March 21, 2023

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Craven Farming Co.

20118 Highway 33
Crows Landing, CA 95313

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO

EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 1119 ET SEQ. AND 1152

Re: Felipa Hernandez v. Craven Farming Co.

Dear Ms. ______:

Please be advised that this office has been retained by Felipa Hernandez (“Ms. Hernandez” or “Claimant”)
in connection with her employment claims against your business, Craven Farming Co. (“Employer”). We have
determined that Employer violated California law concerning her employment. Due to these violations, Employer
owes Ms. Hernandez significant damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs, which Ms. Hernandez will
seek if we have to file suit to enforce her rights.

Based on my preliminary investigation of Ms. Hernandez’s claims, I have recommended that she
commence and prosecute claims against Employer for (1) Sexual Harassment (Hostile Work Environment) in
Violation of the FEHA; (2) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA (3) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination,
or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (5) Wrongful
Constructive Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy. Ms. Hernandez will seek all statutory, civil,
and court-authorized damages, including attorney’s fees and costs, in proving her claims against Employer.

OUR HISTORY AS LITIGATORS

The public, media, judges, and jurors have increased their sensitivities toward rectifying the devastating
impacts that employer’s intentional violation of the law on their victims. Recently, our office settled a race
discrimination case for $3,500,000; a sexual harassment case for $1,600,000; a race discrimination case for
$400,000; a disability discrimination case for $400,000; and a sexual orientation discrimination case for
$350,000.  The facts of these claims are similar to those that led to the aforementioned settlements. As you are also
aware, defendants face significant risks of cost and attorneys’ fees as a result of litigation, not only on your end, but
to compensate Claimant. The aforementioned settlements do not include attorneys’ fees and costs which Claimant
would be awarded should this matter go to trial. 

I. BACKGROUND OF MS. HERNANDEZ+’S CLAIMS

On or around January 08, 2007, Ms. Hernandez was hired by Employer as a Fieldworker. Her primary
duties were planting, harvesting and packaging of tomatoes as well as harvesting and sorting nuts. The hostile work
environment started from the time Ms. Hernandez was hired. She began experiencing consistent harassment from
her Supervisor Aurelio Marquez. These series of harassment acts happened on a daily basis. In one instance, Mr.

Jake D. Finkel, Esq. 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 830 (213) 787-7411
jake@finkelfirm.com Los Angeles, California, 90010 www.finkelfirm.com
Marquez blatantly showed to all male and insensitively to female workers inappropriate videos of sexual nature such
as nude women. Thus, all female employees felt offended and uncomfortable but did not speak nor complain out of
fear of losing their jobs. In addition, Mr. Marquez would also use vulgar and offensive languages when speaking to
his female staff to describe them namely “big boobs”, “tetas grandes”, “chichis grande”, “chichis de gata”, “big
vagina”, “torta grande/sapo grande”, “big ass”, “nalgona”. There was also a time that Mr. Marquez inappropriately
sent pictures of genitals to Ms. Hernandez and other female workers. However, she was unsure whether or not the
genitals were his but Ms. Hernandez recalled that her other Supervisor Adalia Munoz received a copy of the pictures
and in fact called out Mr. Marquez for this outrageous act.

Early of 2021, Ms. Hernandez recalled that a seminar on sexual harassment was conducted. This activity
helped her and other co-workers gather enough courage to speak out and voice their grievances against their
Supervisor Mr. Marquez.

On or about the period of October to November 2021, Ms. Hernandez and other three female workers,
namely Leticia Landa, Magdalena Madrid, Marina Jaramillo, could no longer tolerate the outrageous acts of Mr.
Marquez. Hence, they decided to bring this serious matter to owner Mr. Tadeo. They were assisted by their
Supervisor Ms. Munoz to set up a meeting with Mr. Tadeo. During the meeting, the ones present were Ms.
Hernandez, the other three female workers, Mr. Tadeo, and a translator brought by the latter to translate. Thereafter,
Mr. Tadeo asked Ms. Hernandez and the three female workers to sign a blank document as proof that the meeting
took place and assured them that he will be speaking with Mr. Marquez. However, Ms. Hernandez believed that they
were asked to sign the blank document so that they could be terminated from employment since there was nothing
listed on the document but only their names. True enough, one week later after they signed that blank document, the
other three female workers who complained to Mr. Tadeo about Mr. Marquez were terminated. Ms. Hernandez
noted that when these terminations began, there were rumors that the company was going to hire employees only
through agency.

On or about January 11, 2021, Ms. Hernandez received a call from Ms. Consuelo Rangel, a co-worker, that
she will not be returning to work for the company. Mr. Rangel advised her that she overheard Mr. Marquez saying
that the owner did not want a staff that had already worked for the company to be hired by the agency. In addition,
Mr. Marquez told Ms. Rangel that they were only keeping two employees and were going to let go of the rest of the
staff to avoid problems. Moreover, Ms. Munoz advised Ms. Hernandez that if she wishes to work for the company,
she would need to apply though agency.

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

1. Sexual Harassment (Hostile Work Environment) in violation of the FEHA

The Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. Ms. Hernandez will
prevail on this claim by showing:

1. That Ms.Hernandez was an employee of Employer;

2. That Ms. Hernandez was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because she was a
woman;
3. That the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive;
4. That a reasonable person in Ms. Hernandez’s protected class considered the work
environment to be hostile or abusive;
5. That Ms. Hernandez considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive;
6. That a supervisor engaged in the conduct; and
7. That the conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Hernandez’s harm.
See CACI No. 2500.
 Here, it is undisputed that Ms. Hernandez was an employee of Employer and that Mr. Marquez was a
supervisor. Ms. Hernandez will show by a preponderance of evidence that she was subjected to harassment based on
her sex and had to endure a hostile work environment. The evidence shows that she was subjected to unwanted
harassing conduct that was both severe and pervasive. A reasonable person in Ms. Hernandez’s circumstances
would have considered the work environment at Employer to be hostile. Attached as Exhibit__, the Pay Stubs of Ms.
Felipa Hernandez to prove her employment with the Employer and also the Declaration of Witness Ms. Marina
Jaramillo dated March 16, 2023, as Exhibit___, to prove the harassment acts of Mr. Marquez, for your reference.

2. Failure to Investigate and Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of the

FEHA

Pursuant to California Govt. Code Section 12940 (k), it is an unlawful employment practice: For an
employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program, or any training program leading
to employment to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from
occurring.

Despite the Employer’s discriminatory conduct against Ms. Scott in the workplace and eventually resigned
from her employment, Employer did not take reasonable and appropriate steps to prevent them from affecting Ms.
Scott and her work.

In this light, Ms. Scott will prevail on this claim by showing the following:

1. That Employer was a covered entity under the FEHA;

2. That Ms. Scott was an employee of Employer;
3. That Ms. Scott was subjected to harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in the course of her
employment with Employer;
4. That Employer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination, or
retaliation Ms. Scott was subject to in the course of her employment with Employer;
5. That Ms. Scott was harmed; and
6. That Employer’s failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination, or
retaliation was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Sandoval’s harm. 

See CACI No. 2527.

3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

“A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is (1) extreme and
outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of
causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and
proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’ A defendant’s conduct is
‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.’ And
the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.”
(Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963])

Ms. Scott claims that Employer’s conduct caused her severe emotional distress due to their discrimination
and her wrongful termination reasonably.

To establish this claim, Ms. Scott will prove the following:

1. That Employer’s conduct was outrageous;

2. That Employer intended to cause Ms. Scott emotional distress;
3. That Ms. Scott suffered severe emotional distress; and
 4. That Employer’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Scott severe emotional distress.

See CACI 1600.

For this, Ms. Scott will seek recovery of her damages for Employer’s unlawful conduct in terminating her
in violation of public policy.

5. Wrongful Constructive Termination

Employer constructively terminated Ms. Scott’s employment in violation of various fundamental

public policies underlying both state and federal law. These actions were in violation of FEHA, the
California Constitution, and the California Labor Code.  To prevail on a claim of constructive discharge,
Ms. Scott will show the following by overwhelming evidence: 

1. That Employer, through its officers, directors, managing agents, or supervisory employees,
intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions to exist that were so intolerable
that a reasonable person in Ms. Scott’s position would have no reasonable alternative except to
resign; and 

2. That Ms. Scott resigned because of these working conditions.  

See CACI 2510. 

As described above, Ms. Scott will show that she had no reasonable alternative except to resign
due to Employer and its employees’ intolerable conduct.  

III. MS. SCOTT’S DEMANDS

By way of this letter, Claimant demands that Employer provide copies of any and all documents Claimant
signed per California Labor Code section 432 and copies of all payroll documents pursuant to California Labor Code
section 226 within 21 days of this demand.  Please also provide a copy of Claimant’s complete personnel file
according to California Labor Code section 1198.5 within 30 days of this demand. Failure to promptly provide the
requested documents will subject Employer to further civil penalties, attorney fees, and costs.

By way of this letter, Claimant also demands the following:

(1) That Employer has no further contact with Claimant concerning matters outlined in this letter.
Claimant is a represented party, and all communications concerning this matter must be directed to
this office;
(2) That Employer take notice that all authorizations previously provided by Claimant are hereby
revoked (i.e., permission to check credit, perform background checks, etc.);
(3) That Employer provides a copy of all applicable insurance cover (errors/omissions coverage for
the claims asserted); and
(4) That Employer preserves all evidence related to or may be associated with Claimant’s claims. 
This includes written or electronic correspondence, which your company’s record retention policy
may routinely destroy, as the Court stated in Penn v. Prestige Stations Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th
336, 343, “the intentional destruction of evidence needed in litigation is subject to severe
sanctions….”  
 IV. MS. SCOTT IS AMENABLE TO PRELITIGATION SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS AND/OR
MEDIATION

Claimant has authorized my office to engage in a prelitigation settlement. Based on the strength of the case
and my experience handling these types of claims, this is a reasonable offer that avoids the risk of a significant
judgment against your company.

FEHA claims generally mandate the award of attorney’s fees in favor of employees who succeed in
proving any claim brought under those statutes. In these cases, where employees typically are represented based on
contingency fee agreements, the attorney’s fee award is calculated based on a “lodestar” analysis. The court
calculates the lodestar by multiplying the hours spent times the hourly rate of the person performing the work and
then multiplies the lodestar by a reasonable multiplier. As such, all fees incurred by Claimant’s attorneys on
Claimant’s case will eventually be paid by you, and consequently, the longer this case goes, the value of her case
will increase significantly.

V. CONCLUSION

If you have an attorney or insurance carrier, I ask you immediately tender this letter to them.   Based on the
facts presented and the applicable law, it should be readily apparent that Employer is exposed to significant financial
liability.  We are confident that a reasonable jury will find that Claimant is entitled to damages for all harm Claimant
was forced to endure as your employee.

Claimant has strong claims, and we intend to pursue them vigorously. Based on the credible allegations
presented, Employer has violated California employment law protecting employees from harassment and
discrimination in the workplace. My office implores you to immediately change Employer’s business practices to
comply with California law.

All communications regarding this matter should be directed to my office. If you want to discuss this
matter, you can reach me by phone at (213) 787-7411 or email at jake@finkelfirm.com.

Very Truly Yours,