1 MATTHEW J.

RUGGLES (SBN 173052)

RUGGLES LAW FIRM
2 7940 CALIFORNIA AVENUE
FAIR OAKS, CA 95628
3 TEL: (916) 758-8058
4 FAX: (916) 758-8048
[email protected]
5
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
6 GRANT NAPEAR
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 GRANT NAPEAR, Case No.

13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

vs.
14 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
15 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL 2. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
16 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
17 ACT;
Defendants. 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
18 THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
19 ACT;
4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
20
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
21 SECTIONS 1101 AND 1102

22 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 1-
 1 JURISDICTION
2 1. The United States District Court has original jurisdiction over this matter
3
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(1)(“diversity jurisdiction”) because there exists complete
4
diversity between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Specifically,
5
6 Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR alleges the following facts:

7 a. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR is a citizen of the State of California and at all

8
relevant times was a resident of Sacramento County, California.
9
b. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION is a Utah
10
corporation with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. At all relevant times,
11
12 Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION employed Plaintiff GRANT

13 NAPEAR in Sacramento, California.

14
c. Plaintiff’s damages (including lost and future wages, emotional distress
15
damages, and punitive damages) and reasonable attorney’s fees in this matter exceed
16
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
17
18 2. Venue in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is

19 proper because the injuries to Plaintiff occurred within the County of Sacramento.
20
3. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR filed a complaint
21
with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH Matter No. 202110-
22
23 15078714) and received a Right-to-Sue letter dated October 14, 2021.

24 4. The true names and capacities of the Defendants, DOES 1 through 50, whether
25 individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing this
26
Complaint and Plaintiff, therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names and will ask
27
leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show their true names or capacities when the same
28
have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 2-
 1 the DOE Defendants is, in some manner, responsible for the events and happenings herein set
2 forth and proximately caused injury and damages to the Plaintiff as herein alleged.
3
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein
4
mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, employee, servant, co-venturer, and/or
5
6 employee of each of the other Defendants and was at all times herein mentioned acting within

7 the scope of said agency, venture, and/or employment and with actual or ostensible authority
8 and/or agency and that each of the Defendants ratified the actions and/or conduct of the others.
9
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
10
6. GRANT NAPEAR has been a practicing member of the Unitarian Universalist
11
12 Church (“Unitarian Church”) his entire life. As a child growing up in New York, his family

13 attended the Unitarian Universalist Church located at 40 East 35th Street, in New York, New
14
York, where his father was an active and prominent member of the congregation. In fact,
15
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s middle name is Harrington, in recognition of the contributions
16
made by Reverend Donald Harrington who was appointed the minister of the Community
17
18 Church of the New York Unitarian Universalist in New York City in 1944.

19 7. As a devout member, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR has embraced and followed

20
the seven (7) Principles of the Unitarian Church which are as follows:
21
i. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
22
23 ii. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

24 iii. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our

congregations;
25
26 iv. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

27 v. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our
congregations and in society at large;
28
vi. The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 3-
 1 vii. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
2 8. In 1981, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR graduated from Bowling Green State
3
University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Broadcast Journalism.
4
9. In July of 1987, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR was hired by the Sacramento local
5
6 television station commonly known as Channel 31 to work as the Sports Director and to anchor

7 the sports segment of the daily news broadcast, Monday through Friday.
8 10. In 1988, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s job duties with Channel 31 were
9
expanded and he became the television play-by-play announcer for all televised basketball
10
games played by the Sacramento Kings, a part of the National Basketball Association.
11
12 11. In 1995, representatives from KHTK offered Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR a new

13 position as an on-air talk show host for a sports radio talk show. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
14 accepted the offer and created a radio talk show which began to air regionally throughout
15
Sacramento and the surrounding area from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
16
12. As part of his compensation for working as a radio talk show host, KHTK paid
17
18 Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR an annual salary. In addition to his salary, KHTK also paid

19 Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR compensation based upon advertising revenue paid by businesses
20
to advertise during his sport broadcast.
21
13. Within 1-2 years after starting his radio show, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s
22
radio program became the number one talk show host in his market share.
23
24 14. Each year, beginning in 1995 until approximately 2018, KHTK offered Plaintiff

