Preview
COSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
Lori J. Costanzo, SBN 142633
Lucy Goodnough, SBN 310607
Frank Zeccola, SBN 308875
COSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 West St. John, #700
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408.993.8493
Fax: 408.993.8496
Email: Lori@costanzo-law.com
Frank.zeccola@costanzo-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Latif Legend
E-FILED
4/14/2023 2:36 PM
Clerk of Court
Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara
23CV414684
Reviewed By: P. Newton
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
LATIF LEGEND, individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit
corporation;
Defendants.
23CV414684
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
1. Race Discrimination in Violation of
California Government Code § 12940
2. Failure to Take Steps to Prevent
Discrimination, Harassment, and
Retaliation in Violation of California
Government Code § 12940(k)
3. Failure to Provide Reasonable
Accommodations in Violation of
California Government Code § 12940(m)
4. Failure to Engage in Interactive Process
in Violation of California Government
Code § 12940(n)
5. Retaliation in Violation of California
Government Code § 12940(h)
6. Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy
7. Breach of The Implied Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
This Complaint is brought by Plaintiff LATIF LEGEND (“Plaintiff’ and/or “Mr. Legend”),
on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, against his former employer,
Defendant THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY (“Stanford University”), DOES 1-
100, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of
action. Plaintiff alleges the following:
I. PARTIES
1. Atall times material herein, Plaintiff was and is a competent adult and resident of the
State of California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY and in Santa
Clara County, California.
2. Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY is and was at all material times mentioned
herein, a California nonprofit organized under the law of the State of California (California Secretary
of State Entity Number C1264149) and presently doing business in Santa Clara County, California.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY employs thousands of individuals both within and outside of Santa
Clara County.
3. Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY is and was at all material times an
“employer,” as that term is defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and under
the California Labor Code.
4. The Defendants identified as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, are sued under fictitious
names, and were, at all times herein-mentioned, agents, business affiliates, successors- and/or
predecessors-in-interest, officers, directors, partners, and/or managing agents of some or each of the
remaining Defendants. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed
and believes and, on that basis, alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants
identified as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, employed, and/or exercised control over the conditions of
Plaintiff which led to the instant lawsuit, and which are described herein. In doing the acts herein
alleged, each Defendant is liable and responsible to Plaintiff for the acts of every other Defendant.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sue such Doe Defendants by fictitious names
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
2
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
the Doe Defendants are residents of the State of California. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to
show such Doe Defendants’ true names and capacities when they are known.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that, unless otherwise indicated,
each Defendant was the agent and/or employee of every other Defendant within the course and scope
of said agency and/or employment, with the knowledge and/or consent of said Defendant. Plaintiff
therefore alleges upon information and belief that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages alleged were
proximately caused by each of those Defendants.
6. To the extent any allegation contradicts another allegation, they are to be construed as
“alternative” theories.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because each Defendant transacts business within
this County, and Plaintiff performed work for Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY and
experienced the legal violations that are the subject of this Complaint in Santa Clara County. The
monetary value of Plaintiff claims exceeds $25,000, and the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
8. Venue is proper in this Court. Plaintiff, at all relevant times, was a resident of
California and entered into an employment agreement with Defendants in Santa Clara County.
Santa Clara County is also where they performed the work of their employment agreement and
relationship. Each Defendant is also an entity which conducts business in Santa Clara County, and
Defendants entered into the employment contract with Plaintiff in Santa Clara County, where the
contract was to be performed. Plaintiff allege on information and belief that one or more of Does 1—
25 were and are at all material times either individuals residing and/or working in Santa Clara
County or entities with their principal place of business and doing business in the Santa Clara
County. Moreover, the acts and omissions complained of occurred in, and the damages, and injury
that forms the basis of this lawsuit were sustained in Santa Clara County.
Mil
Mit
3
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
9. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and are
subject to suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) in that Defendants regularly
employ five or more persons. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination, failure to investigate
discrimination and retaliation against Defendants with the California Civil Rights Department
(“CRD”). On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff received a notice of the right to sue from the CRD pursuant to
California Government Code section 12965(b). Plaintiff filed this action within one year of the date
of his CRD right-to-sue letter(s); therefore, administrative remedies have been properly exhausted.
10. Plaintiff will satisfy all applicable administrative requirements then amend to add a
claim pursuant to the Private Attorney General’s Act, California Labor Code sections 2698 et seq.
11. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not preempt this action because
Defendants’ unlawful practices, as alleged herein, are not risks or conditions of employment. Plaintiff
is not required to satisfy any further private, administrative, or judicial prerequisites to the institution
of this action, insofar as such prerequisites pertain to any of the remaining causes of action in this
complaint.
FACTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL CAUSES OF ACTION
2 Mr. Latif Legend is an African American male.
3. | Mr. Legend was hired as an Associate Director of Student Awards at Stanford
University on October 2, 2017.
4. Based on his excellent work at Stanford, Mr. Legend was promoted to Associate
Director of Admission for Diversity Outreach and External Relations on December 2, 2019, reporting
to Tuan DinhJanelle, Assistant Dean of Admission for Diversity Outreach and External Relations.
5. As mentioned, Mr. Legend performed his job duties adequately, and in fact,
excellently, at all times.
6. According to the Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Performance Review 19-20
Performance Review:
Mil
4
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
Dewey wey Ss SK
oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA
His innate competencies and attitude have shepherded him through to level of success
in this new role that reflects well on his very hard work and intention to prevail. Of
course, after leave he basically returned in a Pandemic as well as a period of national
concern around racism and societal inequities. Nevertheless, his goal has been to heal,
mentor, lead others in his team and reach across the organization with focus on
community and cooperation and understanding.
17. Unfortunately, Mr. Legend experienced a pervasive pattern of discrimination at
Stanford that ultimately led to his retaliatory termination.
A. Diversity Employees Were Paid Less for More Work Than Non-Diversity Employees
18. The employees at Stanford such as Mr. Legend who are and were on the Diversity
Outreach and External Relations team (the “Diversity Team”) were composed of historically
marginalized community member employees, such as African Americans, Hispanic employees, and
other minorities.
19. Unfortunately, employees on the Diversity Team noticed that the amount of work
required of them was far more expansive and intensive than the work given to employees who were
not on the Diversity Team and who were typically white. Notwithstanding, Diversity Team
employees were paid the same or less in salary than their non-diversity colleagues. For example, in
the admission reading process, Diversity Team members were required to conduct an extra reading
of diverse applicants to determine whether these diverse applicants should be strongly considered for
admissions to the university. This was in addition to their regular duties, which no other non-diverse
team members had to perform.
20. As another example, the Diversity Team’s work responsibilities also included acting
as liaisons of the Diversity Center, representing these diverse communities. Mr. Legend, for example,
was the liaison for the Black Community Services Center and first-generation low-income students.
There are also Community Centers for Native Americans, Latino, Asians, and Queer communities.
The Diversity team would work for these offices, including advocacy on campus and developing
recruitment plans for these admissions, in addition to their regular workload.
Mil
5
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
_
a
Dewey wey Ss SK
oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA
21.
Further, per the “Job Summary” posted on Stanford’s website—and confirmed by Mr.
Legend and other Diversity Team members—the Diversity Team was required to carry out the
following additional duties:
22.
Being a thought leader and collaborator in the development of the Diversity Outreach
and External Relations Team’s over-arching vision and strategies toward diversity,
equity, and inclusion.
