NAPEAR - Complaint Filed 10-21-2021

Case 2:21-cv-01956-KJM-DB Document 1 Filed 10/21/21 Page 1 of 19
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 ACT;
17 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
Defendants. THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
18 EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;
4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
19 CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
SECTIONS 1101 AND 1102
20
21 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
22
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 pursuant
3
to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(1)(“diversity jurisdiction”) because there exists complete diversity
4
between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Specifically, Plaintiff
5
6 GRANT NAPEAR alleges the following facts:
7 a. At all relevant times, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR was a citizen of the State of
8
California and s 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 damages,
15
and punitive damages) and reasonable attorney’s fees in this matter exceed $75,000.00, exclusive
16
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
- 2-


1 have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of the
2 DOE Defendants is, in some manner, responsible for the events and happenings herein set forth
3
and proximately caused injury and damages to the Plaintiff as herein alleged.
4
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein
5
6 mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, employee, servant, co-venturer, and/or
7 employee of each of the other Defendants and was at all times herein mentioned acting within
8 the scope of said agency, venture, and/or employment and with actual or ostensible authority
9
and/or agency and that each of the Defendants ratified the actions and/or conduct of the others.
10
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
11
12 6. GRANT NAPEAR has been a practicing member of the Unitarian Universalist
13 Church (“Unitarian Church”) his entire life. As a child growing up in New York, his family
14
attended the Unitarian Universalist Church located at 40 East 35th Street, in New York, New
15
York, where his father was an active and prominent member of the congregation. In fact, Plaintiff
16
GRANT NAPEAR’s middle name is Harrington, in recognition of the contributions made by
17
18 Reverend Donald Harrington who was appointed the minister of the Community Church of the
19 New York Unitarian Universalist in New York City in 1944.

20
7. As a devout member, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR has embraced and followed the
21
seven (7) Principles of the Unitarian Church which are as follows:
22
23 i. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
24 ii. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

25 iii. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our
26 congregations;
27 iv. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

28
- 3-


1 v. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our
congregations and in society at large;
2
3 vi. The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
4 vii. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
5 8. In 1981, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR graduated from Bowling Green State
6
University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Broadcast Journalism.
7
9. In July of 1987, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR was hired by the Sacramento local
8
9 television station commonly known as Channel 31 to work as the Sports Director and to anchor
10 the sports segment of the daily news broadcast, Monday through Friday.
11 10. In 1988, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s job duties with Channel 31 were expanded
12
and he became the television play-by-play announcer for all televised basketball games played
13
by the Sacramento Kings, a part of the National Basketball Association.
14
15 11. In 1995, representatives from KHTK offered Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR a new
16 position as an on-air talk show host for a sports radio talk show. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
17
accepted the offer and created a radio talk show which began to air regionally throughout
18
Sacramento and the surrounding area from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
19
12. As part of his compensation for working as a radio talk show host, KHTK paid
20
21 Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR an annual salary. In addition to his salary, KHTK also paid Plaintiff
22 GRANT NAPEAR compensation based upon advertising revenue paid by businesses to advertise
23
during his sport broadcast.
24
13. Within 1-2 years after starting his radio show, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s radio
25
program became the number one talk show host in his market share.
26
27
28
- 4-


1 14. Each year, beginning in 1995 until approximately 2018, KHTK offered Plaintiff
2 GRANT NAPEAR an annual employment contract in connection with his radio show which
3
aired daily, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
4
15. At no time from 1995 through 2018 was Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR ever
5
6 subjected to any formal or informal discipline or suspension for any reason by KHTK.
7 16. On or about September 21, 2018, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

8 CORPORATION purchased KHTK.
9
17. In 2019, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
10
renewed Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract for his 26th consecutive year as
11
12 the host of the GRANT NAPEAR SHOW WITH DOUG CHRISTIE. The term of the
13 Employment Contract was from August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020.
14 18. Pursuant to his Employment Contract, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s job was to
15
provide services as an On-Air Talent for KHTK-AM.
16
19. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract obligated him to perform his
17
18 duties loyally and conscientiously at all times and to discharge all responsibilities and obligations
19 required of him to the best of his ability and experience and consistent with the highest standards
20
broadcast/media industry. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed to faithfully adhere to and execute
21
all lawful policies established from time to time by Defendant BONNEVILLE
22
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, including without limitation the Company’s policies
23
24 concerning equal employment opportunity and/or prohibiting of harassment and discrimination.
25 20. During his employment with Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

