arrow left
arrow right
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Baykhurazov v. FriendFinder Networks, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
						
                                

Preview

GOMEZ LAW GROUP Alvin M. Gomez, Esq., State Bar No. 137818 Boris Smyslov, Esq., State Bar No. 297252 Frank Zeccola, Esq., State Bar No. 308875 GOMEZ LAW GROUP 2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7 Carlsbad, California 92008 Telephone: (858) 552-0000 Facsimile: (760) 542-7761 Email: amglawyers@yahoo.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Jakhongir Baykhurazov SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JAKHONGIR BAYKHURAZOV, Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) Violation of Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. (Discrimination and Harassment); (2) Violation of Government Code §§ 12940 et seq.; Tameny. v. Atlantic FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC., a Richfield Company (Failure to Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 een : Discrimination and h i arassment); through 30, inclusive, (3) Violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6, 232, Defendant: 232.5, 1102.5; Tameny v. Atlantic erendants. Richfield Company (Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy); (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company); (6) Retaliation in Violation of Government Code §§ 12650 et seq. (Whistleblower Protection); (7) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 028 (Whistleblower Protection); an (8) Failure to Engage in Interactive Process (Gov't. Code § 12940 et seq.). Plaintiff, DEMAND EXCEEDS $75,000 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESow OPN DH fF Ww GOMEZ LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Plaintiff JAKHONGIR BAYKHURAZOV (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files this Complaint against Defendants FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC and DOES 1 through 30 (Jointly referred to as “Defendants”), and hereby alleges against each Defendant as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action by virtue of the fact that this is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 2. The acts and omissions complained of in this action took place in the State of California, and Defendant FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, has Headquarters in Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of California, on information and belief. 3. Venue is proper because the acts and/or omissions complained of took place, in whole or in part, within the venue of this Court, and/or one or more Defendant resides and does business within the venue of this court. 4. Venue is further proper because court of competent jurisdiction in Santa Clara County was chosen as exclusive venue for all disputes between the parties related to Employee Proprietary Information, Confidentiality, Assignment of Inventions and Non-Interference Agreement, including Plaintiff's employment and termination, pursuant to the paragraph 20 thereof. NATURE OF THE ACTION 5. This is a Complaint against each Defendant for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and related claims on behalf of Mr. Baykhurazov as against all Defendants. 6. As more fully set forth herein, Defendants intentionally discriminated against, 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 10. harassed, retaliated against, and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff. PARTIES Plaintiff JAKHONGIR BAYKHURAZOV is and was, at all relevant times, a citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. Defendant FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC. is a Delaware corporation, which at all times relevant during the liability period, maintained Headquarters in Campbell, California, in the County of Santa Clara. Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when their true names and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is legally responsible in some manner for the events and occurrences alleged herein, and for the damages suffered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all Defendants, including the fictitious DOE Defendants, were at all relevant times acting as actual agents, conspirators, ostensible agents, partners and/or joint venturers and/or employees of all other Defendants, and that all acts alleged herein occurred within the course and scope of said agency, employment, partnership, and joint venture, conspiracy or enterprise, and with the express and/or implied permission, knowledge, consent, authorization and ratification of their co-Defendants; however, each of the allegations are deemed “alternative” theories whenever no doing so would result in a contradiction with other allegations. 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and are subject to suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) in that Defendants regularly employ five or more persons. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination, failure to investigate discrimination and retaliation against Defendants with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On February 9, 2020, Plaintiff received a notice of the right to sue from the DFEH pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). Plaintiff filed this action within one year of the date of his DFEH right-to-sue letter; therefore, administrative remedies have been properly exhausted. Plaintiff has satisfied all other private, administrative and judicial prerequisites to the institution of this action. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not preempt this action because Defendants’ unlawful practices, as alleged herein, are not risks or conditions of employment. Plaintiff is not required to satisfy any further private, administrative, or judicial prerequisites to the institution of this action, insofar as such prerequisites pertain to any of the remaining causes of action in this complaint. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Defendants operate an internet company that publishes websites primarily dealing in adult entertainment, online dating, and social networking services. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Project manager for over a year. Plaintiff is Asian/Soviet Union decent, national origin from Uzbekistan, a former Soviet Union member. Plaintiff was harassed and discriminated on account of his race and medical disability. 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 17. At all times during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff performed his job duties satisfactorily, but was constantly overloaded with projects. Plaintiffs supervisor, Nadia Lan, treated him disparately based his race and ethnicity by consistently assigning him approximately twice the number of projects as other employees at his level, and demanded a higher standard from him in comparison to other employees who were not of Asian/Soviet decent. 18. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff asked Ms. Lan to reduce his workload on par with other workers, but to no avail. 19. Nadia Lan, Plaintiffs manager, exhibited bias, prejudice and disparate treatment towards Plaintiff and other Russian-speaking people of Soviet Union origin. Ms. Lan complained about prior project manager Tatiana (also of Soviet decent), calling her incompetent, even though her work was well-organized and well done. 20.Ms. Lan never mentioned anything negative about other, non-Russian speaking project managers who were not of Soviet Union origin. She singled out Russian- speaking, Soviet Union origin people, such as Plaintiff and his predecessor, to harass them and accuse them of performing poorly, even though they performed well. 21. Furthermore, Plaintiff was harassed and degraded in front of his co-workers, including harassment, degradation and disparate treatment related to work tasks which were not even assigned to him at the time. 22. After months of being harassed, pressured and suffering disparate treatment by his superior, Plaintiff started experiencing severe health and medical issues that he did not have before. These problems included sudden panic attacks, fear, and extreme anxiety which Plaintiff never previously experienced. 