Preview
1 Neama Rahmani (State Bar No. 223819)
efilings@westcoasttriallawyers.com
2 Ronald L. Zambrano (State Bar No. 255613)
3 ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com
WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS, APLC
4 1147 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
5 Telephone: (213) 927-3700
Facsimile: (213) 927-3701
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 EMILIO GARCIA
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
12 Case No.:
13 EMILIO GARCIA, as an Individual, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14
Plaintiff; 1) HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT;
15 2) FAILURE TO PREVENT AND REMEDY;
v. 3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.8
16
(MISCLASSIFICATION);
17 ROC NATION LLC., a Delaware business 4) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 & 512
organization; HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC, a (MEAL AND REST BREAKS);
18 Delaware Business Organization.; MEGAN
5) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 510-515, 1194
THEE STALLION ENTERTAINMENT,
19 INC., a Delaware Business Organization; & 1198 (UNPAID OVERTIME);
MEGAN THEE STALLION, an individual, 6) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(A)
20 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
(INACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS);
21 7) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 200-204
Defendants. (WAITING TIME PENALTIES);
22
8) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
23 §§98.6 AND 1102.5; AND
9) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
24
PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ.
25
26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27
28
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, EMILIO GARCIA, (who hereinafter shall be referred to as the
2 “Plaintiff” or as “GARCIA”), who hereby respectfully alleges, avers, and complains, as follows:
3
4 INTRODUCTION
5
6 1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff, GARCIA, pursuant to California statutory,
7 decisional, and regulatory laws. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant MEGAN THEE
8 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., (hereinafter referred to as “STALLION
9 ENTERTAINMENT,”), Defendant HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC (hereinafter “HGT”),
10 Defendant ROC NATION LLC., (hereinafter referred to as “ROC NATION”), and Defendant
11 MEGAN THEE STALLION, whose real name is Megan Pete, (hereinafter referred to as
12 “STALLION”) herein mentioned, all Defendants collectively referred to either
13 “DEFENDANTS” or “EMPLOYER.”
14
15 2. Plaintiff alleges that California statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws prohibit the conduct
16 by Defendants herein alleged, and therefore Plaintiff has an entitlement to monetary relief on
17 the basis that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law, and regulations.
18
19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20
21 3. Jurisdiction is proper in this court by virtue of the California statutes, decisional law, and
22 regulations, and the local rules under the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules.
23
24 4. Venue in this Court is proper in that Defendants MEGAN THEE STALLION, ROC NATION
25 LLC., AND HGT all have a principal business address located in the City of Los Angeles,
26 County of Los Angeles, State of California, as well as a majority of the wrongful conduct
27 alleged herein occurred withing the County of Los Angeles.
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
1 PARTIES
2
3 5. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff GARCIA is and has been a resident of California.
4
5 6. Defendant ROC NATION LLC. is and at all times herein mentioned has been a Delaware
6 business organization with the capacity to sue and to be sued, and doing business, with a
7 principal place of business located at 953 N. Sycamore Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90038.
8
9 7. Defendant HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC, (HGT) is and at all times herein mentioned has been
10 a Delaware business organization with the capacity to sue and to be sued, and doing business
11 in Los Angeles, California, with a principal place of business located at 1450 Brickell Avenue,
12 18th Floor Miami, FL 33131.
13
14 8. Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., is and at all times herein
15 mentioned has been a Delaware business organization with the capacity to sue and to be sued,
16 and doing business in Los Angeles, with a principal place of business located at 1450 Brickell
17 Avenue, 18th Floor Miami, FL 33131.
18
19 9. Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION (“THEE STALLION”) is and at all times herein
20 mentioned has been an Individual with the capacity to sue and be sued in the county of Los
21 Angeles, and ise owner and principal of HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC and MEGAN THEE
22 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and had authority to direct the manner in which
23 Plaintiff carried out his duties and did, in fact, exercise that authority.
24
25 10. Because Plaintiff worked at ROC NATION, HGT and MEGAN THEE STALLION
26 ENTERTAINMENT, and STALLION in her role as an artist/employer directed the manner in
27 which Plaintiff carried out his duties at his job, both ROC NATION and MEGAN THEE
28 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT were joint employers of the Plaintiff.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3
1 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants herein were
2 at all times the agent, employee, or representative of each remaining Defendant and were at all
3 times herein acting within and outside the scope and purpose of said agency and employment.
4 Plaintiff further alleges that as to each Defendant, whether named, or referred to as a fictitious
5 name, said Defendants supervised, ratified, controlled, acquiesced in, adopted, directed,
6 substantially participated in, and/or approved the acts, errors, or omissions, of each remaining
7 Defendant.
8
9 12. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10,
10 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, partnership, association, or otherwise, are unknown
11 to Plaintiff who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will request
12 leave of court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities at such time
13 as they are ascertained.
14
15 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
16
17 Defendants Violations of FEHA
18 13. On or around June 2022, PLAINTIFF was traveling on tour with STALLION in Ibiza, Spain.
19 After a night out, PLAINTIFF, STALLION, and three other women were riding in a SUV
20 together. Suddenly, STALLION and one of the other women start having sex right beside
21 PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF could not get out of the car as it was both moving and he was in
22 the middle of nowhere in a foreign country. PLAINTIFF was embarrassed, mortified and
23 offended throughout the whole ordeal.
24
25 14. The following day, STALLION inquired whether PLAINTIFF was in the SUV the previous
26 night. PLAINTIFF confirmed that he was in the SUV. Subsequently, STALLION instructed,
27 “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.” STALLION berated and directed her fat-shaming
28 comments towards PLAINTIFF such as “Fat Bitch,” “Spit your food out,” and that “You don’t
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
4
1 need to be eating.”
2
3 15. After confiding in the Makeup Artist, STALLION learned of the PLAINTIFF's contemplation
4 of quitting due to STALLION’s possessiveness combined with lack of appropriate pay for the
5 amount of time asked of him (as discussed fully below. Later that night, STALLION drunkenly
6 FaceTimed the PLAINTIFF and, after Plaintiff expressed his belief he was being underpaid
7 for the amount of hours actually asked of him, they reached an “understanding,” with
8 STALLION affirming, "We're good." Despite the conversation, PLAINTIFF remained
9 scheduled for STALLION's upcoming gig the following Friday.
10
11 16. Nevertheless, on or around June 2023, ROC NATION unexpectedly reached out to
12 PLAINTIFF the night before the scheduled Friday gig and informed him that his services
13 would no longer be required by STALLION.
14
15 17. Plaintiff has timely filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the California Civil Rights
16 Department and obtained a Right-to-Sue letter on April 12, 2024. As such, Plaintiff has
17 exhausted his administrative remedies to pursue claims under the Fair Employment and
18 Housing Act (“FEHA”).
19
20 Wage and Hour Violations
21 18. From the inception of his employment, PLAINTIFF GARCIA was misclassified as an
22 Independent Contractor while working as a Personal Cameraman to DEFENDANT
23 STALLION. PLAINTIFF has been treated as independent contractor by ROC NATION and
24 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT so that he was effectively denied any of the protections an
25 employee would have under California law.
26
27 19. In April 2018, the California Supreme Court, in the now-infamous Dynamex decision, ruled
28 that companies must successfully meet the three prong “ABC” test in order to lawfully classify
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
5
1 someone as an independent contractor for purposes of Wage Order claims. (Dynamex
2 Operations West v. Sup. Ct., (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903; see also Garcia v. Border Transp. Group,
3 LLC, (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 558.) The ABC test requires an employer to prove the following
4 to justify “independent contractor” classification: (A) the worker is free from the control and
5 direction of the hiring entity in the performance of the work, both under the contract for the
6 performance of the work and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual
7 course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an
8 independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work
9 performed for the hiring entity. See Dynamex, at 958-963.