26
CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR never violated any policies concerning equal
27
employment opportunity and/or prohibiting harassment and discrimination. Plaintiff GRANT
28
- 5-


1 NAPEAR never was subject to any formal or informal discipline due to accusations of
2 misconduct arising from allegations of alleged harassment or discrimination, or any other form
3
of alleged immoral misconduct.
4
21. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Contract with Defendant
5
6 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed that
7 he would refrain from any offense or distasteful remarks or conduct, the broadcast of which
8 would not be in the public interest or could jeopardize the Company’s federal license to operate
9
KHTK. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR also agreed to faithfully comply to the best of his ability
10
with all of the Company’s directives relating to on-air material and the manner of delivering or
11
12 using on air material. Finally, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed to act in conformity with the
13 public conventions and morals and not commit any act or do anything that would be an offense
14 involving moral turpitude under federal, state, or local law or which might bring either himself
15
or the Company into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, scorn, or ridicule or otherwise injure
16
the Company.
17
18 22. Notably, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION never
19 furnished Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any directives concerning on-air material or the
20
manner in which he delivered or used on-air material.
21
23. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR accepted Defendant BONNEVILLE
22
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s renewed Employment Contract and worked his 26th
23
24 consecutive year on the GRANT NAPEAR SHOW WITH DOUG CHRISTIE starting August 1,
25 2019. His Employment Contract was scheduled to expire on July 31, 2020, unless renewed.
26
27
28
- 6-


1 24. In May of 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

2 CORPORATION notified Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR of the Company’s intention to renew
3
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract for the succeeding year: 2020-2021.
4
25. Over the course of his 26-year broadcasting career, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
5
6 became a prominent member of the media industry. Plaintiff interviewed hundreds and hundreds
7 of professional and Hall of Fame athletes in nearly all professional sports including professional
8 basketball players Chris Webber, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, DeMarcus
9
Cousins; professional football players Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott, Steve Young, Aaron
10
Rodgers; professional baseball players John Smoltz, Mark McGwire, Will Clark, Jose Canseco,
11
12 Steve Garvey as well as Major League managers including Dusty Baker, Tony La Russa and
13 Sparky Anderson. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR often was selected to work for ESPN in a
14 broadcast capacity and often substituted for a nationally known broadcaster, Jim Rome, on the
15
Jim Rome Show.
16
26. As recently as 2017, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences
17
18 awarded Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with a second Emmy Award for his broadcasting of the
19 Sacramento Kings basketball games.

20
27. Although his Employment Contract did not bar him from doing so, Plaintiff
21
GRANT NAPEAR believed that discussing religion or politics during a sports broadcast was
22
inappropriate on-air material and for that reason, always kept his religious and political beliefs
23
24 to himself.
25 28. During his broadcast career with KHTK, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR co-founded
26
the Future Foundation Sacramento, an organization created to provide volunteer mentoring and
27
scholarship funding to over 100 local students who were financially challenged, in support of
28
- 7-


1 their college education. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR himself mentored five (5) local Sacramento
2 students who went on to graduate from college.
3
SOCIAL MEDIA PUBLICATION ON MAY 31, 2020
4
29. On the night of Sunday, May 31, 2020, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR was in the
5
6 privacy of his own home watching regional and national news broadcasts televising events
7 involving protests over the death of George Floyd in Minnesota.

8 30. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR received a tweet from
9
DeMarcus Cousins, a former Sacramento Kings Basketball player who asked him one question:
10
“What’s your take on BLM?”
11
12 31. Notably, DeMarcus Cousins’ tweet was not an unambiguous expression that
13 “Black Lives Matter.” What’s more, he did not solicit Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s support for
14
Black Lives Matter. On the contrary, DeMarcus Cousins only asked Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
15
for his opinion, i.e., what do you think of “Black Lives Matter”?
16
32. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR responded as follows: “Hey!!! How are you?
17
18 Thought you forgot about me. Haven’t heard from you in years. ALL LIVES
19 MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE.”