Developing and implementing diversity outreach programs and strategies for
recruitment of top students in local and national communities, including students who
are underrepresented minorities, first in their family to attend college, and reside in
rural contexts.
Serving as project manager on medium to large scale sized projects/programs by
establishing and executing detailed project plans, establishing timelines, tasks, and
objectives (examples include: supporting the visioning and creation of a potential
multi-university bay area bridge program; leading the development and
implementation of the Stanford Counselor Outreach Program that connects school
counselors across the country to UGA and partnering with the Community Based
Organization (CBO) liaison to support external partner programming on campus as
needed).
Analyzing needs, developing and managing admission programs and processes (e.g.,
in the area of diversity outreach); participating in the continuing evaluation of
departmental policies and procedures.
No other employees in the Admissions Office other than the Diversity Team were
tequired to carry out these additional duties, as described above.
23.
While Diversity Team members were thrilled to do this work for diverse populations,
Diversity Team members were not compensated for this additional work as compared to their white
colleagues.
24.
As a result of the additional work the Diversity Team engaged in for the same pay as
non-Diversity Team members, this course of conduct by Stanford represents adverse employment
6
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
actions against Diversity Team members and a completely discriminatory policy and practices
favoring non-diverse employees over diverse employees. Therefore, Mr. Legend and other members
of the Diversity Team were discriminated against by Stanford on account of their race and national
origin.
B. Mr. Legend and Other Diversity Employees’ Salaries Were So Low that the
University Suggested they ‘Drive for Door Dash’ to Subsidize Their Income
25. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, Stanford University employees—especially
those on the Diversity Team—have been “suffering in silence” regarding compensation. Mr. Legend
was one of many employees who, at first, held the belief that there would be merit opportunities for
salary increases and promotions if they were productive. These opportunities never materialized for
Diversity Team members.
26. Worse, Diversity Team employees earned salaries that were at or below the poverty
line. Prior to his termination, for example, Mr. Legend was the Associate Director of Diversity with
an annual salary of $92,700 with an anticipated salary increase of 3%, $2,781 totaling approximately
$95,481.
27. In 2017, Mr. Legend held the position of Associate Director of Student Awards,
earning approximately $82,000.
28. However, based on the Santa Clara County 2021 Average Income Report, Mr. Legend
was roughly $1,281 shy of being categorized as “low-income.”
29. Further, when Mr. Legend raised concerns about his disproportionate salary, he was
advised by University executives to “supplement his income with a part-time job,” such as “Door
Dash,” “Uber,” or to “get a roommate to lower his cost of living.” Such suggestions are absurd for
high-level employees (such as Mr. Legend) who work at one of the top Ivy League universities in the
country. Simply put, the University did not pay its Diversity Team members enough money to scrape
by and instead forced them to seek supplemental income to subsidize the University’s low pay.
Mit
Mil
Mit
7
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
Cc. Stanford’s Lack of Transparency Regarding Salaries Inhibited Employees’
Ability to Raise Pay Equity Concerns
30. In addition to the muted environment Mr. Legend experienced, there was an extreme
lack of transparency that inhibited the Stanford staff from assessing pay equity gaps.
31. | Many employees were unaware of their direct reports’ salaries and were discouraged
from discussing their own salaries, which inhibited their ability to negotiate or raise questions on pay
equity concerns.
32. Due to a lack of transparency, it was extremely difficult for employees, including Mr.
Legend, to effectively describe their working conditions or equity issues that impact the entire staff,
especially those who come from historically and presently marginalized backgrounds.
D. Stanford Was Aware of Mr. Legend’s Disability and Failed to Accommodate
33. In addition to the race discrimination faced by Mr. Legend and other Diversity Team
employees, Mr. Legend also experienced disability discrimination on account of injuries suffered in
the workplace.
34. | On September 2, 2021, Mr. Legend was seen by a specialist that diagnosed him with
early-stage carpal tunnel.
35. Mr. Legend immediately relayed the information received from the specialist to his
supervisor, Ms. Yamilet Odily Medina Lopez (“Supervisor”) via email on September 9, 2021. He
was advised by his Supervisor to contact the HR Department.
36. | The HR Department then directed Mr. Legend to reach out to the Environmental
Health Safety (EH&S), which he did immediately.
37. After several weeks of working with Mr. Legend, EH&S generated an Ergo Summary
Report with recommendations for specific ergonomic equipment that Mr. Legend required to
minimize his pain and discomfort in his wrist.
38. | The Ergo Summary Report was emailed to Mr. Legend’s supervisor on September 21,
2021. Several of the risk factors detailed in the report are as follows:
Mil
Mit
8
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
e Forward reach, as a chair does not allow the body to get close enough to the desk.
« Current chair does not provide adequate upright back support, resulting in a forward-
leaning posture.
e Increased pronation of forearms when using the keyboard.
39. After receiving the Ergo Summary Report, Mr. Legend’s supervisor refused to adhere
to the recommendations proposed by the EH&S, and instead stated there were “not enough funds” to
provide the ergonomic equipment for his workstation.
40. Worse, Mr. Legend’s Supervisor reprimanded him for not contacting the Occupational
Health Center regarding his disability and requested accommodations. She continued to admonish
him while explaining that HR “had been in meetings all day.” Infuriatingly, she concluded by
requesting Mr. Legend “apologize to the HR Department.”
41. Mr. Legend was not advised to reach out to the Occupational Health Center when he
inquired about the accommodation process.
42. The following week, on October 4, 2021, Mr. Legend received an email from his
Supervisor with further admonishment stating that he needed to respond in a “timely matter” and
“communicate clearly” to his Supervisor and HR so they could “support [him].”
43. His supervisor also stated he should not have “taken matters into [his] own hands,”
referencing Mr. Legend’s actions of seeking out his primary care physician when he began
experiencing pain and discomfort. His supervisor
44. That same day, Mr. Legend received the email from his supervisor, who requested a
phone call around 7:00 PM, attempting to gain clarity on the accommodations process and the
purpose of the admonishments he had received.
45. The next day, Mr. Legend met with his psychiatrist and explained the events that had
occurred. Based on the conversation with his psychiatrist, Mr. Legend took a necessary medical leave
for the time period specified by his doctor.
46. During the month of October, Mr. Legend had several communications with his
supervisor during which it became clear that he was not being properly supported. As a direct result
9
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
of his treatment by his supervisor and the Stanford administration, Mr. Legend extended his medical
leave until January 3, 2022.
47. Stanford University misclassified Mr. Legend’s medical leave as a sabbatical, which
increased his out-of-pocket costs for his healthcare.
48. In addition to failing to provide the required ergonomic equipment for Mr. Legend’s
work office, Stanford University informed him that they could not provide the recommended
equipment for his home office.
49, Stanford’s failure to provide Mr. Legend with the necessary equipment resulted in Mr.
Legend not receiving any ergonomic support for six months after providing the Ergo Summary
Report.
50. These known conditions, of which his Supervisor was informed and aware, led to
another workplace injury due to the lack of reasonable support—even after repeated requests.
51. Further, Mr. Legend was forced to disclose his ADHD diagnosis for the first time in
his professional career. His disclosure was a direct result of his fear of not being accommodated after
the treatment he received around his previously disclosed disability.