10
11 20. On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”),
12 commonly referred to as the “gig worker law.” AB5 codified Dynamex’s ABC Test under the
13 soon-to-be-added Labor Code § 2750.3, creating a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an
14 employee unless the test is met, and explicitly exempted certain trades and professions. Neither
15 the Plaintiff or Defendants were exempted under AB5.1.
16
17 21. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, supported DEFENDANT STALLION as a
18 Personal Cameraman. On or around September 2019, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, quit his full-time
19 job and began his employment with DEFENDANT STALLION as a full-time Personal
20 Cameraman.
21
22 22. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the work performed by PLAINTIFF.
23
24 23. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and dictates PLAINTIFF’s work environment.
25
26 24. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs work performance of PLAINTIFF
27 who managed no people.
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6
1 25. For all relevant times, Plaintiff essentially worked during all waking hours of a day. He was
2 always answering calls and running other tasks under STALLION’s direction.
3
4 26. PLAINTIFF used his personal device to stay updated on his schedule which intensified blurred
5 the lines between work and personal time for PLAINTIFF. More than once, STALLION
6 interrupted PLAINTIFF during dinner and demanded that he immediately shift his focus to
7 assist with her TikTok creative ideas – i.e., Plaintiff stepped away from dinner and worked on
8 the phone in a quiet space of a given restaurant.
9
10 27. As a Personal Cameraman, PLAINTIFF was forced to take on a myriad of duties and work
11 much longer hours. Specifically, PLAINTIFF worked in excess of fifty (50) hours under the
12 close scrutiny and explicit discretion of STALLION who continuously contacted PLAINTIFF
13 at all hours, directing him to brainstorm TikTok videos, to edit content that PLAINTIFF had
14 not captured, and complete various assignments.
15
16 28. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s work
17 who does not provide Personal Cameraman services “independently” of his relationship with
18 STALLION. STALLION specifically told Plaintiff he was not allowed to service any other
19 client other than herself on more than one occasion.
20
21 29. Initially, PLAINTIFF was paid a monthly flat rate of $4,000 while working for ROC
22 NATION and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT.
23
24 30. However, on or around August 2022, Desiree Perez, (“PEREZ”), the Chief Executive Officer
25 of ROC NATION, personally contacted Plaintiff to alter Plaintiff's compensation structure
26 from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this
27 “change,” the time expectation of the Plaintiff remained the same as before ROC NATION’s
28 demand to change Plaintiff’s pay. However, the new invoicing system resulted in Plaintiff
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7
1 earning significantly less, as the invoiced amounts did not accurately reflect the true time and
2 effort dedicated to working for her.
3
4 31. On multiple occasions, STALLION explicitly directed PLAINTIFF not to engage with other
5 clients, expressing possessiveness over the PLAINTIFF’s services as her Personal
6 Cameraman.
7
8 32. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs PLAINTIFF’s work performance,
9 requiring his constant availability by phone for work-related issues, thereby causing severe
10 emotional distress and anxiety for PLAINTIFF.
11
12 33. During his travels with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was required to stay at the hotel and be on
13 standby at all times. Any attempt to use the hotel's amenities would prompt STALLION to
14 reach out and request his immediate return.
15
16 34. As a result of the misclassification, PLAINTIFF was denied a meal break or rest break. In
17 addition, PLAINTIFF was not paid meal or rest break premiums during his entire employment.
18
19 35. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s
20 duties did not qualify him exempt for purposes of overtime law.
21
22 36. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied overtime
23 pay at an overtime rate. PLAINTIFF was not paid for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours
24 in a day.
25
26 37. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for any overtime he worked or
27 paid after the paycheck was thus underpaid for all hours worked to the extent the pay did not
28 meet Labor Code requirements.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8
1 38. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for all overtime hours worked
2 on those periods he received wages late.
3
4 39. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment
5 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an
6 independent contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by Defendants.
7
8 40. Moreover, during the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied
9 his meal and rest breaks and compensation for overtime hours worked, subjected to inaccurate
10 timekeeping by STALLION which resulted in inaccurate wage statements.
11
12 41. STALLION’s misclassification of his employment status left him without basic insurance
13 coverage, depriving him of essential health care. PLAINTIFF grapples with mounting anxiety,
14 depression, and physical distress stemming from the toxic work environment, compounded by
15 the trauma of unpaid work.
16
17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of FEHA
19 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against All Defendants)
20
21 42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs.
22
23 43. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants regularly employed five or more persons,
24 bringing Defendants within the provisions of California Fair Employment and Housing Act
25 ("FEHA"), Government Code, § 12926(d).
26
27 44. Defendant STALLION’s conduct created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff, making the
28 conditions of his employment intolerable in direct contravention of various statutes and state
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9
1 law decisions, including but not limited to California Government Code § 12940(h) and (j).
2
3 45. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT
4 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman.
5
6 46. On or around June 2022, PLAINTIFF was traveling on tour with STALLION in Ibiza, Spain.
7 After a night out, PLAINTIFF, STALLION, and three other women were riding in a SUV
8 together. Suddenly, STALLION and one of the other women start having sex right beside
9 PLAINTIFF.
10
11 47. The following day, STALLION inquired whether PLAINTIFF was in the SUV the previous
12 night. PLAINTIFF confirmed that he was in the SUV. Subsequently, STALLION instructed,
13 “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.”
14
15 48. During the same trip, STALLION berated and directed her fat-shaming comments towards
16 PLAINTIFF such as “Fat Bitch,” “Spit your food out,” and that “You don’t need to be eating.”
17
18 49. Following Ibiza, on around August 2022, PEREZ altered Plaintiff's compensation structure
19 from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this
20 change, Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to provide the same level of service
21 to STALLION. Moreover, PLAINTIFF noticed a change in how he was treated and saw a
22 decrease in the number of bookings he received from STALLION. Close to other creatives on
23 STALLION's team, PLAINTIFF confided in STALLION's former Makeup Artist about
24 considering leaving because STALLION had started to hire another Cameraman.
25
26 50. Such harassment was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms and conditions of
27 Plaintiff’s employment, creating a hostile, abusive work environment and making his working
28 conditions intolerable. Said harassment was sufficiently extreme to amount to a change in the
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
10
1 terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
2
3 51. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ conduct, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered
4 and continues to suffer general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited
5 to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, physical injuries, physical
6 sickness, as well as emotional distress, plus medical expenses, future medical expenses, and
7 attorneys’ fees, all to her damages in the amount according to proof. During the entirety of his
8 employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF endured a barrage of relentless sexual and fat-
9 shaming comments plunging him into profound emotional distress. STALLION's
10 misclassification left her without basic insurance coverage, depriving him of essential mental
11 and physical health care. PLAINTIFF grapples with mounting anxiety, depression, and
12 physical distress stemming from the toxic work environment.
13
14 52. Said actions justify the imposition of punitive damages in that Defendants committed the acts
15 herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring
16 Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motives amount to malice, and in conscious disregard of
17 Plaintiff’s rights.
18
19 53. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants,
20 and each of them, in an amount according to proof. As the result of Defendants discriminatory
21 acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as
22 provided by FEHA, Gov. Code § 12965(b).
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
11
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Failure to Prevent and Remedy Harassment in Violation of FEHA
3 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against ROC NATION, HGT,
4 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, and DOES 1-10)
5
6 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs.
7
8 55. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants ROC NATION and STALLION
9 ENTERTAINMENT regularly employed five or more persons, bringing Defendants within the
10 provisions of the FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12926(d).
11
12 56. Plaintiff was subject to harassment based on sex by Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION,
13 as alleged in more detail above. Such conduct is prohibited by FEHA, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940,
14 subdivisions (j) and (k).
15
16 57. Under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for the harassing conduct of its agents and
17 supervisors. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590). FEHA also
18 requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent unlawful harassment from
19 occurring. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)(k)).
20
21 58. On or around June 2022, PLAINTIFF was traveling on tour with STALLION in Ibiza, Spain.
