Preview
1 Robinson Employment Law, PC ELECTRONICALLY
2
Michael C. Robinson, State Bar No. 233914 FILED
Lakesha L. Robinson, State Bar No. 256502 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
17702 Mitchell No., Suite 204
3 04/22/2024
Irvine, California 92614
Clerk of the Court
4 Tel: (949) 756-9050 BY: DAEJA ROGERS
Fax: (949) 271-4700 Deputy Clerk
5 Email: mcr@robinsonemploymentlaw.com
llr@robinsonemploymentlaw.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff, LAUREN HOHNBAUM
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 CGC-24-614118
11 LAUREN HOHNBAUM, an individual, CASE NO.:
Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable
12 Judge:
PLAINTIFF, Dept.:
13
v. Unlimited Jurisdiction
14
DISCORD, INC., a Delaware COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
15 Corporation; MINDY FINEOUT, an
individual; MAVIS GRUVER, an 1) Whistleblower Retaliation (Cal. Labor
16 individual; THOMASZ Code §§ 232.5 and 1102.5);
MARCINKOWSKI, an individual; and 2) Disability / Medical Condition
17 DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Discrimination (Cal. Gov. Code §
12940(a));
18 DEFENDANTS. 3) Failure to Accommodate (Cal. Gov. Code
§ 12940(m));
19 4) Failure to Engage in the Interactive
Process (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(n));
20 5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and
Retaliation (Cal. Gov. Code §
21 12940(k));
6) Wrongful Termination and Retaliation in
22 Violation of Public Policy;
7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
23 Distress; and
8) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses
24 (Cal. Labor Code § 2802).
25
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiff, LAUREN HOHNBAUM (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”), complains and alleges as
2 follows:
3 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
4 1. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars
5 ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs.
6 2. PLAINTIFF is a resident of the State of California at all times relevant to this
7 case.
8 3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, DISCORD, INC.
9 (“DISCORD”), is a Delaware corporation at all times mentioned herein was operating its
10 business in the County of San Francisco, State of California.
11 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MINDY FINEOUT
12 (“FINEOUT”) is an individual and at all times mentioned herein residing in the County of King,
13 State of Washington.
14 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MAVIS GRUVER
15 (“GRUVER”) is an individual and at all times mentioned herein residing in the County of San
16 Mateo, State of California.
17 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that THOMASZ
18 MARCINKOWSKI (“MARCINKOWSKI”) is an individual and at all times mentioned herein
19 residing in the County of San Francisco, State of California.
20 7. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, whether individual,
21 corporate, or associate are otherwise unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues such
22 DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 474.
23 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the DOE DEFENDANTS are
24 California residents.
25 8. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities
26 when they have been ascertained. Defendants, DISCORD, INC., MINDY FINEOUT, MAVIS
27 GRUVER, THOMASZ MARCINKOWSKI, and DOES 1 through 50 are hereinafter collectively
28 referred to as “DEFENDANTS.”
2
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the
2 DEFENDANTS, and each and all of them, at all times hereinafter mentioned, were agents,
3 employees, servants, joint venturers, parent companies, successor companies, officers, directors,
4 fiduciaries, representatives, and/or co-conspirators of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS.
5 10. DEFENDANTS, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the
6 course and scope of such relationship (unless otherwise alleged) and were responsible in some
7 manner for the occurrences herein alleged and are a proximate cause of PLAINTIFF’s damages as
8 herein alleged.
9 11. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the
10 DEFENDANTS designated herein by a fictitious name is negligently, intentionally, or otherwise
11 responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently,
12 intentionally, or otherwise caused the injuries and damages to the PLAINTIFF as hereinafter
13 alleged.
14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15 12. PLAINTIFF began her employment with DEFENDANTS as a Senior Manager,
16 Technical Recruiting on or about January 10, 2022.
17 13. The majority of PLAINTIFF’s work was performed remotely in her home office
18 in Southern California. During PLAINTIFF’s employment, DEFENDANTS failed to reimburse
19 PLAINTIFF for the business use of her personal mobile phone or her home office expenses for
20 work she performed at home, except for $60 per month for her home internet service.
21 14. PLAINTIFF had a disability about which DEFENDANTS knew. PLAINTIFF is
22 neurodiverse and was diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”).
23 15. On December 13, 2022, a coworker, Josh Nemec told PLAINTIFF, “That is an
24 unintelligent way of thinking” in a group meeting where they were discussing work issues. This
25 comment was in response to PLAINTIFF’s stated proposals at a Resource Deployment Plan
26 meeting with her team about how to redeploy talent at DISCORD to avoid layoffs. PLAINTIFF
27 had previously notified Nemec about her disability earlier in her employment. PLAINTIFF’s
28 online employment profile at DEFENDANTS stated to ask her about ADHD.
3
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 16. PLAINTIFF immediately reported the discriminatory comment to her supervisor,
2 FINEOUT, Director of Technical Recruiting. FINEOUT instructed PLAINTIFF not to report the
3 discrimination to the Human Resources Department and instead to allow FINEOUT to address
4 the discriminatory comment.
5 17. On December 14, 2022, FINEOUT held a manager-lead meeting with Nemec and
6 PLAINTIFF, wherein PLAINTIFF repeated what Nemec said in the meeting. Nemec denied that
7 he made this comment. He stated he was no longer comfortable being in meetings with
8 PLAINTIFF. The meeting ended without resolution. PLAINTIFF stated the meeting about
9 Nemec’s comment about PLAINTIFF should have been conducted with a Human Resources
10 representative.
11 18. On December 20, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a written report to GRUVER in the
12 Human Resources Department about the discriminatory comment. DEFENDANTS stated they
13 would investigate the issue, but on January 11, 2023, DEFENDANTS closed the investigation
14 without resolution.
15 19. On January 12, 2023, FINEOUT suddenly terminated PLAINTIFF stating, “We
16 are eliminating your position. This is your last day.”
17 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
18 20. On April 22, 2024, PLAINTIFF filed a complaint against DEFENDANTS with
19 the California Civil Rights Department. PLAINTIFF received the Right-to-Sue Letter from the
20 California Civil Rights Department on April 22, 2024.
21 21. By filing her complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, PLAINTIFF
22 exhausted all available and required administrative remedies. A true and correct copy of
23 PLAINTIFF’s Right-to-Sue Letter and California Civil Rights Department complaint are
24 attached hereto this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
4
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Whistleblower Retaliation
2 (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 232.5)
3 [Against DEFENDANTS DISCORD, FINEOUT, and GRUVER]
22. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
4
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
5
forth herein.
