Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11/26/2024 11:26:42 AM.

30-2024-01442980-CU-OE-CJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Climer, Deputy Clerk.

1 Dennis E. Wagner, Esq. (SBN: 99190)

WAGNER ZEMMING CHRISTENSEN, LLP
2 895 Marlborough Avenue, Suite 200
3 Riverside, CA 92507
Tel.: (951) 686-4800
4 [email protected]
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
6 BARBARA SALVINI

7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
10
Assigned for All Purposes
11
12 BARBARA SALVINI, an individual, CASE NO.:
13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
14 1. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT;
v.
2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
15 CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940 (h) & (i);
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; and DOES 1
16 through 25, inclusive, 3. GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE §
17 Defendants. 12940(a);
18 4. AGE DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE §§
19 12940(a) AND 12941;
5. WHISTLEBLOWING RETALIATION
20 IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §
21 1102.5; and
6. FAILURE TO PREVENT
22 DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION,
AND HARASSMENT;
23 7. ILLEGAL DEDUCTIONS OF MONIES
IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
24 8. DECLARATORY RELIEF
25
DEMAND FOR JURY
26
//
27
//
28
//
1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff, BARBARA SALVINI, and brings this action against
2 Defendant, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, and herein alleges the following:
3 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
4 1. Plaintiff, BARBARA SALVINI, (hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), is now and
5 at all material times mentioned in the complaint a resident of the County of Orange, California
6 and is the HR Director of the defendant, City of Newport Beach.
7 2. Defendant, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, (hereafter referred to as “City”), is a
8 municipality within Orange County, California.
9 3. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
10 as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.
11 Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of said Defendants
12 when they have been ascertained.
13 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon allege that each of the
14 fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein
15 and that Plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by the conduct of the Defendants and that
16 the individuals named herein are participants and co-conspirators in entering into conduct both
17 overt and tacit to deny Plaintiff her rights and privilege in her job position.
18 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the named
19 Defendant with its full knowledge, consented, acquiesced, and approved all conduct and
20 occurrences as alleged herein that have caused Plaintiff’s damages.
21 6. The unlawful hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation practices
22 set forth herein occurred within the County of Orange, California, City of Newport Beach and
23 have commenced on the dates set forth herein and continue in a pattern of events up to the
24 present time causing Plaintiff damages, both emotionally and physically.
25 7. Plaintiff believes that the City of Newport Beach was aware of other similar
26 claims of employees being treated in a similar unlawful fashion within the City of Newport
27 Beach such that the inaction by the City over the years in its failure to address this bad conduct
28 and behavior amounts to ratification of such unlawful conduct against Plaintiff.

2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 8. Plaintiff also contends that the City of Newport Beach attempted to investigate
2 her factual complaints along with others who have been similarly treated and/or subjected to
3 unlawful acts of retaliation for complaining about unlawful conduct in a whistleblower capacity
4 but that the investigation was a sham investigation to cover up the actions of bad behavior by
5 city officials and managerial employees to save face and to avoid further exposure in litigation
6 as opposed to an actual factual truth-finding endeavor to understand how this all happened to
7 Plaintiff and to others.
8 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9 9. Plaintiff was hired as the Human Resources Director/Risk Manager in 2015.
10 10. Leung was hired as the City Manager in September 2018. Plaintiff worked closely
11 with Leung on a variety of human resources and risk management matters. In the summer of
12 2023, a personnel investigation was initiated into alleged wrongdoing by certain employees.
13 Because some of the allegations involved human resources department employees, Plaintiff was
14 told the City would depart from its normal practice of having her oversee the investigation;
15 rather the investigation would be led by the City Manager's office with the assistance of the City
16 Attorney. An outside investigator revealed potential improprieties had occurred at the executive
17 management level concerning the City Manager and the Fire Chief manipulating their leave
18 banks in violation of City policy to obtain financial gain. The investigator's inquiries resulted in
19 an informal audit of certain executive management employees' files. The audit information was
20 highly suggestive that an illegal gift of public funds had occurred.
21 11. Plaintiff questioned Leung about what actions were going to be taken. In response
22 to Plaintiff's repeated inquiries, Leung was evasive and became increasingly agitated. Leung did
23 not direct the outside investigator to expand the scope of their investigation to include the
24 executive management employee irregularities, and instead abused her position of authority and
25 directed the Plaintiff and Finance Director to make changes to her records, and the records of the
26 Fire Chief and to keep things "as confidential as possible." This was done to hide the
27 wrongdoing on the part of the City Manager and the Fire Chief who breached the public trust.
28

