LLYWELYN JONES CYMRU, fka LAWRENCE JOSEPH JONES JR.

2 NATURE OF THE CASE

12 County of San Diego, in the State of California.

15 and/or conducted business in the County of San Diego, State of California.

20 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, representative, or

23 names and capacities of said Defendants when they are ascertained.

3 and in concert or conspiracy with the named Defendants.

7 Diego, State of California.

9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14 within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process.

20 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

23 agency, which was issued on or about February 19, 2020.

4 administers the affairs of the exiled Welsh government.

7 being granted on or about March 6, 2017.

9 received positive customer feedback regarding his performance. Plaintiff’s performance

11 entire company for FY2016 Q1.

14 his dislike for Plaintiff.

20 lunch breaks on time.”

22 Subsequently, Plaintiff was effectively ostracized by the entire office.

14 was terminated from his position in or about January 2018.

13 Wales and England.

15 diplomatic protest of the unlawful annexation of Wales.

28 had been doing for Wales.

15 that “what comes around goes around.”

17 herein to the DFEH.

21 his employment with Defendant Bell.

26 Plaintiff thereafter repatriated to the United States on or about October 1, 2018.

3 period of FMLA leave, his “availability and dependability” were questionable.

3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

11 general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

22 amount according to proof at trial.

23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

4 her race/national origin, disability, or gender. Due to Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff as

13 opportunity to advance in his career with Defendant Bell.

18 compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

2 amount according to proof.

3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

4 Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment

18 discrimination from occurring, in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(k).

2 an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(h)

18 California, to responsible agents and employees of Defendant Bell.

26 actions taken against his by Defendants as alleged herein.

4 reputation and opportunity to advance in his career with Bell.

9 and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22 Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5

4 in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with local, state, or

7 or refuse to participate in activities of an employer that would result in a violation of law.”

10 information to Defendants regarding what he believed to be violations of California Gov’t Code

13 of Labor Code Section 1102.5.

17 who had supervisory responsibilities over Plaintiff.

21 Helicopter Textron Inc.’s established or purported policies.

22 70. DEFENDANTS’ conduct constituted unlawful retaliation in employment based

24 Code section 1102.5, et seq.

25 71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct as

27 earnings, bonuses, retirement, deferred compensation, and other employment benefits, in an

4 an award of compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount according to proof at trial.

5 72. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful retaliatory actions against