22 After a night out, PLAINTIFF, STALLION, and three other woman were riding in a SUV
23 together. Suddenly, STALLION and one of the other woman start having sex right beside
24 PLAINTIFF.
25
26 59. The following day, STALLION inquired whether PLAINTIFF was in the SUV the previous
27 night. PLAINTIFF confirmed that he was in the SUV. Subsequently, STALLION instructed,
28 “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.”
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
12
1 60. During the same trip, STALLION berated and directed her fat-shaming comments towards
2 PLAINTIFF such as “Fat Bitch,” “Spit your food out,” and that “You don’t need to be eating.”
3
4 61. Following Ibiza, on around August 2022, PEREZ altered Plaintiff's compensation structure
5 from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this
6 change, Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to provide the same level of service
7 to STALLION. Moreover, PLAINTIFF noticed a change in how he was treated and saw a
8 decrease in the number of bookings he received from STALLION. Close to other creatives on
9 STALLION's team, PLAINTIFF confided in STALLION's former Makeup Artist about
10 considering leaving because STALLION had started to hire another Cameraman.
11
12 62. After confiding in the Makeup Artist, STALLION learned of the PLAINTIFF's contemplation
13 of quitting due to a lack of bookings. Later on a Sunday night, STALLION drunkenly
14 FaceTimed the PLAINTIFF and they reached an understanding, with STALLION affirming,
15 "We're good." Despite the conversation, PLAINTIFF remained scheduled for STALLION's
16 upcoming gig the following Friday.
17
18 63. Nevertheless, on or around June 2023, ROC NATION unexpectedly reached out to
19 PLAINTIFF the night before the scheduled Friday gig and informed him that his services
20 would no longer be required.
21
22 64. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has
23 suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation, loss
24 of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment-related opportunities in his field
25 and damage to his professional reputation, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
26 Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or
27 any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest.
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
13
1 65. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has
2 suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and
3 embarrassment, all to Plaintiff’s damage in in an amount according to proof.
4
5 66. The above-cited conduct of Defendants was done with malice, fraud and oppression, and in
6 reckless disregard of Plaintiff ‘s rights under the FEHA. Defendants consciously, intentionally
7 and in conscious disregard of his rights discriminated against Plaintiff by discriminating based
8 on her sex. As a result of Defendants discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled
9 to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided by California Government Code
10 section 12965(b).
11
12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
13 Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.8 & 2750.3
14 Misclassification
15 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against ROC NATION, HGT,
16 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, and DOES 1-10)
17
18 67. Plaintiff incorporate all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
19
20 68. Labor Code § 226.8(a) makes it unlawful for any person or employer to engage in willful
21 misclassification of an individual as an independent contractor. Plaintiff alleges that Labor
22 Code § 2750.3 set forth the test which employers must meet to properly qualify their workers
23 as independent contractors.
24
25 69. At all times herein mentioned, Labor Code §§ 226.8, et seq. and 2750.3 were in full force and
26 effect and were binding on the Defendants, and each of them, and the Defendants were subject
27 to their terms. Therefore, Defendants were required to refrain from the willful misclassification
28 of Plaintiff as an independent contractor.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
14
1 70. In April 2018, the California Supreme Court, in the now-infamous Dynamex decision, ruled
2 that companies must successfully meet the three prong “ABC” test in order to lawfully classify
3 someone as an independent contractor for purposes of Wage Order claims. Dynamex
4 Operations West v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018); see also Garcia v. Border
5 Transportation Group, LLC, 28 Cal. App. 5th 558 (2018). The ABC test requires an employer
6 to prove the following to justify “independent contractor” classification: (A) the worker is free
7 from the control and direction of the hiring entity in the performance of the work, both under
8 the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is
9 outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) the worker is customarily
10 engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as
11 the work performed for the hiring entity. See Dynamex, at 958-963.
12
13 71. On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”),
14 commonly referred to as the “gig worker law.” AB5 codified Dynamex’s ABC Test under the
15 soon-to-be-added Labor Code § 2750.3, creating a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an
16 employee unless the test is met, and explicitly exempted certain trades and professions. Neither
17 the Plaintiff or STALLION were exempted under AB5.1.
18
19 72. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT
20 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman.
21
22 73. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the work performed by PLAINTIFF.
23
24 74. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and dictates PLAINTIFF’s work environment.
25
26 75. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs work performance of PLAINTIFF who
27 managed no people.
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15
1 76. As a Personal Cameraman, PLAINTIFF was forced to take on a myriad of duties and work
2 much longer hours. Specifically, PLAINTIFF worked in excess of fifty (50) hours under the
3 close scrutiny and explicit discretion of STALLION who continuously contacted the
4 PLAINTIFF at all hours, directing him to brainstorm TikTok videos, to edit content that
5 PLAINTIFF had not captured, and complete various assignments.
6
7 77. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s work
8 who does not provide Personal Cameraman services “independently” of his relationship with
9 STALLION. Afterall, how could he when he was constantly working to satisfy the demands
10 of the job he performed for STALLION.
11
12 78. Initially, PLAINTIFF was paid a monthly flat rate of $4,000 while working for ROC NATION
13 and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT.
14
15 79. However, on or around August 2022, PEREZ altered Plaintiff's compensation structure from a
16 monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this change,
17 Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to provide the same level of service to
18 STALLION. However, the new invoicing system resulted in Plaintiff earning significantly
19 less, as the invoiced amounts did not accurately reflect the true time and effort dedicated to
20 working for her.
21
22 80. On multiple occasions, STALLION explicitly directed PLAINTIFF not to engage with other
23 clients, expressing possessiveness over the PLAINTIFF’s services as her Personal
24 Cameraman. This exclusivity requirement meant that PLAINTIFF was unable to offer his
25 filming services to any other clients while working with STALLION.
26
27 81. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs PLAINTIFF’s work performance,
28 requiring his constant availability by phone for work-related issues, thereby causing severe
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
1 emotional distress and anxiety for PLAINTIFF.
2
3 82. During his travels with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was required to stay at the hotel and be on
4 standby at all times. Any attempt to use the hotel's amenities would prompt STALLION to
5 reach out and request his immediate return.
6
7 83. As a result of the misclassification, PLAINTIFF was denied a meal break or rest break. In
8 addition, PLAINTIFF was not paid meal or rest break premiums during his entire employment.
9
10 84. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s
11 duties did not qualify him exempt for purposes of overtime law.
12
13 85. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied overtime
14 pay at an overtime rate. PLAINTIFF was not paid for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours
15 in a day.
16
17 86. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF worked forty (40) hours per week, sometimes more.
18
19 87. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for any overtime he worked or
20 paid after the paycheck was thus underpaid for all hours worked to the extent the pay did not
21 meet Labor Code requirements.
22
23 88. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for all overtime hours worked
24 on those periods he received wages late.
25
26 89. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment
27 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an
28 Independent Contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17
1 90. Moreover, during the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied
2 his meal and rest breaks and compensation for overtime hours worked, subjected to inaccurate
3 timekeeping by STALLION which resulted in inaccurate wage statements.
4
5 91. STALLION’s misclassification of his employment status left him without basic insurance
6 coverage, depriving him of essential health care. PLAINTIFF grapples with mounting anxiety,
7 depression, and physical distress stemming from the toxic work environment, compounded by
8 the trauma of unpaid work.
9
10 92. ROC NATION and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT’s conduct described above is in
11 violation of Labor Code §§ 226.8, et seq. and 2750.3.
12
13 93. Plaintiff’s claims for rest break violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to issue accurate
14 itemized wage statements due to misclassification are "claims for nonpayment of wages"
15 entitle a prevailing plaintiff to an award of attorney fees under California Labor Code § 218.5.
16 Betancourt v. OS Rest. Servs., LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 132, 140, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612 (2022).
17
18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512
20 Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods
21 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against All Defendants)
22
23 94. Plaintiff incorporate by reference and reallege each of the foregoing paragraphs.