52. After disclosing his ADHD diagnosis to the administration, Mr. Legend requested to
record subsequent meetings with the Employee & Labor Relations Department (“ELR”). These
requests were denied.
E. After Consistently Receiving Positive Performance Reviews for Four Years, Mr.
Legend Unfairly Received His First Negative Review at the Hands of His New
Supervisor
53. As stated above, Mr. Legend had been a dedicated Stanford employee for over four
years.
54. During his time at Stanford, he made significant contributions to both the Financial
Aid Department and Admissions Department.
551 Mr. Legend consistently received outstanding performance reviews until he received
his first negative review, on June 3, 2021, after raising his concerns regarding his disability.
Mil
10
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
SOC me N DAW BR WN |
ye
56. At the time of the review, his supervisor was essentially brand new to the role, having
only been employed by Stanford for less than a year.
57. On October 26, 2022, Mr. Legend informed Stanford's Ethics and Compliance about
EDR misconduct that was violating federal and state law.
58. | On November 14, 2022, Mr. Legend informed ELR of the repeated psychological and
financial trauma.
59. In 2022, Stanford partnered with a group called “Hotep Consultations.” On November
15, 2022, Mr. Legend questioned Dean Richard Shaw about why he did not respond to Mr. Legend’s
concerns about the Office Partnership with HOTEP Consultations, Stanford’s three-year partnership.
The word “Hotep” has very derogatory connotations in the African American community. Mr.
Legend complained to Dean Shaw based on the alternative vernacular meaning of the word “Hotep”
among the Black community. Please see the following article regarding the colloquial meaning of
Tlotep, that over time has transformed from a meaning of peace towards a more questionable
shorthand that is rooted in:
« Misogyny, particularly against Black women
¢ Homophobia
e Anti-Semitism
60. Unfortunately, Dean Shaw did not respond to any of Mr. Legend’s complaints
regarding Hotep.
6l. In addition to Mr. Legend’s complaints to Dean Shaw, on December 2, 2022, Mr.
Legend raised concerns about Stanford’s DEI Survey 2021. Mr. Legend complained that: “How does
one reasonably prove my claims? Is it the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable
doubt? Raising these difficult issues reminded Mr. Legend specifically of Stanford's campus-wide
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) survey with the following findings:
e “Sixty-three percent of Black respondents indicated at least one experience with
microaggression;”
Mit
Mit
Wl
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
e “Of the 1,313 staff who said they experienced verbal harassing behaviors, 41 percent
indicated their boss or supervisor was the perpetrator and 26 percent indicated a
faculty member was the perpetrator;”
e “In the survey, community members who have experienced discrimination and
harassment reported a variety of negative effects such as discomfort with voicing
opinions, feelings of ostracization, avoidance of professional events, difficulty
concentrating or focusing on professional or academic work and thoughts of leaving
Stanford.”
62. When Mr. Legend brought his concerns regarding the survey to Stanford
administrators, he was told “First and foremost, the harmful behaviors reported in this survey have
no place at Stanford and should never be tolerated.”
63. Mr. Legend subsequently raised his concerns to the ELR on April 27, 2022, on issues
telated to disparate treatment, discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. His
concerns were not addressed until his investigation interviews on October 11, 2022 and October 12,
2022.
64. | On March 10, 2023, Mr. Legend received his personnel file with glaring missing
documents, such as the previously mentioned performance review from Dean Shaw.
F. Mr. Legend Received Pretextual Disciplinary Actions From His Manager In
Direct Response to Mr. Legend’s Disabilities
65. | On March 30, 2022, Mr. Legend’s supervisor informed him via email that she had
made “observations . . . which have led to performance concerns as it relates to general office
communication, project follow-up and committee preparation.”
66. Her claims were based primarily around the instant messaging app “Slack”, that was
utilized by various Stanford employees. According to his supervisor, Mr. Legend did not respond
quickly to his supervisor’s messages on Slack.
67. However, his Supervisor did not attempt to call him or reach out in any other way.
While instant messaging is an efficient form of communication, more reliable methods such as phone
and email should have been utilized if an issue is important and pressing. No such more reliable
12
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
methods were utilized, demonstrating the pretextual nature of the resulting disciplinary action against
Mr. Legend.
68. Interestingly, after reaching out to Mr. Legend on Slack, his supervisor contends that
she “had to reach out through personal means to get a hold of [him] during work hours . . .”
69. Tellingly, Mr. Legend promptly responded to these communications, negating any
allegation that any communication issues existed.
70. The ultimate result of the University’s race and disability discrimination against Mr.
Legend occurred in February of 2021 when Mr. Legend’s salary grade was suddenly decreased with
no prior written notice and for no apparent reason.
G. Mr. Legend Was Subjected to a Sham Investigation of His Valid Claims
71. On April 27, 2022, and based on the above-mentioned valid concerns, Mr. Legend
submitted an official grievance report about a perceived corrective action on issues related to
disparate treatment, discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.
72. On May 5, 2022, Mr. Legend was notified by the ELR that his grievance was “outside
of the scope” of the Staff Grievance Process.
73. At the same time, Mr. Legend was affirmed by the ELR that his concerns were
“matters that Stanford took seriously” and they would be “investigating his claims.”
74. On May 12, 2022, Mr. Legend informed the ELR that he was on medical leave until
July 6, 2022. As he was recovering from psychological and physical workplace harm, his medical
leave was extended until October 11, 2022.
75. On September 23, 2022, Mr. Legend reached out to Dean Richard Shaw (“Dean
Shaw”) about reporting procedures, and was informed that University Human Resources would
follow up with more information about reporting procedures.
76. On October 06, 2022, Mr. Legend was made aware by Dean Shaw that Mr. Legend
would be reporting to Michael Devlin (“Mr. Devlin”), who was one of the offenders named in Mr.
Legend’s grievance complaint.
77. The next day, Mr. Legend raised his concerns regarding reporting to Mr. Devlin to the
ELR.
13
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
_
a
Dewey wey Ss SK
oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA
78. | The ELR responded by essentially dismissing Mr. Legend’s concerns and simply
stating,
You have been released to return to work and are expected to report to work on
Monday. We're prepared to complete a thorough review of your concerns, however,
this does not relieve you of your obligation to return to work now that you have been
released.
79. On October 11, 2022 and October 13, 2022, Mr. Legend was interviewed for the
purpose of investigating his grievance complaint
80. | During the interviews, he posed several questions about the people and offices
involved with in the investigation. Mr. Legend was told each time he inquired that the information
he sought was “confidential.” Mr. Legend’s valid complaints were in essence shut down by the
University and completely swept under the rug.
81. When Mr. Legend continued to raise concerns that the individuals named in his
complaint were interfering with the course of the investigation, he was told to “act normally” with
his supervisors and other colleagues named in the complaint.
82. The conduct of Stanford during the course of the investigation clearly indicates that
Mr. Legend was not protected or supported by his employer and that the “investigation” only served
to protect the school and dismiss Mr. Legends valid claims without any actual consideration and
analysis.
H. The ELR Failed to Conduct an Adequate and Unbiased Investigation into Mr.
Legend’s Complaints
83. As Mr. Legend began seeking witnesses to corroborate and attest to the many issues
and concerns he brought up in his complaints to the University, he noticed a pattern of witness
intimidation by the University.
84. Each witness reported to Mr. Legend that they had made complaints to the University,
some going back a decade-plus. However, the putative witnesses stated that they feared retaliation
from the school, notwithstanding Stanford policies of non-retaliation.