3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 12. Plaintiff discussed the situation with Harp who shared with Plaintiff that he was
2 frustrated that Leung was not taking any action. Plaintiff later learned from an angry Leung that
3 Harp had reported the investigator's findings regarding the executive management issue to a City
4 Council member stating that Plaintiff had directed him to do so. As more fully set forth below,
5 Leung began retaliating against Plaintiff creating a hostile work environment, and violating age,
6 gender and equal pay act laws.
7 13. After Leung's appointment in 2018, Plaintiff repeatedly witnessed Leung's
8 insidious actions in response to older City employees who she felt threatened or embarrassed by,
9 whether it was because they disagreed with her, were reporting what they perceived to be
10 unlawful activity, or had more community presence and she felt posed a threat. Typically, her
11 goal of forcing the offending employee to retire was initiated by either directly asking the
12 employee when they were retiring, or having coworkers or peers ask the targeted employee when
13 they planned on retiring.
14 14. If Leung did not like the answer, it was not uncommon for Leung to modify or
15 change the employee's duties, provide an evaluation that was less favorable than prior
16 evaluations, start to micromanage and question the employee's work product, fail to provide any
17 merit increase, and/or fail to provide necessary support to the employee. With one executive
18 management level employee, Plaintiff was told Leung openly expressed her displeasure that the
19 employee was not retiring sooner. Leung frequently shared with Plaintiff her desire for certain
20 executive management level directors and other lower-level employees to retire.
21 15. At least one former director filed a discrimination lawsuit against the City. During
22 the pendency of that litigation, Leung shared with Plaintiff that while employed at the City of
23 Sunnyvale she also had been accused of discrimination. Plaintiff reviewed the Sunnyvale case
24 and found that although that lawsuit was resolved in favor of the City, the plaintiff alleged Leung
25 retaliated against him for voicing his concern about significant revenue loss. Leung told him if he
26 continued such actions, he would never be promoted or given a good reference. This description
27 of Leung was strikingly similar to that witnessed by Plaintiff over the years in the City of
28 Newport Beach.

4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 16. Prior to Plaintiff's discovery of the executive management irregularities, Leung
2 frequently and regularly called upon Plaintiff for any variety of human resources or risk
3 management matters. Leung was supportive of Plaintiff and her department, allowing her to
4 exercise her duties as a seasoned Human Resources Director with little to no supervision. She
5 would call Plaintiff almost daily, sometimes spending close to an hour on the phone, talking
6 about work as well as her personal life. Following the Summer 2023 leave bank investigation
7 and Plaintiff's repeated questioning about the executive management issue, Leung’s demeanor
8 and attitude towards Plaintiff changed markedly, the phone calls and familiarity ceased, and it
9 became readily apparent to Plaintiff that Leung was targeting her for removal.
10 17. In an email to Plaintiff dated November 27, 2023, Leung advised Plaintiff she
11 "realized" Plaintiff was the only director with whom she did not have regularly scheduled
12 meetings. After 5 years, biweekly meetings were scheduled, and Leung began micromanaging
13 and questioning Plaintiff's work. This was the same tactic Leung employed when she became
14 unhappy with the former Finance Director's whistleblower complaints, whom she later fired.
15 18. In late 2023, Plaintiff was provided a yearly evaluation that was rated a 4.8 out of
16 5. While prior evaluations were very positive, with higher overall ratings, this evaluation was
17 laced with negative statements. Despite the rating, and City Council's direction to Leung that the
18 City should do what it could to retain senior talent, Plaintiff was denied any enhancement to her
19 total compensation without explanation. Plaintiff requested to meet with Leung to discuss her
20 evaluation and her request for additional compensation. Plaintiff asked Leung to provide factual
21 support for the negative comments she had placed in her evaluation; however, Leung could not
22 provide any substantive responses.
23 19. As to compensation, Leung told Plaintiff she was not providing any enhancements
24 to any directors who were already at the top of the range. When Plaintiff asked Leung why,
25 Leung responded with words to the effect of "well from what I understand you plan on retiring
26 soon, so how do I know you're not just mailing it in?" When Plaintiff asked how retirement was a
27 factor in her evaluation and prior year's performance, Leung responded oddly with "for whatever
28 it's worth, you're the best Human Resources Director I've ever worked with." When Plaintiff