24
25 95. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege that California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and
26 512 were in full force and effect and binding on Defendants during all times mentioned in this
27 Complaint. Said section requires employers to comply with all Industrial Welfare Commission
28 Wage Orders governing meal and rest periods.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
18
1 96. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the IWC Wage Orders were in full
2 force and effect and govern when employers, including Defendants, must give employee
3 breaks for meal and rest periods. The Wage Orders state in pertinent part that employers must
4 provide at least thirty minutes of meal periods for every five hours of work and another thirty-
5 minute period if the work period is ten hours or more. Furthermore, the IWC Wage Orders
6 state in pertinent part that employees must be given at least a ten-minute rest period for every
7 four (4) hours or major fraction thereof.
8
9 97. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment
10 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an
11 Independent Contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by STALLION.
12
13 98. As a result of misclassification, Plaintiff was not permitted to take rest and meal breaks. Many
14 times, Plaintiff worked over five consecutive hours without a thirty-minute meal break.
15
16 99. PLAINTIFF was not paid meal or rest break premiums. These actions by Defendants were in
17 violation of IWC Wage Orders and California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512.
18
19 100. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that The Wage Orders and the California
20 Labor Code mandate that Defendants must pay Plaintiff an hour of pay at Plaintiff’s regular
21 rate of pay for every missed meal and rest period. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to these penalties
22 in an amount to be proven at trial, and also pray for all other remedies available under the law.
23
24 101. Plaintiff’s claims for rest break violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to issue accurate
25 itemized wage statements are "claims for nonpayment of wages" entitle a prevailing plaintiff
26 to an award of attorney fees under California Labor Code § 218.5. Betancourt v. OS Rest.
27 Servs., LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 132, 140, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612 (2022).
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
19
1 102. Moreover, Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION is personally liable for violations
2 mentioned herein under Labor Code § 558.1, as she was the “natural person who is an owner,
3 director, officer, or managing agent of the employer” acting on the employer’s behalf for said
4 violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
5
6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510-515, 1194 & 1198
8 Unpaid Overtime
9 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against All Defendants)
10
11 103. Plaintiff incorporate by reference and reallege each of the foregoing paragraphs.
12
13 104. California Labor Code § 510 provides that employees in California shall not be employed more
14 than eight hours in any workday or 40 hours in a workweek unless they receive additional
15 compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law.
16
17 105. California Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1198 provide that employees in California shall not be
18 employed more than eight hours in any workday unless they receive additional compensation
19 beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law. Additionally, California Labor Code
20 § 1198 states that the employment of an employee for longer hours than those fixed by the
21 Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful. The governing Wage Order of the Industrial
22 Welfare Commission requires, among other things, payment of a premium wage rate for all
23 hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.
24
25 106. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT
26 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman.
27 //
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
1 107. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF duties
2 did not qualify them exempt for purposes of overtime law.
3
4 108. PLAINTIFF used his personal device to stay updated on his schedule which intensified blurred
5 the lines between work and personal time for PLAINTIFF. More than once, STALLION
6 demanded PLAINTIFF during dinner and demanded that he immediately shift his focus to
7 assist with her TikTok creative ideas.
8
9 109. As a Personal Cameraman, PLAINTIFF was forced to take on a myriad of duties and work
10 much longer hours. Specifically, PLAINTIFF worked in excess of fifty (50) hours under the
11 close scrutiny and explicit discretion of STALLION who continuously contacted PLAINTIFF
12 at all hours, directing him to brainstorm TikTok videos, to edit content that PLAINTIFF had
13 not captured, and complete various assignments.
14
15 110. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s work
16 who does not provide Personal Cameraman services “independently” of his relationship with
17 STALLION. Afterall, how could he when he was constantly working to satisfy the demands
18 of the job he performed for STALLION.
19
20 111. Initially, PLAINTIFF was paid a monthly flat rate of $4,000 while working for ROC NATION
21 and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT. However, on or around August 2022, PEREZ altered
22 Plaintiff's compensation structure from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for
23 each assignment. Despite this change, Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to
24 provide the same level of service to STALLION. However, the new invoicing system resulted
25 in Plaintiff earning significantly less, as the invoiced amounts did not accurately reflect the
26 true time and effort dedicated to working for her.
27 //
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21
1 112. On multiple occasions, STALLION explicitly directed PLAINTIFF not to engage with other
2 clients, expressing possessiveness over the PLAINTIFF’s services as her Personal
3 Cameraman. This exclusivity requirement meant that PLAINTIFF was unable to offer his
4 filming services to any other clients while working with STALLION.
5
6 113. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs PLAINTIFF’s work performance,
7 requiring his constant availability by phone for work-related issues, thereby causing severe
8 emotional distress and anxiety for PLAINTIFF.
9
10 114. During his travels with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was required to stay at the hotel and be on
11 standby at all times. Any attempt to use the hotel's amenities would prompt STALLION to
12 reach out and request his immediate return.
13
14 115. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment
15 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an
16 Independent Contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by STALLION.
17
18 116. Moreover, during the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied
19 his meal and rest breaks and compensation for overtime hours worked, subjected to inaccurate
20 timekeeping by STALLION which resulted in inaccurate wage statements.
21
22 117. During the entirety of his employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to compensate
23 Plaintiff for all overtime hours he worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per
24 week as required by Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194. PLAINTIFF was denied overtime pay at an
25 overtime rate.
26
27 118. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the
28 hours he worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by California
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
1 Labor Code § 510 and 1198. Plaintiff was required to work overtime hours without receiving
2 overtime pay. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, he worked overtime hours for the
3 exclusive benefit of and under the control of STALLION.
4
5 119. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the
6 hours he worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by California
7 Labor Code § 510 and 1198. Plaintiff was required to work overtime hours without receiving
8 overtime pay.
9
10 120. By virtue of Defendants' unlawful failure to pay additional, premium rate compensation to
11 Plaintiff for overtime hours worked, Plaintiff suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in
12 amounts which are presently unknown to him and which will be ascertained according to proof
13 at trial.
14
15 121. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claims for rest break violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to
16 issue accurate itemized wage statements are "claims for nonpayment of wages" entitle a
17 prevailing plaintiff to an award of attorney fees under California Labor Code § 218.5.
18 Betancourt v. OS Rest. Servs., LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 132, 140, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612 (2022).
19
20 122. Plaintiff requests recovery of overtime compensation according to proof, interest, attorney’s
21 fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a), as well as the assessment of any
22 statutory penalties against Defendants, in a sum as provided by the California Labor Code
23 and/or other statutes. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys’ fees
24 and costs pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194.
25
26 123. Moreover, Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION is personally liable for violations
27 mentioned herein under Labor Code § 558.1, as she was the “natural person who is an owner,
28 director, officer, or managing agent of the employer” acting on the employer’s behalf for said
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
1 violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
2
3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 Violation of Labor Code § 226(A)
5 Inaccurate Wage Statements
6 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against ROC NATION and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT)
7
8 124. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each of the foregoing paragraphs.
9
10 125. At all material times set forth herein, California Labor Code § 226(a) provides that every
11 employer shall furnish each of his or her employees an accurate itemized wage statement in
12 writing showing nine pieces of information, including: (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours
13 worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece
14 rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions
15 made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net
16 wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name
17 of the employee and the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee
18 identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal
19 entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period
20 and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
21
22 126. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT
23 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman.
24
25 127. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the work performed by PLAINTIFF.
26
27 128. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and dictates PLAINTIFF’s work environment.
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24
1 129. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs work performance of PLAINTIFF who
2 managed no people.