25 GRANT NAPEAR an annual employment contract in connection with his radio show which
26
aired daily, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
27
15. At no time from 1995 through 2018 was Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR ever
28
subjected to any formal or informal discipline or suspension for any reason by KHTK.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 4-
 1 16. On or about September 21, 2018, Defendant BONNEVILLE
2 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION purchased KHTK.
3
17. In 2019, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
4
renewed Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract for his 26th consecutive year as
5
6 the host of the GRANT NAPEAR SHOW WITH DOUG CHRISTIE. The term of the

7 Employment Contract was from August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020.
8 18. Pursuant to his Employment Contract, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s job was to
9
provide services as an On-Air Talent for KHTK-AM.
10
19. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract obligated him to perform
11
12 his duties loyally and conscientiously at all times and to discharge all responsibilities and

13 obligations required of him to the best of his ability and experience and consistent with the
14 highest standards broadcast/media industry. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed to faithfully
15
adhere to and execute all lawful policies established from time to time by Defendant
16
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, including without limitation the
17
18 Company’s policies concerning equal employment opportunity and/or prohibiting of

19 harassment and discrimination.

20
20. During his employment with Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
21
CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR never violated any policies concerning equal
22
employment opportunity and/or prohibiting harassment and discrimination. Plaintiff GRANT
23
24 NAPEAR never was subject to any formal or informal discipline due to accusations of

25 misconduct arising from allegations of alleged harassment or discrimination, or any other form
26
of alleged immoral misconduct.
27
21. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Contract with Defendant
28
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 5-
 1 that he would refrain from any offense or distasteful remarks or conduct, the broadcast of
2 which would not be in the public interest or could jeopardize the Company’s federal license to
3
operate KHTK. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR also agreed to faithfully comply to the best of his
4
ability with all of the Company’s directives relating to on-air material and the manner of
5
6 delivering or using on air material. Finally, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed to act in

7 conformity with the public conventions and morals and not commit any act or do anything that
8 would be an offense involving moral turpitude under federal, state, or local law or which might
9
bring either himself or the Company into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, scorn, or ridicule
10
or otherwise injure the Company.
11
12 22. Notably, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

13 never furnished Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any directives concerning on-air material or
14 the manner in which he delivered or used on-air material.
15
23. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR accepted Defendant BONNEVILLE
16
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s renewed Employment Contract and worked his 26th
17
18 consecutive year on the GRANT NAPEAR SHOW WITH DOUG CHRISTIE starting August

19 1, 2019. His Employment Contract was scheduled to expire on July 31, 2020, unless renewed.
20
24. In May of 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
21
CORPORATION notified Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR of the Company’s intention to renew
22
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract for the succeeding year: 2020-2021.
23
24 25. Over the course of his 26-year broadcasting career, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR

25 became a prominent member of the media industry. Plaintiff interviewed hundreds and
26
hundreds of professional and Hall of Fame athletes in nearly all professional sports including
27
professional basketball players Chris Webber, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Shaquille
28
O'Neal, DeMarcus Cousins; professional football players Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 6-
 1 Steve Young, Aaron Rodgers; professional baseball players John Smoltz, Mark McGwire, Will
2 Clark, Jose Canseco, Steve Garvey as well as Major League managers including Dusty Baker,
3
Tony La Russa and Sparky Anderson. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR often was selected to work
4
for ESPN in a broadcast capacity and often substituted for a nationally known broadcaster, Jim
5
6 Rome, on the Jim Rome Show.

7 26. As recently as 2017, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences
8 awarded Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with a second Emmy Award for his broadcasting of the
9
Sacramento Kings basketball games.
10
27. Although his Employment Contract did not bar him from doing so, Plaintiff
11
12 GRANT NAPEAR believed that discussing religion or politics during a sports broadcast was

13 inappropriate on-air material and for that reason, always kept his religious and political beliefs
14 to himself.
15
28. During his broadcast career with KHTK, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR co-
16
founded the Future Foundation Sacramento, an organization created to provide volunteer
17
18 mentoring and scholarship funding to over 100 local students who were financially challenged,

19 in support of their college education. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR himself mentored five (5)
20
local Sacramento students who went on to graduate from college.
21
SOCIAL MEDIA PUBLICATION ON MAY 31, 2020
22
29. On the night of Sunday, May 31, 2020, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR was in the
23
24 privacy of his own home watching regional and national news broadcasts televising events

25 involving protests over the death of George Floyd in Minnesota.