20
33. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s response to Demarcus Cousin’s inquiry was merely
21
an expression of Plaintiff’s opinion with regards to the sanctity of all lives and could not, by any
22
reasonable interpretation, be construed as a rejection, rebuke or repudiation of the belief that the
23
24 lives of Black people matter.
25 34. On Monday, June 1, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

26
CORPORATION’s representative, STEVE COTTINGIM, informed Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
27
that Plaintiff was suspended from his radio show.
28
- 8-


1 35. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR asked for an opportunity to return to his radio show
2 and explain on the air that his tweet to DeMarcus Cousins was intended to be inclusive of Black
3
Lives Matter by the phrase “EVERY SINGLE ONE.” Defendant BONNEVILLE
4
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION refused without any explanation or justification.
5
6 36. The next day, June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
7 CORPORATION summarily fired Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR, effective immediately, and

8 Plaintiff immediately was barred from the Company premises as if he were a criminal.
9
37. On June 3, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
10
CORPORATION informed the Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR that his termination was “For Cause”
11
12 as defined by his Employment Contract at paragraph 6(c)(7), which states:
13 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
14 Company in its reasonable discretion:
15
vii. Any act of material dishonesty, misconduct, or other conduct that
16 might discredit the goodwill, good name, or reputation of the Company.
17
38. No one from Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
18
ever informed Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR whether he was terminated for “material dishonesty,”
19
“misconduct,” or “other conduct that might discredit the goodwill, good name or reputation of
20
21 the Company.” Moreover, no one told Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR that his tweet to Demarcus
22 Cousins discredited the goodwill, good name or reputation of the Company.

23
39. Following his termination, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
24
CORPORAITON published on social media the following statement:
25
We were saddened by the comments Grant Napear recently made on Twitter.
26
While we appreciate Grant’s positive contributions to KHTK over the years, his
27 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 was
28
- 9-


1 particularly insensitive. After reviewing the matter carefully, we have made the
difficult decision to part ways with Grant.
2
3 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 last
4 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 cause to
5 feel marginalized. Bonneville remains committed to fostering calm and promoting
6 human dignity in the face of unrest. We plead to all to work together for peace and
mutual respect.
7
40. The reasonable and natural inference from Defendant BONNEVILLE
8
9 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s statement as shown above was that Plaintiff GRANT
10 NAPEAR was fired “for cause” because he is a racist and because he was “anti-BLM.” The
11 statement “ALL LIVES MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE” is, in fact, entirely non-racist,
12
factually true and inherently inoffensive. Moreover, Plaintiff’s tweet regarding the sanctity of
13
all lives was a direct reflection and expression of Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s sincerely held
14
15 religious belief as a Unitarian Universalist that all lives matter.
16 41. Prior to May 31, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

17
CORPORATION never provided Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any instruction or guidance,
18
as mandated by his Employment Contract, relative to his use of the phrase “ALL LIVES
19
MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE.”
20
21 42. Twitter, the internet-based social media platform Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
22 used to publish his tweet to DeMarcus Cousins, maintains and enforces strict rules and
23
regulations concerning content posted to its service. Twitter did not suspend or deactivate
24
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s account due to his use of the phrase “ALL LIVES MATTER
25
EVERY SINGLE ONE.”
26
27
28
- 10-


1 43. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination was the subject of numerous national
2 stories in both print media and broadcast media. The stories which were broadcast directly
3
referenced Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR, personally, and his use of the phrase “ALL LIVES
4
MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE.” In Sacramento, reports regarding Plaintiff GRANT
5
6 NAPEAR’s termination were printed in the Sacramento Bee and broadcast on all the local
7 television and radio channels.

8 44. Bill Maher, on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, and Joe Rogan, the host of The
9
Joe Rogan Experience podcast, talked about Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination and the
10
apparent unfairness of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s hasty
11
12 decision.
13 45. Indeed, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination has been held up in many
14 instances as an example of how the mere expression of protected speech, i.e., an opinion or a
15
religious belief, can result in the termination of an employee from any career.
16
46. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s expression of his opinion, as a member of the
17
18 Unitarian Universalist Church, that “ALL LIVES MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE,” was a true
19 and honest reflection and expression of Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs as a member
20
of the Unitarian Church.
21
47. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion regarding the sanctity of all lives was not
22
an act of material dishonesty because his opinion did not involve such acts and statements as
23
24 lying, theft, making false entries on records and other actions showing a lack of truthfulness and
25 integrity.
26
48. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion regarding the sanctity of all lives was not
27
an act of misconduct. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION never
28
- 11-


1 provided Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any guidance, restrictions or other instructions or
2 advice regarding how to respond to any questions regarding Black Lives Matter. The expression
3
of Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion during off-duty hours was not a violation of any contract
4
term or provision.
5
6 49. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR alleges he was terminated because he is a Caucasian
7 male who published a phrase on social media that Defendant BONNEVILLE

8 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION contends violated the Company’s ad hoc (and
9
unpublished) policy supporting Black Lives Matter. In fact, Plaintiff’s termination was a brazen,
10
unfair and wrong-headed act of discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff GRANT
11
12 NAPEAR because of Plaintiff’s Race, his Religion, his Gender, and his protected expression of
13 his personal political opinion.

14 50. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s decision to
15
falsely accuse Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR of racist misconduct and publicly terminate his
16
employment on the grounds he engaged in “material dishonesty and/or misconduct which might
17
18 discredit the goodwill, good name or reputation of the Company” has completely and
19 permanently damaged Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s 26-year Emmy award winning career as a
20
sports broadcaster in particular, and also has had serious negative effects on Plaintiff’s personal
21
life and his public reputation.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12-


1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY)
2
3 51. As a first, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
4 complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-

5 alleges all of the allegations in the Complaint, and incorporates them by reference into this cause
6
of action as though fully set forth herein.
7
52. On or about June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
8
9 CORPORATION terminated Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR in violation of the public policy set
10 forth in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code section
11
12940, et seq., California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102.
12
53. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION did the things
13
14 hereinabove alleged, intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously with an evil and malevolent
15 motive to injure Plaintiff. These acts, which resulted in Plaintiff’s wrongful termination against
16
public policy, were despicable, and ought not to be suffered by any member of the community.
17
54. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful termination
18
in violation of public policy, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front
19
20 pay, equity, benefits and other compensation.
21 55. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,

22
Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the
23
Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
24
25 56. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
26 its employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved
27 by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
28
- 13-


1 CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against

2 Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in an amount to be determined
3
at the time of trial.
4
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
6 CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT)
7 57. As a second, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
8
complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-
9
alleges all of the allegations in the Complaint, and incorporates them by reference into this cause
10
11 of action as though fully set forth herein.
12 58. At all times herein mentioned, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
13
(“FEHA”), California Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and
14
was fully binding upon Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.
15
16 Specifically, Government Code section 12940 prohibits an employer from discriminating against
17 an employee on the basis of the employee’s gender, race, religion, as well as other protected
18
bases.
19
59. On or about June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
20
21 CORPORATION terminated Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR in violation of California Government
22 Code section 12940, et seq., based on false and pretextual reasons. Plaintiff alleges that
23
Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s decision and to terminate
24
25 Plaintiff’s employment was substantially motivated by illegal animus based upon Plaintiff
26 GRANT NAPEAR’s Gender (male), Race (Caucasian) and Religion.