6
23. California Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against employees for
7
reporting violations of the law in the workplace. California Labor Code § 1102.6 requires
8
DEFENDANTS to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that PLAINTIFF’s employment
9
would have been terminated for legitimate, independent reasons even if she had not engaged in
10
any protected activity, such as reporting illegal conduct. (Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes,
11
Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703.)
12
24. Cal. Government Code § 12940(h) prohibits an employer from retaliating against
13
an employee for opposing discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
14
(“FEHA”).
15
25. California Labor Code § 232.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an
16
employee who reported information about her workplace conditions.
17
26. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer in December 2022 and January
18
2023.
19
27. PLAINTIFF engaged in a protected activity when she reported Nemec’s
20
discriminatory comment at the December 13, 2022, Resource Deployment Plan meeting to
21
FINEOUT and to GRUVER. PLAINTIFF’s reports to FINEOUT and GRUVER disclosed to
22
persons at DISCORD with authority over PLAINTIFF the illegal conduct of Nemec’s
23
discriminatory comment to PLAINTIFF. FINEOUT and GRUVER were both employees of
24
DISCORD with authority to investigate, discover, and correct violations of California’s anti-
25
discrimination laws at Discord.
26
28. PLAINTIFF had had reasonable cause to believe that the information she reported
27
to DISCORD, GRUVER, and FINEOUT disclosed a violation of a state and federal statutes
28
5
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability or medical conditions in the workplace.
2 Nemec’s discriminatory comment was specifically about the way in which PLAINTIFF’s brain
3 works and her thought processes. PLAINTIFF understood Nemec’s comments to her to be
4 derogatory and disparaging toward her neurodiversity and ADHD because the comment was
5 about her “way of thinking.”
6 29. DISCORD stated it would investigate the issue, but it closed the investigation
7 without resolution on January 11, 2023. GRUVER wrote the self-serving statement that
8 PLAINTIFF misinterpreted Nemec’s comment. Instead of disciplining Nemec, DISCORD,
9 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 discharged PLAINTIFF from her employment in
10 response to her reports of illegal conduct.
11 30. PLAINTIFF’s disclosure of illegal conduct was a contributing factor in the
12 decision to discharge PLAINTIFF.
13 31. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct, PLAINTIFF has
14 suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
15 32. DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing
16 PLAINTIFF’s damages.
17 33. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD,
18 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 acted with the intent to cause injury to
19 PLAINTIFF by retaliating against her for opposing and reporting illegal conduct. DISCORD,
20 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done with a
21 willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights. DISCORD, FINEOUT, GRUVER, and
22 DOES 1 through 50 were aware of the probable consequences of their conduct and deliberately
23 failed to avoid those consequences.
24 34. DISCORD, FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing
25 agents FINEOUT and GRUVER retaliated against PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately,
26 callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF
27 and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’
28 rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD,
6
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial.
2 35. As a result of DISCORD, FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50’S
3 conduct, as alleged herein, PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable
4 attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(j).
5
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6 Disability / Medical Condition Discrimination
7 (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a))
[Against DISCORD]
8
36. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
9
paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
10
forth herein.
11
37. The FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee because
12
of the employee’s disability and medical condition. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a).)
13
38. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were PLAINTIFF’s employer.
14
39. At all times during her employment, DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew
15
PLAINTIFF had ADHD and was neurodiverse. Despite her disabilities, PLAINTIFF performed
16
her work duties for DISCORD with successful results, which earned her bonuses and
17
compliments.
18
40. PLAINTIFF was qualified and able to perform the essential job functions of her
19
position. PLAINTIFF was able to perform her essential job duties.
20
41. PLAINTIFF’s disability and medical condition were a substantial motivating
21
reason for DEFENDANT’s decision to discharge PLAINTIFF from her employment.
22
42. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct,
23
PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at
24
trial.
25
43. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing
26
PLAINTIFF’S damages.
27
28
7
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 44. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and
2 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by discharging PLAINTIFF
3 for discriminatory reasons.
4 45. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done with
5 a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50
6 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately failed to
7 avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was so vile, base, and
8 contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.
9 46. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT and
10 GRUVER, discriminated against the PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately, callously,
11 maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF, and such
12 improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights.
13 Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD and DOES
14 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial.
15 47. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein,
16 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to
17 Government Code § 12965(c).
18
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Failure to Accommodate a Disability
20 (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12926(o) and 12940(m))
[Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50]
21
22 48. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
23 paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
24 forth herein.
25 49. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were PLAINTIFF’s employer.
26 50. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF
27 was suffering from ADHD and was neurodiverse during her employment. DISCORD and DOES
28
8
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 1 through 50 knew PLAINTIFF had a disability and medical condition that limited her major life
2 activities.
3 51. PLAINTIFF was qualified and able to perform the essential job functions of her
4 position with reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. PLAINTIFF was able to perform
5 her essential job duties.
6 52. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 should have accommodated PLAINTIFF by
7 allowing her to continue working and taking steps to correct and prevent discriminatory
8 comments made to her in the workplace. Instead, DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 discharged
9 PLAINTIFF when she reported discriminatory comment being made to her in the workplace.
10 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to correct or address PLAINTIFF’s report of Nemec’s
11 discriminatory conduct. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to provide reasonable
12 accommodation for PLAINTIFF’s disabilities.
13 53. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct,
14 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at
15 trial.
16 54. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s failure to provide a reasonable
17 accommodation for PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’s damages.
18 55. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and
19 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by refusing to accommodate
20 her. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was despicable and was done with a willful
21 and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights and safety. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50
22 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately failed to
23 avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was so vile, base, and
24 contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.
25 56. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT and
26 GRUVER failed to accommodate PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately, callously,
27 maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF, and such
28 improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights.
9
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD and DOES
2 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial.
3 57. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein,
4 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to
5 Government Code § 12965(c).
6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Engage in the Good-Faith Interactive Process
7 (Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(n))
[Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50]
8
9 58. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
10 paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
11 forth herein.
12 59. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were PLAINTIFF’s employer.