Mt
14
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
_
a
Dewey wey Ss SK
oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA
85. These are current and former employees of Stanford related to Mr. Legend that they
were afraid of the following:
1. They are uncomfortable reliving their traumatic experiences again;
2. They have already brought these issues to Judi McCoy, Christine Yam, and Employee
& Labor Relations with no positive outcome;
3. Others are former employees who are currently applying to open positions at Stanford
and do not want to risk being denied an employment opportunity;
4. Other former employees are applying for external jobs and need positive references,
and there is a fear of negative references for positions external to Stanford.
86. As stated in Stanford’s policies, “The university has a separate non-retaliation policy
that protects employees who raise concerns about workplace discrimination or harassment (or
participate as witnesses in an investigation regarding such concerns) from retaliation.”
87. Unfortunately, Mr. Legend determined that these policies are meaningless to
employees who are afraid of Admission, Financial Aid Leadership, and other bodies within Stanford.
88. In point of fact, employees of the DIV Team 2021 raised concerns about
mismanagement. Issues related to pay equity concerns have been brought to their supervisors a
number of times in recent years.
89. A number of former employees stated they raised these issues in their exit interviews
within the past ten years.
90. The fact that employees are fully aware of Stanford’s meaningless non-retaliation
policy highlights the level of intimidation experienced against these employees.
91. Mr. Legend was thus prevented from revealing any current and former colleagues who
detailed their private work traumas in an intimidating work environment to him. Notwithstanding, all
witnesses confirmed that UGA is severely understaffed, overworked, and underpaid, which is also
happening in FAO.
92. The unfortunate reality is that even providing this information could be considered
damage the former and current employee witnesses, and Mr. Legend felt completely uncomfortable
recounting their experiences in such precarious work circumstances.
15
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
93. On March 29, 2023, ELR released the written findings of Mr. Legend’s investigation.
While listing bullet point after bullet point that included the high volume of Mr. Legend’s factual
complaints (as detailed throughout herein), ELR concluded with a one-sentence general denial of his
complaints.
94, No analysis or reasoning was given for the denial.
95. This lack of transparency is frightening and, frankly, insulting, as ELR promised Mr.
Legend a fair investigation with transparency as a key goal.
96. The University thus completely shirked its responsibilities to its employees to provide
a fair and full investigation.
L Stanford Refused to Approve Mr. Legend’s Request for Medical Leave and
Subsequently Terminated Him
97. On January 20, 2023, Mr. Legend received a letter from Dean Shaw terminating his
employment with Stanford.
98. In the letter, Stanford refused to approve Mr. Legend’s request for medical leave and
instead chose to terminate his employment despite his stellar performance reviews and valuable
contributions to the University.
99. The letter did not address any of Mr. Legend’s concerns or complaints and refused to
remedy them, instead Stanford elected to terminate his employment.
100. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the
discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will
continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff has
further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Race Discrimination in Violation of California Government Code § 12940
Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding
paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
Mil
16
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
101. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940 et seq.) (“FEHA”) and
Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This cause of action is brought pursuant to
FEHA, and the corresponding regulations promulgated by the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of
California and is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more
persons.
102. Under FEHA and the common law of the State of California, there is a fundamental
and well-established public policy against discrimination, harassment or retaliation based on the fact
that the employee has a protected characteristic. It is an unlawful employment practice to take any
adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic.
This public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of California and California Statutory
law, including but not limited to Government Code section 12940. Jurisdiction is invoked in this
court pursuant to FEHA and the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant
to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980) and Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d
65(1990).
103. An “employer” includes “any person regularly employing one or more persons or
regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or
any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil
subdivision of the state, and cities.” Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(4).
104. With respect to discrimination, California Government Code section 12940(a)
provides that it is an unlawful employment practice:
For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex,
gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran
status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person
for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from
17
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
aye
ta Se Ooo
24
25
26
27
28
employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the
person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
105. With respect to harassment, California Government Code section 12940(j)(1)
provides:
For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or
any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious
creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical
condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,
age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an
unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment
of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services
pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if
the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails
to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible
for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants,
unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the
workplace, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of
the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases
involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer's control and any other legal
responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees
shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from
occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment.
This is a claim for relief arising from Defendants’ causing, and its failure to prevent racial
discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff.
106. As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA because Plaintiff is
an employee who has a protected characteristic.
107. As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California
Government Code sections 12940 et seq.
18
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
08. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected
characteristic.
09. Pursuant to California Government Code section 12940(a), Defendants were
prohibited from taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a
protected characteristic.
10. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held and was
performing competently in the position. Furthermore, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the
duties and essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation.
11. Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above,
including his disproportionate salary and termination of employment, constituted unlawful
discrimination in employment on account of the fact that Plaintiff was an employee that has a
protected characteristic, in violation of California Government Code section 12940.
112. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’
conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by the fact that Plaintiff has a protected
characteristic.
113. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants,
including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited,
compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action.
114. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the
discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will
continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff has
further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
115. By discriminating against and harassing Plaintiff in violation of Government Code
section 12940, Defendants acted willfully, oppressively, maliciously and with conscious disregard
for Plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to annoy, harass or injure Plaintiff, in violation of California
Civil Code section 3294, such that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of punitive damages in an amount
according to proof at trial.
19
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
116. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents committed,
authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against
Defendants.
Plaintiff seeks his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code section
12965(b).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure To Prevent And Investigate Discrimination And Harassment in Violation of
California Government Code § 12940(k)
Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding
paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
117. Under California law, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy
against taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected
characteristic.
118. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), it is an unlawful
employment practice to take any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee
has a protected characteristic. Said public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of
California and California Statutory law, including but not limited to Gov’t. Code § 12940.
Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to FEHA and the public policy and common law of the
State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980)
and Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65 (1990).
119. As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA based on the fact
that Plaintiff is an employee who has a protected characteristic.
120. As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California
Government Code section 12940 et seq.
121. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected
characteristic.
122. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of
FEHA and Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This cause of action is brought
20
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
Dewey wey Ss SK
oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA
pursuant to FEHA, and the corresponding regulations promulgated by the California Department of
Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of
California and is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more
persons.
123. Under FEHA, including California Government Code section 12940(k), and the
common law of the State of California, Defendants owe to Plaintiff a duty to take all reasonable steps
necessary to investigate or prevent harassment and discrimination.
124. California Government Code section 12940(j)(1) provides that it is an unlawful
employment practice:
For an employer, ... or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin,
ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status,
sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status,
to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services
pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a
person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor,
shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this
conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be
responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants,
unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace,
where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and
fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of
nonemployees, the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the
employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity
shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits
shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment.
125. Plaintiff complained about the harassment and discrimination to one of Plaintiff's
managers. Nonetheless, Defendants did not investigate Plaintiff's complaints or take action to stop
the harassment and discrimination.
21
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
126. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff's complaints, Defendants failed to take
immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.
Defendants similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination from occurring.
127. Defendants knew or should have known about the discrimination and harassment
against Plaintiff. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent
discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Defendants similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to
prevent discrimination from occurring.
128. On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate anti-discrimination
training to their workforce, which results in unlawful discrimination, unlawful harassment, unlawful
retaliation and related violations against Plaintiff.