5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 asked Leung why she sent the email about the biweekly meetings pretending she did not realize
2 Plaintiff was the only director with whom she did not have regular meetings, Leung said words
3 to the effect of she "thought she was making a joke", or "thought you would think it was funny".
4 20. Within a month or two, a male director at the top of his pay range received a
5 significant enhancement to his compensation package. This director had the same 4.8
6 performance review rating as Plaintiff.
7 21. In addition to the biweekly meetings, Leung began picking apart and questioning
8 Plaintiff's and her staff's qualifications and everyday operations. She began rejecting Plaintiff's
9 recommendations for contract insurance requirements without any consultation with Plaintiff.
10 When Plaintiff sought support from Leung after Harp’s unprovoked belligerence towards her,
11 Leung responded to the effect of "what do you want me to do", and "I need my HR Director to
12 get along with my City Attorney." When Plaintiff reminded Leung that Leung certainly was
13 familiar with Harp's history of exposing the City to liability because of his behavior, she said "let
14 me think about it". Approximately a week and a half later, she suggested a mediator could be
15 used. Leung's statements and actions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of
16 workplace harassment, hostile work environment, or the potential for workplace violence.
17 22. It was clear to Plaintiff that Leung was not going to protect her from Harp's
18 actions. Consequently, in February of 2024, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the City
19 Council seeking help and a resolution. The Mayor ordered an investigation. Plaintiff's interviews
20 were conducted via Zoom. At Plaintiff's second interview, the investigator acknowledged his
21 unpreparedness stating he had not read through all the materials that he had requested from
22 Plaintiff which she provided and added that he did not want to go on a fishing expedition. The
23 investigator did not sustain any findings related to the City Manager or City Attorney which
24 shows the “white wash” the City gave to a supposed fair and independent investigation. This
25 second interview of the Plaintiff, the investigator also admitted that his scope of work was
26 limited. The interview was a sham and designed to protect the City.
27 //
28 //

6
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 23. Following the filing of the internal complaint and during the investigation, the
2 Mayor directed Plaintiff to report to the Assistant City Manager and to direct any City Attorney
3 Office-related queries to the Assistant City Attorney. This direction adversely affected Plaintiff's
4 work environment. Plaintiff's staff was contacted directly by directors and higher-level
5 management; they were confused why Plaintiff was no longer the point person, why they were
6 being asked to step in to respond to high level matters, and why risk management
7 recommendations were being ignored and exposing the City to liability (an example would be
8 the City Manager ignoring insurance recommendations for contracts with "E.B."). As a result,
9 Plaintiff was humiliated and embarrassed in front of her staff. Once the superficial investigation
10 was completed, the Mayor directed Plaintiff to resume reporting to the City Manager, however,
11 the City Manager continues to work around Plaintiff, instead of with Plaintiff. Instead of relying
12 on Plaintiff's experience as an attorney, human resources director and risk manager, Leung now
13 routinely undermines Plaintiff's advice, flagrantly disregards past practices and policies and
14 promotes marginalization and ostracism of Plaintiff by other executive management staff
15 members and coworkers which is witnessed by Plaintiff’s staff on a regular basis.
16 24. Recently, Plaintiff, who rarely takes time off, took a day off. When Leung
17 reviewed Plaintiff's time card and noticed the use of flex leave, Leung chastised Plaintiff,
18 directing her to notify her if she wanted to take a day off work. The HR director is an exempt
19 position and is available even when absent from work. The City Manager had no idea Plaintiff
20 had taken the time off until she looked at the time sheet because she initiates little to no
21 communication or interaction with Plaintiff. This not-so-subtle micromanaging inquiry was not
22 designed for any legitimate reason and was done to belittle and harass Plaintiff.
23 25. The City's actions are designed to force Plaintiff to separate from the City rather
24 than to address the unlawful activities described herein. Plaintiff's position and professional
25 reputation are diminished daily; people simply go to her subordinates for answers, and she is
26 omitted from meetings, treated differently, ignored and/or shunned within the workplace. These
27 adverse employment events are by design pursuant to instructions of the Mayor. It is also
28 believed that the Mayor shaped the scope of the investigation and presumably told the