3
4 130. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment
5 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an
6 Independent Contractor and inaccurate
Preview
1 Neama Rahmani (State Bar No. 223819) efilings@westcoasttriallawyers.com 2 Ronald L. Zambrano (State Bar No. 255613) 3 ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS, APLC 4 1147 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90015 5 Telephone: (213) 927-3700 Facsimile: (213) 927-3701 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 EMILIO GARCIA 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 Case No.: 13 EMILIO GARCIA, as an Individual, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 14 Plaintiff; 1) HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT; 15 2) FAILURE TO PREVENT AND REMEDY; v. 3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.8 16 (MISCLASSIFICATION); 17 ROC NATION LLC., a Delaware business 4) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 organization; HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC, a (MEAL AND REST BREAKS); 18 Delaware Business Organization.; MEGAN 5) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 510-515, 1194 THEE STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, 19 INC., a Delaware Business Organization; & 1198 (UNPAID OVERTIME); MEGAN THEE STALLION, an individual, 6) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(A) 20 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, (INACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS); 21 7) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 200-204 Defendants. (WAITING TIME PENALTIES); 22 8) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 23 §§98.6 AND 1102.5; AND 9) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & 24 PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ. 25 26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27 28 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, EMILIO GARCIA, (who hereinafter shall be referred to as the 2 “Plaintiff” or as “GARCIA”), who hereby respectfully alleges, avers, and complains, as follows: 3 4 INTRODUCTION 5 6 1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff, GARCIA, pursuant to California statutory, 7 decisional, and regulatory laws. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant MEGAN THEE 8 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., (hereinafter referred to as “STALLION 9 ENTERTAINMENT,”), Defendant HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC (hereinafter “HGT”), 10 Defendant ROC NATION LLC., (hereinafter referred to as “ROC NATION”), and Defendant 11 MEGAN THEE STALLION, whose real name is Megan Pete, (hereinafter referred to as 12 “STALLION”) herein mentioned, all Defendants collectively referred to either 13 “DEFENDANTS” or “EMPLOYER.” 14 15 2. Plaintiff alleges that California statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws prohibit the conduct 16 by Defendants herein alleged, and therefore Plaintiff has an entitlement to monetary relief on 17 the basis that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law, and regulations. 18 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20 21 3. Jurisdiction is proper in this court by virtue of the California statutes, decisional law, and 22 regulations, and the local rules under the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules. 23 24 4. Venue in this Court is proper in that Defendants MEGAN THEE STALLION, ROC NATION 25 LLC., AND HGT all have a principal business address located in the City of Los Angeles, 26 County of Los Angeles, State of California, as well as a majority of the wrongful conduct 27 alleged herein occurred withing the County of Los Angeles. 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 1 PARTIES 2 3 5. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff GARCIA is and has been a resident of California. 4 5 6. Defendant ROC NATION LLC. is and at all times herein mentioned has been a Delaware 6 business organization with the capacity to sue and to be sued, and doing business, with a 7 principal place of business located at 953 N. Sycamore Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90038. 8 9 7. Defendant HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC, (HGT) is and at all times herein mentioned has been 10 a Delaware business organization with the capacity to sue and to be sued, and doing business 11 in Los Angeles, California, with a principal place of business located at 1450 Brickell Avenue, 12 18th Floor Miami, FL 33131. 13 14 8. Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., is and at all times herein 15 mentioned has been a Delaware business organization with the capacity to sue and to be sued, 16 and doing business in Los Angeles, with a principal place of business located at 1450 Brickell 17 Avenue, 18th Floor Miami, FL 33131. 18 19 9. Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION (“THEE STALLION”) is and at all times herein 20 mentioned has been an Individual with the capacity to sue and be sued in the county of Los 21 Angeles, and ise owner and principal of HOT GIRL TOURING, LLC and MEGAN THEE 22 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and had authority to direct the manner in which 23 Plaintiff carried out his duties and did, in fact, exercise that authority. 24 25 10. Because Plaintiff worked at ROC NATION, HGT and MEGAN THEE STALLION 26 ENTERTAINMENT, and STALLION in her role as an artist/employer directed the manner in 27 which Plaintiff carried out his duties at his job, both ROC NATION and MEGAN THEE 28 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT were joint employers of the Plaintiff. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 1 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants herein were 2 at all times the agent, employee, or representative of each remaining Defendant and were at all 3 times herein acting within and outside the scope and purpose of said agency and employment. 4 Plaintiff further alleges that as to each Defendant, whether named, or referred to as a fictitious 5 name, said Defendants supervised, ratified, controlled, acquiesced in, adopted, directed, 6 substantially participated in, and/or approved the acts, errors, or omissions, of each remaining 7 Defendant. 8 9 12. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10, 10 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, partnership, association, or otherwise, are unknown 11 to Plaintiff who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will request 12 leave of court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities at such time 13 as they are ascertained. 14 15 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16 17 Defendants Violations of FEHA 18 13. On or around June 2022, PLAINTIFF was traveling on tour with STALLION in Ibiza, Spain. 19 After a night out, PLAINTIFF, STALLION, and three other women were riding in a SUV 20 together. Suddenly, STALLION and one of the other women start having sex right beside 21 PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF could not get out of the car as it was both moving and he was in 22 the middle of nowhere in a foreign country. PLAINTIFF was embarrassed, mortified and 23 offended throughout the whole ordeal. 24 25 14. The following day, STALLION inquired whether PLAINTIFF was in the SUV the previous 26 night. PLAINTIFF confirmed that he was in the SUV. Subsequently, STALLION instructed, 27 “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.” STALLION berated and directed her fat-shaming 28 comments towards PLAINTIFF such as “Fat Bitch,” “Spit your food out,” and that “You don’t COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 4 1 need to be eating.” 2 3 15. After confiding in the Makeup Artist, STALLION learned of the PLAINTIFF's contemplation 4 of quitting due to STALLION’s possessiveness combined with lack of appropriate pay for the 5 amount of time asked of him (as discussed fully below. Later that night, STALLION drunkenly 6 FaceTimed the PLAINTIFF and, after Plaintiff expressed his belief he was being underpaid 7 for the amount of hours actually asked of him, they reached an “understanding,” with 8 STALLION affirming, "We're good." Despite the conversation, PLAINTIFF remained 9 scheduled for STALLION's upcoming gig the following Friday. 10 11 16. Nevertheless, on or around June 2023, ROC NATION unexpectedly reached out to 12 PLAINTIFF the night before the scheduled Friday gig and informed him that his services 13 would no longer be required by STALLION. 14 15 17. Plaintiff has timely filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the California Civil Rights 16 Department and obtained a Right-to-Sue letter on April 12, 2024. As such, Plaintiff has 17 exhausted his administrative remedies to pursue claims under the Fair Employment and 18 Housing Act (“FEHA”). 19 20 Wage and Hour Violations 21 18. From the inception of his employment, PLAINTIFF GARCIA was misclassified as an 22 Independent Contractor while working as a Personal Cameraman to DEFENDANT 23 STALLION. PLAINTIFF has been treated as independent contractor by ROC NATION and 24 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT so that he was effectively denied any of the protections an 25 employee would have under California law. 26 27 19. In April 2018, the California Supreme Court, in the now-infamous Dynamex decision, ruled 28 that companies must successfully meet the three prong “ABC” test in order to lawfully classify COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 5 1 someone as an independent contractor for purposes of Wage Order claims. (Dynamex 2 Operations West v. Sup. Ct., (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903; see also Garcia v. Border Transp. Group, 3 LLC, (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 558.) The ABC test requires an employer to prove the following 4 to justify “independent contractor” classification: (A) the worker is free from the control and 5 direction of the hiring entity in the performance of the work, both under the contract for the 6 performance of the work and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual 7 course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an 8 independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work 9 performed for the hiring entity. See Dynamex, at 958-963. 10 11 20. On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), 12 commonly referred to as the “gig worker law.” AB5 codified Dynamex’s ABC Test under the 13 soon-to-be-added Labor Code § 2750.3, creating a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an 14 employee unless the test is met, and explicitly exempted certain trades and professions. Neither 15 the Plaintiff or Defendants were exempted under AB5.1. 16 17 21. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, supported DEFENDANT STALLION as a 18 Personal Cameraman. On or around September 2019, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, quit his full-time 19 job and began his employment with DEFENDANT STALLION as a full-time Personal 20 Cameraman. 