13 60. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew that PLAINTIFF was suffering from
14 ADHD and was neurodiverse during her employment. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew
15 PLAINTIFF had a disability and medical condition that limited major life activities.
16 61. PLAINTIFF sought to be allowed to work for DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50
17 without her coworkers making discriminatory comments to her in the workplace, when she
18 reported to FINEOUT and GRUVER about Nemec’s discriminatory comment to her. This
19 accommodation would have allowed PLAINTIFF to continue to perform her essential job
20 requirements in her employment.
21 62. PLAINTIFF was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine
22 whether reasonable accommodation(s) could be made so that she would be able to perform the
23 essential job requirements of her position.
24 63. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to participate in a timely good-faith
25 interactive process with PLAINTIFF to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be
26 made.
27 64. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to grant PLAINTIFF’S requested
28 accommodations, or reject it after due consideration, and then propose alternative
10
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 accommodations. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 refused to accommodate PLAINTIFF.
2 65. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 never proposed any alternative potential
3 accommodations through the interactive process. Instead, she was discharged for seeking to be
4 allowed to work in a workplace that was free from discriminatory comments.
5 66. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct,
6 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at
7 trial.
8 67. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s failure to engage in the interactive process
9 with PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’s damages.
10 68. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and
11 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by refusing to engage in the
12 interactive process. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was despicable and was done
13 with a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. DISCORD and DOES 1 through
14 50 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately failed
15 to avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was so vile, base,
16 and contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.
17 69. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s and their managing agents, FINEOUT and
18 GRUVER failed to accommodate PLAINTIFF or engage in the interactive process as described
19 above deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to
20 injure PLAINTIFF, and such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of
21 PLAINTIFF’s rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from
22 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial.
23 70. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein,
24 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to
25 Government Code § 12965(c).
26
27 ///
28 ///
11
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1 Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation
(Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(k))
2 [Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50]
3 71. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
4 paragraphs 1 through 70, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
5 forth herein.
6 72. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were at all times employers covered by
7 Government Code § 12940. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DISCORD and DOES 1 through
8 50.
9 73. PLAINTIFF was subjected to discrimination and retaliation as stated in this
10 Complaint.
11 74. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to take appropriate steps to prevent
12 discrimination and retaliation against PLAINTIFF.
13 75. Instead of enforcing PLAINTIFF’s rights, DISCORD terminated PLAINTIFF
14 shortly after she engaged in the protected activity of reporting the discriminatory comment
15 Nemec made to her supervisor and to the Human Resources Department.
16 76. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the
17 discrimination and retaliation as stated in this Complaint.
18 77. PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount according
19 to proof at trial.
20 78. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S failure to take all reasonable steps to
21 prevent discrimination and retaliation against PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing
22 PLAINTIFF’s damages.
23 79. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and
24 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by failing to take reasonable
25 steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct
26 was despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights.
27 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their
28 conduct and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through
12
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 50’S conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised
2 by reasonable people.
3 80. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s and their managing agents, FINEOUT and
4 GRUVER failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation as described
5 above deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to
6 injure PLAINTIFF, and such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of
7 PLAINTIFF’s rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from
8 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial.
9 81. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein,
10 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to
11 Government Code § 12965(c).
12
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 Wrongful Termination and Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy
14 [Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50]
82. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
15
paragraphs 1 through 81, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
16
forth herein.
17
83. An employee has a cause of action whenever an employer subjects an employee to
18
termination or any other adverse employment action in violation of public policy. (Tamaney v.
19
Atlantic Richfield (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170.) California Labor Code provisions providing
20
whistleblower protections to employees who disclose illegal conduct reflects the broad public
21
policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful acts without fear of
22
employer retaliation. (Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 709.)
23
The FEHA is “a statutory expression of the fundamental policy against employment
24
discrimination.” (Terry Tipton-Whittingham v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4th 604, 609.)
25
84. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 terminated PLAINTIFF’s employment in
26
violation of the substantial and fundamental public policies against discrimination and retaliation
27
against an employee with a disability and medical condition.
28
13
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 85. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50.
2 86. PLAINTIFF was discharged from her employment after she reported illegal
3 conduct, which violates public policies of the Cal. Government Code and Cal. Labor Code.
4 87. At all times herein mentioned, the following statutes were in full force and effect
5 and delineated fundamental, substantial, and well-established policies that benefit the public at
6 large rather than private interests and were binding upon DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 at
7 the time of PLAINTIFF’s employment and termination:
8 • Cal. Government Code § 12940 prohibits discrimination against an employee
9 because of the employee’s disability or request for accommodation. This statute
10 also prohibits retaliation against an employee for reporting about or opposing
11 discriminatory comments.
12 • Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against or termination of
13 employees who reports illegal conduct occurring in the workplace or refuses to
14 engage in illegal conduct.
15 • Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against
16 an employee who discloses information about his workplace conditions.
17 88. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 terminated PLAINTIFF’S employment in
18 violation of the substantial and fundamental public policies against retaliation against an
19 employee, who engages in protected activity, such as reporting illegal conduct.
20 89. PLAINTIFF’s opposing and reporting illegal conduct in the workplace, and
21 seeking accommodation for a disability and medical as stated in this Complaint were a
22 substantial motivating factor for PLAINTIFF’s termination from her employment with
23 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50
24 90. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct,
25 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at
26 trial.
27 91. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing
28 PLAINTIFF’s damages.
14
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 92. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD, and
2 DOES 1 through 50’s acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by terminating her for
3 retaliatory reasons. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done
4 with a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights. DISCORD and DOES 1 through
5 50’s were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct and deliberately failed to
6 avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was so vile, base, and
7 contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.
8 93. DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT,
9 GRUVER, retaliated against and terminated PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately,
10 callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF
11 and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s
12 rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD and
13 DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial.
14
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress
[Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50]
16
94. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
17
paragraphs 1 through 93, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
18
forth herein.
19
95. PLAINTIFF was terminated from her employment by DISCORD and DOES 1
20
through 50 for retaliatory and discriminatory reasons as stated in this Complaint. Claims for
21
wrongful termination based on discriminatory and retaliatory reasons in violation of FEHA can
22
be pled as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. (Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17
23
Cal. App.4th 341, 352 and Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal. App. 5th
24
75, 96-101.)
25
96. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S retaliatory and discriminatory conduct, set
26
forth in this Complaint was extreme and outrageous. In so doing so, DISCORD and DOES 1
27
through 50 caused PLAINTIFF severe emotional distress.
28
97. PLAINTIFF suffered severe emotional distress because of the discrimination and
15
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 retaliation.