7
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 investigator not to investigate issues which would reflect poorly on executive management staff,
2 including the City Manager, City Attorney and the Fire Chief.
3 26. Prior to the Summer 2023 investigation, Leung valued and supported Plaintiff's
4 handling of investigations and disciplinary matters. However, when the Summer 2023
5 investigation yielded unlawful activity at the executive management level by the City Manager
6 and others, and Plaintiff questioned why the unlawful activities were not being addressed in the
7 same manner as the investigation subjects. When Plaintiff asked Leung for protection from Harp,
8 a known bad actor by the City Council and City Manager, Plaintiff was been retaliated against
9 ever since.
10 27. Leung has removed Plaintiff from material discussions regarding the labor
11 groups, excluding her from meetings with the City Council labor ad HOC committee. Plaintiff
12 was the point person for labor negotiations; now she has been marginalized and made irrelevant.
13 None of the City Council members communicate with her. Leung has also involved the Finance
14 Director in risk management, which historically was always under Plaintiff's purview, asking
15 him to quietly research matters to see if they support Plaintiff's position on such things as
16 insurance requirements, risk transfer, etc. The Finance Director routinely reaches out directly to
17 Plaintiff's subordinates to discuss matters which should be discussed with Plaintiff. Plaintiff is
18 being undermined by the City Manager.
19 28. At three recent City Council meetings, the Mayor dismissed Plaintiff and all City
20 staff from portions of closed session meetings, including staff from the City Attorney's office,
21 leaving the seven council members alone in the conference room. After the first occurrence,
22 Plaintiff expressed her belief to the City Manager and City Attorney's office that this was a
23 violation of the Brown Act. Plaintiff was told by the attorney that she felt comfortable that the
24 council deliberations stayed on topic while she was absent from the room. When the council met
25 without an attorney present on a second occasion, Plaintiff again expressed her concern to the
26 City Manager's office and received a shrug in response to this unauthorized use of the closed
27 session which is designed to have conversations with legal counsel. At the third unsupervised
28 closed session, Plaintiff watched as the City Manager emerged from the closed session

8
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 conference room, dinner plate in hand, and sat and ate her dinner in the public area of Council
2 Chambers. Plaintiff watched as Harp left the building. The City Manager said the Council
3 wanted to "talk". The City Council has repeatedly violated the Brown Act by conducting
4 multiple closed sessions without legal counsel present. It is unclear what is discussed and what
5 decisions are being made without the benefit of legal counsel.
6 29. When Plaintiff came to the City, Harp was already present as the City Attorney.
7 Within months of her appointment to Human Resources Director, Harp began engaging in
8 unlawful treatment of Plaintiff which has continued to the present. His actions are designed to
9 establish dominance and create fear and insecurity in Plaintiff so she will not challenge or
10 question his actions. During her time with the department, Harp has lost his temper with her on
11 multiple occasions, raising his voice, slamming his hands, standing over her (he is over six feet
12 tall, Plaintiff is 5'5"), and threatening her job security. Harp shared with Plaintiff that he has and
13 will file as many lawsuits as it takes for him to recover the amount of money he spent putting
14 himself through law school. Harp talked with her about suing former roommates and his
15 neighbor. Harp boasted how he has connections to friendly reporters who will report information
16 as directed by him. Harp has clandestine lunches out of town with influential Newport Beach
17 residents. When they talked about whether a certain director might become the City Manager,
18 Harp said he would see to it that "that would never happen". Plaintiff believes these statements,
19 and others, were designed to instill fear in Plaintiff that if she reported Harp, she would suffer
20 severe consequences personally and/or professionally.
21 30. There are instances where Harp has tried to usurp Plaintiff's authority and risk
22 management oversight and belittled and diminished her professional reputation to elected
23 officials and others. Harp's actions are intentional, deliberate and manipulative; and designed to
24 cause injury. Any time Harp feels challenged by Plaintiff he engages in retaliatory and unlawful
25 conduct.
26 31. Current and former City Council members are aware of Harp's unlawful actions;
27 however, nothing has been done to correct Harp's behavior or prevent the City from receiving
28 additional complaints of unlawful treatment by Harp. The City Council has ratified the actions of