23. Plaintiff made a complaint to human resources regarding Defendants’ treatment of 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP Co ON DH ff WwW him, but, as a result, human resources reduced Plaintiffs salary and provided him a written warning. 24. Plaintiff tried to complain to the CEO, vice president and other superiors, but to no avail. Particularly, when, on June 4, 2018, Plaintiff attempted to set a meeting to discuss the unfair treatment and salary reduction with the CEO, the latter responded, “Sorry, I’m not getting involved on this one.” 25.It is believed that Caucasian American employees of Defendants did not receive any reduction in salary even when they received written warnings and their managers insisted on such a measure; meanwhile Plaintiff was treated disparately by Defendant due to his race, ethnic and origin. 26.It is further believed that Defendants have a pattern and practice of favoring Caucasian Americans over other races by not reducing their salaries as a discipline even though they commit serious mistakes and treating others such as Plaintiff disparately. 27. Plaintiff was singled out on account of his race as Asian/Soviet originating from the Soviet Union to be punished in a form of reduction of salary, which Caucasian American employees did not experience. 28.The conduct and behaviors of discrimination and harassment by Defendants against Plaintiff resulted in Plaintiff developing severe health problems. 29.Furthermore, in 2018, Plaintiff became aware of illegal and or criminal activities performed by his employer. In particular, on or about April 25, 2018, Plaintiff learned that Defendants’ CEO, Jonathan B. Buckheit, had lied under oath during testimony in front of the SEC and FTC. 30.Namely, Defendant’s CEO lied to the SEC and FTC about the payment of ransom money to hackers who stole the data of about 400 million users of Defendants. 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 0 ON DON Fw Furthermore, Buckheit lied about numerous “sham” entities which funneled funds to Defendants, so that Defendants would save more money at the expense of the government by hiding their true income from taxes and receiving more beneficial tax returns. 31. On or about April 25, 2018, Plaintiff learned from another employee about the illegal activities of Defendants and notified his superiors about it. 32.In February 2019, Plaintiff's health condition worsened, which required him to visit a doctor instead of coming to work. Plaintiff duly notified Defendant about his health-related absence. 33.Even though Plaintiff notified his employer about this visit to a doctor for a medical condition, Defendants treated it as an unexcused absence. 34.On or about February 11, 2019, Plaintiff notified Defendants that he planned to make a complaint to the government about the illegal activities of Defendants which Plaintiff discovered. 35-On or about February 13, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated from his employment by Defendants on account of his race, medical disability (resulting from Defendant's incessant discrimination and harassment), and for planning to “whistle blow” and disclose Defendants’ illegal activities to the government. 36.As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff has further suffered loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT (California Gov't Code §§12940 et seq.; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company) 37. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 36, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 38.At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940 et seq.) (*FEHA”) and Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, and the corresponding regulations promulgated by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more persons. 39.Under FEHA and the common law of the State of California, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy against discrimination, harassment or retaliation based on the fact that the employee has a protected characteristic. It is an unlawful employment practice to take any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. This public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of California and California Statutory law, including but not limited to Government Code section 12940. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to FEHA and the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980) and Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65(1990). 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 40.An “employer” includes “any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities.” Gov't Code § 12940(j)(4). 41. With respect to discrimination, California Government Code section 12940(a) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice: For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 42.With respect to harassment, California Government Code section 12940(j)(1) provides: For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer's control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment. 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP This is a claim for relief arising from Defendants’ causing, and its failure to prevent, discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff. 43.As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA because Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants who has a protected characteristic. 44.As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California Government Code sections 12940 et seq. 45. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected characteristic. 46.Pursuant to California Government Code section 12940(a), Defendants were prohibited from taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. 47. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held and was performing competently in the position. Furthermore, Plaintiff was willing and able to perform the duties and essential functions of his position with or without a reasonable accommodation. 48.Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, including verbal abuse in front of his peers, piling twice the normal workload on him and his termination of employment constituted unlawful discrimination in employment on account of the fact that Plaintiff was an employee that has a protected characteristic, in violation of California Government Code section 12940. 49.Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by the fact that Plaintiff has a protected characteristic. 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants, 51. 52. 53- 54. including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff has further suffered loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. By discriminating against and harassing Plaintiff in violation of Government Code section 12940, Defendants acted willfully, oppressively, maliciously and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to annoy, harass or injure Plaintiff, in violation of California Civil Code section 3294, such that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants. Plaintiff seeks his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). /// /// /// IL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PREVENT AND INVESTIGATE DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT (Gov't. Code § 12940 et seq.; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company) 55- Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 54, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 56. Under California law, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy against taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. 57-Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), it is an unlawful employment practice to take any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic. Said public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of California and California Statutory law, including but not limited to Gov't. Code § 12940. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to FEHA and the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980) and Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65 (1990). 58.As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA based on the fact that Plaintiff is an employee who has a protected characteristic. 59.As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California Government Code section 12940 et seq. 60. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected characteristic. 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 61. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of FEHA and Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, and the corresponding regulations promulgated by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more persons. 62.Under FEHA, including California Government Code section 12940(k), and the common law of the State of California, Defendants owe to Plaintiff a duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to investigate or prevent harassment and discrimination. 63.California Government Code section 12940(j)(1) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice: For an employer, ... or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment. 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 64. Plaintiff complained about the harassment and discrimination to one of Plaintiff's managers. Nonetheless, Defendants did not investigate Plaintiff's complaints or take action to stop the harassment and discrimination. 65. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff's complaints, Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Defendants similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination from occurring. To the contrary, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for making complaints. 66. Defendants knew or should have known about the discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Defendants similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination from occurring. 67.On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate anti- discrimination training to their workforce, which results in unlawful discrimination, unlawful harassment, unlawful retaliation and related violations against Plaintiff. 68.Because of Defendants’ failure to prevent and investigate harassment and discrimination, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including termination of employment. 69.Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount subject to proof, but which are in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which include, but are not limited to, mental distress, anguish, 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP indignation, humiliation, depression, anxiety, fear, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, and body-aches. Plaintiff has also suffered from a loss of earnings, other employment benefits and job opportunities, accrued but unpaid salary bonuses and benefits (including pre-judgment interest thereon), back pay, severance pay, and other monetary damages. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 70. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). 71. Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Lab. Code 8§ 98.6, 230, 232, 232.5, 1102.5; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company) 72. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 71, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 73. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980). 74. Under California law, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy against discrimination, harassment or retaliation based on the fact that the employee has a protected characteristic or engaged in a protected activity. Said public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of California and sections 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 75: 76. 77. of the Labor Code. Adverse employment actions taken by an employer motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic are contrary to said public policy and are thus actionable under the common law of this state. California Labor Code section 232.5 provides, “No employer may do any of the following: (a) Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing information about the employer’s working conditions. (b) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about the employer’s working conditions. (c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses information about the employer’s working conditions. (d) This section is not intended to permit an employee to disclose proprietary information, trade secret information, or information that is otherwise subject to a legal privilege without the consent of his or her employer.” California Labor Code section 1104 provides, “In all prosecutions under this chapter [i.e. Labor Code §§ 1100-1106], the employer is responsible for the acts of his managers, officers, agents, and employees.” Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of public policy because Plaintiff complained about discrimination and harassment based upon Plaintiff's race by issuing him a written warning and reducing his salary. 78.Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment in violation of public policy. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff has a protected characteristic and/or engaged in protected activity. 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff's race and 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESZz S 5 < z ° = z ° ° = 3 a 5 a = z G Zz 3 2 > ° a ° z =< -_ N a = ° ° Co Onn DH f& WwW national origin, and opposition to and/or reporting of the actual and/or perceived violations described herein. 80.Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants, including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action. 81.The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. 82.As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits; and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 83.Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to statute. /// /// /// /// 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (California Common Law) 84.Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 83, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 85.The conduct complained of hereinabove was outside the conduct expected to exist in the workplace, was intentional and done for the purpose of causing Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. Defendants’ conduct was done with the knowledge that Plaintiff's emotional and physical distress would thereby increase, and was done with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to Plaintiff. 86.As a proximate result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress as hereinabove alleged, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and health. As a result of said distress and consequent harm, Plaintiff has suffered such damages in an amount in accordance with proof at time of trial. 87. Defendants, and each of them, engaging in the conduct as hereinabove alleged, acted oppressively and with reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and safety, and thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. 88.Defendants, and each of them, authorized, ratified, knew of the wrongful conduct complained of herein, but failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to remedy the situation and thereby acted oppressively and with reckless 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP f N 89. 90. 91. 