2 98. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 discharged PLAINTIFF for discriminatory
3 and retaliatory reasons.
4 99. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50, working through their agents intended to
5 cause PLAINTIFF emotional distress by terminating her employment for discriminatory and
6 retaliatory reasons.
7 100. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct,
8 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at
9 trial.
10 101. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing
11 PLAINTIFF’s severe emotional distress.
12 102. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and
13 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by terminating her for
14 retaliatory and discriminatory reasons.
15 103. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done with
16 a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights and safety. DISCORD and DOES 1
17 through 50 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately
18 failed to avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was so vile,
19 base, and contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.
20 104. FINEOUT and GRUVER were managing agents of DISCORD and DOES 1
21 through 50 and were acting on behalf of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in terminating
22 PLAINTIFF. FINEOUT and GRUVER exercised substantial independent authority and
23 judgment in their corporate decision making such that their decisions ultimately determined
24 corporate policy for DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50.
25 105. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT and
26 GRUVER discriminated against, retaliated against, and terminated PLAINTIFF as described
27 above deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to
28 injure PLAINTIFF and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious
16
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive
2 damages from DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial.
3
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 Failure to Reimburse an Employee for Business Expenses
5 (Violation of Labor Code § 2802)
[Against All DEFENDANTS]
6
106. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
7
paragraphs 1 through 105, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
8
forth herein.
9
107. At all times material hereto, DEFENDANTS were an employer of PLAINTIFF or
10
an individual acting on behalf of an employer within the meaning of Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and
11
as such were required to reimburse employees for all expenses and losses they incur in the
12
course and scope of their employment.
13
108. PLAINTIFF incurred necessary business expenses and losses as a direct
14
consequence of discharging her job duties for DEFENDANTS and being the DEFENDANTS’
15
directions.
16
109. During her employment, PLAINTIFF used her vehicle, personal cell phone, and
17
her home office in performing her duties for DEFENDANTS. These expenses and losses were
18
necessary and reasonable for performing her work duties for DEFENDANTS based on
19
DEFENDANTS’ instructions.
20
110. DEFENDANTS failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF for the full amount of her
21
expenditures and losses. DISCORD gave her a $600 one-time office setup reimbursement and
22
$60 monthly internet reimbursement. DISCORD provided PLAINTIFF with a laptop, a monitor,
23
wireless keyboard, and wireless mouse to perform her work duties from home. This shows
24
DEFENDANTS knew she would be performing her work from her home office but failed to
25
reimburse her for all the necessary expenses of running a work office from her home.
26
111. Employers in California must reimburse their employees for the expenses of
27
performing their work duties remotely from the employee’s home. (See Thai v. International
28
Business Machines Corporation (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 364, 371-72.) “Discharging those duties
17
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 plausibly requires the use of physical space, internet and electricity.” (Williams v. Amazon.com
2 Services, LLC (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2022) 2022 WL 1769124, 1.) “Amazon, a major tech company,
3 surely knew—or at the very least, had reason to know—that its software development engineers
4 who worked from home during the pandemic were incurring basic costs related to that work.”
5 (Ibid.) Employers in California reimburse their employees for mileage driven in their personal
6 vehicles for business purposes. (Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554,
7 568.) DEFENDANTS must reimburse PLAINTIFF must be reimbursed for all necessary
8 business expenses for her work even if she does not pay any additional amount for using her own
9 personal property for DISCORD’s business purposes. (Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and Cochran v.
10 Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144 “The answer is that
11 reimbursement is always required. Otherwise, the employer would receive a windfall because it
12 would be passing its operating expenses on to the employee.” (Cochran v. Schwan’s Home
13 Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144.)
14 112. DEFENDANTS owe PLAINTIFF approximately $15,668 for unreimbursed
15 expenses, subject to proof at trial.
16 113. MARCINKOWSKI, FINEOUT, and GRUVER are personally liable for this claim
17 per Cal. Labor Code § 558.1 for violating Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and for causing Cal. Labor
18 Code § 2802 to be violated.
19 114. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2802(c), PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award
20 PLAINTIFF reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs she incurs in this action.
21 115. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2802, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award
22 PLAINTIFF’S interest on her unpaid expense reimbursement at the rate of 10% per annum
23 accruing from the date on which PLAINTIFF incurred the necessary expenditure or loss to the
24 date all expenses are reimbursed. (Cal. Labor Code § 2802(b); Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §
25 685.010(a).)
26
27 ///
28 ///
18
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows:
3 1. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action,
4 for actual damages, including loss of past earnings, in an amount according to proof at trial;
5 2. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action,
6 for general and special damages, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional
7 distress, and loss of reputation in an amount according to proof at trial;
8 3. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action,
9 for consequential and incidental damages and expenses in an amount according to proof at trial;
10 4. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action,
11 for punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
12 5. As to the Eighth cause of action, for reimbursement of all business expenses or
13 losses according to proof at trial;
14 6. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth causes of action for
15 reasonable attorneys’ fees according to proof;
16 7. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, all at the legal prevailing rate;
17 8. For costs of suit; and
18 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and
19 equitable.
20
21 DATED: April 22, 2024 ROBINSON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
22
By:
23
Michael C. Robinson
24 Lakesha L. Robinson
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
25 LAUREN HOHNBAUM
26
27 ///
28 ///
19
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 JURY TRIAL DEMAND
2 PLAINTIFF hereby reiterates her demand for her constitutional right to trial by jury for
3 all triable issues in the above–titled action.
4
5 DATED: April 22, 2024 ROBINSON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
6
By:
7
Michael C. Robinson
8 Lakesha L. Robinson
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
9 LAUREN HOHNBAUM
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
EXHIBIT 1
S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov
April 22, 2024
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
CRD Matter Number: 202404-24402518
Right to Sue: Hohnbaum / Discord, Inc.
To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Civil
Rights Department (CRD) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This
constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The
complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A copy of the Notice of
Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their
contact information.
No response to CRD is requested or required.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/23)
S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov
April 22, 2024
Lauren Hohnbaum
33792 Violet Lantern Street
Dana Point, CA 92629
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
CRD Matter Number: 202404-24402518
Right to Sue: Hohnbaum / Discord, Inc.
Dear Lauren Hohnbaum:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) has been closed effective April 22, 2024 because an immediate
Right to Sue notice was requested.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days
of receipt of this CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged
discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
Preview
1 Robinson Employment Law, PC ELECTRONICALLY 2 Michael C. Robinson, State Bar No. 233914 FILED Lakesha L. Robinson, State Bar No. 256502 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 17702 Mitchell No., Suite 204 3 04/22/2024 Irvine, California 92614 Clerk of the Court 4 Tel: (949) 756-9050 BY: DAEJA ROGERS Fax: (949) 271-4700 Deputy Clerk 5 Email: mcr@robinsonemploymentlaw.com llr@robinsonemploymentlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, LAUREN HOHNBAUM 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 CGC-24-614118 11 LAUREN HOHNBAUM, an individual, CASE NO.: Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable 12 Judge: PLAINTIFF, Dept.: 13 v. Unlimited Jurisdiction 14 DISCORD, INC., a Delaware COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 15 Corporation; MINDY FINEOUT, an individual; MAVIS GRUVER, an 1) Whistleblower Retaliation (Cal. Labor 16 individual; THOMASZ Code §§ 232.5 and 1102.5); MARCINKOWSKI, an individual; and 2) Disability / Medical Condition 17 DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Discrimination (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a)); 18 DEFENDANTS. 3) Failure to Accommodate (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m)); 19 4) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(n)); 20 5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation (Cal. Gov. Code § 21 12940(k)); 6) Wrongful Termination and Retaliation in 22 Violation of Public Policy; 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional 23 Distress; and 8) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses 24 (Cal. Labor Code § 2802). 25 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff, LAUREN HOHNBAUM (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”), complains and alleges as 2 follows: 3 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 4 1. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars 5 ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs. 6 2. PLAINTIFF is a resident of the State of California at all times relevant to this 7 case. 8 3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, DISCORD, INC. 9 (“DISCORD”), is a Delaware corporation at all times mentioned herein was operating its 10 business in the County of San Francisco, State of California. 11 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MINDY FINEOUT 12 (“FINEOUT”) is an individual and at all times mentioned herein residing in the County of King, 13 State of Washington. 14 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MAVIS GRUVER 15 (“GRUVER”) is an individual and at all times mentioned herein residing in the County of San 16 Mateo, State of California. 17 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that THOMASZ 18 MARCINKOWSKI (“MARCINKOWSKI”) is an individual and at all times mentioned herein 19 residing in the County of San Francisco, State of California. 20 7. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, whether individual, 21 corporate, or associate are otherwise unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues such 22 DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. 23 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the DOE DEFENDANTS are 24 California residents. 25 8. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities 26 when they have been ascertained. Defendants, DISCORD, INC., MINDY FINEOUT, MAVIS 27 GRUVER, THOMASZ MARCINKOWSKI, and DOES 1 through 50 are hereinafter collectively 28 referred to as “DEFENDANTS.” 2 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2 DEFENDANTS, and each and all of them, at all times hereinafter mentioned, were agents, 3 employees, servants, joint venturers, parent companies, successor companies, officers, directors, 4 fiduciaries, representatives, and/or co-conspirators of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS. 5 10. DEFENDANTS, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the 6 course and scope of such relationship (unless otherwise alleged) and were responsible in some 7 manner for the occurrences herein alleged and are a proximate cause of PLAINTIFF’s damages as 8 herein alleged. 9 11. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the 10 DEFENDANTS designated herein by a fictitious name is negligently, intentionally, or otherwise 11 responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently, 12 intentionally, or otherwise caused the injuries and damages to the PLAINTIFF as hereinafter 13 alleged. 14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15 12. PLAINTIFF began her employment with DEFENDANTS as a Senior Manager, 16 Technical Recruiting on or about January 10, 2022. 17 13. The majority of PLAINTIFF’s work was performed remotely in her home office 18 in Southern California. During PLAINTIFF’s employment, DEFENDANTS failed to reimburse 19 PLAINTIFF for the business use of her personal mobile phone or her home office expenses for 20 work she performed at home, except for $60 per month for her home internet service. 21 14. PLAINTIFF had a disability about which DEFENDANTS knew. PLAINTIFF is 22 neurodiverse and was diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). 23 15. On December 13, 2022, a coworker, Josh Nemec told PLAINTIFF, “That is an 24 unintelligent way of thinking” in a group meeting where they were discussing work issues. This 25 comment was in response to PLAINTIFF’s stated proposals at a Resource Deployment Plan 26 meeting with her team about how to redeploy talent at DISCORD to avoid layoffs. PLAINTIFF 27 had previously notified Nemec about her disability earlier in her employment. PLAINTIFF’s 28 online employment profile at DEFENDANTS stated to ask her about ADHD. 3 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 16. PLAINTIFF immediately reported the discriminatory comment to her supervisor, 2 FINEOUT, Director of Technical Recruiting. FINEOUT instructed PLAINTIFF not to report the 3 discrimination to the Human Resources Department and instead to allow FINEOUT to address 4 the discriminatory comment. 5 17. On December 14, 2022, FINEOUT held a manager-lead meeting with Nemec and 6 PLAINTIFF, wherein PLAINTIFF repeated what Nemec said in the meeting. Nemec denied that 7 he made this comment. He stated he was no longer comfortable being in meetings with 8 PLAINTIFF. The meeting ended without resolution. PLAINTIFF stated the meeting about 9 Nemec’s comment about PLAINTIFF should have been conducted with a Human Resources 10 representative. 11 18. On December 20, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a written report to GRUVER in the 12 Human Resources Department about the discriminatory comment. DEFENDANTS stated they 13 would investigate the issue, but on January 11, 2023, DEFENDANTS closed the investigation 14 without resolution. 15 19. On January 12, 2023, FINEOUT suddenly terminated PLAINTIFF stating, “We 16 are eliminating your position. This is your last day.” 17 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 18 20. On April 22, 2024, PLAINTIFF filed a complaint against DEFENDANTS with 19 the California Civil Rights Department. PLAINTIFF received the Right-to-Sue Letter from the 20 California Civil Rights Department on April 22, 2024. 21 21. By filing her complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, PLAINTIFF 22 exhausted all available and required administrative remedies. A true and correct copy of 23 PLAINTIFF’s Right-to-Sue Letter and California Civil Rights Department complaint are 24 attached hereto this Complaint as Exhibit 1. 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Whistleblower Retaliation 2 (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 232.5) 3 [Against DEFENDANTS DISCORD, FINEOUT, and GRUVER] 22. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 4 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 5 forth herein. 6 23. California Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against employees for 7 reporting violations of the law in the workplace. California Labor Code § 1102.6 requires 8 DEFENDANTS to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that PLAINTIFF’s employment 9 would have been terminated for legitimate, independent reasons even if she had not engaged in 10 any protected activity, such as reporting illegal conduct. (Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, 11 Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703.) 12 24. Cal. Government Code § 12940(h) prohibits an employer from retaliating against 13 an employee for opposing discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act 14 (“FEHA”). 15 25. California Labor Code § 232.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an 16 employee who reported information about her workplace conditions. 17 26. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employer in December 2022 and January 18 2023. 19 27. PLAINTIFF engaged in a protected activity when she reported Nemec’s 20 discriminatory comment at the December 13, 2022, Resource Deployment Plan meeting to 21 FINEOUT and to GRUVER. PLAINTIFF’s reports to FINEOUT and GRUVER disclosed to 22 persons at DISCORD with authority over PLAINTIFF the illegal conduct of Nemec’s 23 discriminatory comment to PLAINTIFF. FINEOUT and GRUVER were both employees of 24 DISCORD with authority to investigate, discover, and correct violations of California’s anti- 25 discrimination laws at Discord. 26 28. PLAINTIFF had had reasonable cause to believe that the information she reported 27 to DISCORD, GRUVER, and FINEOUT disclosed a violation of a state and federal statutes 28 5 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability or medical conditions in the workplace. 2 Nemec’s discriminatory comment was specifically about the way in which PLAINTIFF’s brain 3 works and her thought processes. PLAINTIFF understood Nemec’s comments to her to be 4 derogatory and disparaging toward her neurodiversity and ADHD because the comment was 5 about her “way of thinking.” 6 29. DISCORD stated it would investigate the issue, but it closed the investigation 7 without resolution on January 11, 2023. GRUVER wrote the self-serving statement that 8 PLAINTIFF misinterpreted Nemec’s comment. Instead of disciplining Nemec, DISCORD, 9 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 discharged PLAINTIFF from her employment in 10 response to her reports of illegal conduct. 11 30. PLAINTIFF’s disclosure of illegal conduct was a contributing factor in the 12 decision to discharge PLAINTIFF. 13 31. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct, PLAINTIFF has 14 suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 15 32. DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing 16 PLAINTIFF’s damages. 17 33. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD, 18 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 acted with the intent to cause injury to 19 PLAINTIFF by retaliating against her for opposing and reporting illegal conduct. DISCORD, 20 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done with a 21 willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights. DISCORD, FINEOUT, GRUVER, and 22 DOES 1 through 50 were aware of the probable consequences of their conduct and deliberately 23 failed to avoid those consequences. 24 34. DISCORD, FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing 25 agents FINEOUT and GRUVER retaliated against PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately, 26 callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF 27 and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ 28 rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD, 6 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial. 2 35. As a result of DISCORD, FINEOUT, GRUVER, and DOES 1 through 50’S 3 conduct, as alleged herein, PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable 4 attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(j). 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6 Disability / Medical Condition Discrimination 7 (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a)) [Against DISCORD] 8 36. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 9 paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 10 forth herein. 11 37. The FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee because 12 of the employee’s disability and medical condition. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a).) 13 38. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were PLAINTIFF’s employer. 14 39. At all times during her employment, DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew 15 PLAINTIFF had ADHD and was neurodiverse. Despite her disabilities, PLAINTIFF performed 16 her work duties for DISCORD with successful results, which earned her bonuses and 17 compliments. 18 40. PLAINTIFF was qualified and able to perform the essential job functions of her 19 position. PLAINTIFF was able to perform her essential job duties. 20 41. PLAINTIFF’s disability and medical condition were a substantial motivating 21 reason for DEFENDANT’s decision to discharge PLAINTIFF from her employment. 22 42. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, 23 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at 24 trial. 25 43. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing 26 PLAINTIFF’S damages. 27 28 7 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 44. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and 2 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by discharging PLAINTIFF 3 for discriminatory reasons. 4 45. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done with 5 a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 6 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately failed to 7 avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was so vile, base, and 8 contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people. 9 46. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT and 10 GRUVER, discriminated against the PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately, callously, 11 maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF, and such 12 improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. 13 Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD and DOES 14 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial. 15 47. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein, 16 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 Government Code § 12965(c). 18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 19 Failure to Accommodate a Disability 20 (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12926(o) and 12940(m)) [Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50] 21 22 48. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 23 paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 24 forth herein. 25 49. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were PLAINTIFF’s employer. 26 50. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF 27 was suffering from ADHD and was neurodiverse during her employment. DISCORD and DOES 28 8 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 1 through 50 knew PLAINTIFF had a disability and medical condition that limited her major life 2 activities. 3 51. PLAINTIFF was qualified and able to perform the essential job functions of her 4 position with reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. PLAINTIFF was able to perform 5 her essential job duties. 6 52. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 should have accommodated PLAINTIFF by 7 allowing her to continue working and taking steps to correct and prevent discriminatory 8 comments made to her in the workplace. Instead, DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 discharged 9 PLAINTIFF when she reported discriminatory comment being made to her in the workplace. 10 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to correct or address PLAINTIFF’s report of Nemec’s 11 discriminatory conduct. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to provide reasonable 12 accommodation for PLAINTIFF’s disabilities. 13 53. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, 14 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at 15 trial. 16 54. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s failure to provide a reasonable 17 accommodation for PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’s damages. 18 55. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and 19 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by refusing to accommodate 20 her. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was despicable and was done with a willful 21 and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights and safety. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 22 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately failed to 23 avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was so vile, base, and 24 contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people. 25 56. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT and 26 GRUVER failed to accommodate PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately, callously, 27 maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF, and such 28 improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. 9 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD and DOES 2 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial. 3 57. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein, 4 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 5 Government Code § 12965(c). 6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Engage in the Good-Faith Interactive Process 7 (Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(n)) [Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50] 8 9 58. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 10 paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 11 forth herein. 12 59. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were PLAINTIFF’s employer. 13 60. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew that PLAINTIFF was suffering from 14 ADHD and was neurodiverse during her employment. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 knew 15 PLAINTIFF had a disability and medical condition that limited major life activities. 16 61. PLAINTIFF sought to be allowed to work for DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 17 without her coworkers making discriminatory comments to her in the workplace, when she 18 reported to FINEOUT and GRUVER about Nemec’s discriminatory comment to her. This 19 accommodation would have allowed PLAINTIFF to continue to perform her essential job 20 requirements in her employment. 21 62. PLAINTIFF was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine 22 whether reasonable accommodation(s) could be made so that she would be able to perform the 23 essential job requirements of her position. 24 63. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to participate in a timely good-faith 25 interactive process with PLAINTIFF to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be 26 made. 27 64. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to grant PLAINTIFF’S requested 28 accommodations, or reject it after due consideration, and then propose alternative 10 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 accommodations. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 refused to accommodate PLAINTIFF. 2 65. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 never proposed any alternative potential 3 accommodations through the interactive process. Instead, she was discharged for seeking to be 4 allowed to work in a workplace that was free from discriminatory comments. 5 66. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, 6 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at 7 trial. 8 67. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s failure to engage in the interactive process 9 with PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’s damages. 10 68. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and 11 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by refusing to engage in the 12 interactive process. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was despicable and was done 13 with a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 14 50 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately failed 15 to avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was so vile, base, 16 and contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people. 17 69. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s and their managing agents, FINEOUT and 18 GRUVER failed to accommodate PLAINTIFF or engage in the interactive process as described 19 above deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to 20 injure PLAINTIFF, and such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of 21 PLAINTIFF’s rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from 22 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial. 23 70. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein, 24 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 25 Government Code § 12965(c). 26 27 /// 28 /// 11 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1 Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation (Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(k)) 2 [Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50] 3 71. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 4 paragraphs 1 through 70, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 5 forth herein. 6 72. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were at all times employers covered by 7 Government Code § 12940. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 8 50. 9 73. PLAINTIFF was subjected to discrimination and retaliation as stated in this 10 Complaint. 11 74. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to take appropriate steps to prevent 12 discrimination and retaliation against PLAINTIFF. 13 75. Instead of enforcing PLAINTIFF’s rights, DISCORD terminated PLAINTIFF 14 shortly after she engaged in the protected activity of reporting the discriminatory comment 15 Nemec made to her supervisor and to the Human Resources Department. 16 76. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the 17 discrimination and retaliation as stated in this Complaint. 18 77. PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount according 19 to proof at trial. 20 78. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S failure to take all reasonable steps to 21 prevent discrimination and retaliation against PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing 22 PLAINTIFF’s damages. 23 79. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and 24 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by failing to take reasonable 25 steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct 26 was despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights. 27 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their 28 conduct and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 12 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 50’S conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised 2 by reasonable people. 3 80. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s and their managing agents, FINEOUT and 4 GRUVER failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation as described 5 above deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to 6 injure PLAINTIFF, and such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of 7 PLAINTIFF’s rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from 8 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial. 9 81. As a result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, as alleged herein, 10 PLAINTIFF is entitled to costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 Government Code § 12965(c). 12 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Wrongful Termination and Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy 14 [Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50] 82. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 15 paragraphs 1 through 81, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 16 forth herein. 17 83. An employee has a cause of action whenever an employer subjects an employee to 18 termination or any other adverse employment action in violation of public policy. (Tamaney v. 19 Atlantic Richfield (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170.) California Labor Code provisions providing 20 whistleblower protections to employees who disclose illegal conduct reflects the broad public 21 policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful acts without fear of 22 employer retaliation. (Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 709.) 23 The FEHA is “a statutory expression of the fundamental policy against employment 24 discrimination.” (Terry Tipton-Whittingham v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4th 604, 609.) 25 84. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 terminated PLAINTIFF’s employment in 26 violation of the substantial and fundamental public policies against discrimination and retaliation 27 against an employee with a disability and medical condition. 28 13 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 85. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50. 2 86. PLAINTIFF was discharged from her employment after she reported illegal 3 conduct, which violates public policies of the Cal. Government Code and Cal. Labor Code. 4 87. At all times herein mentioned, the following statutes were in full force and effect 5 and delineated fundamental, substantial, and well-established policies that benefit the public at 6 large rather than private interests and were binding upon DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 at 7 the time of PLAINTIFF’s employment and termination: 8 • Cal. Government Code § 12940 prohibits discrimination against an employee 9 because of the employee’s disability or request for accommodation. This statute 10 also prohibits retaliation against an employee for reporting about or opposing 11 discriminatory comments. 12 • Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against or termination of 13 employees who reports illegal conduct occurring in the workplace or refuses to 14 engage in illegal conduct. 15 • Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against 16 an employee who discloses information about his workplace conditions. 17 88. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 terminated PLAINTIFF’S employment in 18 violation of the substantial and fundamental public policies against retaliation against an 19 employee, who engages in protected activity, such as reporting illegal conduct. 20 89. PLAINTIFF’s opposing and reporting illegal conduct in the workplace, and 21 seeking accommodation for a disability and medical as stated in this Complaint were a 22 substantial motivating factor for PLAINTIFF’s termination from her employment with 23 DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 24 90. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, 25 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at 26 trial. 27 91. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing 28 PLAINTIFF’s damages. 14 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 92. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD, and 2 DOES 1 through 50’s acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by terminating her for 3 retaliatory reasons. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done 4 with a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 5 50’s were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct and deliberately failed to 6 avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was so vile, base, and 7 contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people. 8 93. DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT, 9 GRUVER, retaliated against and terminated PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately, 10 callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF 11 and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s 12 rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DISCORD and 13 DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial. 14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress [Against DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50] 16 94. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 17 paragraphs 1 through 93, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 18 forth herein. 19 95. PLAINTIFF was terminated from her employment by DISCORD and DOES 1 20 through 50 for retaliatory and discriminatory reasons as stated in this Complaint. Claims for 21 wrongful termination based on discriminatory and retaliatory reasons in violation of FEHA can 22 be pled as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. (Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17 23 Cal. App.4th 341, 352 and Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal. App. 5th 24 75, 96-101.) 25 96. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S retaliatory and discriminatory conduct, set 26 forth in this Complaint was extreme and outrageous. In so doing so, DISCORD and DOES 1 27 through 50 caused PLAINTIFF severe emotional distress. 28 97. PLAINTIFF suffered severe emotional distress because of the discrimination and 15 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 retaliation. 2 98. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 discharged PLAINTIFF for discriminatory 3 and retaliatory reasons. 4 99. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50, working through their agents intended to 5 cause PLAINTIFF emotional distress by terminating her employment for discriminatory and 6 retaliatory reasons. 7 100. As a direct and proximate result of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct, 8 PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at 9 trial. 10 101. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing 11 PLAINTIFF’s severe emotional distress. 12 102. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DISCORD and 13 DOES 1 through 50 acted with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by terminating her for 14 retaliatory and discriminatory reasons. 15 103. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’s conduct was despicable and was done with 16 a willful and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights and safety. DISCORD and DOES 1 17 through 50 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately 18 failed to avoid those consequences. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50’S conduct was so vile, 19 base, and contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people. 20 104. FINEOUT and GRUVER were managing agents of DISCORD and DOES 1 21 through 50 and were acting on behalf of DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in terminating 22 PLAINTIFF. FINEOUT and GRUVER exercised substantial independent authority and 23 judgment in their corporate decision making such that their decisions ultimately determined 24 corporate policy for DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50. 25 105. DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 and their managing agents, FINEOUT and 26 GRUVER discriminated against, retaliated against, and terminated PLAINTIFF as described 27 above deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to 28 injure PLAINTIFF and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious 16 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive 2 damages from DISCORD and DOES 1 through 50 in an amount according to proof at trial. 3 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Failure to Reimburse an Employee for Business Expenses 5 (Violation of Labor Code § 2802) [Against All DEFENDANTS] 6 106. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 7 paragraphs 1 through 105, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set 8 forth herein. 9 107. At all times material hereto, DEFENDANTS were an employer of PLAINTIFF or 10 an individual acting on behalf of an employer within the meaning of Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and 11 as such were required to reimburse employees for all expenses and losses they incur in the 12 course and scope of their employment. 13 108. PLAINTIFF incurred necessary business expenses and losses as a direct 14 consequence of discharging her job duties for DEFENDANTS and being the DEFENDANTS’ 15 directions. 16 109. During her employment, PLAINTIFF used her vehicle, personal cell phone, and 17 her home office in performing her duties for DEFENDANTS. These expenses and losses were 18 necessary and reasonable for performing her work duties for DEFENDANTS based on 19 DEFENDANTS’ instructions. 20 110. DEFENDANTS failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF for the full amount of her 21 expenditures and losses. DISCORD gave her a $600 one-time office setup reimbursement and 22 $60 monthly internet reimbursement. DISCORD provided PLAINTIFF with a laptop, a monitor, 23 wireless keyboard, and wireless mouse to perform her work duties from home. This shows 24 DEFENDANTS knew she would be performing her work from her home office but failed to 25 reimburse her for all the necessary expenses of running a work office from her home. 26 111. Employers in California must reimburse their employees for the expenses of 27 performing their work duties remotely from the employee’s home. (See Thai v. International 28 Business Machines Corporation (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 364, 371-72.) “Discharging those duties 17 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 plausibly requires the use of physical space, internet and electricity.” (Williams v. Amazon.com 2 Services, LLC (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2022) 2022 WL 1769124, 1.) “Amazon, a major tech company, 3 surely knew—or at the very least, had reason to know—that its software development engineers 4 who worked from home during the pandemic were incurring basic costs related to that work.” 5 (Ibid.) Employers in California reimburse their employees for mileage driven in their personal 6 vehicles for business purposes. (Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, 7 568.) DEFENDANTS must reimburse PLAINTIFF must be reimbursed for all necessary 8 business expenses for her work even if she does not pay any additional amount for using her own 9 personal property for DISCORD’s business purposes. (Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and Cochran v. 10 Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144 “The answer is that 11 reimbursement is always required. Otherwise, the employer would receive a windfall because it 12 would be passing its operating expenses on to the employee.” (Cochran v. Schwan’s Home 13 Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144.) 14 112. DEFENDANTS owe PLAINTIFF approximately $15,668 for unreimbursed 15 expenses, subject to proof at trial. 16 113. MARCINKOWSKI, FINEOUT, and GRUVER are personally liable for this claim 17 per Cal. Labor Code § 558.1 for violating Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and for causing Cal. Labor 18 Code § 2802 to be violated. 19 114. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2802(c), PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award 20 PLAINTIFF reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs she incurs in this action. 21 115. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2802, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award 22 PLAINTIFF’S interest on her unpaid expense reimbursement at the rate of 10% per annum 23 accruing from the date on which PLAINTIFF incurred the necessary expenditure or loss to the 24 date all expenses are reimbursed. (Cal. Labor Code § 2802(b); Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 25 685.010(a).) 26 27 /// 28 /// 18 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows: 3 1. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action, 4 for actual damages, including loss of past earnings, in an amount according to proof at trial; 5 2. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action, 6 for general and special damages, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional 7 distress, and loss of reputation in an amount according to proof at trial; 8 3. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action, 9 for consequential and incidental damages and expenses in an amount according to proof at trial; 10 4. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action, 11 for punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial; 12 5. As to the Eighth cause of action, for reimbursement of all business expenses or 13 losses according to proof at trial; 14 6. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth causes of action for 15 reasonable attorneys’ fees according to proof; 16 7. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, all at the legal prevailing rate; 17 8. For costs of suit; and 18 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and 19 equitable. 20 21 DATED: April 22, 2024 ROBINSON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC 22 By: 23 Michael C. Robinson 24 Lakesha L. Robinson Attorneys for Plaintiff, 25 LAUREN HOHNBAUM 26 27 /// 28 /// 19 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 JURY TRIAL DEMAND 2 PLAINTIFF hereby reiterates her demand for her constitutional right to trial by jury for 3 all triable issues in the above–titled action. 4 5 DATED: April 22, 2024 ROBINSON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC 6 By: 7 Michael C. Robinson 8 Lakesha L. Robinson Attorneys for Plaintiff, 9 LAUREN HOHNBAUM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 PLAINTIFF, LAUREN HOHNBAUM’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES EXHIBIT 1 S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR Civil Rights Department 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov April 22, 2024 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint CRD Matter Number: 202404-24402518 Right to Sue: Hohnbaum / Discord, Inc. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Civil Rights Department (CRD) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. No response to CRD is requested or required. Sincerely, Civil Rights Department CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/23) S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR Civil Rights Department 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov April 22, 2024 Lauren Hohnbaum 33792 Violet Lantern Street Dana Point, CA 92629 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue CRD Matter Number: 202404-24402518 Right to Sue: Hohnbaum / Discord, Inc. Dear Lauren Hohnbaum: This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights Department (CRD) has been closed effective April 22, 2024 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Civil Rights Department