9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 the City Attorney for his bullying sexist behavior by failing to discipline him, providing him with
2 additional raises and contract extensions and more importantly settling multiple cases involving
3 the City Attorney for his misconduct. A former City Manager advised Plaintiff had notified the
4 City Council that Harp was engaging in retaliatory behavior. He told Plaintiff words to the effect
5 of he wished he could help her, but he was afraid that if he did, Harp would make sure the City
6 Manager did not receive any severance package. The former City Manager also related his fear
7 of Harp because Harp knew that the City Manager was aware of an affair Harp had engaged in
8 with a subordinate years earlier. Despite City Council approval and/or knowledge of
9 investigations, numerous settlements and payouts to Harp complainants, the City Council
10 approved a multi-year employment agreement with Harp. Harp has bragged to Plaintiff that he
11 has the best of both worlds; he stays until his contract ends, or he gets a robust severance
12 package if the City Council opts for his removal.
13 32. Since Plaintiff filed her complaint, she has had little contact with Harp, as he
14 routinely circumvents her by reaching out to her subordinates on issues which he previously
15 addressed with her, omits her from emails and acts as if she does not exist.
16 33. Plaintiff believes the City has been wrongfully deducting pension contributions to
17 the LIUNA retirement pension fund from her wages. Plaintiff believes the City has been aware
18 for years that the pension deductions as to unrepresented Key and Management employees are
19 unlawful under the California Labor Code yet has continued to take that deductions. Plaintiff is
20 not a member of a collective bargaining unit or subject to a wage agreement, therefore making
21 the LIUNA pension deductions unlawful. When Plaintiff raised this issue with the City Manager,
22 she stated she recalled an analysis being conducted several years ago but could not remember an
23 issue with unrepresented employees LIUNA pension fund participants being forced to contribute.
24 Plaintiff has demanded that these funds be returned to her and to others in a similar situation but
25 has received no response.
26 34. Lastly, Plaintiff reported an issue involving a study relating to the City Council's
27 consideration of adopting housing element implementation noise-related amendments and
28 overriding the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination of inconsistency.

10
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 Plaintiff is informed and believes a noise study used to support the City's position is inaccurate.
2 This is a concern because the city appears to be basing its actions on an inaccurate noise report
3 that could have a significant impact on City of Newport Beach residences and/or businesses. No
4 one has reached out to Plaintiff to discuss it further. Plaintiff is informed and believes the Deputy
5 Director of Community Development was forced from his job position because he protested the
6 inaccuracy of the noise study. Plaintiff was told by the Community Development Director,
7 Seimone Jurjis, that the amendments needed to be pushed through because of intense pressure
8 from the City Council and developers. Jurjis told Plaintiff there was too much money at stake
9 and that his department was faced with ethical issues "every day". He told Plaintiff that the
10 amendments needed to be approved, and there was insufficient time to do a new, costly but
11 accurate report before the State deadlines.
12 35. Plaintiff was informed the inaccurate study was one that was prepared by one of
13 the proposed developers for the area. Once this allegation was made known to the investigator
14 and a PRAR was submitted requesting the details of the report and proposed amendments, Jurjis
15 stopped all communications with Plaintiff, will not acknowledge her or make eye contact with
16 her. The timing of this change in attitude is a result of the Community Development Director's
17 displeasure with Plaintiff's reporting. As recently as October 2, 2024, Jurjis informed the
18 directors at the management meeting his department has received several public records act
19 requests for documents related to various developers who are alleged to be involved with the
20 housing in the airport area, including the Irvine Company, Eagle Four Partners and local resident
21 Larry Tucker. Jurjis smugly added that he deletes all of his emails and there will be nothing to
22 provide. When the City Clerk pointed out that deleted emails remain on the server, but might
23 take some time to locate, Jurjis responded "Good luck finding anything". The City Manager
24 laughed in response.
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //

11
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 36. Harp has a long-term employment agreement, and his objectionable actions are
2 becoming increasingly bolder as Harp believes he is untouchable with his contract buyout. The
3 City Manager has failed to protect Plaintiff from Harp's bad boy bullying behavior.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
5 37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations in
6 paragraphs 1 through 36, inclusive of this Complaint.
7 38. On October 11, 2024, as a condition for bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a
8 written complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
9 39. On October 11, 2024, a right to sue letter was issued to Plaintiff by the
10 Department of Fair Employment and Housing because an immediate right to sue notice was
11 requested.
12 40. On October 4, 2024, as a condition for bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a tort
13 claim with the City of Newport Beach.
14 41. As of November 26, 2024, 45 days has passed and the tort claim is denied by
15 operation of law.
16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(j)
17 (As Against Defendant and Does 1-25)
18
42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates, by reference herein, all of the allegations in
19
paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive of this complaint.
20
43. Defendant is an employer pursuant to Gov. Code § 12926(d) because it regularly
21
employs five or more persons.
22
44. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed with Defendant the CITY and thus
23
qualifies as an employee pursuant to Gov. Code § 12926(c).
24
45. Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment after the City Manager
25
learned investigative findings were given to the City and the City became angry with Plaintiff
26
and began retaliating against her, creating a hostile work environment, and with age, gender and
27
equal pay violations. Plaintiff was further subjected to a hostile work environment from the City
28
Attorney over time and despite complaints by Plaintiff, and others, no actions were taken.
12
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 46. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct of the City Manager, set forth
2 above, Plaintiff suffered, and is continuing to suffer damages for, among other things, past and
3 future economic losses, to be shown according to proof together with prejudgment interest, all
4 in an amount as yet ascertained, but to be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
5 47. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered
6 and continues to suffer physical and emotional distress, humiliation, anguish, and
7 embarrassment. Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereupon alleges, that he will continue
8 to experience said emotional suffering for a period in the future, not presently ascertainable, all
9 in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
10 48. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to
11 prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3287 and/or any other provision
12 of law providing for prejudgment interest.
13 49. Government Code § 12965(b) provides that a private plaintiff prevailing in an
14 action brought under FEHA may be awarded his attorney’s fees incurred in bringing and
15 prosecuting this action. In such regards, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
16 attorney’s fees in the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of this action, as well as other
17 litigation expenses and court costs. The exact amount of such attorney’s fees, costs, and
18 expenses is not presently known, but will be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 (h) & (i)
20 (Against City of Newport Beach)
21
50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations in
22
paragraphs 1 through 49, inclusive of this complaint.
23
51. The City is an employer pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(d) because it
24
regularly employs five or more persons.
25
52. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been an employee of the City.
26
53. Plaintiff has suffered adverse employment actions when her risk management
27
responsibilities were usurped, and she her risk management decisions were disparaged in front of
28
her staff by the City Manager in retaliation for whistleblowing activities of wrongdoing. Plaintiff
13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 also was retaliated against for reporting her gender and sex discrimination against her by Harp,
2 whose behavior has been allowed to continue despite reports to two City Managers of his
3 unlawful illegal behavior.
4 54. The adverse employment action against Plaintiff was deliberate and intentional
5 retaliation from the City because Plaintiff was a whistleblower and she claimed she was being
6 retaliated against.
7 55. The substantial motivating reason for the retaliation against Plaintiff by the City
8 was based upon Plaintiff’s concerns of illegal use of funds, cover up of a noise report and her
9 voicing her concerns of this wrongdoing.
10 56. The retaliatory conduct is attributable to the City because it was committed,
11 authorized, and ratified by one or more of its officers, directors, managers, supervisors, or
12 managing agents.
13 57. As a direct and proximate cause of the retaliation as set forth above, Plaintiff
14 suffered and will continue to suffer damages for past and future economic losses, including lost
15 income and retirement benefits, and prejudgment interest in an amount to be shown according to
16 proof at the time of trial.
17 58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory
18 acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from anxiety, depression, humiliation, feelings
19 of inadequacy, mental and emotional distress, embarrassment, stomach pains, headaches, and
20 discomfort, all of which will be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
21 59. Government Code § 12965(b) provides that a plaintiff may be awarded her
22 attorney’s fees incurred in bringing and prosecuting this action. In such regards, Plaintiff has
23 incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees in the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of
24 this action, as well as other litigation expenses and court costs. The exact amount of such
25 attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is not presently known, but will be shown according to proof
26 through a post-trial motion.
27 //
28 //

14
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)
2 (Against City of Newport Beach)
3
60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein, all of the allegations in
4
paragraphs 1 through 59, inclusive of this Complaint.
5
61. Defendant is an employer pursuant to Gov. Code § 12926(d) because it regularly
6
employs five or more persons.
7
62. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed with the City of Newport Beach, and
8
thus qualifies as an employee pursuant to Gov. Code § 12926(c).
9
63. Gov. Code § 12940(a) protects against discrimination by an employer based on
10
sex and gender.
11
64. During Plaintiff’s time employed with the City, on a continuous basis Plaintiff
12
was subjected by Aaron Harp to a systematic pattern of deliberate and intentional discrimination
13
based on Plaintiff’s sex and gender. These actions violate Plaintiff’s right under the Fair
14
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
15
65. The City discriminated against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s sex and gender in
16
that Harp repeatedly made harassing comments, provided disparate treatment towards Plaintiff
17
and acted in a bullying fashion for no other reason other than her sex and gender. Harp did not
18
direct the same treatment towards male employees with the City.
19
66. Plaintiff believes and alleges her female sex and gender was a substantial and
20
determining factor for the hostile and disparate treatment she received from Harp.
21
67. Defendant City of Newport Beach’s conduct as alleged in this complaint
22
constitutes an unlawful employment practice in violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a).
23
68. As a direct and proximate cause of the discrimination as set forth above, Plaintiff
24
suffered damages for past economic losses, lost wages, lost income, and prejudgment interest in
25
an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
26
69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory acts, Plaintiff has
27
suffered from extreme anxiety, panic attacks, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish,
28