21 22 22. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the work performed by PLAINTIFF. 23 24 23. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and dictates PLAINTIFF’s work environment. 25 26 24. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs work performance of PLAINTIFF 27 who managed no people. 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 6 1 25. For all relevant times, Plaintiff essentially worked during all waking hours of a day. He was 2 always answering calls and running other tasks under STALLION’s direction. 3 4 26. PLAINTIFF used his personal device to stay updated on his schedule which intensified blurred 5 the lines between work and personal time for PLAINTIFF. More than once, STALLION 6 interrupted PLAINTIFF during dinner and demanded that he immediately shift his focus to 7 assist with her TikTok creative ideas – i.e., Plaintiff stepped away from dinner and worked on 8 the phone in a quiet space of a given restaurant. 9 10 27. As a Personal Cameraman, PLAINTIFF was forced to take on a myriad of duties and work 11 much longer hours. Specifically, PLAINTIFF worked in excess of fifty (50) hours under the 12 close scrutiny and explicit discretion of STALLION who continuously contacted PLAINTIFF 13 at all hours, directing him to brainstorm TikTok videos, to edit content that PLAINTIFF had 14 not captured, and complete various assignments. 15 16 28. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s work 17 who does not provide Personal Cameraman services “independently” of his relationship with 18 STALLION. STALLION specifically told Plaintiff he was not allowed to service any other 19 client other than herself on more than one occasion. 20 21 29. Initially, PLAINTIFF was paid a monthly flat rate of $4,000 while working for ROC 22 NATION and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT. 23 24 30. However, on or around August 2022, Desiree Perez, (“PEREZ”), the Chief Executive Officer 25 of ROC NATION, personally contacted Plaintiff to alter Plaintiff's compensation structure 26 from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this 27 “change,” the time expectation of the Plaintiff remained the same as before ROC NATION’s 28 demand to change Plaintiff’s pay. However, the new invoicing system resulted in Plaintiff COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 1 earning significantly less, as the invoiced amounts did not accurately reflect the true time and 2 effort dedicated to working for her. 3 4 31. On multiple occasions, STALLION explicitly directed PLAINTIFF not to engage with other 5 clients, expressing possessiveness over the PLAINTIFF’s services as her Personal 6 Cameraman. 7 8 32. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs PLAINTIFF’s work performance, 9 requiring his constant availability by phone for work-related issues, thereby causing severe 10 emotional distress and anxiety for PLAINTIFF. 11 12 33. During his travels with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was required to stay at the hotel and be on 13 standby at all times. Any attempt to use the hotel's amenities would prompt STALLION to 14 reach out and request his immediate return. 15 16 34. As a result of the misclassification, PLAINTIFF was denied a meal break or rest break. In 17 addition, PLAINTIFF was not paid meal or rest break premiums during his entire employment. 18 19 35. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s 20 duties did not qualify him exempt for purposes of overtime law. 21 22 36. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied overtime 23 pay at an overtime rate. PLAINTIFF was not paid for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours 24 in a day. 25 26 37. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for any overtime he worked or 27 paid after the paycheck was thus underpaid for all hours worked to the extent the pay did not 28 meet Labor Code requirements. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 8 1 38. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for all overtime hours worked 2 on those periods he received wages late. 3 4 39. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment 5 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an 6 independent contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by Defendants. 7 8 40. Moreover, during the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied 9 his meal and rest breaks and compensation for overtime hours worked, subjected to inaccurate 10 timekeeping by STALLION which resulted in inaccurate wage statements. 11 12 41. STALLION’s misclassification of his employment status left him without basic insurance 13 coverage, depriving him of essential health care. PLAINTIFF grapples with mounting anxiety, 14 depression, and physical distress stemming from the toxic work environment, compounded by 15 the trauma of unpaid work. 16 17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of FEHA 19 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against All Defendants) 20 21 42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs. 22 23 43. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants regularly employed five or more persons, 24 bringing Defendants within the provisions of California Fair Employment and Housing Act 25 ("FEHA"), Government Code, § 12926(d). 26 27 44. Defendant STALLION’s conduct created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff, making the 28 conditions of his employment intolerable in direct contravention of various statutes and state COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 9 1 law decisions, including but not limited to California Government Code § 12940(h) and (j). 2 3 45. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT 4 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman. 5 6 46. On or around June 2022, PLAINTIFF was traveling on tour with STALLION in Ibiza, Spain. 7 After a night out, PLAINTIFF, STALLION, and three other women were riding in a SUV 8 together. Suddenly, STALLION and one of the other women start having sex right beside 9 PLAINTIFF. 10 11 47. The following day, STALLION inquired whether PLAINTIFF was in the SUV the previous 12 night. PLAINTIFF confirmed that he was in the SUV. Subsequently, STALLION instructed, 13 “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.” 14 15 48. During the same trip, STALLION berated and directed her fat-shaming comments towards 16 PLAINTIFF such as “Fat Bitch,” “Spit your food out,” and that “You don’t need to be eating.” 17 18 49. Following Ibiza, on around August 2022, PEREZ altered Plaintiff's compensation structure 19 from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this 20 change, Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to provide the same level of service 21 to STALLION. Moreover, PLAINTIFF noticed a change in how he was treated and saw a 22 decrease in the number of bookings he received from STALLION. Close to other creatives on 23 STALLION's team, PLAINTIFF confided in STALLION's former Makeup Artist about 24 considering leaving because STALLION had started to hire another Cameraman. 25 26 50. Such harassment was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms and conditions of 27 Plaintiff’s employment, creating a hostile, abusive work environment and making his working 28 conditions intolerable. Said harassment was sufficiently extreme to amount to a change in the COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 10 1 terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. 2 3 51. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ conduct, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered 4 and continues to suffer general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited 5 to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, physical injuries, physical 6 sickness, as well as emotional distress, plus medical expenses, future medical expenses, and 7 attorneys’ fees, all to her damages in the amount according to proof. During the entirety of his 8 employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF endured a barrage of relentless sexual and fat- 9 shaming comments plunging him into profound emotional distress. STALLION's 10 misclassification left her without basic insurance coverage, depriving him of essential mental 11 and physical health care. PLAINTIFF grapples with mounting anxiety, depression, and 12 physical distress stemming from the toxic work environment. 13 14 52. Said actions justify the imposition of punitive damages in that Defendants committed the acts 15 herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring 16 Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motives amount to malice, and in conscious disregard of 17 Plaintiff’s rights. 18 19 53. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, 20 and each of them, in an amount according to proof. As the result of Defendants discriminatory 21 acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as 22 provided by FEHA, Gov. Code § 12965(b). 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 11 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Failure to Prevent and Remedy Harassment in Violation of FEHA 3 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against ROC NATION, HGT, 4 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, and DOES 1-10) 5 6 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs. 7 8 55. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants ROC NATION and STALLION 9 ENTERTAINMENT regularly employed five or more persons, bringing Defendants within the 10 provisions of the FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12926(d). 11 12 56. Plaintiff was subject to harassment based on sex by Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION, 13 as alleged in more detail above. Such conduct is prohibited by FEHA, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940, 14 subdivisions (j) and (k). 15 16 57. Under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for the harassing conduct of its agents and 17 supervisors. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590). FEHA also 18 requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent unlawful harassment from 19 occurring. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)(k)). 20 21 58. On or around June 2022, PLAINTIFF was traveling on tour with STALLION in Ibiza, Spain. 22 After a night out, PLAINTIFF, STALLION, and three other woman were riding in a SUV 23 together. Suddenly, STALLION and one of the other woman start having sex right beside 24 PLAINTIFF. 25 26 59. The following day, STALLION inquired whether PLAINTIFF was in the SUV the previous 27 night. PLAINTIFF confirmed that he was in the SUV. Subsequently, STALLION instructed, 28 “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.” COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 12 1 60. During the same trip, STALLION berated and directed her fat-shaming comments towards 2 PLAINTIFF such as “Fat Bitch,” “Spit your food out,” and that “You don’t need to be eating.” 