26
30. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR received a tweet from
27
DeMarcus Cousins, a former Sacramento Kings Basketball player who asked him one
28
question: “What’s your take on BLM?”

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 7-
 1 31. Notably, DeMarcus Cousins’ tweet was not an unambiguous expression that
2 “Black Lives Matter.” What’s more, he did not solicit Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s support
3
for Black Lives Matter. On the contrary, DeMarcus Cousins only asked Plaintiff GRANT
4
NAPEAR for his opinion, i.e., what do you think of “Black Lives Matter”?
5
6 32. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR responded as follows: “Hey!!! How are you?

7 Thought you forgot about me. Haven’t heard from you in years. ALL LIVES
8 MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE.”
9
33. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s response to Demarcus Cousin’s inquiry was
10
merely an expression of Plaintiff’s opinion with regards to the sanctity of all lives and could
11
12 not, by any reasonable interpretation, be construed as a rejection, rebuke or repudiation of the

13 belief that the lives of Black people matter.

14 34. On Monday, June 1, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
15
CORPORATION’s representative, Steve Cottingham, informed Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
16
that Plaintiff was suspended from his radio show.
17
18 35. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR asked for an opportunity to return to his radio show

19 and explain on the air that his tweet to DeMarcus Cousins was intended to be inclusive of
20
Black Lives Matter by the phrase “EVERY SINGLE ONE.” Defendant BONNEVILLE
21
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION refused without any explanation or justification.
22
41. The next day, June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
23
24 CORPORATION summarily fired Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR, effective immediately, and

25 Plaintiff immediately was barred from the Company premises as if he were a criminal.
26
42. On June 3, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
27
CORPORATION informed the Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR that his termination was “For
28
Cause” as defined by his Employment Contract at paragraph 6(c)(7), which states:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 8-
 1 c. Cause Defined. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Cause” shall be
defined as any of the following conduct by Employee, as determined by the
2 Company in its reasonable discretion:
3
vii. Any act of material dishonesty, misconduct, or other conduct that
4 might discredit the goodwill, good name, or reputation of the Company.
5 43. No one from Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
6
ever informed Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR whether he was terminated for “material
7
dishonesty,” “misconduct,” or “other conduct that might discredit the goodwill, good name or
8
9 reputation of the Company.” Moreover, no one told Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR that his tweet

10 to Demarcus Cousins discredited the goodwill, good name or reputation of the Company.
11 44. Following his termination, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
12
CORPORAITON published on social media the following statement:
13
We were saddened by the comments Grant Napear recently made on Twitter.
14 While we appreciate Grant’s positive contributions to KHTK over the years, his
15 recent comments about the Black Lives Matter movement do not reflect the views
or values of Bonneville International Corporation. The timing of Grant’s tweet
16 was particularly insensitive. After reviewing the matter carefully, we have made
the difficult decision to part ways with Grant.
17
18 Bonneville’s purpose is to build up, connect, inform and celebrate communities
and families. In the wake of George Floyd’s tragic death and the events of the
19 last several days, it is crucial that we communicate the tremendous respect that we
have for the black community and any other groups or individuals who have
20
cause to feel marginalized. Bonneville remains committed to fostering calm and
21 promoting human dignity in the face of unrest. We plead to all to work together
for peace and mutual respect.
22
45. The reasonable and natural inference from Defendant BONNEVILLE
23
24 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s statement as shown above was that Plaintiff GRANT

25 NAPEAR was fired “for cause” because he is a racist and because he was “anti-BLM.” The
26
statement “ALL LIVES MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE” is, in fact, entirely non-racist,
27
factually true and inherently inoffensive. Moreover, Plaintiff’s tweet regarding the sanctity of
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 9-
 1 all lives was a direct reflection and expression of Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s sincerely held
2 religious belief as a Unitarian Universalist that all lives matter.
3
46. Prior to May 31, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
4
CORPORATION never provided Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any instruction or guidance,
5
6 as mandated by his Employment Contract, relative to his use of the phrase “ALL LIVES