129. Because of Defendants’ failure to prevent and investigate harassment and
discrimination, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including disproportionate salary and
termination of employment.
130. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer damages in an amount subject to proof, but which are in excess of the jurisdictional
minimum of this Court, and which include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings, other employment
benefits and job opportunities, accrued but unpaid salary bonuses and benefits (including pre-
judgment interest thereon), front pay, back pay, severance pay, and other monetary damages. Plaintiff
is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
131. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code
section 12965(b).
132. Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in
conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’
managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages
are warranted against Defendants.
Mil
Mit
22
Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM
111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113,
SC Oey et
» _ —_
Oe to
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of California
Government Code § 12940(m)
Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding
paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
133. California Government Code section 12940(m)(1) provides that it shall be unlawful
“[flor an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for
the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.”
134. As alleged above, and at all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff has [suffered from a
disability pursuant to California Government Code sections 12940 et seq.
135. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's disability.
136. Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations with respect to Plaintiff's
needs based on his disability.
137. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the duties
and functions of his position if Defendant had provided reasonable accommodations. Defendants
could have provided reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's disability without causing any danger
to Plaintiff's or any other person’s health or safety, nor would it have created an undue hardship to
the operation of Defendants’ business.
138. Asaresult of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injuries
and damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
139. Asaproximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff was caused to suffer,
and continues to suffer, damages in an amount subject to proof, but which are in excess of the
jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which include, but are not limited to, humiliat
Preview
COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to Lori J. Costanzo, SBN 142633 Lucy Goodnough, SBN 310607 Frank Zeccola, SBN 308875 COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 West St. John, #700 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: 408.993.8493 Fax: 408.993.8496 Email: Lori@costanzo-law.com Frank.zeccola@costanzo-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Latif Legend E-FILED 4/14/2023 2:36 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 23CV414684 Reviewed By: P. Newton SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LATIF LEGEND, individual, Plaintiff, vs. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit corporation; Defendants. 23CV414684 Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. Race Discrimination in Violation of California Government Code § 12940 2. Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(k) 3. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(m) 4. Failure to Engage in Interactive Process in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(n) 5. Retaliation in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(h) 6. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 7. Breach of The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to This Complaint is brought by Plaintiff LATIF LEGEND (“Plaintiff’ and/or “Mr. Legend”), on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, against his former employer, Defendant THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY (“Stanford University”), DOES 1- 100, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action. Plaintiff alleges the following: I. PARTIES 1. Atall times material herein, Plaintiff was and is a competent adult and resident of the State of California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY and in Santa Clara County, California. 2. Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY is and was at all material times mentioned herein, a California nonprofit organized under the law of the State of California (California Secretary of State Entity Number C1264149) and presently doing business in Santa Clara County, California. STANFORD UNIVERSITY employs thousands of individuals both within and outside of Santa Clara County. 3. Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY is and was at all material times an “employer,” as that term is defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and under the California Labor Code. 4. The Defendants identified as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, are sued under fictitious names, and were, at all times herein-mentioned, agents, business affiliates, successors- and/or predecessors-in-interest, officers, directors, partners, and/or managing agents of some or each of the remaining Defendants. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants identified as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, employed, and/or exercised control over the conditions of Plaintiff which led to the instant lawsuit, and which are described herein. In doing the acts herein alleged, each Defendant is liable and responsible to Plaintiff for the acts of every other Defendant. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sue such Doe Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes that 2 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to the Doe Defendants are residents of the State of California. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show such Doe Defendants’ true names and capacities when they are known. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that, unless otherwise indicated, each Defendant was the agent and/or employee of every other Defendant within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment, with the knowledge and/or consent of said Defendant. Plaintiff therefore alleges upon information and belief that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages alleged were proximately caused by each of those Defendants. 6. To the extent any allegation contradicts another allegation, they are to be construed as “alternative” theories. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because each Defendant transacts business within this County, and Plaintiff performed work for Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY and experienced the legal violations that are the subject of this Complaint in Santa Clara County. The monetary value of Plaintiff claims exceeds $25,000, and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 8. Venue is proper in this Court. Plaintiff, at all relevant times, was a resident of California and entered into an employment agreement with Defendants in Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County is also where they performed the work of their employment agreement and relationship. Each Defendant is also an entity which conducts business in Santa Clara County, and Defendants entered into the employment contract with Plaintiff in Santa Clara County, where the contract was to be performed. Plaintiff allege on information and belief that one or more of Does 1— 25 were and are at all material times either individuals residing and/or working in Santa Clara County or entities with their principal place of business and doing business in the Santa Clara County. Moreover, the acts and omissions complained of occurred in, and the damages, and injury that forms the basis of this lawsuit were sustained in Santa Clara County. Mil Mit 3 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 9. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and are subject to suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) in that Defendants regularly employ five or more persons. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination, failure to investigate discrimination and retaliation against Defendants with the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”). On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff received a notice of the right to sue from the CRD pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). Plaintiff filed this action within one year of the date of his CRD right-to-sue letter(s); therefore, administrative remedies have been properly exhausted. 10. Plaintiff will satisfy all applicable administrative requirements then amend to add a claim pursuant to the Private Attorney General’s Act, California Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. 11. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not preempt this action because Defendants’ unlawful practices, as alleged herein, are not risks or conditions of employment. Plaintiff is not required to satisfy any further private, administrative, or judicial prerequisites to the institution of this action, insofar as such prerequisites pertain to any of the remaining causes of action in this complaint. FACTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL CAUSES OF ACTION 2 Mr. Latif Legend is an African American male. 3. | Mr. Legend was hired as an Associate Director of Student Awards at Stanford University on October 2, 2017. 4. Based on his excellent work at Stanford, Mr. Legend was promoted to Associate Director of Admission for Diversity Outreach and External Relations on December 2, 2019, reporting to Tuan DinhJanelle, Assistant Dean of Admission for Diversity Outreach and External Relations. 5. As mentioned, Mr. Legend performed his job duties adequately, and in fact, excellently, at all times. 6. According to the Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Performance Review 19-20 Performance Review: Mil 4 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to Dewey wey Ss SK oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA His innate competencies and attitude have shepherded him through to level of success in this new role that reflects well on his very hard work and intention to prevail. Of course, after leave he basically returned in a Pandemic as well as a period of national concern around racism and societal inequities. Nevertheless, his goal has been to heal, mentor, lead others in his team and reach across the organization with focus on community and cooperation and understanding. 