3 4 61. Following Ibiza, on around August 2022, PEREZ altered Plaintiff's compensation structure 5 from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this 6 change, Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to provide the same level of service 7 to STALLION. Moreover, PLAINTIFF noticed a change in how he was treated and saw a 8 decrease in the number of bookings he received from STALLION. Close to other creatives on 9 STALLION's team, PLAINTIFF confided in STALLION's former Makeup Artist about 10 considering leaving because STALLION had started to hire another Cameraman. 11 12 62. After confiding in the Makeup Artist, STALLION learned of the PLAINTIFF's contemplation 13 of quitting due to a lack of bookings. Later on a Sunday night, STALLION drunkenly 14 FaceTimed the PLAINTIFF and they reached an understanding, with STALLION affirming, 15 "We're good." Despite the conversation, PLAINTIFF remained scheduled for STALLION's 16 upcoming gig the following Friday. 17 18 63. Nevertheless, on or around June 2023, ROC NATION unexpectedly reached out to 19 PLAINTIFF the night before the scheduled Friday gig and informed him that his services 20 would no longer be required. 21 22 64. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has 23 suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation, loss 24 of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment-related opportunities in his field 25 and damage to his professional reputation, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 26 Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or 27 any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 13 1 65. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has 2 suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and 3 embarrassment, all to Plaintiff’s damage in in an amount according to proof. 4 5 66. The above-cited conduct of Defendants was done with malice, fraud and oppression, and in 6 reckless disregard of Plaintiff ‘s rights under the FEHA. Defendants consciously, intentionally 7 and in conscious disregard of his rights discriminated against Plaintiff by discriminating based 8 on her sex. As a result of Defendants discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled 9 to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided by California Government Code 10 section 12965(b). 11 12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.8 & 2750.3 14 Misclassification 15 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against ROC NATION, HGT, 16 STALLION ENTERTAINMENT, and DOES 1-10) 17 18 67. Plaintiff incorporate all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 19 20 68. Labor Code § 226.8(a) makes it unlawful for any person or employer to engage in willful 21 misclassification of an individual as an independent contractor. Plaintiff alleges that Labor 22 Code § 2750.3 set forth the test which employers must meet to properly qualify their workers 23 as independent contractors. 24 25 69. At all times herein mentioned, Labor Code §§ 226.8, et seq. and 2750.3 were in full force and 26 effect and were binding on the Defendants, and each of them, and the Defendants were subject 27 to their terms. Therefore, Defendants were required to refrain from the willful misclassification 28 of Plaintiff as an independent contractor. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 14 1 70. In April 2018, the California Supreme Court, in the now-infamous Dynamex decision, ruled 2 that companies must successfully meet the three prong “ABC” test in order to lawfully classify 3 someone as an independent contractor for purposes of Wage Order claims. Dynamex 4 Operations West v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018); see also Garcia v. Border 5 Transportation Group, LLC, 28 Cal. App. 5th 558 (2018). The ABC test requires an employer 6 to prove the following to justify “independent contractor” classification: (A) the worker is free 7 from the control and direction of the hiring entity in the performance of the work, both under 8 the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is 9 outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) the worker is customarily 10 engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as 11 the work performed for the hiring entity. See Dynamex, at 958-963. 12 13 71. On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), 14 commonly referred to as the “gig worker law.” AB5 codified Dynamex’s ABC Test under the 15 soon-to-be-added Labor Code § 2750.3, creating a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an 16 employee unless the test is met, and explicitly exempted certain trades and professions. Neither 17 the Plaintiff or STALLION were exempted under AB5.1. 18 19 72. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT 20 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman. 21 22 73. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the work performed by PLAINTIFF. 23 24 74. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and dictates PLAINTIFF’s work environment. 25 26 75. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs work performance of PLAINTIFF who 27 managed no people. 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 15 1 76. As a Personal Cameraman, PLAINTIFF was forced to take on a myriad of duties and work 2 much longer hours. Specifically, PLAINTIFF worked in excess of fifty (50) hours under the 3 close scrutiny and explicit discretion of STALLION who continuously contacted the 4 PLAINTIFF at all hours, directing him to brainstorm TikTok videos, to edit content that 5 PLAINTIFF had not captured, and complete various assignments. 6 7 77. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s work 8 who does not provide Personal Cameraman services “independently” of his relationship with 9 STALLION. Afterall, how could he when he was constantly working to satisfy the demands 10 of the job he performed for STALLION. 11 12 78. Initially, PLAINTIFF was paid a monthly flat rate of $4,000 while working for ROC NATION 13 and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT. 14 15 79. However, on or around August 2022, PEREZ altered Plaintiff's compensation structure from a 16 monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for each assignment. Despite this change, 17 Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to provide the same level of service to 18 STALLION. However, the new invoicing system resulted in Plaintiff earning significantly 19 less, as the invoiced amounts did not accurately reflect the true time and effort dedicated to 20 working for her. 21 22 80. On multiple occasions, STALLION explicitly directed PLAINTIFF not to engage with other 23 clients, expressing possessiveness over the PLAINTIFF’s services as her Personal 24 Cameraman. This exclusivity requirement meant that PLAINTIFF was unable to offer his 25 filming services to any other clients while working with STALLION. 26 27 81. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs PLAINTIFF’s work performance, 28 requiring his constant availability by phone for work-related issues, thereby causing severe COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 1 emotional distress and anxiety for PLAINTIFF. 2 3 82. During his travels with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was required to stay at the hotel and be on 4 standby at all times. Any attempt to use the hotel's amenities would prompt STALLION to 5 reach out and request his immediate return. 6 7 83. As a result of the misclassification, PLAINTIFF was denied a meal break or rest break. In 8 addition, PLAINTIFF was not paid meal or rest break premiums during his entire employment. 9 10 84. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s 11 duties did not qualify him exempt for purposes of overtime law. 12 13 85. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied overtime 14 pay at an overtime rate. PLAINTIFF was not paid for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours 15 in a day. 16 17 86. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF worked forty (40) hours per week, sometimes more. 18 19 87. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for any overtime he worked or 20 paid after the paycheck was thus underpaid for all hours worked to the extent the pay did not 21 meet Labor Code requirements. 22 23 88. For all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was not paid time and half for all overtime hours worked 24 on those periods he received wages late. 25 26 89. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment 27 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an 28 Independent Contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 17 1 90. Moreover, during the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied 2 his meal and rest breaks and compensation for overtime hours worked, subjected to inaccurate 3 timekeeping by STALLION which resulted in inaccurate wage statements. 4 5 91. STALLION’s misclassification of his employment status left him without basic insurance 6 coverage, depriving him of essential health care. PLAINTIFF grapples with mounting anxiety, 7 depression, and physical distress stemming from the toxic work environment, compounded by 8 the trauma of unpaid work. 9 10 92. ROC NATION and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT’s conduct described above is in 11 violation of Labor Code §§ 226.8, et seq. and 2750.3. 12 13 93. Plaintiff’s claims for rest break violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to issue accurate 14 itemized wage statements due to misclassification are "claims for nonpayment of wages" 15 entitle a prevailing plaintiff to an award of attorney fees under California Labor Code § 218.5. 16 Betancourt v. OS Rest. Servs., LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 132, 140, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612 (2022). 17 18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 20 Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods 21 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against All Defendants) 22 23 94. Plaintiff incorporate by reference and reallege each of the foregoing paragraphs. 24 25 95. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege that California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 26 512 were in full force and effect and binding on Defendants during all times mentioned in this 27 Complaint. Said section requires employers to comply with all Industrial Welfare Commission 28 Wage Orders governing meal and rest periods. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 18 1 96. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the IWC Wage Orders were in full 2 force and effect and govern when employers, including Defendants, must give employee 3 breaks for meal and rest periods. The Wage Orders state in pertinent part that employers must 4 provide at least thirty minutes of meal periods for every five hours of work and another thirty- 5 minute period if the work period is ten hours or more. Furthermore, the IWC Wage Orders 6 state in pertinent part that employees must be given at least a ten-minute rest period for every 7 four (4) hours or major fraction thereof. 