92. // disregard of Plaintiffs rights and safety, and thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the fictitious Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff sustained damages, including but not limited to, loss of earnings and earning potential, opportunities and other benefits of employment and employment opportunities and harm to his reputation, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and other emotional distress and/or medical and related expenses in an amount to be established at trial. As a result of this wrongful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief. Moreover, in that, at all times referenced herein, Defendants intended to cause or acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing injury to Plaintiff and, because said Defendants were guilty of oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an amount adequate to deter such conduct in the future, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants. / /// 19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company) 93.Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 92, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 94. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980). 95. Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment based upon Plaintiff having a protected characteristic and/or engaging in a protected activity, as alleged herein. 96. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff having a protected characteristic and/or engaging in a protected activity, as alleged herein. 97. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants, including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action. 98.The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. 99.As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits; 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 100. Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to statute. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12650 et seq.) 101. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 100, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 102. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants defrauded the government of money, property, and/or services by submitting false or fraudulent reports to SEC and FTC and then, false or fraudulent tax returns for payment or approval. 103. Plaintiff discovered that Defendants submitted false or fraudulent reports and confronted one of his managers, stating that Plaintiff was aware of Defendants’ illegal activities and is willing to report them to the government. 104. On or about February 11, 2019, Plaintiff told one of his managers that it is his intent to report Defendants’ unlawful activities to the government authorities. 105. Approximately two days after Plaintiff made these statements to one of his managers, Plaintiff was discharged. 21 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP 106. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff engaging in a protected activity, as alleged herein. 107. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants, including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action. 108. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. 109. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits; and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 110. Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to statute. /// /// 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS (Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5) iu. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 110, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 112. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants defrauded the government of money, property, or services by submitting false or fraudulent reports to SEC and FTC and then, false or fraudulent tax returns for payment or approval. 113. _ Plaintiff further is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants were involved in money laundering, tax evasion, and sex trafficking, among other illegal activities. 114. Plaintiff disclosed his concerns to Defendants’ employees who had authority over Plaintiff and persons who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct legal violations and/or noncompliance by Defendants. 115. Defendants believed that Plaintiff might disclose their illegal activity to government agencies and/or law enforcement. 116. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the information he disclosed shows violation of The Victims of Violence and Trafficking Prevention Act, 26 USC 7201 et seq., and 18 USC 1621, among other federal and state laws and regulations. 117. Just about two days after Plaintiff disclosed his intent to notify government authorities about Defendants’ illegal activity, Plaintiff was discharged. 23 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GRO 118. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff engaging in a protected activity, as alleged herein. 119. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants, including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of Action. 120. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. 121. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits; and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 122. Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to statute. /// /// 24 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS (Gov't. Code §§ 12940 et seq.) 123. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 122, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 124. Government Code section 12940(n) provides that it is unlawful for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any. 125. Plaintiff was entitled to Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)’s protection pursuant to California Government Code sections 12940 et seq. because Plaintiff has a disability. 126. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had a disability. 127. Defendants failed to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with Plaintiff to determine effective reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's disability, if any. 128. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 129. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff was caused to suffer, and continues to suffer, damages in an amount subject to proof, but which are in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which include, but are not limited to, humiliation, anxiety, severe emotional distress, worry, fear, accrued but unpaid salary bonuses and benefits (including pre-judgment interest thereon), front pay, back pay, severance pay, and the like. 25 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP PORATION Co On DH ff &~ 130. _ By failing to engage in the interactive process in violation of Government Code section 12940(n), Defendants acted willfully, oppressively, maliciously and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, and with the intent to annoy, harass or injure Plaintiff, in violation of California Civil Code section 3294, such that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 131. Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants. 132. Plaintiff seeks his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. For penalties pursuant to all provisions of the Government Code and Labor Code referenced herein which provide for penalties as a result of the conduct alleged herein; 2. For costs of suit incurred herein and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the statutes cited herein; 3. For compensatory damages; 4. Compensation for all wages lost due to the actions of Defendants; 5. For general damages in amounts according to proof and in no event in an amount less than the jurisdictional limit of this court; 6. For special damages according to proof; 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GRouP 7. Double amount of back pay (Cal. Gov't Code §12653(b)) 8. For punitive damages where allowed by law; 9. For injunctive relief; 10. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and 11. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. DATED: June 8, 2020 GO OUP By: ALVIN M. GOMEZ, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. DATED: June 8, 2020 Tl GROUP UA) IN M. GOMEZ, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 27 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES