is r71 is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management:

2. This case I 1

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): — Russell M. Perry, SBN 246252

LACKIE, DAMMEIER & MCGILL, APC 367 N. Second Avenue Upland, CA 91786

TELEPHONE NO.: 909-985-4003 FAX NO 909-985-3299 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff, Val Graham

— ...

FOR COURT USE ONLY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Riverside STREET ADDRESS: 4050 Main St. MAILING ADDRESS: Same

CITY AND ZIP CODE: Riverside, CA 92501-3703 BRANCH NAME: Riverside Court

CASE NAME:

Val Graham v. City of Riverside, et al.; CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER:

gliC A 1120 5 6 3 Unlimited I Limited (Amount (Amount demanded demanded is exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less)

I Counter I Joinder

Filed with first appearance by defendant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)

JUDGE:

DEPT:

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1 . Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract

Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

Uninsured motorist (46)

Other PI/PM/VD (Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death) Tort

Asbestos (04)

Product liability (24)

Medical malpractice (45)

Other PI/PD/WD (23)

Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort

Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Civil rights (08)

Defamation (13)

Fraud (16)

Intellectual property (19)

Professional negligence (25)

Other non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) Employment

Wrongful termination (36)

Other employment (15)

Rule 3.740 collections (09)

Other collections (09)

Insurance coverage (18)

Other contract (37) Real Property Eminent domain/Inverse

condemnation (14)

Wrongful eviction (33)

Other real property (26)

Unlawful Detainer

Commercial (31)

Residential (32)

Drugs (38)

Judicial Review

Asset forfeiture (05)

Petition re: arbitration award (11)

Writ of mandate (02)

Other judicial review (39)

Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)

Construction defect (10)

Mass tort (40)

Securities litigation (28)

Environmental/Toxic tort (30)

Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

RICO (27)

Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition

Partnership and corporate governance (21)

Other petition (not specified above) (43)

a. I Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. I Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. I Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.I 3 I monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. I punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): Three 5. This case I is I 3 is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You ma se rm CM-015.)

Date: July 18, 2011 Russell M. Perry

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

(SIGNATU OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)

NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed

under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.

• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all

other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.

Page 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial Council of California CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740; Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10

www.courtinfo.ca.gov American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWoMow.com

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-010

To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.

To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.

To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex.

CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal.

Auto (22)—Personal Injury/Property Breach of ContractNVarranty (06) Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)

Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) motorist claim subject to Contract/Warranty Breach—Seller Securities Litigation (28) arbitration, check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims

Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Warranty (arising from provisionally complex Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Other Breach,of Contract/Warranty case type listed above) (41) Tort Collections (e.g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment

Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgment (20) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment (Out of Asbestos Personal Injury/ Other Promissory Note/Collections County)

Wrongful Death Case Confession of Judgment (non- Product Liability (not asbestos or Insurance Coverage (not provisionally domestic relations)

complex) (18) Sister State Judgment toxic/environmental Medical Malpractice (45

) (24) Award (45) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency

Medical Malpractice— Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37) Petition/Certification of Entry of

Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment

Other PI/PD/WD (23) Real Property Case

Premises Liability (e.g., slip Eminent Domain/Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

and fall) Condemnation (14) RICO (27)

Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/VVD Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) (e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)

Intentional Infliction of Writ of Possession of Real Property Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure harassment) Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title' Mechanics Lien Emotional Distress Other Real Property (not eminent

Other PI/PD/WD domain, landlord/tenant, or Other Commercial Complaint

Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort foreclosure) Case (non-tort/non-complex)

Business Tort/Unfair Business Unlawful Detainer Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex)

Practice (07) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, Residential (32) Partnership and Corporate

false arrest) (not civil Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal Governance (21) harassment) (08) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Other Petition (not specified Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) above) (43) (13) Judicial Review Civil Harassment Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Workplace Violence Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Elder/Dependent Adult Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Abuse Legal Malpractice Writ—Administrative Mandamus Election Contest

Other Professional Malpractice Writ—Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change (not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late

Other Non-PUPD/WD Tort (35) Writ—Other Limited Court Case Claim Employment Review Other Civil Petition Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judicial Review (39) Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order

Notice of Appeal—Labor Commissioner Appeals

CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] Page 2 of 2 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcci6n y el namero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Russell M. Perry, LACKIE DAMMEIER & MCGILL,' APC 367 N. Second Avenue, Upland, CA 91786 (909) 985-4003

JUL 1 0 2011 DATE: (Fecha)

Clerk, by qanChe

(Secretario)

I American LegalNet, Inc.

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465

I www.USCourtForms.coml

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California

SUM-100 [Rev. January 1, 2004) SUMMONS

SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO):

CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE,

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): VAL GRAHAM,

SUM-100 FOR COURT USE ONLY

(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)

FOLED gungramarprogro416

JUL 1 9 2011

A. Sanchez

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org ), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.

Tiene 30 DiAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citation y papeles legales para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carte o una Ilamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mss information en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselfhelp/espanoll), en la biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mss cerca. Si no puede pager la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exenciOn de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra guitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mss advertencia.

Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/espanol/) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales.

The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): Riverside County Superior Court - Civil Department

CASE NUMBER (Ndmero del Caso):

4050 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501-3703

Deputy (Adjunto)

(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).

• NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served [SEAL] 1. I as an individual defendant.

2. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

3. on behalf of (specify):

under CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

other (specify): 4. I J by personal delivery on (date):

Page 1 of 1

Signed by: c.-..---)V ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S)

SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

El BANNING 155 E. Hays, Banning, CA 92220

MURRIETA 30755-D Auld Road, Murrieta, CA 92563

0 BLYTHE 265 North Broadway, Blythe, CA 92225

RIVERSIDE 4050 Main St., Riverside, CA 92501

0 HEMET 880 N. State St., Hemet, CA 92543

El RIVERSIDE 4175 Main St, Riverside, CA 92501

El INDIO 46-200 Oasis St., Indio, CA 92201

0 TEMECULA 41002 County Center Dr., #100, Temecula, CA 92591

Name and Address

Russell M. Perry, SBN: 246252 LACKIE, DAMMEIER & MCGILL, APC 367 N. Second Avenue Upland, CA 91786 Telephone: (909) 985-4003

Attorney for Plaintiff or Party without Attorney

Val Graham,

vs.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a municipality; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE;

FOLED., gupEmwentifErmenhoo.,

JUL 19 2011

A. Sanchez

Plaintiff(s)

Defendant(s)

CASE NO .

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

The undersigned certifies that this matter should be tried or heard in the Court for the following reason:

F1

The action arose in this judicial district.

The action concerns real property located in this judicial district.

The defendant resides in this judicial district.

Dated: 07/18/2011

OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY

(Rev. 07/01/2003) Martin Dean's Essential Forms TM

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Michael A. McGill, SBN 231613 mcgill@policeattorney.com Russell M. Perry, SBN 246252 russell@policeattorney.com LACKIE, DAMMEIER & MCGILL APC 367 North Second Avenue Upland, CA 91786 Tel: (909) 985-4003; Fax: (909) 985-3299

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Val Graham

FOLED IS UP EltOuRag glittirmir N

JUL 19 2011 A. Sanchez

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

I. FEHA DISCRIMINATION 2. FEHA RETALIATION 3. FAILURE TO TAKE

CORRECTIVE ACTION

CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE,

Defendant.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief for personal injury suffered by

the Plaintiff as a result of an unlawful discrimination and retaliation for reporting discrimination

under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").

2. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside in that

the wrongs alleged herein occurred within the City of Riverside, within the Court's jurisdiction.

1

Val Graham

Plaintiff,

VS .

COMPLAINT

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Val Graham is employed by Defendant City of Riverside in the capacity

of Police Sergeant with the Riverside Police Department, and as such is entitled to the benefits

and protections of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights ("POBOR") Act,

Government Code section 3300 et seq. Plaintiffs home address is confidential under Penal

Code §§146(e) and 832.7, and Vehicle Code §1808.4(a)(11). At all times relevant to the

allegations contained herein, Plaintiff has been a resident of Riverside County.

4. Defendant City of Riverside ("the City") is a duly constituted municipal

corporation operating under the laws of the State of California, wholly situated in the County of

Riverside. Riverside Police Department ("the Department") is an operating department of the

City. At all times relevant herein for all purposes connected with the management of

employment relations matters within the Riverside Police Department, the City delegated its

final policy-making authority to the remaining individual Defendants. The City adopted and

ratified each of their decisions as alleged herein as its own policies, customs, practices or

decisions, as if the same had been promulgated directly by the City.

5. BRAD HUDSON is City Manager for the City. In doing the things alleged

herein, Hudson acted under color of state law, within the course and scope of his employment,

and as an official policy-maker for the City. As City Manager, Hudson was vested with policy-

making authority over actions such as the ones at issue in this complaint.

6. TOM DESANTIS was Assistant City Manager for the City. In doing the things

alleged herein, DeSantis acted under color of state law, within the course and scope of his

employment, and as an official policy-maker for the City. As an Assistant City Manager,

DeSantis was vested with policy-making authority over actions such as the ones at issue in this

complaint.

7. JOHN DE LA ROSA, at relevant times herein, was acting Chief of Police for the

City. In doing the things alleged herein, De La Rosa acted under color of state law, within the

course and scope of his employment, and as an official policy-maker for the City. As a

2

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

r5 6 g

c4 0

W <

A E2 wo a a <

Department Head, De La Rosa was vested with policy-making authority over actions such as the

ones at issue in this complaint.

8. MICHAEL BLAKELY, at relevant times herein, was a Captain and/or Deputy

Chief for the City. In doing the things alleged herein, Blakely acted under color of state law,

within the course and scope of his employment, and as an official policy-maker for the City.

Blakely was vested with policy-making authority over actions such as the ones at issue in this

complaint.

9. SERGIO DIAZ, at relevant times herein, was Chief of Police for the City. In

doing the things alleged herein, Diaz acted under color of state law, within the course and scope

of his employment, and as an official policy-maker for the City. As a Department Head, Diaz

was vested with policy-making authority over actions such as the ones at issue in this complaint.

10. Defendant DOES 1 through 10 are not known or identified at this time. On

information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that each Doe is in some manner responsible for the

wrongs alleged herein, and that each such Defendant advised, encouraged, participated in,

ratified, directed, or conspired to do, the wrongful acts alleged herein. When the true names and

capacities of said Defendants become known, Plaintiff will seek relief to amend this claim to

show their true identities in place of their fictitious names as DOES 1 through 10.

11. Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees and servants of every

other Defendant. Defendants acted in the course and scope of said agency, service and

employment at all relevant times.

FACTS COMMON TO CAUSES OF ACTION

12. All facts stated herein in any one section are incorporated, reiterated, and re-

alleged in every other section.

13. Sergeant Val Graham is a twenty-five (25) year law enforcement veteran who has

been a Sergeant with the Riverside Police Department for the last seventeen (17) years.

14. Graham is an African American and he has a long history of reporting instances

of racism and retaliation within the Riverside Police Department.

3

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 0 6 U 13

r:4 0 U 14

15

as 16 <

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. In the last 10 years only two African Americans have been promoted to the rank

of Lieutenant.

16. Graham, in the aftermath of the 1998 Tyisha Miller officer involved shooting,

reported to his supervisor (Lt. Jim Cannon, who is also African American) that one of the

officers on the scene of the shooting (Rene Rodriguez) had heard racial comments. Rodriguez

eventually claimed he was subjected to harassment and retaliation by the police department. In a

subsequent employment lawsuit against the City of Riverside, Officer Rodriguez ultimately

prevailed and was awarded over 1 million dollars. Afterward, many individuals within the Police

Department treated Graham and Cannon as if they were a part of some conspiracy and Graham

was subjected to retaliation as a result. Cannon has since retired.

17. Additionally, Graham testified in a racial discrimination trial, filed by Officer

Roger Sutton (an African American), that a lieutenant ordered him to write up Sutton for being

late to roll call when, in fact, he wasn't late. Graham testified that the lieutenant actually took the

clock off the wall and moved the time forward to make it appear as if Sutton was late. Acting

Chief of Police John De La Rosa was the Internal Affairs Lieutenant at the time and he gave

Graham cold stares in the courtroom the day he testified. In 2005, a jury found in favor of Sutton

an awarded him over a million dollars. Based on information and belief, Michael Blakely

subsequently retaliated against Graham by giving him a "meets standard" on his evaluation and

mentioned the clock incident.

18. Since 2001, Val Graham has tested for the lieutenant position every year and time

after time, he has been passed over by the department for non-African American candidates with

less training and experience. In 2001, Graham was ranked in the top five on the promotion list.

At that time he had been nominated for Riverside County Officer of the Year due to his great

community work as the Problem Orientated Policing ("POP") Sergeant. In his annual evaluation

he had received the highest score possible ("Outstanding"). Despite his qualifications, he was

passed up for lieutenant seven times. Most of the candidates that were promoted in 2001 were

ranked lower than Graham.

4

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. The Riverside Police Department and its command staff (including former Acting

Police Chief John De La Rosa and current Deputy Chief Michael Blakely) has a long history of

retaliating against officers who they dislike by opening up bogus internal affairs investigations in

order to prevent the disliked officers from promoting or transferring to a specialized assignment.

Based on past practice, it is very difficult to promote when there is an active Internal Affairs

investigation ("IA") pending. Based on information and belief, John De La Rosa and Michael

Blakely have retaliated against Graham for opposing racial discrimination within the department

by initiating sham internal affairs investigations.

20. In August 2009, Graham was informed that he was going to be investigated for

not taking a complaint report from a person who came to the police front counter in April 2009

and reported her boyfriend wanted to file a citizen complaint. Because the complaining party (the

girlfriend) did not actually witness the incident, Graham gave her the complaint form to give to

her boyfriend with instructions to return it upon completion. Sergeant Graham immediately made

the proper notifications within the department, including the internal affairs department, via e-

mail.

21. Based on information and belief this August 2009 investigation was initiated by

John De La Rosa and Michael Blakely in order to prevent Sgt. Graham from promoting to

lieutenant. Graham was never given an explanation as to why the department waited four months

to initiate this IA. At the time, the department was in the middle of establishing a promotional

list for the rank of lieutenant. Eventually, former Police Chief Russ Leach heard about the IA and

he quickly ordered that it be closed, over the objections of De La Rosa and Blakely.

22. During 2009, Graham (Ranked # 8 on the promotion list established in September

2008) was not promoted to lieutenant; instead a Caucasian male (Ranked #11) was promoted.

23. In September 2009 a promotional list for lieutenant was established. Graham was

the only African American on the list that included thirteen candidates. This time Graham ranked

#4.

5

COMPLAINT

24. On February 19, 2010, Acting Chief John De La Rosa passed up Graham to

promote the #6 candidate, a Hispanic male. Based on information and belief, Graham was

discriminated against based on his race.

25. On May 27, 2010, Graham met with City Manager Brad Hudson and Assistant

City Manager Tom DeSantis and reported that John De La Rosa and Michael Blakely have used

racism and retaliation against him. This meeting occurred while John De La Rosa was acting

Police Chief. During this time there was a promotional list for lieutenant and Graham was the

only African American out of the thirteen candidates. Less than two weeks after the meeting,

Graham was subjected to retaliation by the department.

26. The next day, May 28, 2010, acting Chief John De La Rosa passed up Graham to

promote the #5 candidate, a Caucasian female. Based on information and belief, Graham was

discriminated against based on his race.

27. On June 9, 2010, Graham was notified that he was going to be investigated for a

2009 incident that the department was very much aware of. In fact the original internal affairs

investigation of other involved officers began 229 days earlier, October 23, 2009. Based on

information and belief this sham investigation of Graham was initiated by John De La Rosa and

Blakely in order to prevent Sgt. Graham from promoting to lieutenant. The department had

established a promotional list for the rank of lieutenant and selections were about to be made.

Based on past practice, it is very difficult to promote when there is an active IA pending.

28. On June 15, 2010 Graham was interviewed for the prominent position of

Homicide Sergeant. Only four sergeants put in for this position. At the time, Graham had been a

sergeant for 16 years. Additionally, he had three years experience as a detective Sergeant and he

had prior experience with officer involved shootings ("OIS"). Instead, of selecting Graham the

department selected a four year sergeant with no prior experience with OIS's as a supervisor.

Based on information and belief, Graham was discriminated against based on his race.

29. On June 16, 2010, Graham scheduled another meeting with City Manager Brad

Hudson and Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis. City Manager Hudson did not attend the

meeting. During the meeting, Graham told DeSantis that after their May 27, 2010 meeting acting

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

78

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Chief De La Rosa and Captain Blakely retaliated against him by initiating the June 9, 2010 IA.

DeSantis told Graham that prior to their meeting he had contacted Lt. Cook about the June 9,

2010 IA and he determined that it was "minor." DeSantis seemed irritated with Graham by the

end of the meeting.

30. On July 6, 2010, Graham met with the newly appointed Police Chief, Sergio Diaz,

and reported racial discrimination and retaliation. Graham expressed concerns over the timing of

the June 2010 IA; specifically, the investigation seemed to occur right when Graham was going

to be considered for promotion and/or special assignment.

31. On July 30, 2010, Police Chief Diaz passed over Graham and promoted three

Caucasian Sergeants (ranked #2, #9, and #12 on the promotion list) to Lieutenant. Two of the

candidates were actually ranked lower on the promotion list than Graham (ranked #4). All of the

recently promoted Lieutenants have less sergeant experience than Graham. Based on information

and belief, Chief Diaz relied on input from John De La Rosa and Michael Blakely in making

these promotions. Based on information and belief, Chief Diaz was also upset that members of

his department met with him to discuss concerns within the police department. Based on

information and belief, Graham was discriminated against based on his race. Furthermore, Chief

Diaz passed over Graham in part, because he met with Diaz on July 6, 2010 and reported racism

and retaliation.

32. All conditions precedent to jurisdiction under California Government Code

§ 12940 et seq. have been complied with, to wit, timely charges of employment discrimination

and harassment were filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and

subsequent "Right to Sue Letters" were issued to Plaintiff August 20, 2010

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE

FEHA Race Discrimination — Gov't Code § 12940 (a)

33. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every preceding paragraph as though set forth in full here.

34. In doing the things alleged to have been done, Defendant City of Riverside

violated Gov't Code § 12940(a), which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of

7

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

race.

35. Defendant City of Riverside is an "employer" under Gov't Code sections 12940

and 12926(d).

36. An employer may not discriminate in compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment based on race. In doing the things that Defendant City of Riverside is

alleged to have done, Defendant subjected Plaintiffs to adverse employment actions in the form

of failure to promote to lieutenant, and other acts and conduct by Defendant as described herein.

37. At the time of the adverse employment actions described herein, Plaintiff was an

African American.

38. At the time of the adverse employment actions described herein, Plaintiff was

satisfactorily performing his job.

39. Acting Chief De La Rosa and Chief Diaz' decision to pass over Plaintiff in 2010

was discriminatory and improperly based on his race.

40. The City of Riverside has established a pattern or practice of race discrimination

that has become standard operating procedure governing promotions, discipline, and other terms

and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment.

41. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiffs' race and the adverse

employment actions taken by Defendant. Plaintiffs' race was a factor in the City's decisions and

conduct when viewing by the totality of the circumstances.

42. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and unlawful actions of

Defendant, Plaintiff sustained severe and serious injury to his persons, damages in a sum to be

shown according to proof Defendant's conduct was so extreme that it generated a workplace

permeated with discrimination. The culture of discrimination created and fostered by Defendant

has detracted from Plaintiff's job performance and kept Plaintiff from advancing in his career.

Said discrimination caused economic and psychological harm to Plaintiff all in an amount to be

proven at trial.

43. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff suffered and

continues to suffer in his capacity to earn his salary, and has lost, and will continue to lose,

8

COMPLAINT

employment benefits, and have had his promotability adversely affected by the conduct of

Defendant. Plaintiff has also suffered pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

COUNT TWO

FEHA Retaliation — Gov't Code § 12940(h)

44. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every preceding paragraph as though set forth in full

here.

45. In doing the things alleged to have been done, Defendant City of Riverside

violated Gov't Code § 12940(h), which prohibits employment retaliation.

46. Defendant City of Riverside is an "employer" under Gov't Code sections 12940

and 12926(d). City of Riverside is strictly liable for their actions as alleged herein.