8 9 97. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment 10 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an 11 Independent Contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by STALLION. 12 13 98. As a result of misclassification, Plaintiff was not permitted to take rest and meal breaks. Many 14 times, Plaintiff worked over five consecutive hours without a thirty-minute meal break. 15 16 99. PLAINTIFF was not paid meal or rest break premiums. These actions by Defendants were in 17 violation of IWC Wage Orders and California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512. 18 19 100. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that The Wage Orders and the California 20 Labor Code mandate that Defendants must pay Plaintiff an hour of pay at Plaintiff’s regular 21 rate of pay for every missed meal and rest period. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to these penalties 22 in an amount to be proven at trial, and also pray for all other remedies available under the law. 23 24 101. Plaintiff’s claims for rest break violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to issue accurate 25 itemized wage statements are "claims for nonpayment of wages" entitle a prevailing plaintiff 26 to an award of attorney fees under California Labor Code § 218.5. Betancourt v. OS Rest. 27 Servs., LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 132, 140, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612 (2022). 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 19 1 102. Moreover, Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION is personally liable for violations 2 mentioned herein under Labor Code § 558.1, as she was the “natural person who is an owner, 3 director, officer, or managing agent of the employer” acting on the employer’s behalf for said 4 violation of Plaintiff’s rights. 5 6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510-515, 1194 & 1198 8 Unpaid Overtime 9 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against All Defendants) 10 11 103. Plaintiff incorporate by reference and reallege each of the foregoing paragraphs. 12 13 104. California Labor Code § 510 provides that employees in California shall not be employed more 14 than eight hours in any workday or 40 hours in a workweek unless they receive additional 15 compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law. 16 17 105. California Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1198 provide that employees in California shall not be 18 employed more than eight hours in any workday unless they receive additional compensation 19 beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law. Additionally, California Labor Code 20 § 1198 states that the employment of an employee for longer hours than those fixed by the 21 Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful. The governing Wage Order of the Industrial 22 Welfare Commission requires, among other things, payment of a premium wage rate for all 23 hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. 24 25 106. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT 26 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman. 27 // 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 1 107. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF duties 2 did not qualify them exempt for purposes of overtime law. 3 4 108. PLAINTIFF used his personal device to stay updated on his schedule which intensified blurred 5 the lines between work and personal time for PLAINTIFF. More than once, STALLION 6 demanded PLAINTIFF during dinner and demanded that he immediately shift his focus to 7 assist with her TikTok creative ideas. 8 9 109. As a Personal Cameraman, PLAINTIFF was forced to take on a myriad of duties and work 10 much longer hours. Specifically, PLAINTIFF worked in excess of fifty (50) hours under the 11 close scrutiny and explicit discretion of STALLION who continuously contacted PLAINTIFF 12 at all hours, directing him to brainstorm TikTok videos, to edit content that PLAINTIFF had 13 not captured, and complete various assignments. 14 15 110. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the performance of PLAINTIFF’s work 16 who does not provide Personal Cameraman services “independently” of his relationship with 17 STALLION. Afterall, how could he when he was constantly working to satisfy the demands 18 of the job he performed for STALLION. 19 20 111. Initially, PLAINTIFF was paid a monthly flat rate of $4,000 while working for ROC NATION 21 and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT. However, on or around August 2022, PEREZ altered 22 Plaintiff's compensation structure from a monthly rate to a pay-per-task system invoiced for 23 each assignment. Despite this change, Plaintiff remained accountable and was expected to 24 provide the same level of service to STALLION. However, the new invoicing system resulted 25 in Plaintiff earning significantly less, as the invoiced amounts did not accurately reflect the 26 true time and effort dedicated to working for her. 27 // 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 21 1 112. On multiple occasions, STALLION explicitly directed PLAINTIFF not to engage with other 2 clients, expressing possessiveness over the PLAINTIFF’s services as her Personal 3 Cameraman. This exclusivity requirement meant that PLAINTIFF was unable to offer his 4 filming services to any other clients while working with STALLION. 5 6 113. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs PLAINTIFF’s work performance, 7 requiring his constant availability by phone for work-related issues, thereby causing severe 8 emotional distress and anxiety for PLAINTIFF. 9 10 114. During his travels with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was required to stay at the hotel and be on 11 standby at all times. Any attempt to use the hotel's amenities would prompt STALLION to 12 reach out and request his immediate return. 13 14 115. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment 15 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an 16 Independent Contractor and inaccurate work records controlled by STALLION. 17 18 116. Moreover, during the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF was denied 19 his meal and rest breaks and compensation for overtime hours worked, subjected to inaccurate 20 timekeeping by STALLION which resulted in inaccurate wage statements. 21 22 117. During the entirety of his employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to compensate 23 Plaintiff for all overtime hours he worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per 24 week as required by Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194. PLAINTIFF was denied overtime pay at an 25 overtime rate. 26 27 118. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the 28 hours he worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by California COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 22 1 Labor Code § 510 and 1198. Plaintiff was required to work overtime hours without receiving 2 overtime pay. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, he worked overtime hours for the 3 exclusive benefit of and under the control of STALLION. 4 5 119. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the 6 hours he worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by California 7 Labor Code § 510 and 1198. Plaintiff was required to work overtime hours without receiving 8 overtime pay. 9 10 120. By virtue of Defendants' unlawful failure to pay additional, premium rate compensation to 11 Plaintiff for overtime hours worked, Plaintiff suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in 12 amounts which are presently unknown to him and which will be ascertained according to proof 13 at trial. 14 15 121. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claims for rest break violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to 16 issue accurate itemized wage statements are "claims for nonpayment of wages" entitle a 17 prevailing plaintiff to an award of attorney fees under California Labor Code § 218.5. 18 Betancourt v. OS Rest. Servs., LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 132, 140, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612 (2022). 19 20 122. Plaintiff requests recovery of overtime compensation according to proof, interest, attorney’s 21 fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a), as well as the assessment of any 22 statutory penalties against Defendants, in a sum as provided by the California Labor Code 23 and/or other statutes. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys’ fees 24 and costs pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194. 25 26 123. Moreover, Defendant MEGAN THEE STALLION is personally liable for violations 27 mentioned herein under Labor Code § 558.1, as she was the “natural person who is an owner, 28 director, officer, or managing agent of the employer” acting on the employer’s behalf for said COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 1 violation of Plaintiff’s rights. 2 3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Violation of Labor Code § 226(A) 5 Inaccurate Wage Statements 6 (Plaintiff GARCIA Against ROC NATION and STALLION ENTERTAINMENT) 7 8 124. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each of the foregoing paragraphs. 9 10 125. At all material times set forth herein, California Labor Code § 226(a) provides that every 11 employer shall furnish each of his or her employees an accurate itemized wage statement in 12 writing showing nine pieces of information, including: (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours 13 worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece 14 rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions 15 made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net 16 wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name 17 of the employee and the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee 18 identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal 19 entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period 20 and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 21 22 126. On or around July 2018, PLAINTIFF GARCIA, began his employment with DEFENDANT 23 STALLION as a Personal Cameraman. 24 25 127. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs the work performed by PLAINTIFF. 26 27 128. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and dictates PLAINTIFF’s work environment. 28 // COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24 1 129. For all relevant times, STALLION controls and directs work performance of PLAINTIFF who 2 managed no people. 3 4 130. During the entirety of his employment with STALLION, PLAINTIFF’s hours of employment 5 were not properly recorded due to purposeful misclassification of PLAINTIFF as an 6 Independent Contractor and inaccurate