15
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 emotional distress, and comfort, and discomfort, all in an amount which will be shown according
2 to proof at the time of trial.
3 70. Government Code § 12965(b) provides that a private plaintiff prevailing in an
4 action brought under the FEHA may be awarded his attorney’s fees incurred in bringing and
5 prosecuting this action. In such regards, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
6 attorney’s fees in the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of this action, as well as other
7 litigation expenses and court costs. The exact amount of such attorney’s fees, costs, and
8 expenses is not presently known, but will be shown according to proof through a post-trial
9 motion.
10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Age Discrimination in Violation of Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940(a) and 12941
11 (Against City of Newport Beach)
12
71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations in
13
paragraphs 1 through 70, inclusive of this complaint.
14
72. The City is an employer pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(d) because it
15
regularly employs five or more persons.
16
73. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of the City.
17
74. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was over the age of 40 at the time of her adverse
18
employment action, as such, she was protected under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
19
75. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that her age was a motivating
20
factor in deciding to ostracize her from her position to try and force her from her job as alleged
21
against the City Manager based upon the pattern and practice of the City Manager to force
22
employees over the protected age out of work.
23
76. As a direct and proximate cause of the discrimination as set forth above, Plaintiff
24
suffered from damages for past and future economic losses, including lost income and retirement
25
benefits, and prejudgment interest in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of
26
trial.
27
77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory and harassing acts,
28
Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from anxiety, depression, humiliation, feelings of
16
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 inadequacy, mental and emotional distress, embarrassment, stomach pains, headaches, and
2 discomfort, all of which will be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
3 78. Government Code § 12965(b) provides that a plaintiff may be awarded her
4 attorney’s fees incurred in bringing and prosecuting this action. In such regards, Plaintiff has
5 incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees in the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of
6 this action, as well as other litigation expenses and court costs. The exact amount of such
7 attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is not presently known, but will be shown according to proof
8 through a post-trial motion.
9 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation for Whistleblowing Activities in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5
10 (Against City of Newport Beach)
11
79. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations in
12
paragraphs 1 through 78 inclusive of this complaint.
13
80. Plaintiff has been retaliated against because she reported practices that she
14
believed were illegal and in violation of the FEHA. Plaintiff perceived this conduct to violate
15
state statutes.
16
81. After Plaintiff reported the illegal activities, Plaintiff was subject to retaliation by
17
the City Manager and City Attorney and she has had her authority and reputation disparaged in
18
front of her employees.
19
82. Both the City Manager and the City Attorney, by their statements and actions,
20
shows they are trying to force Plaintiff to retire and have created intolerable conditions at work
21
to do so.
22
83. The foregoing conduct is attributable to Defendant City of Newport Beach
23
because it was committed, authorized, and ratified by the City’s managers and managing agents.
24
84. As a direct and proximate cause of the discrimination set forth above, Plaintiff
25
suffered and is continuing to suffer damages for past and future economic losses, lost wages, lost
26
income, and prejudgment interest in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of
27
trial.
28

17
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliatory acts, Plaintiff has
2 suffered and continues to suffer from anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress,
3 and discomfort, all which will be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
4 86. Government Code § 12965(b) provides that a plaintiff may be awarded her
5 attorney’s fees incurred in bringing and prosecuting this action. In such regards, Plaintiff has
6 incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees in the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of
7 this action, as well as other litigation expenses and court costs. The exact amount of such
8 attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is not presently known, but will be shown according to proof
9 through a post-trial motion.
10 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment in Violation of § 12940(k)
11 (As Against Defendant and Does 1-25)
12
87. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein, all of the allegations in
13
paragraphs 1 through 86, inclusive of this complaint.
14
88. Defendant is an employer pursuant to Gov. Code § 12926(d) because it regularly
15
employs five or more persons. Defendant had a duty to conduct a good faith investigation of
16
every complaint for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation and take steps to prevent
17
further occurrences. The City failed to conduct good faith investigations and when the improper
18
investigations revealed misconduct, did not take any steps to correct the issues, including
19
actions to rein in the City Attorney and his bullying of employees.
20
89. Defendant has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and
21
harassment, including failing to enact policies to correct problems, conducting sham
22
investigation whose sole purpose is to exonerate and protect the City. Multiple previous
23
employees have complained, and Defendant took no past steps to correct the problems in the
24
past with the City Attorney and City Manager and the City Council being aware of the issues
25
failed to respond to protected employees such as Plaintiff. If the City had taken action in the
26
past, it would have prevented the harassment from occurring. Defendant failed to investigate
27
properly the claim of the other employees of violation of law and policies. Any proper
28