47. Government Code section 12940(h) makes it unlawful "[for any employer, labor

organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate

against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or

because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part."

48. Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions for engaging in a protected

activity; specifically, Plaintiff reported to Brad Hudson, Tom DeSantis, and Chief Diaz his

concerns that he is being discriminated based on his race Immediately thereafter Plaintiff's

complaint, he was subjected to a sham IA and passed over for promotion to lieutenant. Plaintiff

was also passed up for promotion because he opposed FEHA discrimination committed by

Defendant City of Riverside;

49. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiffs' activities in opposing FEHA

discrimination and the adverse employment actions taken by Defendant. Plaintiffs' opposition of

acts made unlawful by FEHA was a factor in the City's decisions and conduct when viewing by

the totality of the circumstances.

50. At all times mentioned herein, the City regularly employed five or more persons

within the provisions of the California Government Code. All conditions precedent to

jurisdiction under California Government Code § 12940 et seq. have been complied with, to wit,

timely charges of employment discrimination and harassment were filed with the Department of

9

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and subsequent "Right to Sue Letters" were issued to

Plaintiff August 20, 2010.

COUNT THREE

FEHA Failure to Prevent Discrimination — Gov't Code § 12940(k)

51. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every preceding paragraph as though set forth in full

here.

52. In doing the things alleged to have been done, Defendant City of Riverside

violated § 12940(k). Section 12940(k) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to take all

reasonable steps to prevent discrimination. The City took no steps to either prevent or correct

the discrimination alleged above, and to this very day, has condoned such unlawful actions.

53. As a direct and proximate result of the City's failure to take all reasonable steps to

prevent discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer in his capacity to earn their

salary, and has lost, and will continue to lose, employment benefits, and his promotability has

been adversely affected by the actions of Defendant. Plaintiff has also suffered pain and

suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant as follows:

1. General, compensatory, statutory, and special damages according to proof;

2. For injunctive relief ordering Defendant

a) To immediately return Plaintiff to the position he would have been in had

he not been subjected the adverse employment actions;

b) To expunge any negative personnel documents provided by the Defendant

relating to the adverse actions that are the subject of this action; and

c) To take any and all necessary and reasonable steps to remove the stigma

and negative perception of Plaintiff.

3. For attorney's fees as permitted by law;

4. For costs of suit;

4. For interest as provided by law; and

5. For each other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10

COMPLAINT

Dated: July 18, 2011 LACKIE, DAM j IER & MCGILL, APC 1

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 u W -a

< 15 A

`" 16 <

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Michael A. McGill, Russell M. Perry, Attorneys for Plaintiff VAL GRAHAM

11

COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

1

2

3 Dated: July 18, 2011 LACKIE, DAM IER & MCGILL, APC

Michael A. McGill, Russell M. Perry, Attorneys for Plaintiff VAL GRAHAM

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 0 6 Q

g 13 ° 8 14

15 K3

16 <

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2 5

26

27

2 8

12

COMPLAINT

ANNA B S By:

HEZ, Deputy C er

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4050 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501

www.riverside.courts.ca.gov

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PURPOSES AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CRC 3.722)

GRAHAM VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

CASE NO. RIC 1112056

This case is assigned to the Honorable Judge Jacqueline C. Jackson in Department 07 for case management purposes. The Case Management Conference is scheduled for 01/19/12 at 8:30 in Department 07.

(Bad Mnemonic) Case Management Conference Hearing

The plaintiff/cross-complainant shall serve a copy of this notice on all defendants/cross-defendants who are named or added to the complaint and file proof of service.

Any disqualification pursuant to CCP Section 170.6(2) shall be filed in accordance with that section.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I certify that I am currently employed by the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, and that I am not a party to this action or proceeding. In my capacity, I am familiar with the practices and procedures used in connection with the mailing of correspondence. Such correspondence is deposited in the outgoing mail of the Superior

by the United States the ordinary course

he foregoing tated above.

Dated: 07/19/11 Court Executive 0 cer/Clerk

Court. Outgoing mail is delivered to and mai Postal Service, postage prepaid, the same da of business. I certify that I served a copy notice on this date, by depositing said copy

ac:cmc;cmcb;cmch;cmct;cmcc cmccb;cmcch;cmcct