27
28
- 14-


1 60. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful actions,
2
Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front pay, equity, benefits and other
3
compensation.
4
6 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the
7
8
62. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
9
10 its employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved
11 by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

12 CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against
13
Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in an amount to be determined
14
at the time of trial.
15
16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
17 CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT)
(Against All Defendants)
18
19 63. As a third, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR

21
22
23
24 64. At all times herein mentioned, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
25 (“FEHA”), Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and was fulling
26
binding upon Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. Specifically,
27
28
- 15-


1 Government Code section 12940 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
2
discriminate and/or retaliate against any person because the person has opposed any practices
3
forbidden by the FEHA, or because the person has engaged in activity protected by the FEHA.
4
5 65. During his employment with Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
6 CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR engaged in conduct protected by the Fair

7
Employment and Housing Act by asserting his sincerely held religious belief that “ALL LIVES
8
MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE,” as well as opposing other discriminatory, harassing and
9
10 retaliatory conduct in the workplace by Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
11 CORPORATION.
12
66. In retaliation for his protected conduct, Defendant BONNEVILLE
13
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION discriminated against Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
14
15 culminating in the wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment on June 2, 2020.

17
18
compensation.
19
21 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the
22
23
24 69. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, its
25 employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved by
26 the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
27
CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against
28
- 16-



2 at the time of trial.
3
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1101 AND 1102)
5
6 70. As a fourth, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR

8
9
10
11 71. In doing the things herein alleged, including the wrongful termination of Plaintiff
12 GRANT NAPEAR’s employment and as otherwise to be proven at trial, Defendant

13
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION violated Labor Code section 1101, which
14
provides that:
15
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
16
17 (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics
or from becoming candidates for public office.
18
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities
19
or affiliations of employees.
20
Additionally, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION violated Labor
21
Code section 1101, which provides that:
22
23 No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his
employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to
24 adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line
25 of political action or political activity.
26 72. By retaliating against and terminating the employment of Plaintiff GRANT

27 NAPEAR for expressing that “ALL LIVES MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE,” Defendant
28
- 17-


1 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION violated Labor Code sections 1101 and

2 1102.
3
73. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
4
5
6 compensation.

8
Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to the
9
10 Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
11 75. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, its

12 employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved by
13
the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
14
CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against
15
17 at the time of trial.

18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR prays for judgment against Defendant
20
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION as follows:
21
22 1. For money judgment for mental pain, anguish and emotional distress, according
23 to proof;
24
2. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including lost past
25
26 and future wages and all other sums of money, including employment benefits,
27
28
- 18-


1 together with interest on said amounts, and any other economic injury to Plaintiff,
2
according to proof;
3
3. For an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages against Defendant
4
5 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;
6 4. For costs of suit, including an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to California

7
Government Code section 12940, et seq. and/or any applicable statutory basis;
8
5. For prejudgment interest, according to statute;
9
10 6. For any other relief that is just and proper.
11 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

12
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR demands a trial of all issues by jury.
13
DATED: October 21, 2021 RUGGLES LAW FIRM
14
15 By: _/s/ Matthew J. Ruggles__________
MATTHEW J. RUGGLES
16 Attorney for Plaintiff
GRANT NAPEAR
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19-

NAPEAR - Complaint Filed 10-21-2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

NAPEAR - Complaint Filed 10-21-2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-01956-KJM-DB Document 1 Filed 10/21/21 Page 1 of 19

1 MATTHEW J. RUGGLES (SBN 173052)

13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

13 NAPEAR in Sacramento, California.

19 New York Unitarian Universalist in New York City in 1944.

24 ii. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

27 iv. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

7 16. On or about September 21, 2018, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

25 20. During his employment with Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

1 24. In May of 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

19 Sacramento Kings basketball games.

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

19 MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE.”

25 34. On Monday, June 1, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

7 CORPORATION summarily fired Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR, effective immediately, and

22 Cousins discredited the goodwill, good name or reputation of the Company.

16 41. Prior to May 31, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

7 television and radio channels.

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

13 his personal political opinion.

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

4 complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-

21 55. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,

1 CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against

26 GRANT NAPEAR’s Gender (male), Race (Caucasian) and Religion.

11 by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL

20 complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-

6 CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR engaged in conduct protected by the Fair

16 67. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,

1 Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in an amount to be determined

7 complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-

12 GRANT NAPEAR’s employment and as otherwise to be proven at trial, Defendant

26 72. By retaliating against and terminating the employment of Plaintiff GRANT

1 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION violated Labor Code sections 1101 and

7 74. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,

11 75. All actions of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, its

17 at the time of trial.

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

11 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

You might also like