17. Unfortunately, Mr. Legend experienced a pervasive pattern of discrimination at Stanford that ultimately led to his retaliatory termination. A. Diversity Employees Were Paid Less for More Work Than Non-Diversity Employees 18. The employees at Stanford such as Mr. Legend who are and were on the Diversity Outreach and External Relations team (the “Diversity Team”) were composed of historically marginalized community member employees, such as African Americans, Hispanic employees, and other minorities. 19. Unfortunately, employees on the Diversity Team noticed that the amount of work required of them was far more expansive and intensive than the work given to employees who were not on the Diversity Team and who were typically white. Notwithstanding, Diversity Team employees were paid the same or less in salary than their non-diversity colleagues. For example, in the admission reading process, Diversity Team members were required to conduct an extra reading of diverse applicants to determine whether these diverse applicants should be strongly considered for admissions to the university. This was in addition to their regular duties, which no other non-diverse team members had to perform. 20. As another example, the Diversity Team’s work responsibilities also included acting as liaisons of the Diversity Center, representing these diverse communities. Mr. Legend, for example, was the liaison for the Black Community Services Center and first-generation low-income students. There are also Community Centers for Native Americans, Latino, Asians, and Queer communities. The Diversity team would work for these offices, including advocacy on campus and developing recruitment plans for these admissions, in addition to their regular workload. Mil 5 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, _ a Dewey wey Ss SK oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA 21. Further, per the “Job Summary” posted on Stanford’s website—and confirmed by Mr. Legend and other Diversity Team members—the Diversity Team was required to carry out the following additional duties: 22. Being a thought leader and collaborator in the development of the Diversity Outreach and External Relations Team’s over-arching vision and strategies toward diversity, equity, and inclusion. Developing and implementing diversity outreach programs and strategies for recruitment of top students in local and national communities, including students who are underrepresented minorities, first in their family to attend college, and reside in rural contexts. Serving as project manager on medium to large scale sized projects/programs by establishing and executing detailed project plans, establishing timelines, tasks, and objectives (examples include: supporting the visioning and creation of a potential multi-university bay area bridge program; leading the development and implementation of the Stanford Counselor Outreach Program that connects school counselors across the country to UGA and partnering with the Community Based Organization (CBO) liaison to support external partner programming on campus as needed). Analyzing needs, developing and managing admission programs and processes (e.g., in the area of diversity outreach); participating in the continuing evaluation of departmental policies and procedures. No other employees in the Admissions Office other than the Diversity Team were tequired to carry out these additional duties, as described above. 23. While Diversity Team members were thrilled to do this work for diverse populations, Diversity Team members were not compensated for this additional work as compared to their white colleagues. 24. As a result of the additional work the Diversity Team engaged in for the same pay as non-Diversity Team members, this course of conduct by Stanford represents adverse employment 6 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to actions against Diversity Team members and a completely discriminatory policy and practices favoring non-diverse employees over diverse employees. Therefore, Mr. Legend and other members of the Diversity Team were discriminated against by Stanford on account of their race and national origin. B. Mr. Legend and Other Diversity Employees’ Salaries Were So Low that the University Suggested they ‘Drive for Door Dash’ to Subsidize Their Income 25. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, Stanford University employees—especially those on the Diversity Team—have been “suffering in silence” regarding compensation. Mr. Legend was one of many employees who, at first, held the belief that there would be merit opportunities for salary increases and promotions if they were productive. These opportunities never materialized for Diversity Team members. 26. Worse, Diversity Team employees earned salaries that were at or below the poverty line. Prior to his termination, for example, Mr. Legend was the Associate Director of Diversity with an annual salary of $92,700 with an anticipated salary increase of 3%, $2,781 totaling approximately $95,481. 27. In 2017, Mr. Legend held the position of Associate Director of Student Awards, earning approximately $82,000. 28. However, based on the Santa Clara County 2021 Average Income Report, Mr. Legend was roughly $1,281 shy of being categorized as “low-income.” 29. Further, when Mr. Legend raised concerns about his disproportionate salary, he was advised by University executives to “supplement his income with a part-time job,” such as “Door Dash,” “Uber,” or to “get a roommate to lower his cost of living.” Such suggestions are absurd for high-level employees (such as Mr. Legend) who work at one of the top Ivy League universities in the country. Simply put, the University did not pay its Diversity Team members enough money to scrape by and instead forced them to seek supplemental income to subsidize the University’s low pay. Mit Mil Mit 7 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to Cc. Stanford’s Lack of Transparency Regarding Salaries Inhibited Employees’ Ability to Raise Pay Equity Concerns 30. In addition to the muted environment Mr. Legend experienced, there was an extreme lack of transparency that inhibited the Stanford staff from assessing pay equity gaps. 31. | Many employees were unaware of their direct reports’ salaries and were discouraged from discussing their own salaries, which inhibited their ability to negotiate or raise questions on pay equity concerns. 32. Due to a lack of transparency, it was extremely difficult for employees, including Mr. Legend, to effectively describe their working conditions or equity issues that impact the entire staff, especially those who come from historically and presently marginalized backgrounds. D. Stanford Was Aware of Mr. Legend’s Disability and Failed to Accommodate 33. In addition to the race discrimination faced by Mr. Legend and other Diversity Team employees, Mr. Legend also experienced disability discrimination on account of injuries suffered in the workplace. 34. | On September 2, 2021, Mr. Legend was seen by a specialist that diagnosed him with early-stage carpal tunnel. 35. Mr. Legend immediately relayed the information received from the specialist to his supervisor, Ms. Yamilet Odily Medina Lopez (“Supervisor”) via email on September 9, 2021. He was advised by his Supervisor to contact the HR Department. 36. | The HR Department then directed Mr. Legend to reach out to the Environmental Health Safety (EH&S), which he did immediately. 37. After several weeks of working with Mr. Legend, EH&S generated an Ergo Summary Report with recommendations for specific ergonomic equipment that Mr. Legend required to minimize his pain and discomfort in his wrist. 38. | The Ergo Summary Report was emailed to Mr. Legend’s supervisor on September 21, 2021. Several of the risk factors detailed in the report are as follows: Mil Mit 8 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to e Forward reach, as a chair does not allow the body to get close enough to the desk. « Current chair does not provide adequate upright back support, resulting in a forward- leaning posture. e Increased pronation of forearms when using the keyboard. 39. After receiving the Ergo Summary Report, Mr. Legend’s supervisor refused to adhere to the recommendations proposed by the EH&S, and instead stated there were “not enough funds” to provide the ergonomic equipment for his workstation. 40. Worse, Mr. Legend’s Supervisor reprimanded him for not contacting the Occupational Health Center regarding his disability and requested accommodations. She continued to admonish him while explaining that HR “had been in meetings all day.” Infuriatingly, she concluded by requesting Mr. Legend “apologize to the HR Department.” 41. Mr. Legend was not advised to reach out to the Occupational Health Center when he inquired about the accommodation process. 42. The following week, on October 4, 2021, Mr. Legend received an email from his Supervisor with further admonishment stating that he needed to respond in a “timely matter” and “communicate clearly” to his Supervisor and HR so they could “support [him].” 43. His supervisor also stated he should not have “taken matters into [his] own hands,” referencing Mr. Legend’s actions of seeking out his primary care physician when he began experiencing pain and discomfort. His supervisor 44. That same day, Mr. Legend received the email from his supervisor, who requested a phone call around 7:00 PM, attempting to gain clarity on the accommodations process and the purpose of the admonishments he had received. 45. The next day, Mr. Legend met with his psychiatrist and explained the events that had occurred. Based on the conversation with his psychiatrist, Mr. Legend took a necessary medical leave for the time period specified by his doctor. 46. During the month of October, Mr. Legend had several communications with his supervisor during which it became clear that he was not being properly supported. As a direct result 9 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to of his treatment by his supervisor and the Stanford administration, Mr. Legend extended his medical leave until January 3, 2022. 47. Stanford University misclassified Mr. Legend’s medical leave as a sabbatical, which increased his out-of-pocket costs for his healthcare. 48. In addition to failing to provide the required ergonomic equipment for Mr. Legend’s work office, Stanford University informed him that they could not provide the recommended equipment for his home office. 49, Stanford’s failure to provide Mr. Legend with the necessary equipment resulted in Mr. Legend not receiving any ergonomic support for six months after providing the Ergo Summary Report. 50. These known conditions, of which his Supervisor was informed and aware, led to another workplace injury due to the lack of reasonable support—even after repeated requests. 