7 MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE.”

8 47. Twitter, the internet-based social media platform Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
9
used to publish his tweet to DeMarcus Cousins, maintains and enforces strict rules and
10
regulations concerning content posted to its service. Twitter did not suspend or deactivate
11
12 Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s account due to his use of the phrase “ALL LIVES MATTER

13 EVERY SINGLE ONE.”

14 48. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination was the subject of numerous national
15
stories in both print media and broadcast media. The stories which were broadcast directly
16
referenced Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR, personally, and his use of the phrase “ALL LIVES
17
18 MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE.” In Sacramento, reports regarding Plaintiff GRANT

19 NAPEAR’s termination were printed in the Sacramento Bee and broadcast on all the local
20
television and radio channels.
21
49. Bill Maher, on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, and Joe Rogan, the host of
22
The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, talked about Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination and
23
24 the apparent unfairness of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s

25 hasty decision.
26
51. Indeed, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination has been held up in many
27
instances as an example of how the mere expression of protected speech, i.e., an opinion or a
28
religious belief, can result in the termination of an employee from any career.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 10-
 1 53. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s expression of his opinion, as a member of the
2 Unitarian Universalist Church, that “ALL LIVES MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE,” was a
3
true and honest reflection and expression of Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs as a
4
member of the Unitarian Church.
5
6 54. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion regarding the sanctity of all lives was not

7 an act of material dishonesty because his opinion did not involve such acts and statements as
8 lying, theft, making false entries on records and other actions showing a lack of truthfulness
9
and integrity.
10
55. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion regarding the sanctity of all lives was not
11
12 an act of misconduct. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION never

13 provided Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any guidance, restrictions or other instructions or
14 advice regarding how to respond to any questions regarding Black Lives Matter. The
15
expression of Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion during off-duty hours was not a violation
16
of any contract term or provision.
17
18 56. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR alleges he was terminated because he is a Caucasian

19 male who published a phrase on social media that Defendant BONNEVILLE

20
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION contends violated the Company’s ad hoc (and
21
unpublished) policy supporting Black Lives Matter. In fact, Plaintiff’s termination was a
22
brazen, unfair and wrong-headed act of discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff GRANT
23
24 NAPEAR because of Plaintiff’s Race, his Religion, his Gender, and his protected expression of

25 his personal political opinion.

26
60. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s decision to
27
falsely accuse Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR of racist misconduct and publicly terminate his
28
employment on the grounds he engaged in “material dishonesty and/or misconduct which

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 11-
 1 might discredit the goodwill, good name or reputation of the Company” has completely and
2 permanently damaged Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s 26-year Emmy award winning career as a
3
sports broadcaster in particular, and also has had serious negative effects on Plaintiff’s personal
4
life and his public reputation.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12 (WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY)

13 25. As a first, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
14 complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-
15
alleges all of the allegations in the Complaint, and incorporates them by reference into this
16
cause of action as though fully set forth herein.
17
18 26. On or about June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

19 CORPORATION terminated Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR in violation of the public policy set
20
forth in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code section
21
12940, et seq., California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102.
22
23 27. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION did the things

24 hereinabove alleged, intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously with an evil and malevolent
25
motive to injure Plaintiff. These acts, which resulted in Plaintiff’s wrongful termination against
26
public policy, were despicable, and ought not to be suffered by any member of the community.
27
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 12-
 1 28. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful
2 termination in violation of public policy, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including
3
back pay, front pay, equity, benefits and other compensation.
4
29. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
5
6 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the

7 Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

8 30. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
9
CORPORATION, its employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known,
10
ratified and approved by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE
11
12 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or

13 exemplary damages against Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

14 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
15
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
16 (DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT)
17
18 31. As a second, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR

19 complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-

20
alleges all of the allegations in the Complaint, and incorporates them by reference into this
21
cause of action as though fully set forth herein.
22
23 32. At all times herein mentioned, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act

24 (“FEHA”), California Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and
25
was fully binding upon Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.
26
Specifically, Government Code section 12940 prohibits an employer from discriminating
27
28 against an employee on the basis of the employee’s gender, race, religion, as well as other

protected bases.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 13-
 1 33. On or about June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
2 CORPORATION terminated Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR in violation of California
3
Government Code section 12940, et seq., based on false and pretextual reasons. Plaintiff
4
5 alleges that Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s decision and to

6 terminate Plaintiff’s employment was substantially motivated by illegal animus based upon
7
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Gender (male), Race (Caucasian) and Religion.
8
34. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful
9
10 actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front pay, equity, benefits

11 and other compensation.

12
35. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
13
Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the
14
15 Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

16 36. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

17
CORPORATION, its employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known,
18
ratified and approved by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE
19
20 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or

21 exemplary damages against Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

22 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
23
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT)
25 (Against All Defendants)
26
43. As a third, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
27
complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 14-
 1 alleges all of the allegations in the Complaint, and incorporates them by reference into this
2 cause of action as though fully set forth herein.
3
44. At all times herein mentioned, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
4
5 (“FEHA”), Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and was

6 fulling binding upon Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

7
Specifically, Government Code section 12940 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an
8
employer to discriminate and/or retaliate against any person because the person has opposed
9
10 any practices forbidden by the FEHA, or because the person has engaged in activity protected

11 by the FEHA.
12
45. During his employment with Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
13
CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR engaged in conduct protected by the Fair
14
15 Employment and Housing Act by asserting his sincerely held religious belief that “ALL LIVES

16 MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE,” as well as opposing other discriminatory, harassing and
17
retaliatory conduct in the workplace by Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
18
CORPORATION.
19
20 46. In retaliation for his protected conduct, Defendant BONNEVILLE
21 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION discriminated against Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
22
culminating in the wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment on June 2, 2020.
23
24 47. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,

25 Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front pay, equity, benefits and
26
other compensation.
27
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 15-
 1 48. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
2 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the
3
Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
4
5 49. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, its

6 employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved
7 by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
8
CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against
9
Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in an amount to be
10
11 determined at the time of trial.

12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
13 OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1101 AND 1102)
14
50. As a fourth, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
15
complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-
16
17 alleges all of the allegations in the Complaint, and incorporates them by reference into this
18 cause of action as though fully set forth herein.
19
51. In doing the things herein alleged, including the wrongful termination of
20
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s employment and as otherwise to be proven at trial, Defendant
21
22 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION violated Labor Code section 1101,

23 which provides that:

24
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
25
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics
26 or from becoming candidates for public office.
27
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities
28 or affiliations of employees.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 16-
 1 Additionally, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION violated Labor
2 Code section 1101, which provides that:
3
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his
4 employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to
adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line
5 of political action or political activity.
6
52. By retaliating against and terminating the employment of Plaintiff GRANT
7
NAPEAR for expressing that “ALL LIVES MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE,” Defendant
8
9 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION violated Labor Code sections 1101 and

10 1102.
11 53. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
12
Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front pay, equity, benefits and
13
14 other compensation.

15 54. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,

16
Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the
17
Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
18
19 55. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, its

20 employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved
21 by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
22
CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against
23
Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in an amount to be
24
25 determined at the time of trial.

26 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

27
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR prays for judgment against Defendant
28
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION as follows:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 17-
 1 1. For money judgment for mental pain, anguish and emotional distress, according
2 to proof;
3
2. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including lost past
4
5 and future wages and all other sums of money, including employment benefits,

6 together with interest on said amounts, and any other economic injury to
7
Plaintiff, according to proof;
8
3. For an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages against Defendant
9
10 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;

11 4. For costs of suit, including an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to California

12
Government Code section 12940, et seq. and/or any applicable statutory basis;
13
5. For prejudgment interest, according to statute;
14
15 6. For any other relief that is just and proper.

16 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

17
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR demands a trial of all issues by jury.
18
DATED: October 21, 2021 RUGGLES LAW FIRM
19
20 By: _/s/ Matthew J. Ruggles__________
MATTHEW J. RUGGLES
21 Attorney for Plaintiff
22 GRANT NAPEAR

23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 18-