18
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 investigation would have protected Plaintiff from retaliation, a hostile work environment, and
2 determined that his superiors violated laws and policies of the State.
3 90. Defendant’s failure to take reasonable steps is a substantial factor in Plaintiff’s
4 injuries.
5 91. Government Code § 12965(b) provides that a plaintiff may be awarded her
6 attorney’s fees incurred in bringing and prosecuting this action. In such regards, Plaintiff has
7 incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees in the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of
8 this action, as well as other litigation expenses and court costs. The exact amount of such
9 attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is not presently known, but will be shown according to proof
10 through a post-trial motion.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11
Illegal Deductions of Monies in Violation of Labor Code
12 (As Against Defendant and Does 1-25)

13 92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations in

14 paragraphs 1 through 91, inclusive of this complaint.

15 93. Labor Code Section 221 prohibits employers from "to collect or receive from an

16 employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee." Labor Code

17 Section 224 specifies "The provisions of Sections 221, 222 and 223 shall in no way make it

18 unlawful for an employer to withhold or divert any portion of an employee’s wages when the

19 employer is required or empowered so to do by state or federal law or when a deduction is

20 expressly authorized in writing by the employee to cover insurance premiums, hospital or

21 medical dues, or other deductions not amounting to a rebate or deduction from the standard wage

22 arrived at by collective bargaining or pursuant to wage agreement or statute, or when a deduction

23 to cover health and welfare or pension plan contributions is expressly authorized by a collective

24 bargaining or wage agreement."

25 94. Plaintiff during the course of her employer had deductions illegally taken from

26 her paycheck as contributions to a LILUNA pension fund. Plaintiff never agreed to those

27 deductions in writing and the deductions were made pursuant to a collective bargaining

28 agreement for which the Plaintiff was not a covered member of the agreement.

19
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 95. Plaintiff is entitled to and requests attorney’s fees under Labor Code 218.5 and
2 any other provisions of law that is applicable.
3 96. Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the non-payment of wages pursuant to Labor
4 Code Section 218.6 at the rate set by Civil Code Section 3289 (b) from the date which the wages
5 were due and payable.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6
Declaratory Relief
7 (As Against Defendant and Does 1-25)

8 97. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations in

9 paragraphs 1 through 96, inclusive of this complaint.

10 98. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief in that an actual controversy now exists

11 between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the validity of the City’s policies regarding

12 discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation and their failure to adhere to such

13 policies to address and prevent violations.

14 99. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the City of Newport Beach violated her rights

15 and others, known and unknown by the actions of Defendant and this case advances public

16 policy and is a benefit to the public in exposing illegal conduct, discrimination, hostile work

17 environment, and retaliation as alleged herein.

18 100. Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the City of Newport Beach polices as

19 applied discriminate against female employees.

20 101. Government Code § 12965(b) provides that a plaintiff may be awarded her

21 attorney’s fees incurred in bringing and prosecuting this action. In such regards, Plaintiff has

22 incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees in the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of

23 this action, as well as other litigation expenses and court costs. The exact amount of such

24 attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is not presently known, but will be shown according to proof

25 through a post-trial motion.

26 //

27 //

28

20
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as to all causes of action as follows:
3 1. For economic and non-economic general, special and compensatory damages
4 according to proof;
5 2. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest in any lost or unpaid wages according
6 to law;
7 3. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to
8 Government Code § 12965(b), California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, or any
9 other statute which allows said fees; and
10 4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
11
Dated: November 26, 2024 WAGNER ZEMMING CHRISTENSEN, LLP
12
13 /s/ Dennis E. Wagner
DENNIS E. WAGNER, Esq.
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BARBARA SALVINI
15
16
17 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18 Plaintiff Barbara Salvini hereby demands a trial by jury.

19
Dated: November 26, 2024 WAGNER ZEMMING CHRISTENSEN, LLP
20
21 /s/ Dennis E. Wagner
DENNIS E. WAGNER, Esq.
22 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BARBARA SALVINI

23
24
25
26
27
28

21
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY