Summary of First Amended Complaint: Blanca Acosta v. County of Imperial, Jesus Eduardo Escobar
Disclaimer: This summary was generated using artificial intelligence. To ensure a complete understanding of all facts and allegations, it is recommended to read the full document, by Clicking here
Case Details:
• Court: Superior Court of California, County of Imperial
• Case Number: ECU004161
• Filing Date: July 1, 2025
• Plaintiff: Blanca Acosta, a former Clerk of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors
• Defendants: County of Imperial, Jesus Eduardo Escobar (County Board Supervisor), and Does 1-50 (unidentified parties alleged to be responsible for or complicit in the acts described)
• Attorneys for Plaintiff:
• Manuel Corrales, Jr., Manuel Corrales, Jr., ALC, 11939 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 170, San Diego, CA 92128 (SBN 117647, Tel: 858-521-0634, Email: mannycorrales@yahoo.com)
• Terry Singleton, Terry Singleton, A.P.C., 1950 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101 (SBN 58316, Tel: 619-239-3225, Email: terry@terrysingleton.com)
Background: Blanca Acosta was employed by the County of Imperial from December 9, 2002, until her termination on April 8, 2025. She began as an Office Assistant in the Clerk’s Office, was promoted to Acting Assistant Clerk in 2007, and became Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in 2014. Throughout her tenure, Acosta received excellent performance reviews and annual merit-based salary increases, with her salary rising from $5,247 per month in 2014 to $11,204 per month by 2025, including a significant $3,000 monthly increase in May 2023. She had no disciplinary record prior to her termination.
Allegations:
1. Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment (2022-2025):
• In January 2022, when Escobar became Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Acosta, as Board Clerk, began working closely with him. She alleges Escobar subjected her to severe and pervasive harassment, including:
• Unwelcome comments about her appearance (e.g., calling her legs in high heels “fuck me heels,” complimenting her “professional look” frequently).
• Personal and invasive questions (e.g., asking if she cheated on her husband, discussing shared interests like having three daughters to imply a romantic connection).
• Persistent, intense eye contact during meetings, making Acosta uncomfortable.
• Stalking-like behavior at the 2022 State of the County event, following her and making inappropriate comments, culminating in a late-night call inviting her for drinks, which she declined.
• In mid-2022, Escobar allegedly downloaded photos of Acosta and her family from her Facebook profile without consent, refusing to delete them when requested, causing her distress.
• Escobar gave gifts to Acosta, including an infinity necklace, a card expressing romantic feelings, and a $200 Nordstrom Rack gift card, which she returned or had disposed of, stating they made her uncomfortable.
2. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment:
• In 2023, after the Board approved a wage increase for the Clerk’s Office (with Escobar voting in favor), he allegedly told Acosta the raise was due to his influence, implying that job benefits depended on her submitting to his romantic and sexual advances. This continued through suggestive comments that her job security and benefits were tied to compliance.
3. Battery:
• In mid-2022, Escobar allegedly grabbed Acosta, forcibly kissed her, and caressed her face and neck against a wall in his office, causing her to feel trapped and suffer a panic attack. In January 2025, he entered her office, ignored her request to leave the door open, gave her an unwanted side hug, and kissed her on the head, leading her to leave work and experience significant distress.
4. Retaliation and Wrongful Termination:
• In late 2023, Acosta reported Escobar’s misconduct to County Executive Officer Miguel Figueroa and Human Resources Director Rodolfo Aguayo but declined to file a formal harassment claim, fearing retaliation. The County allegedly conducted no formal investigation and failed to discipline Escobar.
• In 2024, after further complaints, including a July 2024 Zoom call with Figueroa, Aguayo, and Escobar, where Acosta reiterated the harassment and false rumors of a sexual relationship, Escobar denied the allegations. His rude and hostile behavior toward her escalated.
• Escobar allegedly spread false claims of a sexual relationship with Acosta, including to her sister (his doctor’s receptionist, whom he called his “sister-in-law”) and co-workers, causing Acosta embarrassment and stress.
• On March 7, 2025, Acosta was placed on administrative leave. On April 8, 2025, the County Board terminated her without cause, which she alleges was retaliation for her complaints. Escobar faced no discipline and continued his employment.
5. County’s Failure to Act:
• The County allegedly failed to investigate Escobar’s conduct adequately, despite warnings from HR and Board Chairman Luis Plancarte in 2024. An outside attorney, Angel H. Ho, interviewed Acosta in July 2024, but no formal action against Escobar followed. The County’s inaction is claimed to have ratified Escobar’s behavior, contributing to Acosta’s emotional distress, nightmares, and need for therapy.
Causes of Action:
1. Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(j)) – Against all defendants, alleging severe and pervasive harassment by Escobar, for which the County is strictly liable due to his supervisory role.
2. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(j)) – Against all defendants, claiming Escobar conditioned job benefits on Acosta’s acceptance of his advances.
3. Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) – Against County and Does 1-50, for suspending and terminating Acosta in response to her harassment complaints.
4. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy – Against County and Does 1-50, asserting her firing violated policies protecting employees who report unlawful conduct.
5. Battery – Against Escobar, County, and Does 1-50, for unwanted physical contact, ratified by the County’s failure to act.
6. Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(k)) – Against County and Does 1-50, for not taking reasonable steps to prevent harassment.
7. Failure to Prevent Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(k)) – Against County and Does 1-50, for not preventing retaliation against Acosta.
Damages and Relief Sought:
• Economic Damages: Lost wages, lost earning capacity, and past/future medical expenses.
• Non-Economic Damages: Pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, and embarrassment.
• Punitive Damages: Against Escobar for malicious, oppressive conduct (CC § 3294).
• Other Relief: Attorney fees and costs (Gov. Code § 12965(b)), civil penalties, and any other relief deemed just.
• Jury Trial: Demanded for all claims.
Procedural Compliance:
• On June 27, 2025, Acosta received a right-to-sue letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), attached as Exhibit 1 to the complaint.
• On the same date, she filed a timely government tort claim with the County of Imperial.
County Response:
• As of July 3, 2025, Imperial County Public Information Officer Eddie Lopez stated, “We’re currently still in the process of discussing the matter, so we’re still having some internal meetings with some of the other board of supervisors as well as the new CEO. We do plan to have a statement either sometime this afternoon or early morning tomorrow.” No further statement has been provided.
Conclusion: The complaint alleges that Acosta endured years of sexual harassment and battery by Escobar, enabled by the County’s failure to intervene, culminating in her retaliatory termination. The case highlights serious claims of workplace misconduct and institutional inaction, pending further judicial proceedings.