51. Further, Mr. Legend was forced to disclose his ADHD diagnosis for the first time in his professional career. His disclosure was a direct result of his fear of not being accommodated after the treatment he received around his previously disclosed disability. 52. After disclosing his ADHD diagnosis to the administration, Mr. Legend requested to record subsequent meetings with the Employee & Labor Relations Department (“ELR”). These requests were denied. E. After Consistently Receiving Positive Performance Reviews for Four Years, Mr. Legend Unfairly Received His First Negative Review at the Hands of His New Supervisor 53. As stated above, Mr. Legend had been a dedicated Stanford employee for over four years. 54. During his time at Stanford, he made significant contributions to both the Financial Aid Department and Admissions Department. 551 Mr. Legend consistently received outstanding performance reviews until he received his first negative review, on June 3, 2021, after raising his concerns regarding his disability. Mil 10 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 SOC me N DAW BR WN | ye 56. At the time of the review, his supervisor was essentially brand new to the role, having only been employed by Stanford for less than a year. 57. On October 26, 2022, Mr. Legend informed Stanford's Ethics and Compliance about EDR misconduct that was violating federal and state law. 58. | On November 14, 2022, Mr. Legend informed ELR of the repeated psychological and financial trauma. 59. In 2022, Stanford partnered with a group called “Hotep Consultations.” On November 15, 2022, Mr. Legend questioned Dean Richard Shaw about why he did not respond to Mr. Legend’s concerns about the Office Partnership with HOTEP Consultations, Stanford’s three-year partnership. The word “Hotep” has very derogatory connotations in the African American community. Mr. Legend complained to Dean Shaw based on the alternative vernacular meaning of the word “Hotep” among the Black community. Please see the following article regarding the colloquial meaning of Tlotep, that over time has transformed from a meaning of peace towards a more questionable shorthand that is rooted in: « Misogyny, particularly against Black women ¢ Homophobia e Anti-Semitism 60. Unfortunately, Dean Shaw did not respond to any of Mr. Legend’s complaints regarding Hotep. 6l. In addition to Mr. Legend’s complaints to Dean Shaw, on December 2, 2022, Mr. Legend raised concerns about Stanford’s DEI Survey 2021. Mr. Legend complained that: “How does one reasonably prove my claims? Is it the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt? Raising these difficult issues reminded Mr. Legend specifically of Stanford's campus-wide Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) survey with the following findings: e “Sixty-three percent of Black respondents indicated at least one experience with microaggression;” Mit Mit Wl Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to e “Of the 1,313 staff who said they experienced verbal harassing behaviors, 41 percent indicated their boss or supervisor was the perpetrator and 26 percent indicated a faculty member was the perpetrator;” e “In the survey, community members who have experienced discrimination and harassment reported a variety of negative effects such as discomfort with voicing opinions, feelings of ostracization, avoidance of professional events, difficulty concentrating or focusing on professional or academic work and thoughts of leaving Stanford.” 62. When Mr. Legend brought his concerns regarding the survey to Stanford administrators, he was told “First and foremost, the harmful behaviors reported in this survey have no place at Stanford and should never be tolerated.” 63. Mr. Legend subsequently raised his concerns to the ELR on April 27, 2022, on issues telated to disparate treatment, discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. His concerns were not addressed until his investigation interviews on October 11, 2022 and October 12, 2022. 64. | On March 10, 2023, Mr. Legend received his personnel file with glaring missing documents, such as the previously mentioned performance review from Dean Shaw. F. Mr. Legend Received Pretextual Disciplinary Actions From His Manager In Direct Response to Mr. Legend’s Disabilities 65. | On March 30, 2022, Mr. Legend’s supervisor informed him via email that she had made “observations . . . which have led to performance concerns as it relates to general office communication, project follow-up and committee preparation.” 66. Her claims were based primarily around the instant messaging app “Slack”, that was utilized by various Stanford employees. According to his supervisor, Mr. Legend did not respond quickly to his supervisor’s messages on Slack. 67. However, his Supervisor did not attempt to call him or reach out in any other way. While instant messaging is an efficient form of communication, more reliable methods such as phone and email should have been utilized if an issue is important and pressing. No such more reliable 12 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to methods were utilized, demonstrating the pretextual nature of the resulting disciplinary action against Mr. Legend. 68. Interestingly, after reaching out to Mr. Legend on Slack, his supervisor contends that she “had to reach out through personal means to get a hold of [him] during work hours . . .” 69. Tellingly, Mr. Legend promptly responded to these communications, negating any allegation that any communication issues existed. 70. The ultimate result of the University’s race and disability discrimination against Mr. Legend occurred in February of 2021 when Mr. Legend’s salary grade was suddenly decreased with no prior written notice and for no apparent reason. G. Mr. Legend Was Subjected to a Sham Investigation of His Valid Claims 71. On April 27, 2022, and based on the above-mentioned valid concerns, Mr. Legend submitted an official grievance report about a perceived corrective action on issues related to disparate treatment, discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. 72. On May 5, 2022, Mr. Legend was notified by the ELR that his grievance was “outside of the scope” of the Staff Grievance Process. 73. At the same time, Mr. Legend was affirmed by the ELR that his concerns were “matters that Stanford took seriously” and they would be “investigating his claims.” 74. On May 12, 2022, Mr. Legend informed the ELR that he was on medical leave until July 6, 2022. As he was recovering from psychological and physical workplace harm, his medical leave was extended until October 11, 2022. 75. On September 23, 2022, Mr. Legend reached out to Dean Richard Shaw (“Dean Shaw”) about reporting procedures, and was informed that University Human Resources would follow up with more information about reporting procedures. 76. On October 06, 2022, Mr. Legend was made aware by Dean Shaw that Mr. Legend would be reporting to Michael Devlin (“Mr. Devlin”), who was one of the offenders named in Mr. Legend’s grievance complaint. 77. The next day, Mr. Legend raised his concerns regarding reporting to Mr. Devlin to the ELR. 13 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, _ a Dewey wey Ss SK oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA 78. | The ELR responded by essentially dismissing Mr. Legend’s concerns and simply stating, You have been released to return to work and are expected to report to work on Monday. We're prepared to complete a thorough review of your concerns, however, this does not relieve you of your obligation to return to work now that you have been released. 79. On October 11, 2022 and October 13, 2022, Mr. Legend was interviewed for the purpose of investigating his grievance complaint 80. | During the interviews, he posed several questions about the people and offices involved with in the investigation. Mr. Legend was told each time he inquired that the information he sought was “confidential.” Mr. Legend’s valid complaints were in essence shut down by the University and completely swept under the rug. 81. When Mr. Legend continued to raise concerns that the individuals named in his complaint were interfering with the course of the investigation, he was told to “act normally” with his supervisors and other colleagues named in the complaint. 82. The conduct of Stanford during the course of the investigation clearly indicates that Mr. Legend was not protected or supported by his employer and that the “investigation” only served to protect the school and dismiss Mr. Legends valid claims without any actual consideration and analysis. H. The ELR Failed to Conduct an Adequate and Unbiased Investigation into Mr. Legend’s Complaints 83. As Mr. Legend began seeking witnesses to corroborate and attest to the many issues and concerns he brought up in his complaints to the University, he noticed a pattern of witness intimidation by the University. 84. Each witness reported to Mr. Legend that they had made complaints to the University, some going back a decade-plus. However, the putative witnesses stated that they feared retaliation from the school, notwithstanding Stanford policies of non-retaliation. Mt 14 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, _ a Dewey wey Ss SK oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA 85. These are current and former employees of Stanford related to Mr. Legend that they were afraid of the following: 1. They are uncomfortable reliving their traumatic experiences again; 2. They have already brought these issues to Judi McCoy, Christine Yam, and Employee & Labor Relations with no positive outcome; 3. Others are former employees who are currently applying to open positions at Stanford and do not want to risk being denied an employment opportunity; 4. Other former employees are applying for external jobs and need positive references, and there is a fear of negative references for positions external to Stanford. 86. As stated in Stanford’s policies, “The university has a separate non-retaliation policy that protects employees who raise concerns about workplace discrimination or harassment (or participate as witnesses in an investigation regarding such concerns) from retaliation.” 87. Unfortunately, Mr. Legend determined that these policies are meaningless to employees who are afraid of Admission, Financial Aid Leadership, and other bodies within Stanford. 88. In point of fact, employees of the DIV Team 2021 raised concerns about mismanagement. Issues related to pay equity concerns have been brought to their supervisors a number of times in recent years. 89. A number of former employees stated they raised these issues in their exit interviews within the past ten years. 90. The fact that employees are fully aware of Stanford’s meaningless non-retaliation policy highlights the level of intimidation experienced against these employees. 91. Mr. Legend was thus prevented from revealing any current and former colleagues who detailed their private work traumas in an intimidating work environment to him. Notwithstanding, all witnesses confirmed that UGA is severely understaffed, overworked, and underpaid, which is also happening in FAO. 92. The unfortunate reality is that even providing this information could be considered damage the former and current employee witnesses, and Mr. Legend felt completely uncomfortable recounting their experiences in such precarious work circumstances. 15 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to 93. On March 29, 2023, ELR released the written findings of Mr. Legend’s investigation. While listing bullet point after bullet point that included the high volume of Mr. Legend’s factual complaints (as detailed throughout herein), ELR concluded with a one-sentence general denial of his complaints. 94, No analysis or reasoning was given for the denial. 95. This lack of transparency is frightening and, frankly, insulting, as ELR promised Mr. Legend a fair investigation with transparency as a key goal. 96. The University thus completely shirked its responsibilities to its employees to provide a fair and full investigation. L Stanford Refused to Approve Mr. Legend’s Request for Medical Leave and Subsequently Terminated Him 97. On January 20, 2023, Mr. Legend received a letter from Dean Shaw terminating his employment with Stanford. 98. In the letter, Stanford refused to approve Mr. Legend’s request for medical leave and instead chose to terminate his employment despite his stellar performance reviews and valuable contributions to the University. 99. The letter did not address any of Mr. Legend’s concerns or complaints and refused to remedy them, instead Stanford elected to terminate his employment. 100. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Race Discrimination in Violation of California Government Code § 12940 Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. Mil 16 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to 101. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940 et seq.) (“FEHA”) and Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, and the corresponding regulations promulgated by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more persons. 102. Under FEHA and the common law of the State of California, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy against discrimination, harassment or retaliation based on the fact that the employee has a protected characteristic. It is an unlawful employment practice to take any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. This public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of California and California Statutory law, including but not limited to Government Code section 12940. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to FEHA and the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980) and Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65(1990). 103. An “employer” includes “any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities.” Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(4). 104. With respect to discrimination, California Government Code section 12940(a) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice: For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from 17 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to aye ta Se Ooo 24 25 26 27 28 employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 105. With respect to harassment, California Government Code section 12940(j)(1) provides: For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer's control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment. This is a claim for relief arising from Defendants’ causing, and its failure to prevent racial discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff. 106. As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA because Plaintiff is an employee who has a protected characteristic. 107. As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California Government Code sections 12940 et seq. 18 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to 08. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected characteristic. 09. Pursuant to California Government Code section 12940(a), Defendants were prohibited from taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. 10. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held and was performing competently in the position. Furthermore, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the duties and essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation. 11. Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, including his disproportionate salary and termination of employment, constituted unlawful discrimination in employment on account of the fact that Plaintiff was an employee that has a protected characteristic, in violation of California Government Code section 12940. 112. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by the fact that Plaintiff has a protected characteristic. 113. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants, including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action. 114. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 115. By discriminating against and harassing Plaintiff in violation of Government Code section 12940, Defendants acted willfully, oppressively, maliciously and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to annoy, harass or injure Plaintiff, in violation of California Civil Code section 3294, such that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 19 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to 116. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants. Plaintiff seeks his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Failure To Prevent And Investigate Discrimination And Harassment in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(k) Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 117. Under California law, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy against taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. 118. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), it is an unlawful employment practice to take any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. Said public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of California and California Statutory law, including but not limited to Gov’t. Code § 12940. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to FEHA and the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980) and Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65 (1990). 119. As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA based on the fact that Plaintiff is an employee who has a protected characteristic. 120. As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California Government Code section 12940 et seq. 121. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected characteristic. 122. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of FEHA and Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This cause of action is brought 20 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to Dewey wey Ss SK oI AA RB O8ONH = S CHA pursuant to FEHA, and the corresponding regulations promulgated by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more persons. 123. Under FEHA, including California Government Code section 12940(k), and the common law of the State of California, Defendants owe to Plaintiff a duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to investigate or prevent harassment and discrimination. 124. California Government Code section 12940(j)(1) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice: For an employer, ... or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment. 125. Plaintiff complained about the harassment and discrimination to one of Plaintiff's managers. Nonetheless, Defendants did not investigate Plaintiff's complaints or take action to stop the harassment and discrimination. 21 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to 126. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff's complaints, Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Defendants similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination from occurring. 127. Defendants knew or should have known about the discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Defendants similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination from occurring. 128. On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate anti-discrimination training to their workforce, which results in unlawful discrimination, unlawful harassment, unlawful retaliation and related violations against Plaintiff. 129. Because of Defendants’ failure to prevent and investigate harassment and discrimination, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including disproportionate salary and termination of employment. 130. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount subject to proof, but which are in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings, other employment benefits and job opportunities, accrued but unpaid salary bonuses and benefits (including pre- judgment interest thereon), front pay, back pay, severance pay, and other monetary damages. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 131. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). 132. Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants. Mil Mit 22 Complaint for DamagesCOSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN, STE. 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113, SC Oey et » _ —_ Oe to THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(m) Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 133. California Government Code section 12940(m)(1) provides that it shall be unlawful “[flor an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.” 134. As alleged above, and at all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff has [suffered from a disability pursuant to California Government Code sections 12940 et seq. 135. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's disability. 136. Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations with respect to Plaintiff's needs based on his disability. 137. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the duties and functions of his position if Defendant had provided reasonable accommodations. Defendants could have provided reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's disability without causing any danger to Plaintiff's or any other person’s health or safety, nor would it have created an undue hardship to the operation of Defendants’ business. 138. Asaresult of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 139. Asaproximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff was caused to suffer, and continues to suffer, damages in an amount subject to proof, but which are in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which include, but are not limited to, humiliat